106 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or, you know, I could point out common misconceptions here,. There's dozens of perfectly good reasons to oppose Cerberus without making up things because ME1 didn't like giving much of anything about their motivations or intents.

I don't think so, Dean.

It's generally a problem, that.

You went far beyond "pointing out misperceptions" into making elaborate and in some cases spurious arguments about why Cerberus wasn't responsible or didn't mean it, and all the mind-control and trans-human stuff is just an accident or a co-incidence.

When you're liberally defining any and all forms of technological improvement as 'beyond human efforts', your label deserves to be laughed at. You effectively established a standard at which all pushing of technological boundaries was a quest for goodhood.

Further, you're claiming things that contradict the ME wiki, like that Cerberus had nothing to do with Chasca

Correction: I said you had no evidence that Cerberus was behind or responsible for Chasca. And you don't: far more important than wiki is the, you know, game, in which there is no source that suggests or implies Cerberus started the whole shindig. There is one substantive tie of Cerberus to the colony: that Cerberus 'got samples'. Did Cerberus bring the Dragon's Teeth to the colony? Nothing in the game suggests they did. Did Cerberus force the colonists onto Dragon's teeth? Nothing suggests they did. Did Cerberus even arrive on planet in any capacity other than to get samples? Nothing suggests they did.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time in the game a certain corporation had performed experiments on one of its colonies and then sold samples to Cerberus.

Here is what we know of Chasca. From the game, mind you: Cerberus got husk samples. Maybe they did more, maybe they didn't, but the game is lacking anything to make an argument either way. ME1 was rampant with this style of ambiguity in leaving the full extent of Cerberus's actions and immediate intents in the air.

This ambiguity has to be remembered when dealing with limited knowledge, because they allow for numerous scenarios. Cerberus took samples from Chasca: one interpretation is that they brought the Dragon's Teeth to Chasca and then took away some victims.  Another interpretation is that the corporate owner of the colony (ExoGeni? Binary Helix? One of those) brought the Teeth to the colony and then sold victims to Cerberus. A third possibillity is that the Colonists found (had shipped to them by the Alliance from Eden Prime/dug up/Geth dropped/etc.) Dragon's Teeth, and were indoctrinated and more without any deliberate intent, and then Cerberus grabbed some bodies and ran.

All three of these fit the few facts to know: that Cerberus took Huskified colonists away. All three of them would justify 'Cerberus has a lot to answer for'. None are determinable from what we know of Chasca.

And your whole "Oh he came down HARD on those guys who ran the subject zero project!" - What, the mostly dead guys? I'm sure he came down real hard on them. Funny how he didn't come down on them until the experiment failed...

We know there were survivors. Do we know they were mostly dead? Nothing suggests that: the only 'mostly dead' guard we hear about is one Jack killed. The assumption that all of the survivors were like that is representative of the problem of your style of argument.

For example, let's take your position that 'he chose not to know.' What was your proof? Well, apparently that he didn't know. Now, someone who chooses to know might request reports: from Teltin, we know the Illusive Man did that.  We might also suspect that the person who wants to know might be suspicious at times, and launch their own investigation. From the email post-Teltin, we know Cerberus and TIM did that too. Did they succede before Jack escaped? Sadly, no. Does that mean they were not? Of course not.

And honestly it's ludicrous to apologise for Cerberus, which is what you're doing, whether out of liking them, or because you feel a need to play Devil's Advocate (inaccurately).

You confuse me for an advocate of Cerberus. I am not: I am a critic of their detractors. Specifically, I attack hyperbolic, misleading, or otherwise erroneous arguments. I never say that Cerberus is good, and especially not blameless: my arguments focus primarily on what they can be blamed for. You can already be fully justified in hating them without mislabeling them.

At a certain point you have to sit back and realize that, for whatever reasons, whether it's bad management, fanaticism, or just recruiting largely Mad Scientists, Cerberus has an utterly unnatural "evil experiment" rate. As discussed, most of those experiments revolve around making humans better or stronger, or mind-controlling humans or other creatures. Even if they weren't intended that way, they usually end up that way.

Funnily enough, if you stand up, step back a few more steps, you realize that we have a terribly small and biased sample to work with... and you aren't even handling that but with the most extreme confirmation bias.

For example, we could consider the bad management argument: does Cerberus do remarkably worse than any other organization at the type of dangerous, risk-intensive research it does? Clearly if they were incompetent, it should be true. Well, Saren's top-recruited scientists were as prone to fall victim to Indoctrination as they figured it out, the Alliance was no better with a known active Reaper indoctrination device, the Salarian STG risked disaster with their handling of the Genophage project data, an Asari Matriarch and a host of Asari Commandoes had a rather impressive outcome in trying to take advantage of a certain Turian, the Quarians had their own certain incident with the Geth they've known for hundreds of years and not two...

What's exceptional isn't the unnatural rate of the experiements, its the exposure. We come across nearly as many Cerberus research projects as every other species combined: does that mean that Cerberus does nearly as much research as everyone else? That would certainly be unlikely. We are simply exposed to Cerberus far more than most anyone else... and even then, our exposure is mostly limited to the things we have actual cause to notice (ie, its failures).


It's CIA-incompetence syndrome all over again.

[Al Shepard]

Eurhetemec - I have to agree with your views. I also think Dean the Young is being too critical and condescending with his dissection of your post. Even though some of his comments carry weight, it was delivered negatively which comes across as him being an absolute tool.

[Eurhetemec]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

For example, let's take your position that 'he chose not to know.' What was your proof? Well, apparently that he didn't know. Now, someone who chooses to know might request reports: from Teltin, we know the Illusive Man did that.  We might also suspect that the person who wants to know might be suspicious at times, and launch their own investigation. From the email post-Teltin, we know Cerberus and TIM did that too. Did they succede before Jack escaped? Sadly, no. Does that mean they were not? Of course not.

Just taking this because it's a good example of you taking an illogical viewpoint in an attempt to defend Cerberus. The Illusive Man doesn't miss a thing if he doesn't want to. He bugged every single part of the Normandy that he could. If he didn't bug the Teltin facility, it's because he didn't want to know. He's superb at finding out information. He finds out the most incredible, bizarre and subtle things and presents them to the player in ME2 (sometimes as half-lies or tricks, of course).

Even without bugs, he could easily have sent someone to go visit Teltin. But he didn't. Why?

We'll never know. But it's reasonable to surmise that he didn't want to know, because when he does want to know something, he does whatever it takes to find it out.

I am not: I am a critic of their detractors. Specifically, I attack hyperbolic, misleading, or otherwise erroneous arguments. I never say that Cerberus is good, and especially not blameless: my arguments focus primarily on what they can be blamed for. You can already be fully justified in hating them without mislabeling them.

You are. That's the very definition of playing Devil's Advocate you've got there. It takes some serious 1984-style "double-think" to pretend you're not playing Devil's Advocate whilst doing what you're doing.

To be specific - you're giving the most charitable possible intepretation of all of these experiments. To the point where it's bizarre. That's how playing Devil's Advocate works. You don't necessarily agree with something, but you argue for it anyway, the best you can.

For example, we could consider the bad management argument: does Cerberus do remarkably worse than any other organization at the type of dangerous, risk-intensive research it does? Clearly if they were incompetent, it should be true. Well, Saren's top-recruited scientists were as prone to fall victim to Indoctrination as they figured it out, the Alliance was no better with a known active Reaper indoctrination device, the Salarian STG risked disaster with their handling of the Genophage project data, an Asari Matriarch and a host of Asari Commandoes had a rather impressive outcome in trying to take advantage of a certain Turian, the Quarians had their own certain incident with the Geth they've known for hundreds of years and not two...

See, Devil's Advocate. You're making false comparisons. Let's leave the Reapers and their magical mind-control out of this. Note that I didn't include the Cerberus "Derelict Reaper" team in the "list of bad ideas", because it's not Cerberus specific. The STG were not conducting bizarre and dangerous experiments, they were using a very powerful bioweapon. Was it evil? It can certainly be argued that way. But it wasn't an attempt at mind-control or transhumanism, nor designed to further Salarians specifically and solely. That's a pretty big difference.

What's exceptional isn't the unnatural rate of the experiements, its the exposure. We come across nearly as many Cerberus research projects as every other species combined: does that mean that Cerberus does nearly as much research as everyone else? That would certainly be unlikely. We are simply exposed to Cerberus far more than most anyone else... and even then, our exposure is mostly limited to the things we have actual cause to notice (ie, its failures).

Nope. The logical "occam's razor"  interpretation is that other organisations don't try things as wildly risky and extreme as Cerberus does. Yours a less-logical interpretation that relies on an out-of-game "authorial bias" angle. Which is funny, because earlier you complained about me doing a similar thing, and using evidence not known by characters in the game.

[Dean_the_Young]

Al Shepard wrote...

Eurhetemec - I have to agree with your views. I also think Dean the Young is being too critical and condescending with his dissection of your post. Even though some of his comments carry weight, it was delivered negatively which comes across as him being an absolute tool.

That insult doesn't mean what you think it means judging by the way you're using it.

[Eurhetemec]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Al Shepard wrote...

Eurhetemec - I have to agree with your views. I also think Dean the Young is being too critical and condescending with his dissection of your post. Even though some of his comments carry weight, it was delivered negatively which comes across as him being an absolute tool.

That insult doesn't mean what you think it means judging by the way you're using it.

I think it's pretty clear that he's using "tool" for "jerk", which is the normal usage. What do you think it means?

Also what's up with all the people in the BioWare forums who have "bad guy" avatars being the guys who are most condescending and rude? That's quite a thing.

Modifié par Eurhetemec, 24 juin 2011 - 09:08 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Eurhetemec wrote...


Just taking this because it's a good example of you taking an illogical viewpoint in an attempt to defend Cerberus. The Illusive Man doesn't miss a thing if he doesn't want to. He bugged every single part of the Normandy that he could. If he didn't bug the Teltin facility, it's because he didn't want to know. He's superb at finding out information. He finds out the most incredible, bizarre and subtle things and presents them to the player in ME2 (sometimes as half-lies or tricks, of course).

Anyone who directly argues against the facts presented in the game has a pretty large distance to go before they can accuse anyone else of being irrational. It also illustrates your continued double standard: you have maintained in this very argument that he is somehow both all-knowing of everything that he wants, except when he doesn't, and yet is also unaware and incompetent. Besides being a false dillemma, those are not the only possibilities.

Even without bugs, he could easily have sent someone to go visit Teltin. But he didn't. Why?

Ignoring that he did eventually do that? Why would he send personal investigators to people what reports is a no-real-trouble area? You send investigators to fix problems, not what appears to be going well enough.

We'll never know. But it's reasonable to surmise that he didn't want to know, because when he does want to know something, he does whatever it takes to find it out.

See, that's a tautology. There's nothing logical about it: it's actually a form of fallacy.

You are. That's the very definition of playing Devil's Advocate you've got there. It takes some serious 1984-style "double-think" to pretend you're not playing Devil's Advocate whilst doing what you're doing.

Or it could take a basic understanding of what double-think, Devil's Advocate, apologist, and criticism actually mean.

Hint: it's nuanced. An apologist defends a subject. A critic attacks an argument or position. A Devil's Advocate argues the point of view of the worse party. Double-think is holding two mutually-exclusive positions as true at the same time: an example would be 'the Illusive Man is all knowing when he wants to be' and 'incompetent.'

Currently, I am a critic. To be an apologist, I would have to be saying that things Cerberus is rightly accused of are not bad. To be a Devil's Advocate, I would have to be arguing that Cerberus is correct. To be Double-think about this, I would have to be doing... something entirely else, because you can mix being a critic, an apologist, a Devil's Advocate, and many more arguments without contradiction.

To be specific - you're giving the most charitable possible intepretation of all of these experiments. To the point where it's bizarre. That's how playing Devil's Advocate works. You don't necessarily agree with something, but you argue for it anyway, the best you can.

I am not: I am denying the most negative possible interpretations of all the experiments. To be against something does not make you an advocate of something else by default.

Specifically, I am arguing you do not know enough about the ME1 events to argue what you have, especially in regards to Chasca. I am not arguing that the inverse happened.

For example, we could consider the bad management argument: does Cerberus do remarkably worse than any other organization at the type of dangerous, risk-intensive research it does? Clearly if they were incompetent, it should be true. Well, Saren's top-recruited scientists were as prone to fall victim to Indoctrination as they figured it out, the Alliance was no better with a known active Reaper indoctrination device, the Salarian STG risked disaster with their handling of the Genophage project data, an Asari Matriarch and a host of Asari Commandoes had a rather impressive outcome in trying to take advantage of a certain Turian, the Quarians had their own certain incident with the Geth they've known for hundreds of years and not two...

See, Devil's Advocate. You're making false comparisons. Let's leave the Reapers and their magical mind-control out of this. Note that I didn't include the Cerberus "Derelict Reaper" team in the "list of bad ideas", because it's not Cerberus specific. The STG were not conducting bizarre and dangerous experiments, they were using a very powerful bioweapon. Was it evil? It can certainly be argued that way. But it wasn't an attempt at mind-control or transhumanism, nor designed to further Salarians specifically and solely. That's a pretty big difference.

That's not a Devil's Advocate argument. Nor is it a false comparison, since I've mentioned a number of common Cerberus experiments (commonly called incompetent) that have analogs to other experiments of similar area and related outcomes. The STG losing track of a rogue agent taking a project to extremes is not dissimilar for Cerberus losing track of Teltin. The Alarai experiments, and particularly Rael's decision to go ahead without pre-alerting higher authority, is similar in the problem that occured with Overlord and Dr. Archer.

Nowhere in there have I even touched whether these experiments were right or wrong. The argument, focused around competence, merely made notes between Cerberus and the outcomes of similar lines of research by other, respected, organizations.

What's exceptional isn't the unnatural rate of the experiements, its the exposure. We come across nearly as many Cerberus research projects as every other species combined: does that mean that Cerberus does nearly as much research as everyone else? That would certainly be unlikely. We are simply exposed to Cerberus far more than most anyone else... and even then, our exposure is mostly limited to the things we have actual cause to notice (ie, its failures).

Nope. The logical "occam's razor"  interpretation is that other organisations don't try things as wildly risky and extreme as Cerberus does. Yours a less-logical interpretation that relies on an out-of-game "authorial bias" angle. Which is funny, because earlier you complained about me doing a similar thing, and using evidence not known by characters in the game.

Occam's Razor doesn't imply that at all. Occam's Razor doesn't deny the application of risk, but simplicity of answers: since other organizations are pursuing wildly risky and extreme lines of research in similar fields like Cerberus, and in fact these other lines or risk often being integral plot points for various Mass Effect medium (story missions, loyalty missions, DLC, books), arguing that Oaccm's Razor would argue that other groups are not doing dangerous research despite the fact that they are canonically doing dangerous research is, itself, in violation in Occam's Razor.

Which I suppose is funnier still.

[Dean_the_Young]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Al Shepard wrote...

Eurhetemec - I have to agree with your views. I also think Dean the Young is being too critical and condescending with his dissection of your post. Even though some of his comments carry weight, it was delivered negatively which comes across as him being an absolute tool.

That insult doesn't mean what you think it means judging by the way you're using it.

I think it's pretty clear that he's using "tool" for "jerk", which is the normal usage. What do you think it means?

The way most people in organizations do: someone who's a shrill but  lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used. A fool who speaks in support of some other group, characterized by low intelligence and/or self-steem.

Also what's up with all the people in the BioWare forums who have "bad guy" avatars being the guys who are most condescending and rude? That's quite a thing.

(Is wondering if the irony is intentional or not.)

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 24 juin 2011 - 09:29 .

[General User]

Eurhetemec wrote...
 The Illusive Man doesn't miss a thing if he doesn't want to. He bugged every single part of the Normandy that he could. If he didn't bug the Teltin facility, it's because he didn't want to know. He's superb at finding out information. He finds out the most incredible, bizarre and subtle things and presents them to the player in ME2 (sometimes as half-lies or tricks, of course).

Even without bugs, he could easily have sent someone to go visit Teltin. But he didn't. Why?

We'll never know. But it's reasonable to surmise that he didn't want to know, because when he does want to know something, he does whatever it takes to find it out.

This is a fair criticism of TIM.  As much as anyone might like to claim that Cerberus Cells are largely independent operations, I think it’s fairly obvious that any limitations on TIM’s level of involvement or information are almost entirely self-imposed. For people in charge, how to take credit for the things that go right, while avoiding blame for the things that go wrong is a dilemma as old as Man.

That being said… check out this beat while the DJ revolves it! Teltin took place some twenty-ish years before the events of ME2. What if the reason TIM is so, as Joker puts it, “control freaky” is because he considers allowing the abuses that happened at Teltin to be a personal failure on his part and is determined not to allow anything like that to happen again?

The thing is, Cerberus’/TIM’s nature is deliberately left nebulous, filling in the blanks to hold then always guilty is as bad an error as filling in the blanks to always hold them blameless.

[Bad King]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Also what's up with all the people in the BioWare forums who have "bad guy" avatars being the guys who are most condescending and rude? That's quite a thing.

I find this offensive! I demand an apology!

[Eurhetemec]

You're continuing to rely on spurious arguments, Dean, and pretending I've said things I've not.

A specific example is your repeated stuff about "Cerberus incompetence".

I've not once suggested Cerberus is incompetent. Only you've suggested that, and you keep suggesting that they're not incompetent in response to imaginary suggestions that they are. Please stop responding to arguments that I'm not making. Don't assume my line of argument is the same as your imaginary "Cerberus-basher". It's not.

With Occam's Razor, you really end up having a choice:

You either argue that Cerberus is incompetent, which you keep saying it isn't (I also don't think it is)

Or

You argue that Cerberus is doing more, and/or more risky "risky experiments" than other people.

The STG rogue agent on Tuchanka is a single rogue agent who is explicitly rebelling against the STG and trying to right a "wrong" thing they did. None of the Cerberus operations are comparable to that. They've all been authorized and allowed to go along. None of them are "To hell with Cerberus!". None of them are truly rogue. TIM is constantly claiming "Oh they went too far!", but it's like a drunk you keep finding with a glass of alcohol in his hand. "Oh it's just this one time!" "Oh it's only social drinking" "Oh you're such a spoilsport!". He's always got an excuse. So has TIM.

There's a phrase for that: plausible deniability.

http://en.wikipedia....ble_deniability

Check that out. It's practically a description of Cerberus. No-one in Cerberus knows what TIM knows. He can always, always claim to know less than he does. Cerberus cell-structure and non-existent chain of command assures this.

Here's my way of thinking - the first time TIM found out about a disgusting Cerberus experiment, a normal person, a person who wasn't amoral, who actually cared about ethics, would have made it so that he total and complete oversight to each and every cell in his organisation. If necessary, he would have put the equivalent of Miranda in every single cell - a person loyal solely to him and to his goals, not to the people in the cell. He would have checked up on them all constantly.

But that wasn't his reaction.

His reaction has always been to "shocked" by the revelation of the "evil experiments", and to then shut it down, because as it's been discovered, well, it's no longer useful. He didn't institute new policies. He didn't tighten up his ship. He didn't stop future experiments of similar levels of insanity from going ahead.

So you pick.

Either he's incompetent, or he's amoral and choosing to let this stuff go ahead.

Nothing support the view that he's incompetent. If anything, he's hyper-competent. I don't see anything that contradicts the view that he's amoral.

By the way, you say there's plenty of reason to hate Cerberus (and I presume TIM) without anything I've said. Could you give me a brief outline of some of those reasons? I'm quite interested to hear what you think they are.

General User - That's a valid point - sixteen years, I believe, but what I'm saying is, as recently as two years ago, Shepard was finding bases which were doing experiments which were, at best, irresponsible, and, at worst, insane. Even in ME2 itself, the lack of responsibility continues. He's clearly protecting himself and not continuing to raise ethical standards.

Modifié par Eurhetemec, 24 juin 2011 - 09:47 .

[General User]

Eurhetemec wrote...

General User - That's a valid point - sixteen years, I believe, but what I'm saying is, as recently as two years ago, Shepard was finding bases which were doing experiments which were, at best, irresponsible, and, at worst, insane. Even in ME2 itself, the lack of responsibility continues. He's clearly protecting himself and not continuing to raise ethical standards.

That’s a fair criticism too. Infact I take the position that Cerberus’ marked tendency toward “Bond-villainy”-type projects vice traditional black-ops is one of the major things holding them back.  I think that's what you mean when you refer to a lack of responsibility.

As far as ethical failures go, the events I lay at Cerberus’ feet (or around their neck) are: holding Cpl. Toombs against his will and experimenting on him without his consent, doing likewise to those asari on Trident, the Pope assassination, and (the biggie) the false distress beacon lureing SA marines to their deaths and the subsequent murder of Admiral Kahoku.

Chasca and Pragia I’ll reserve judgment on.

Overlord was Dr. Archer's failure(ish)/fault, no one else's.

But Cerberus has done many things that deserve praise, not blame, including: assassinating extremist asari Matriarchs, saving the Citadel from a batarian bioweapon, and eliminating geth strongholds during the Eden Prime War.

Modifié par General User, 24 juin 2011 - 10:49 .

[RAIDENKUN]

Rather than arguing the lesser points of Cerberus's goals (many of which cannot be justly stated without further evidence), I think the most obvious point against TIM's submission to the Reapers as a logical, pro-human step is the based on TIM's explicitly stated goals of human dominance in the galaxy.

As far as we know (mainly from ME 2, the Retribution novel, and the Evolution comic), TIM's main goal is to protect humanity from alien threats, whether they be Turian, Batarian, Reaper, or otherwise. His strategy for attaining that protection is by making humans the dominant species in the galaxy. We can see this quest for human dominance in a number of Cerberus experiments, from Subject Zero, to Overlord, to the tests on Grayson in Retribution.

The problem with TIM submitting to the Reapers willingly, as a logical understanding free from indoctrination, is that submission to any alien race obviously conflicts with his goals for human dominance. If humans are made into a Reaper, they are but one insignificant unit in a sea of countless other Reapers. How can his goals not be met when (as some may have chosen) there is an all-human Council, completely in charge of the galaxy's biggest decisions, but he's more than happy to integrate his species as the junior member of some massive alien club, losing almost all control and species individuality?

This all isn't to say that TIM won't come to such a logical understanding in ME3. I assume that the sort of mind that could devise a Human Reaper as a fitting grand finale for such a game as ME2 still has further crimes to commit against good story-telling, the least of which would be another complete role reversal (as if Liara's "character progression" wasn't enough). I only mean to suggest by all of this that it wouldn't make terribly much sense for an organization as radical as Cerberus to suddenly seek compromise between the conclusion of Retribution and the beginning of ME3.

[atheelogos]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Barring straight-up indoctrination, that is...

Cerberus is militantly pro-human. They will do anything to further humanity. Literally anything. See all the vile experiments, tricks, lies and so on in ME1/2.

The Reapers have examined the galaxy circa ME3, and they feel that the race best suited to becoming Reapers are the humans. We only learn this right at the end of ME2.

Reapers the at the top of the food-chain, species-wise. They have never been seriously defeated, not in what seems to be at least 37 million years.

Here's what I'm thinking.

TIM finds out (along with Shepard) at the end of ME3, that the Reapers want to make humanity into human-Reapers. To make them "part of the club". Part of the winning team. To him, and perhaps to many in Cerberus, this might well be seen as "furthering humanity". All the other races have been judged and found wanting (it seems). Only the humans are special. Only the humans are being offered a chance to joining the galactic space-gods.

They certainly don't want to destroy humanity entirely. This is obvious from their behaviour in ME2 and even in ME3's trailers, where they are carefully smashing up human cities, rather than "nuking the site from orbit" or "dropping a rock on it", which would take 1/1000th the time and effort.

So even without indoctrination, Cerberus and TIM's ultra-militant pro-human stance, if taken to it's logical extreme, would make them potentially side with the Reapers. Hence BioWare saying "Shepards thinks that Cerberus is indoctrinated". Indeed, many in Cerberus might be - not everyone will think being ground into human-juice and made into a Reaper is a good plan! But some would - certainly the leadership and TIM seem likely to think that.

This may even have been the plan the whole time in ME2, though I think it's more likely that TIM only realized it fully when the human-Reaper appeared (he probably suspected before then, though).

As TIM is a control-freak, he no-doubt wants to try and control the situation and the terms in which humanity gets made into Reapers, and wiping out the Collectors gave him a way in there, too. Presumably he's been told that helping the Reapers to take over will also help.

Any gaping holes in this idea, or just disbelief that Cerberus would go so far?

OP you've summed up my theory nicely but really though I think you hit the nail on the head. The Reapers want to make us into machine Gods. I'd be surprised if TIM didn't want that.

Modifié par atheelogos, 25 juin 2011 - 02:37 .

[Lumikki]

I think TIM to side with Reapers is very high probability. Reasons:

1. TIM is agaist Shepard in ME3. (Shepard is fighting agaist reapers)
2. TIM does anything for humans to survive. (Humanity is not TIM's priorities)

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2011 - 10:14 .

[atheelogos]

Lumikki wrote...

I think TIM to side with Reapers is very high probability. Reasons:

1. TIM is agaist Shepard in ME3. (Shepard is fighting agaist reapers)
2. TIM does anything for humans to survive. (Humanity is not TIM's priorities)

What?

[Marta Rio]

I think the OP's idea has merit, the only issue I can see with it is that TIM would not be content for humanity to become part of the Reapers, he'd want us to dominate over them.

I can see him pretending to side with the Reapers.  Doing that would allow him the chance to learn about their Reaperification tech (i.e. figuring out how to make god-like beings), all the while biding his time while secretly planning to betray them.  When he sees Shepard leading the resistance, thus putting his plan in danger, he would absolutely try to stop him. 

People might argue that "TIM wouldn't sacrifice Earth (and all the humans on it)," but I think doing so would be very much along the lines with his, and Cerberus's, modus operandi.  They are definitely an ends justify the means type organization who aren't afraid to sacrifice human lives to further humanity's interests (as glaringly apparent in ME1 and in the novels).  If TIM thinks the only way to ultimately defeat the Reapers is to first side with them, then double cross them, he would not hesitate to do it, even if that means that billions of human lives are lost.

People might also argue that "TIM saw what happened to Saren, he knows that siding with the Reapers can only lead to indocrination."  However, if there's anyone in the galaxy with the hubris to think that he can outsmart the Reapers, it's TIM.  I think it's entirely in line with TIM's character for him to think that he can succeed where a lesser Turian failed.

[Lumikki]

You first sentense is little confusing for me?

TIM would not want to join to reapers. Yes that's true. How ever, if TIM has no other options in his mind that joining reapers is the best way to human survive in this war, he would do it. Reapers doesn't have humanity at all, nor does TIM. They are both self driving forced to think only what's good for them self as race. While TIM allows other races to exist, compared to reapers, TIM's goal is humans to take over the galaxy.

[Dean_the_Young]

Eurhetemec wrote...

You're continuing to rely on spurious arguments, Dean, and pretending I've said things I've not.

A specific example is your repeated stuff about "Cerberus incompetence".

I've not once suggested Cerberus is incompetent. Only you've suggested that, and you keep suggesting that they're not incompetent in response to imaginary suggestions that they are. Please stop responding to arguments that I'm not making. Don't assume my line of argument is the same as your imaginary "Cerberus-basher". It's not.

At a certain point you have to sit back and realize that, for whatever
reasons, whether it's bad management, fanaticism, or just recruiting
largely Mad Scientists,

None of these are qualities of competence, and are common aspects of incompetent organization and practice. You have made an argument about Cerberus's nature of capability. I have challenged it.

With Occam's Razor, you really end up having a choice:

You either argue that Cerberus is incompetent, which you keep saying it isn't (I also don't think it is)

Or

You argue that Cerberus is doing more, and/or more risky "risky experiments" than other people.

Or you don't make arbitrary false dillemas... which is simpler, and would fulfill Occam's Razor even more.

Occam's Razor would also recognize that one person's experiences (Shepards) is never equivalent to an objective outlook of galaxy-spanning operations.

Occam's Razor, in other words, would directly contradict a misuse of Occam's Razor, and especially a misuse that directly violates what actually does happen.

The STG rogue agent on Tuchanka is a single rogue agent who is explicitly rebelling against the STG and trying to right a "wrong" thing they did. None of the Cerberus operations are comparable to that. They've all been authorized and allowed to go along. None of them are "To hell with Cerberus!". None of them are truly rogue. TIM is constantly claiming "Oh they went too far!", but it's like a drunk you keep finding with a glass of alcohol in his hand. "Oh it's just this one time!" "Oh it's only social drinking" "Oh you're such a spoilsport!". He's always got an excuse. So has TIM.

There's a phrase for that: plausible deniability.

http://en.wikipedia....ble_deniability

There's another word for it: rogue. Deceptive also works. Pragia was rogue. Doctor Archer acted on his own initiative without forewarning of what to higher. Motivations don't eclipse that, any more than it eclipses the conduct of Maleon or the Project.

Check that out. It's practically a description of Cerberus. No-one in Cerberus knows what TIM knows. He can always, always claim to know less than he does. Cerberus cell-structure and non-existent chain of command assures this.

And yet we don't take his word that he didn't know. We uncover the evidence ourselves. 'Plausible deniability' does not, and never has meant, that all denials are false.

Here's my way of thinking - the first time TIM found out about a disgusting Cerberus experiment, a normal person, a person who wasn't amoral, who actually cared about ethics, would have made it so that he total and complete oversight to each and every cell in his organisation. If necessary, he would have put the equivalent of Miranda in every single cell - a person loyal solely to him and to his goals, not to the people in the cell. He would have checked up on them all constantly.[

But that wasn't his reaction.

His reaction has always been to "shocked" by the revelation of the "evil experiments", and to then shut it down, because as it's been discovered, well, it's no longer useful. He didn't institute new policies. He didn't tighten up his ship. He didn't stop future experiments of similar levels of insanity from going ahead.

So you pick.

Either he's incompetent, or he's amoral and choosing to let this stuff go ahead.

False delimma produced by a person whose way of thinking is rather outside the historic norm for governments and agencies of questionable intent?

No choice necessary: you think the way you do, but it makes you no more correct about the nature of what happened. If you reject known aspects on the basis of ideology (that plausible deniability is always just a cover, that all moral people will see things and choose things the way I do)... well, ideology does that for people. All belief systems come with flaws to objectivity in various places. Some people are deontologists, some people are teleological: the viewpoints make interpretations different.

By the way, you say there's plenty of reason to hate Cerberus (and I presume TIM) without anything I've said. Could you give me a brief outline of some of those reasons? I'm quite interested to hear what you think they are.

Akuze, Pragia, Chasca, political assassinations of a Pope, Alliance officials, a Turian official, Rachni experiments, gang wars and running a drug cartel, Lazarus, Horizon, Retribution, and any more I missed off the top of my head.


For the things we know Cerberus was directly intending or involved with directly, and not tangently. Not the things we make up to fit our world views. You can argue some of those acts or intents were justified: you can argue none of them are. You can stake a moral stand on any of them you like... so long as you stake a stand on what is known, and not what is presumed.

If you want to hate Cerberus because it took husks away from Chasca and allowed such a thing to remain hidden... hate away! If you want to hate Cerberus for Chasca for turning those people into husks, you're making things up you don't know.

If you want to hate Cerberus for Akuze because they let 50 marines die and then performed involuntary, painful medical experiments on a person... hate away! If you hate Cerberus for Akuze because they destroyed the colony and then tortured a guy in pursuit of godhood, you're introducing assumptions you don't know.

If you want to hate Cerberus for Teltin because of what it/the Alliance started in concept, of a place where experiments on kidnapped children would be performed, and then for failing to stop a cell from going rogue... plenty enough there to hate. If you want to hate Cerberus for the full travesty of what occured and argue that the Illusive Man willfully allowed such a thing... then you're arguing against the facts we ourselves uncover on the ground.

[Dean_the_Young]

atheelogos wrote...
OP you hit the nail on the head. The Reapers want to make us into machine Gods. I'd be surprised if TIM didn't want that.

The Council wanted to make Humanity a propserous, accepted species in the community of galactic power. TIM didn't simply ascede to that, however: why presume the Reapers claims to be any more valid than the Council's claims? 

[eternalnightmare13]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Barring straight-up indoctrination, that is...

Cerberus is militantly pro-human. They will do anything to further humanity. Literally anything. See all the vile experiments, tricks, lies and so on in ME1/2.

The Reapers have examined the galaxy circa ME3, and they feel that the race best suited to becoming Reapers are the humans. We only learn this right at the end of ME2.

Reapers the at the top of the food-chain, species-wise. They have never been seriously defeated, not in what seems to be at least 37 million years.

Here's what I'm thinking.

TIM finds out (along with Shepard) at the end of ME3, that the Reapers want to make humanity into human-Reapers. To make them "part of the club". Part of the winning team. To him, and perhaps to many in Cerberus, this might well be seen as "furthering humanity". All the other races have been judged and found wanting (it seems). Only the humans are special. Only the humans are being offered a chance to joining the galactic space-gods.

They certainly don't want to destroy humanity entirely. This is obvious from their behaviour in ME2 and even in ME3's trailers, where they are carefully smashing up human cities, rather than "nuking the site from orbit" or "dropping a rock on it", which would take 1/1000th the time and effort.

So even without indoctrination, Cerberus and TIM's ultra-militant pro-human stance, if taken to it's logical extreme, would make them potentially side with the Reapers. Hence BioWare saying "Shepards thinks that Cerberus is indoctrinated". Indeed, many in Cerberus might be - not everyone will think being ground into human-juice and made into a Reaper is a good plan! But some would - certainly the leadership and TIM seem likely to think that.

This may even have been the plan the whole time in ME2, though I think it's more likely that TIM only realized it fully when the human-Reaper appeared (he probably suspected before then, though).

As TIM is a control-freak, he no-doubt wants to try and control the situation and the terms in which humanity gets made into Reapers, and wiping out the Collectors gave him a way in there, too. Presumably he's been told that helping the Reapers to take over will also help.

Any gaping holes in this idea, or just disbelief that Cerberus would go so far?

I think it's a reasonable idea.  Cerebus doesn't have any qualms or sense of morality when it comes to using humans as experiments and although this 'human slushy' machine is extreme it's almost a natural progression from what happened in Overlord and some of the side quests in ME1.  

However, TIM is never that simple and straightforward.  I think TIM would go along with the human reaper idea to a point, yet he'd have his own hidden agenda.  He would most likely know that the Reapers take a very long time to wipe out all sentient life in a galaxy.  I believe in ME1 Vigil says it took hundreds of years.  I think that TIM would use the human-reaper plan to apease the Reapers while attempting to use Reaper tech as a way to defeat the Reapers or perhaps even control them.  Or perhaps he's dellusional enough to believe that the Reaper's won't kill off humanity if he joins them.
 

[atheelogos]

Marta Rio wrote...

I think the OP's idea has merit, the only issue I can see with it is that TIM would not be content for humanity to become part of the Reapers, he'd want us to dominate over them.

I can see him pretending to side with the Reapers.  Doing that would allow him the chance to learn about their Reaperification tech (i.e. figuring out how to make god-like beings), all the while biding his time while secretly planning to betray them.  When he sees Shepard leading the resistance, thus putting his plan in danger, he would absolutely try to stop him. 

People might argue that "TIM wouldn't sacrifice Earth (and all the humans on it)," but I think doing so would be very much along the lines with his, and Cerberus's, modus operandi.  They are definitely an ends justify the means type organization who aren't afraid to sacrifice human lives to further humanity's interests (as glaringly apparent in ME1 and in the novels).  If TIM thinks the only way to ultimately defeat the Reapers is to first side with them, then double cross them, he would not hesitate to do it, even if that means that billions of human lives are lost.

People might also argue that "TIM saw what happened to Saren, he knows that siding with the Reapers can only lead to indocrination."  However, if there's anyone in the galaxy with the hubris to think that he can outsmart the Reapers, it's TIM.  I think it's entirely in line with TIM's character for him to think that he can succeed where a lesser Turian failed.

Too much speculation I think. Also I don't think Cerberus would give up Earth without a fight. Not if they wanted humanity to stay strong.

[atheelogos]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

atheelogos wrote...
OP you hit the nail on the head. The Reapers want to make us into machine Gods. I'd be surprised if TIM didn't want that.

why presume the Reapers claims to be any more valid than the Council's claims? 

Because they've already tried to make us into Reapers. They want us to ascend. Hell Harbinger said it a number of times himself

“Evolution cannot be stopped.”

“They will be as we are.”

“Relinquish your form to us.”

“Embrace perfection."
“I am the Harbinger of your perfection.” 
“I am the Harbinger of your ascendance.”

[Destroy Raiden_]

So TIM is like Saren in his reasoning he thinks if he sides with the reapers they'll spare humanity or at least his corner of it? I guess that could work for TIM he'd really love that idea so long as he picks from the pool what genetics he wants to have so he can be sure the humans he has breed strong humans where ever he decides will be the off limits zone for the reapers when he full fills his duty to them.

By that train of thought him getting shep is not for his colony aspirations but because the reapers put that down as a condition get shep for us sense we can't and bring him to us.

I wounder though did TIM place a tracking device in shep? I mean he did make him so why not do that would really make finding him easier. I'd say put it deep in the brain so if anyone tries to remove said tracking beacon shep would die. Now someone might say well putting in the chip should've killed him but TIM did it when shep was already dead so no issues.

Though I still like my theory on the issue of TIM made shep to be an attractive target for the reapers so he could become possessed by them and tim could turn on the control chip and make shep serve 2 masters at the same time. The chip would be used to sabotage reapers or their plans and then tim planned to swoop in with his high tech force and be the saviors of the day but found out shep can't serve two masters physically, mentally, and the chip won't override reaper control in other words the chip won't work. So tim needs to get shep back retool him and if he can't outright kill him sense he doesn't want shep being used as a weapon against him.

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 25 juin 2011 - 04:51 .

[Parah_Salin]

Well if you look a TIM's whole philosophy it is really "Power at all Costs"- at least in terms of the things he likes. Yes he uses the label "Human Dominance" but he seams to have a huge love of "upgrading" people just to see if he can create a more powerful human, or of people/things that have already been genetically "upgraded" (Miranda, Collectors). He's just after power.

My guess is kind of a variation on the OP. He wants to ascend, and then backstab the Reapers. He wants humans to become the newest, most up to date, most powerful, most independent "Nation" among them. Preferably with all the others beneath him. Shepard's plan of defeating them and not taking their power is unaceptable for TIM