1342 réponses à ce sujet

[DPSSOC]

008Zulu wrote...
1- As I recall, Hackett denied everything.
2- The Army does Army stuff, thats pretty broad.
3- People have killed for other stuff, that doesnt make it dangerous. Could is not definate. For all we know he found out about the nukes hidden in the probes.
4- They are the only two we have had any contact with, and they are in clear support of Shepard's history. Shepard was the one who made all the store endoresments. The Alliance set up charities and funds in his name to help people. As for the Council slandering and no response, perhaps you should pay more attention to Councillor Anderson.
5- Humans knew nothing about biotic training or potential. I agree that not seeking Council help was a mistake, but not your assertion that it was done on purpose. besides, Cerberus has covered up its fair share of "rogue" operations.
6- Outside Alliance Jurisdiction can mean anything, it could mean helping a terminus colony defend against batarian slavers or raiding slaver bases and rescuinf people, taking in to custody known criminals who are hiding outside Alliance space. There is no proof anything they did was illegal.

Ok lost my post so this is going to be the short version
1) Doesn't mean it isn't the truth (possibility calls Alliance morality into question)
2) Technically Navy doing Navy stuff; yes it is broad and they keep track of all of it.  A well run military base keeps precise track of food usage; they kept track of what Cerberus was doing.
3) You asked for proof the intel was dangerous, I'd think even intel relating to the deployment of probes with nuclear weapons in the hands of guys like Hock would qualify.
4) I know two people from my government, I do not judge the government by those two people.  The Alliance used his image without permission from anyone authorized to give it (presumably) as a recruitment draw and then cast him aside when he became inconvenient.  Complete and utter disrespect for the dead, for a hero, shows what kind of people the Alliance are.
5) Children were abused, the Turians were given carte blanche to break children if it turned out a half decent biotic, it is identical in principle to Teltin.  This is criminal, that it was allowed to happen is criminal, that not one person was called to task for it is criminal.  It was the Alliance responsibility to keep it from happening in the first place and they failed, why isn't really important.  Note only one Cerberus operation has been declared rogue and that's Teltin.
6)Not really Outside Alliance Jurisdiction is fairly clear it means outside the bounds the Alliance has any right operating in.  If a police officer tries to enforce the law outside his jurisdiction he's arrested.  The Corsairs were illegal.

General User wrote...
I agree in principal that the Corsairs were started as a limited-oversight/plausible deniability unit of the Alliance military. I just can’t agree that such a unit would be in any way improper. I mean to take the example you use; why is raiding batarian convoys a bad idea, it seems an acceptable response (if not the one I would take) to batarian provocations such as terrorist sponsorship and slave raids.  And one that is wholly legal, with the proper paper work.

My issues are that 1 it's a coward's tactic.  If you're going to respond to Batarian activities you turn Khar'shan into a glass orb or destroy any Batarian vessel that enters Alliance space.

Second it is the Alliance stepping outside the bounds it has the right to operate in.  That's illegal which equates, for me, to immoral.

General User wrote...
See the thing is, I don’t see the Corsairs as a special ops force in the mold of the STG as much as a special ops unit tasked with a specific type of mission. And there’s no reason the general public, or even the military community would know of such a unit.

I'm not saying they'd need to publicize it but the fact that they go to great lengths to ensure no connection can ever be made is a sure sign (IMO) that they are doing something they could get in a lot of trouble for.  As I said illegal hence immoral.

Moiaussi wrote...
It is also possible that the Alliance ties have simply been retconned out of existance, since there is no reference to the Alliance in the ME2 codex entry for Cerberus.

That too.

Moiaussi wrote...

3) Wouldn't that still qualify as dangerous to you?

So does having a fleet of warships. The question isn't one of danger but of justification.

See above.

Moiaussi wrote...
a) Again, noone knew for certain if he was dead.
The image would have aided Alliance recruitment too, arguably more than it aided the Council. 
c) This was a matter of promoting rebuilding after a major military action with significant losses in both ships and personel. Where does any 'money grubbing swine' comment come from?
d) Because the existance of the Reapers was kept quiet to avoid a panic, they weren't declaring to anyone that Shepard was mentally unstable. And if they had been, how would they have been able to use him for propeganda in any way? They maintained privately that he was insane, but when did they publicize that?

a) True but that doesn't really matter now does it?  Does the abuse of someone's image who might be dead get any better if it turns out they're not?
Point of clarification - I was saying the Council slandered him and the Alliance propped him up as a gimmick (not a hero)
c) Identical in principle.  The Alliance (corporation) used Shepard's image, after believing him to be dead, to generate profit.  In the case of a corporation profit is strictly money with the Alliance it was increased recruitment.  They disrespect the memory of a hero by turning him into an advertisment.  Whatever there reasons for doing so that's low.
d) Point of correction I was looking it up and it's actually the Alliance that slandered you.  When you talk to Ken the first time he points out that the Alliance was discounting the Reaper threat and saying your warnings of greater danger were delusional.  Now these weren't necessarily going on at the same time Shep was only used as a recruitment gimmick for six months and it's been two years.  My guess is once Shep wasn't turning a profit anymore they cut him loose and called him crazy.

Moiaussi wrote...
Most of the 'abuse' came as a result of side effects from the L2 implants, which were deemed neccessary to pursue in the wake of the First Contact War. Are you arguing that because bad things happen, we shouldn't do.... things? There are abusive instructors in both public and private schools. Should we abolish schools? There are abusive doctors, soldiers, civilian bosses, civilian employees. What is your answer? Shoot all humans because otherwise, we are permitting some to be abusive? We can screen as best we can, and we can punish those we catch as best we can, but there is no guarantee of prevention. Note that Kaiden was not punished for killing the abusive instructor, despite using deadly biotic force.

Ok the "abuse" was in comments like, "They were basically allowed to break us if it turned out a decent biotic."  And no I'm not saying we shouldn't do things or abolish schools or anything like that.  But when we find someone who's abusing their position they should be punished, nobody at BAaT was.  Connaitix didn't punish Vernnus (pre-kick), the Alliance didn't punish COnnaitix.  According to Kaidan's description Vernnus was regularly abusive, and nothing was done because the Alliance wanted shiny new biotics. 

Moiaussi wrote...
Illegal and immoral are not equivalent.

They are to me.  If your perspective differs that's fine but to me there is no distinction between illegal and immoral.

Moiaussi wrote...
Who says the STG are public knowledge? Shepard didn't know about them until Vermire. He wasn't even told of their existance until he needed to know, even as a Spectre. That is hardly 'public knowledge.'

Didn't mean to imply they are public knowledge but the Salarian Union doesn't actively attempt to destroy any connection between them and the STG.  Also two people, in a slum, on Omega know about the STG.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 01 mai 2011 - 03:38 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

@DPSSOC, if you believe that there's no difference between illegal and immoral, then ALL Shepards are immoral... because they've all broken laws and committed atrocities. Regardless of their reasoning behind it, all Shepards have broken the law.

[DPSSOC]

Yup. I do recognize the necessity for immoral/illegal action that doesn't change what they are. A necessary evil is still evil.

[General User]

DPSSOC wrote...
My issues are that 1 it's a coward's tactic.  If you're going to respond to Batarian activities you turn Khar'shan into a glass orb or destroy any Batarian vessel that enters Alliance space.

Second it is the Alliance stepping outside the bounds it has the right to operate in.  That's illegal which equates, for me, to immoral.

On the first point: no argument here. But politicians are, by nature, cowardly; especially in democratic systems, the same systems where the military power is ultimately suborned to the civil. Does that does that do more good than harm in the long run? I think so.
 
Also, while there can be wisdom in the ‘measured response’, I enthusiastically endorse the idea that the batarians have done more than enough to merit a full scale war.
 
To address your second point, I still contend that if the Alliance issued proper Letters (ie issued by the Legislature, limited in scope, etc), then the Corsairs are wholly within their legal rights to operate.

[008Zulu]

DPSSOC wrote...
Ok lost my post so this is going to be the short version
1) Doesn't mean it isn't the truth (possibility calls Alliance morality into question)
2) Technically Navy doing Navy stuff; yes it is broad and they keep track of all of it.  A well run military base keeps precise track of food usage; they kept track of what Cerberus was doing.
3) You asked for proof the intel was dangerous, I'd think even intel relating to the deployment of probes with nuclear weapons in the hands of guys like Hock would qualify.
4) I know two people from my government, I do not judge the government by those two people.  The Alliance used his image without permission from anyone authorized to give it (presumably) as a recruitment draw and then cast him aside when he became inconvenient.  Complete and utter disrespect for the dead, for a hero, shows what kind of people the Alliance are.
5) Children were abused, the Turians were given carte blanche to break children if it turned out a half decent biotic, it is identical in principle to Teltin.  This is criminal, that it was allowed to happen is criminal, that not one person was called to task for it is criminal.  It was the Alliance responsibility to keep it from happening in the first place and they failed, why isn't really important.  Note only one Cerberus operation has been declared rogue and that's Teltin.
6)Not really Outside Alliance Jurisdiction is fairly clear it means outside the bounds the Alliance has any right operating in.  If a police officer tries to enforce the law outside his jurisdiction he's arrested.  The Corsairs were illegal.

1- The man killed in that base was a criminal, just because he spouted that he was hired by the Alliance doesn't make him trustworthy.
2- No military operation has perfect oversight.
3- All we know is that it could adversly affect the Alliance. Its not definate either way.
4- Shepard was legally and physically dead, and he was a serving member of the Alliance. If they want to use his likeness for recruitment they are allowed to. The only trouble they would get in was if they used it in a defamatory manner.
5- Child abuse was not the stated goal of the project, not did the Turian tell them he was going to use such measures, if he did you bet he wouldn't have been hired. "Harsh love" is not an uncommon practice, but there is a difference between being hard on someone for their own good and hurting them on purpose.
6- By that logic Cerberus is worse since they take on operations outside their jurisdiction, since technically they don't have jurisdiction. Anywhere.

[Seboist]

Cerberus is a good organization. If someone created one like it IRL my initial reaction would be "Where do I sign up?".

[Moiaussi]

[quote]DPSSOC wrote...

3) You asked for proof the intel was dangerous, I'd think even intel relating to the deployment of probes with nuclear weapons in the hands of guys like Hock would qualify.[/quote]

Then you have an incredibly low standard of 'dangerous' given nuclear power and weapons tech are relativly common place. The STG drive core was modular and thus usable as a weapon. Uranium deposits are all over the place in unpatrolled space. Those probes were embarrassiing only because it was easy to make false accusations regarding them stick.





[quote]4) I know two people from my government, I do not judge the government by those two people.  The Alliance used his image without permission from anyone authorized to give it (presumably) as a recruitment draw and then cast him aside when he became inconvenient.  Complete and utter disrespect for the dead, for a hero, shows what kind of people the Alliance are.[/quote]

So instead he should have been written off even though his death wasn't certain and there were rumours he survived? You have strange priorities. Shepard did turn up alive (albiet ressurrected), so it was the right call.





[quote]5) Children were abused, the Turians were given carte blanche to break children if it turned out a half decent biotic, it is identical in principle to Teltin.  This is criminal, that it was allowed to happen is criminal, that not one person was called to task for it is criminal.  It was the Alliance responsibility to keep it from happening in the first place and they failed, why isn't really important.  Note only one Cerberus operation has been declared rogue and that's Teltin.[/quote]

What is your evidence that there was carte blanche? When does Kaiden or anyone else say so?

And you are wrong. It was Akuze that got Cerberus declared rogue. It happened 'a few months' before ME1 (or sometime during ME1, precise time line within ME1 is uncertain), and Jack is rather older than 2.





[quote]6)Not really Outside Alliance Jurisdiction is fairly clear it means outside the bounds the Alliance has any right operating in.  If a police officer tries to enforce the law outside his jurisdiction he's arrested.  The Corsairs were illegal.[/quote]

The operations were military related and within Alliance contested space. In what way were they 'outside Alliance jurisdiction?'





[quote]My issues are that 1 it's a coward's tactic.  If you're going to respond to Batarian activities you turn Khar'shan into a glass orb or destroy any Batarian vessel that enters Alliance space.[/quote]

"A coward's tactic?" You figure war is a matter of walking up and challenging opponents to personal duels with formal rules and identical ships and/or gear? If the US (or any country) shoots down an unidentified plane entering its airspace, you figure it is 'cowardly?' Even if it is a warplane? I am pro paragon, but you are taking the concept to rediculous extremes.





[quote]Second it is the Alliance stepping outside the bounds it has the right to operate in.  That's illegal which equates, for me, to immoral.[/quote]

Bounds as defined by who, precisely?





[quote]I'm not saying they'd need to publicize it but the fact that they go to great lengths to ensure no connection can ever be made is a sure sign (IMO) that they are doing something they could get in a lot of trouble for.  As I said illegal hence immoral.[/quote]

The main reason though is to avoid political reprocussions with the Batarians, not with home. It isn't necessarily even illegal.



[quote]See above.[/quote]

You still haven't shown a lack of justification. You do agree, I hope, that the Alliance can morally be 'dangerous'?





[quote]a) True but that doesn't really matter now does it?  Does the abuse of someone's image who might be dead get any better if it turns out they're not?[/quote]

Saying things isn't proving them. They were using Shepard for propeganda before the Normandy was shot down, so how is it 'abuse' to use his image in the same way he consented to while alive? You are essentially saying that Shepard wouldn't consider the Alliance (or Council) a worthy cause, despite having been a Council operative.

[quote] Point of clarification - I was saying the Council slandered him and the Alliance propped him up as a gimmick (not a hero)[/quote]

Again you want it both ways. The only gimmick was that Shepard was a hero.





[quote]c) Identical in principle.  The Alliance (corporation) used Shepard's image, after believing him to be dead, to generate profit.  In the case of a corporation profit is strictly money with the Alliance it was increased recruitment.  They disrespect the memory of a hero by turning him into an advertisment.  Whatever there reasons for doing so that's low.[/quote]

So despite the fact the Reapers are still coming, you figure that endorsing recruiting is somehow 'greedy?" Stop trolling.





[quote]d) Point of correction I was looking it up and it's actually the Alliance that slandered you.  When you talk to Ken the first time he points out that the Alliance was discounting the Reaper threat and saying your warnings of greater danger were delusional.  Now these weren't necessarily going on at the same time Shep was only used as a recruitment gimmick for six months and it's been two years.  My guess is once Shep wasn't turning a profit anymore they cut him loose and called him crazy.[/quote]

They were playing down the Reaper threat publicly in the middle of ME1. If Shep goes on about the Reapers in interviews, he is reminded of the official stance. That is for valid public safety reasons, namely people paniclng about imminent doom isn't likely to help anyone. You can 'guess' all you want, but frankly you are going so far out of your way here, it is hard to take you seriously.





[quote]Ok the "abuse" was in comments like, "They were basically allowed to break us if it turned out a decent biotic."  And no I'm not saying we shouldn't do things or abolish schools or anything like that.  But when we find someone who's abusing their position they should be punished, nobody at BAaT was.  Connaitix didn't punish Vernnus (pre-kick), the Alliance didn't punish COnnaitix.  According to Kaidan's description Vernnus was regularly abusive, and nothing was done because the Alliance wanted shiny new biotics. [/quote]

Pardon, THE ABUSIVE COMMANDER WAS KILLED BY KAIDEN. That doesn't count as punished.....? There was no indication that he was abusive in front of any witnesses other than the children.





[quote]They are to me.  If your perspective differs that's fine but to me there is no distinction between illegal and immoral.[/quote]

So you have never ever jay walked, even on a residential street? Never had so much as a parking ticket? Such a saint!





[quote]Didn't mean to imply they are public knowledge but the Salarian Union doesn't actively attempt to destroy any connection between them and the STG.  Also two people, in a slum, on Omega know about the STG.[/quote]

Has anyone formally asked the Alliance? I would be surprised if the shadow broker didn't know about the connection. Bet the STG know too. And Mordin might have leaked that infomation defensively. The STG have also been around rather a lot longer. It is unlikely that the Corsairs are more than a couple years old (likely formed in the wake of Cerberus either going rogue or otherwise becoming an issue)

Modifié par Moiaussi, 01 mai 2011 - 06:34 .

[ExtremeOne]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

simple if he did not know then why did he mention the reaper item that was on the base to Shepard. of course he knew. I bet the alliance has been lieing their ass off all this time . they know more than tell us. I also be bioware will not have a legit story for Cerberus in 3 

That's not evidence, that's retarded assumptions.

   










Oh thats right alliance fan boys and supporters have no interest or desire hearing how bad the so called ME good guys are.   

[didymos1120]

Moiaussi wrote...


And you are wrong. It was Akuze that got Cerberus declared rogue. It happened 'a few months' before ME1 (or sometime during ME1, precise time line within ME1 is uncertain), and Jack is rather older than 2.

It's not uncertain.  See Timeline entry in the Codex:

2177 - Thresher maws devour the Alliance colony of Akuze.

Modifié par didymos1120, 01 mai 2011 - 09:32 .

[didymos1120]

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh thats right alliance fan boys and supporters have no interest or desire hearing how bad the so called ME good guys are.  

It's nothing to do with being a "fan boy".  It's everything to do with the fact that your evidence sucks. And by "sucks" I mean "doesn't exist."  Nothing in Arrival even remotely supports your "Hackett wanted Shep to blow up the relay" theory.  It's certainly possible, but lots of things are possible.  Hell, it's not even implausible, given the Lord Darius thing in ME1, but you just plain don't have anything that even resembles proof. 

Also, your knee-jerk accusations of bias whenever someone disagrees with your ridiculously hyper-biased proclamations are quite amusing, and more than a little hypocritical. 

[008Zulu]

didymos1120 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh thats right alliance fan boys and supporters have no interest or desire hearing how bad the so called ME good guys are.  

It's nothing to do with being a "fan boy".  It's everything to do with the fact that your evidence sucks. And by "sucks" I mean "doesn't exist."  Nothing in Arrival even remotely supports your "Hackett wanted Shep to blow up the relay" theory.  It's certainly possible, but lots of things are possible.  Hell, it's not even implausible, given the Lord Darius thing in ME1, but you just plain don't have anything that even resembles proof. 

Also, your knee-jerk accusations of bias whenever someone disagrees with your ridiculously hyper-biased proclamations are quite amusing, and more than a little hypocritical. 

Heres a convincing argument that Hackett didn't want you to destroy the relay...

Since you destroyed the relay and killed 300,000 Batarians, you now have to face trial. The trial will keep you from helping to stop the Reapers. Hackett wants the Reapers stopped, and you can't do that while on trial.

[Bad King]

Moiaussi wrote...

 Note only one Cerberus operation has been declared rogue and that's Teltin.

And you are wrong. It was Akuze that got Cerberus declared rogue. It happened 'a few months' before ME1 (or sometime during ME1, precise time line within ME1 is uncertain), and Jack is rather older than 2.

Just to respond to this, I think you are misunderstanding his comment. He didn't mean which operation 'made' Cerberus rogue, but he meant the only Cerberus operation which went rogue itself. And the evidence points to Teltin being done without the TIM knowing about it (thus it was rogue, although how long it would stay rogue is uncertain).

[didymos1120]

Saphra Deden wrote...

A plausible theory but I don't buy it. After all the Thanix didn't spark a war, but whatever Kasumi uncovered would have. It was something far bigger. I doubt it had anything to do with Sovereign.

The two textures for the Reaper images in the Kasumi DLC are called "sovereign1" and "sovereign2".

[didymos1120]

Saphra Deden wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

The two textures for the Reaper images in the Kasumi DLC are called "sovereign1" and "sovereign2".

The people standing on the balconies on Ilium are just two-dimensional cardboard cutouts.

That's nice.  Doesn't have anything to do with anything, but nice.

[DPSSOC]

[quote]008Zulu wrote...
5- Child abuse was not the stated goal of the project, not did the Turian tell them he was going to use such measures, if he did you bet he wouldn't have been hired. "Harsh love" is not an uncommon practice, but there is a difference between being hard on someone for their own good and hurting them on purpose.[/quote]\\

A girl had her arm broken for not using biotics to get a glass of water.  I'm familliar with the idea of tough love it stops well before bones are broken.  Whether or not Vyrnnus told them what he was going to do he should have been watched and actions should have been taken against him.  He either wasn't out of incompetence or plausible deniability (they didn't want to know what was happening so they could deny they had any part in it) or he was and simply nothing was done.

[quote]008Zulu wrote...
6- By that logic Cerberus is worse since they take on operations outside their jurisdiction, since technically they don't have jurisdiction. Anywhere.[/quote]

Yup.  Wasn't arguing that Cerberus was good just supporting the idea that the Alliance isn't either.

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
Then you have an incredibly low standard of 'dangerous' given nuclear power and weapons tech are relativly common place. The STG drive core was modular and thus usable as a weapon. Uranium deposits are all over the place in unpatrolled space. Those probes were embarrassiing only because it was easy to make false accusations regarding them stick.[/quote]

The commonality of nuclear weapons does not reduce their destructive capacity.  They may not be as terrifying as they are now but they're still dangerous.

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
What is your evidence that there was carte blanche? When does Kaiden or anyone else say so?[/quote]

Can't find it on youtube but Kaidan mentions that they were given free reign to break the kids if it turned out a decent biotic.  Will continue searching to find a vid with the actual conversation.

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
And you are wrong. It was Akuze that got Cerberus declared rogue. It happened 'a few months' before ME1 (or sometime during ME1, precise time line within ME1 is uncertain), and Jack is rather older than 2.[/quote]

I meant that Teltin is the only operation that went rogue from Cerberus.


[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
The operations were military related and within Alliance contested space. In what way were they 'outside Alliance jurisdiction?' [/quote]

Not clear on the specifics (don't think we ever get any) but Jacob states that the Corsairs were an Alliance initiative that hired independent starships to go on missions that fell outside Alliance jurisdiction. 1:37

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
"A coward's tactic?" You figure war is a matter of walking up and challenging opponents to personal duels with formal rules and identical ships and/or gear? If the US (or any country) shoots down an unidentified plane entering its airspace, you figure it is 'cowardly?' Even if it is a warplane? I am pro paragon, but you are taking the concept to rediculous extremes.[/quote]

Not entirely sure how you got that from what I said but ok.  It's cowardly because they are sneaking around and nipping at the ankles of an enemy they could crush.  They aren't avoiding war because they'd lose or because the cost would be to high they're avoiding it because it's bad for PR.  They are cowards who lack the courage to properly respond to the murder and enslavement of the people they claim to protect.

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
Bounds as defined by who, precisely?[/quote]

I suspect the Council.

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
You still haven't shown a lack of justification. You do agree, I hope, that the Alliance can morally be 'dangerous'?[/quote]

Certainly but the post I was responding to wasn't asking for justification it was asking for clarification of how we know the intel is dangerous.

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
They were playing down the Reaper threat publicly in the middle of ME1. If Shep goes on about the Reapers in interviews, he is reminded of the official stance. That is for valid public safety reasons, namely people paniclng about imminent doom isn't likely to help anyone.[/quote]

A valid point and I don't criticize them for keeping the truth about the Reapers from the public, but there was no need to discredit Shepard to do so.  Rather than say they'd investigated Shepards warnings of further danger and found nothing to support them they said Shepard was delusional.  Keep in mind this happened after Shepard was MIA so it's not like they were trying to be civil and Shep kept rocking the boat so they had to discredit him. 

[quote]Moiaussi wrote.... 
Pardon, THE ABUSIVE COMMANDER WAS KILLED BY KAIDEN. That doesn't count as punished.....?[/quote]

Not really no.  If a bully picks on kids and one of them snaps and kills him has the bully been punished?  No he's been murdered.  Vyrnnus paid for what he did yes, but none of the legitimate authorities who should have punished him did.

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
There was no indication that he was abusive in front of any witnesses other than the children.[/quote]

There's also no indication he wasn't.  Consider that Kaidan killed someone and wasn't punished either.  If Connaitix didn't know what Vyrnnus was doing why would they sweep the whole incident under the rug.

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
[quote]They are to me.  If your perspective differs that's fine but to me there is no distinction between illegal and immoral.[/quote]So you have never ever jay walked, even on a residential street? Never had so much as a parking ticket? Such a saint![/quote]

When did I make such a claim?  I'll be the first to say I'm an immoral person, but I fully acknowledge the fact.  For the record I don't jay walk, did when I was a kid, didn't end well, learned my lesson.

[Moiaussi]

didymos1120 wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...


And you are wrong. It was Akuze that got Cerberus declared rogue. It happened 'a few months' before ME1 (or sometime during ME1, precise time line within ME1 is uncertain), and Jack is rather older than 2.

It's not uncertain.  See Timeline entry in the Codex:

2177 - Thresher maws devour the Alliance colony of Akuze.

That is the timing of Akuze, not of Cerberus going off the grid. When Kahoku discovers Cerberus is behind Akuze, he says 'they went off the grid a few months ago', but he could tell you that whenever within ME1, so the precise timing becomes uncertain.

[Arijharn]

General User wrote...
I don’t understand, are you contending that racism or (to relate back to Cerberus) to kidnap and experiment on a Marine, has always been and will always be immoral, and that all that can change is the recognition thereof? Or that such attitudes or acts could be considered moral, under certain circumstances?

I'm talking that Dean's usage of 'was always immoral' was probably inaccurate, since it w/could have been considered pretty morale at the time (as I understand it -- I admit, my opinion has been totally skewed recently since I only just played RDR (and I'm unsure how that accurate people's attitude is there. Not quite the same thing perhaps, but it got me to thinking).
 

General User wrote...
In your philosophy, is there a difference between the morality of attitudes and the morality of actions? IOW, if the mindset of racism is always wrong, even though (being in the mind) it may never do any physical harm, should not the action of forced experimentation also be always wrong, as it does do physical harm?  Or is physical harm not important?

Sure, I think it's wrong because I've been brought up that way but to be brutally honest, I'm unsure whether this thought is a product of me (as a function of my free will) or my upbringing. I'm  waxing philosophical here though so you may want to just ignore me and get on with the rest of the thread (which is more interesting... although honestly I admit I'm not reading any of 008Zulu's and Dean's written riposte's and that's because I'm lazy.)

But to relate to Cerberus though, whereas my feelings on them are relatively ambivalent, I can recognize that sometimes issues have to be gambled, especially when there might be no alternative (re: Collector Base). While I think their methods can be extreme (funny isn't it, I have no problems with them assassinating someone but them experimenting on the Asari biotics I'm more hesitant upon, even though I still see the value of that compound being deployed if we face action against strong biotics). The only issue I could see with Cerberus is if they experiment on people/sapients first as opposed to dry running experimenting/simulations first, but I recognize that it's a game (or a book/comic/whatever!) so it may be 'played up' just a bit (it'd be pretty boring mission honestly if it's just researchers doing computer modelling and not say actual Husks breaking out of a containment cell -- but lets be frank, a lot of people see that Cerberus do this crazy shenanigans and just assume that's all they do, whereas realistically speaking, they wouldn't.)

[Moiaussi]

Bad King wrote...

Just to respond to this, I think you are misunderstanding his comment. He didn't mean which operation 'made' Cerberus rogue, but he meant the only Cerberus operation which went rogue itself. And the evidence points to Teltin being done without the TIM knowing about it (thus it was rogue, although how long it would stay rogue is uncertain).

I think it would be better if he explained his own posts. Miranda claims that various ops that Shep encountered in ME1 were 'other branches' and TIM says something about them having been rogue ops, both trying to distance themselves from very questionable Cerberus operations. The very fact that they both try to distance themselves like that is an admission that they know those operations were wrong, or at least morally objectionable.

There is a timing link though between Akuze and Cerberus going completely rogue (taking itself off the grid), which brings into question their defensive protests.

[didymos1120]

Moiaussi wrote...

That is the timing of Akuze, not of Cerberus going off the grid. When Kahoku discovers Cerberus is behind Akuze, he says 'they went off the grid a few months ago', but he could tell you that whenever within ME1, so the precise timing becomes uncertain.

Oh, OK. Nevermind.  I see what you're saying.

[Arijharn]

General User wrote...
I agree in principal that the Corsairs were started as a limited-oversight/plausible deniability unit of the Alliance military. I just can’t agree that such a unit would be in any way improper. I mean to take the example you use; why is raiding batarian convoys a bad idea, it seems an acceptable response (if not the one I would take) to batarian provocations such as terrorist sponsorship and slave raids.  And one that is wholly legal, with the proper paper work.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I would have thought the reason was pretty simple. The reason why the Corsair's could be used in that way is the deny everything. IIRC while it's common knowledge that the Batarian's fund the slaver raids, it isn't actually the Batarian State Armed Forces that are doing it. It's alright if the Systems Alliance smashes some ramshackle slaver fleets while they're in Alliance space, but not if they dipped into Batarian space to do it (simply because relations are tense). The Corsair's could be doing anything from spying to actually doing limited strikes, but once again, the Alliance need to remain insulated a tad. It doesn't matter though if the Corsair's become an open secret, as long as it's portrayed in the way that they aren't there officially as part of the Alliance.

General User wrote...
See the thing is, I don’t see the Corsairs as a special ops force in the mold of the STG as much as a special ops unit tasked with a specific type of mission. And there’s no reason the general public, or even the military community would know of such a unit.

See above, but it's basically so that the Alliance couldn't be  caught with their pants down if the Corsair's get caught doing something they shouldn't  while in Batarian Space. If a N7 team gets caught, then the Alliance would have to take responsibility (aka; war). If it's some Corsair's, then the corsair's will probably be killed or worse (imprisoned?) and that's judged more acceptable compared to the obvious alternative.

[Arijharn]

didymos1120 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

The two textures for the Reaper images in the Kasumi DLC are called "sovereign1" and "sovereign2".

The people standing on the balconies on Ilium are just two-dimensional cardboard cutouts.

That's nice.  Doesn't have anything to do with anything, but nice.

I think he was mocking you for being too literal. Sovereign1 and sovereign2 as a data file for a game doesn't necessarily mean anything in the game itself, but are convenient (for want of a better word). Those files could be called 'red herrings' considering they weren't actually labelled in the game itself.

[didymos1120]

Arijharn wrote...

I think he was mocking you for being too literal. Sovereign1 and sovereign2 as a data file for a game doesn't necessarily mean anything in the game itself, but are convenient (for want of a better word). Those files could be called 'red herrings' considering they weren't actually labelled in the game itself.

Well, yeah, of course they could be 'red herrings'.  The point is, they're still evidence that what Keiji found could have been about Sovereign. That it's "meta-game" info is irrelevant because we're trying figure out where the devs were going with that.

[Moiaussi]

[quote]DPSSOC wrote...

A girl had her arm broken for not using biotics to get a glass of water.  I'm familliar with the idea of tough love it stops well before bones are broken.  Whether or not Vyrnnus told them what he was going to do he should have been watched and actions should have been taken against him.  He either wasn't out of incompetence or plausible deniability (they didn't want to know what was happening so they could deny they had any part in it) or he was and simply nothing was done.[/quote]

1) Kaiden lost control and killed the person who broke her arm. That didn't happen every day so it is reasonable to conclude that arms were not broken every day.

2) Kaiden also mentioned that their instructor was carrying a grudge from the first contact war, which provides a more likely motive for his harsh approach.

[quote]The commonality of nuclear weapons does not reduce their destructive capacity.  They may not be as terrifying as they are now but they're still dangerous.[/quote]

Commonality does bring into question the strength of your accusations though. "OMG, he's got a gun' doesn't mean even remotely as much in a region where everyone is legally allowed to own guns. The prohibition on nukes isn't on owning them, but on using them as weapons against planets, and that was no more the intent of those probes than the existance of any given starship, which we know from Vermire could also be used as weapons against planets.

[quote]Can't find it on youtube but Kaidan mentions that they were given free reign to break the kids if it turned out a decent biotic.  Will continue searching to find a vid with the actual conversation.[/quote]

I looked too. Kaiden doesn't say what you think he said. Jack does say that about Teltin though. Are you sure you aren't confusing the two?

[quote]I meant that Teltin is the only operation that went rogue from Cerberus.[/quote]

So then you are not defending any of the other operations? 

[quote]Not clear on the specifics (don't think we ever get any) but Jacob states that the Corsairs were an Alliance initiative that hired independent starships to go on missions that fell outside Alliance jurisdiction. 1:37[/quote]

That is a very strange use of the word 'jurisdiction' though. It implies there is some sort of Alliance edict saying they cannot operate outside their officially recognized boundaries, but that would preclude any expansion.

[quote]Not entirely sure how you got that from what I said but ok.  It's cowardly because they are sneaking around and nipping at the ankles of an enemy they could crush.  They aren't avoiding war because they'd lose or because the cost would be to high they're avoiding it because it's bad for PR.  They are cowards who lack the courage to properly respond to the murder and enslavement of the people they claim to protect.[/quote]

Defeating an enemy without having to crush them is generally considered moral high ground. You are implying that anything other than ethnic clensing is 'cowardly.' Winning a war while killing the fewest people (on either side, and especially the fewest civilians) is generally an ideal.

[quote]I suspect the Council.[/quote]

The Batarians voluntarily left Council protection though, and because the contested region was ceded to the Alliance. Again, the whole 'jurisdiction' thing doesn't make a lot of sense.

[quote]Certainly but the post I was responding to wasn't asking for justification it was asking for clarification of how we know the intel is dangerous.[/quote]

For my part I have never denied it was dangerous intel. I merely pointed out that it is easy for intel to be dangerous without being morally questionable, and thus trying to keep us at least vaguely on topic here.

[quote]A valid point and I don't criticize them for keeping the truth about the Reapers from the public, but there was no need to discredit Shepard to do so.  Rather than say they'd investigated Shepards warnings of further danger and found nothing to support them they said Shepard was delusional.  Keep in mind this happened after Shepard was MIA so it's not like they were trying to be civil and Shep kept rocking the boat so they had to discredit him. [/quote]

But again they only discredited Shepard privately. Even after Shep was written off as working with Cerberus, they still didn't broadcast that or in any way declare anything publicly.

[quote]Not really no.  If a bully picks on kids and one of them snaps and kills him has the bully been punished?  No he's been murdered.  Vyrnnus paid for what he did yes, but none of the legitimate authorities who should have punished him did.[/quote]

So if the crime carried a death sentance, he wasn't punished because he was killed in self defence by a victim rather than by authorities? Again you are making meaningless distinctions here. It is not a given that the authorities knew what was going on. As Kaiden said, if they had gotten Vyrmous medical attention immediately, they probably could have save him, but they didn't, which speaks to a lack of supervision.

[quote]There's also no indication he wasn't.  Consider that Kaidan killed someone and wasn't punished either.  If Connaitix didn't know what Vyrnnus was doing why would they sweep the whole incident under the rug.[/quote]

Legal liability reasons, duh. There is an indication that they didn't know in that he didn't get immediate medical attention, which implies a lack of supervision.

[quote]When did I make such a claim?  I'll be the first to say I'm an immoral person, but I fully acknowledge the fact.  For the record I don't jay walk, did when I was a kid, didn't end well, learned my lesson.[/quote]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You are essentially saying we are all immoral, so it doesn't matter what Cerberus does. That is is a very weak defence in that it relies on a binary view on morality, effectively lumping something like Akuze in with jaywalking on a completely empty residential street, in a quiet neighborhood, while taking reasonable precautions such as looking both ways before crossing.