225 réponses à ce sujet

[Inquisitor Recon]

A politician arrested for gross incompetence? I can only suspend my disbelief so much.

[Moiaussi]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Then it's negligence, which still isn't illegal. Perhaps if he was... "criminally negligent".

If he can be shown to have been selling out humanity's interests to the Council for personal gain, it is treason. Note that Anderson's opinion is that if you want something done around the citadel, you talk to Udina. It is hard to believe he never uses that personally, and it would explain his being so cooperative with the Council.

[alperez]

Udina's actions in me1 fit his role perfectly, as a politician he puts politics above everything else, its more about gaining what to udina is an advantage politically than any particular distrust or dislike of shepard. Unlike anderson and shepard he's not bogged down in the right and wrong of the situation only in how the situation can be handled to ensure that Udina benefits politically.

The problem is of course that his actions while understandable are in fact completely in opposition to what we as shepard know should be done and needs to be done. Me1 handles this well in what shepard knows to be true and what can be proved to be true are 2 different things which is why it takes so long to prove Saren is what we say he is.

However me2 makes a bit of a mockery of everything in this regard, If anderson is the councillor we get basically no help other than we can keep our spetre status, if its udina then forget about even that. The council if we saved them are even less likely to believe us than before which makes no sense and if we didn't we still get no help from an all human council to stop what is attacks against humans which again makes no sense.

Basically because bioware wanted us railroaded into working with cerberus they make a mess out of the logical conclussions of either an all human or save council, not to mention the simplest fact that we can go everywhere in the universe and find evidence of reapers and indoctrinaton but the council races couldn't salvage some of sovereign to prove who in fact attacked them.

As a character Udina works as written in me1 because the story itself works either way its played wheras in me2 because of the forced nature of the story it raises character conflicts that really didn't need to be there, in essence its not udina who's incompetent but bioware for not writing the situation better. Although they can still easily resolve it in me3 just by making Udina the dick we now presume him to be.

[Clonedzero]

to be fair, the council had every reason to doubt your claims. as you have NO evidence to back up your crazy claims.

i mean think about if we sent a special ops team into Afghanistan to take out some terrorists and the leader of the team was like "theres an army of evil world destroying robots underground which are gonna wake up soon! WE GOTTA GET READY!" we wouldnt believe him either

we're all bias towards believing shepard because we know its the truth and we experienced it with him. anyone else however might think shepard snapped under the stress or is buying into mind games saren was apparently really good at

[Trandoshan]

I'm siding with Udina on this one. Have to look at it from a political standpoint and imagine that he doesn't know everything Shepard does. He's doing his job sticking up for humanity and that earns him points from me, even if he is an arrogant self righteous piece of ****.

[008Zulu]

I say we keep him around, it's always fun to watch Anderson punch him.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

And we were getting along so well in your AU thread....

When we stick to opinions, we usually do.

Based on your theory of recon doctrine, no recon would be sent ever, since there is always the risk of imminent attack or counterattack.

It's cute when you make up things I never said.

Completely wrong, but cute, even though it once again brings us to the point of you making it meaningless to debate you on anything but the most subjective levels.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's cute when you make up things I never said.

Completely wrong, but cute, even though it once again brings us to the point of you making it meaningless to debate you on anything but the most subjective levels.

Ok, I say I don't understand how your reply is relevant and invited you to explain or rephrase, and your response is an ad hominem attack. Ironic that you claim it meaningless to debate me.

English lesson. "Based on your theory" means that my statement was something I saw as a logical extension of what you had said. I never claimed you said that, merely that you implied it logicly.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 03 mai 2011 - 12:52 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's cute when you make up things I never said.

Completely wrong, but cute, even though it once again brings us to the point of you making it meaningless to debate you on anything but the most subjective levels.

Ok, I say I don't understand how your reply is relevant and invited you to explain or rephrase, and your response is an ad hominem attack. Ironic that you claim it meaningless to debate me.

Your not understanding of what you habitually do, or even of what an ad hominem attack entails, is the reason its meaningless to debate you.

[KainrycKarr]

waffles

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Your not understanding of what you habitually do, or even of what an ad hominem attack entails, is the reason its meaningless to debate you.

Ad hominem means you are attacking me personally rather than my arguements, and pretending that equates to refuting my arguements. You are continuing to do so here. You are doing the debate equivalent of turning this into

Dean: "But  you're stinky!"
Moi: "I am sorry you feel that way, but can you stick to the topic rather than attacking me personally?"
Dean: "I'm not attacking you personally. You don't even know what a personal attack is. And you're stinky!"

Now, care to step back out of the sandbox and respond rationally? If you realllllllly think it isn't worth debating me, just grow up and not reply.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Your not understanding of what you habitually do, or even of what an ad hominem attack entails, is the reason its meaningless to debate you.

Ad hominem means you are attacking me personally rather than my arguements, and pretending that equates to refuting my arguements. You are continuing to do so here. You are doing the debate equivalent of turning this into

Dean: "But  you're stinky!"
Moi: "I am sorry you feel that way, but can you stick to the topic rather than attacking me personally?"
Dean: "I'm not attacking you personally. You don't even know what a personal attack is. And you're stinky!"

Now, care to step back out of the sandbox and respond rationally? If you realllllllly think it isn't worth debating me, just grow up and not reply.

Since you are the type of person to assume a personal attack when there was none given, as you have here, and are convinced that my disregard of you is the same as a dismissal of your argument, as you do again...

You continue to prove my point of your style even more without realizing it. Which is the underlying impetus of why you aren't going to be taken seriously.

[Pwener2313]

Can't I just shoot him? I think even TIM hates him.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since you are the type of person to assume a personal attack when there was none given, as you have here, and are convinced that my disregard of you is the same as a dismissal of your argument, as you do again...

You continue to prove my point of your style even more without realizing it. Which is the underlying impetus of why you aren't going to be taken seriously.

Saying it is meaningless to debate me isn't a personal attack? Other than that all you said was 'you're wrong' and dismissed my comments as 'cute.' No explaination other than the personal attack. You didn't make any attempt to restate your arguement or say anything other than dismissal and attacking my debating style.

You continue this by denying any personal attack and making more personal attacks (a 'disregard of me' is personal, it isn't a dispute of my arguement)  rather than returning to discussing the actual topic of Udina.

Man up and concede that you have no actual defense of the lack of willingness to recon.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...


Saying it is meaningless to debate me isn't a personal attack?

Now you're starting to get it. (Well, not really, but your rhetorical question is actually correct.)

Saying you're an idiot, or a bafoon, or a troll: those would be personal attacks against you. I am not and have not called you any such thing.

Saying that because you are an idiot, or a bafoon, or a troll, your argument is therefore wrong... that would be an ad hominem. Positing that someone's moral/ethical failure disqualifies their argument. But since I made, and still make, no such accusation, nor claim that your argument is invalid on the basis of such a trait, there is no ad hominem.

Saying that an argument with you is meaningless is a verdict against the process of the debate. If you take it as a personal attack... at that point you could assume just about anything as a personal attack. If you take it as a disqualification of your position out of hand... that's exactly the behavior which makes it meaningless to debate with you.


Once you made a ridiculous extrapolation of something that was never claimed or implied, which you did as your very first opening in that post I noted, there was no point in continuing it on. You had already, at that point, made it clear you weren't even recognizing or responding to what I wrote as opposed to what was convenient for you to make up for whatever point you wished to assume. Which you proceeded to do again in the next post, and in the next after that, when you began assuming ad hominem when there wasn't even a personal attack, and then assumed concession of an argument when there ceased to be an debate at all.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 03 mai 2011 - 02:12 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean, I gave my response to your arguement regarding recon, but admitted in the same post that I might be misinterpreting you. In doing so, I admitted that the statement you were taking such issue with might be wrong and invited you to explain how it is wrong. There was still room for dialogue.... unless of course you have nothing to actually say.

My debating style or ability doesn't relate to the OP's topic or to the details of my comment. It is a criticism of my abilty and therefore of an aspect of me. That, by definition, is personal. The fact that there are other insults you could have used doesn't make it less personal or less an attack.

Inventing your own definition of 'personal' doesn't make you right any more than spouting bafflegab about recon doctrine that you are unwilling to explain or defend. I was and remain willing to continue the dialogue. I ask you again, come back to the table or quit replying, but stop complaining that because I disagree with you there is nothing worth discussing.

[InvincibleHero]

What is stupid is locking down the Normandy but not remanding Shepard into protected custody pending review of his/her actions. It makes no sense from any military protocol.

Perhaps Udina got orders from the Alliance to do so. He's a worm but I don't think he had that much power.

The council has little to say in the disposition of an Alliance warcraft though maybe they intervened to spare Shep a confinement.

[Labrev]

The man that had a huge hand in making Shepard a Spectre?

[didymos1120]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

The man that had a huge hand in making Shepard a Spectre?

Why does that matter?  It's entirely possible for someone who is incompetent overall to still do useful and helpful things on occasion.  I don't think Udina's particularly incompetent myself, but his involvement in that doesn't necessarily prove anything in and of itself.

[Moiaussi]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

The man that had a huge hand in making Shepard a Spectre?

Until that point he had a similar adversarial approach to the Council to the Volus attitude. Once Shepard proved the Council wrong about Sovereign, he saw that they could be helpful when played to appropriately, so suddenly became very cooperative with them. There is nothing to indicate any benefit to the Alliance from his cooperation, though. From his reaction at the end of ME1, he seemed to fully expect to be Councellor, irrespective of his balking everything that led to the invitation to the Alliance other than Shepard's appointment to Spectre.

He showed that he can represent the Alliance well when he isn't gettting influence based kickbacks, but as soon as the Council became friendly with him, he changed his approach entirely.

Even before though he likely wasn't really playing hardball with the Council, in that the Terminus systems with nowhere near the economic or military power of the Alliance got concessions from the Council.

[Seboist]

The reason why Udina gets all this hate is because he doesn't worship Shepard as the center of the universe like Anderson and others do.

The man goes all theatrical in his defense of Shepard in front of the council. He gets mad respect from me.

"Send your fleet in!!!" "......this anti-human BULLSH-"

Good stuff.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Other than the Alliance gaining a Spectre, right?

Sheesh.

Learn to read. Udina took an adversarial approach until that time. An adversarial approach resulted in a human, Alliance-friendly Spectre.

After the appointment, Udina took a cooperative approach. What did that get the Alliance, other than potential extinction?