1476 réponses à ce sujet

[Siansonea]

1136342t54 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

And that's exactly the point I was trying to make. I wanted to illustrate what the VS was being accused of by emulating it, but on a more heightened level. People said the VS was argumentative, I wanted to show them what argumentative was REALLY like. 

It seems to have failed. You are less argumentative and more combative in these posts.

Because of people's feelings about being accused of "betrayal", they don't listen to the actual points the VS is trying to make. That working with Cerberus is very upsetting, that it casts Shepard's loyalty to the Alliance in a very bad light.

If the shoe was on the other foot, if Shepard encountered the VS working with Cerberus, you can bet that many of the same people here licking their wounds over the VS being so mean would be just as vocally taking the VS to task for working with Cerberus. Because they would be identifying with Shepard's point of view, no matter what it is. The external reality of the situation, i.e., that anyone working for Cerberus is a betrayal of the Alliance, is beside the point. All that matters is how Shepard feels, and by extension how the player feels. It's quite an insidious trap! Being overly attached to your own emotional responses and preconceived ideas blinds you to other possibilities and realities that are larger than your own personal experience. We humans have a natural tendency to rationalize our behavior and attitudes, and will attempt to bend logic and circumstance in our favor to make bad situations more palatable. But logic can only bend so far. And my logic has always been very, very simple.

Cerberus is a criminal organization that has committed many atrocities.
Many of Cerberus' acts of aggression have been directed toward the Alliance.
Any Alliance soldier who cooperates with Cerberus in any capacity is on some level betraying the Aliance, regardless of the overall circumstances.

Very simple. Shepard's actions are questionable, and her agreeing to work with Cerberus is a betrayal of the Alliance, even if it ends up being the right thing to do in the end. Betraying the Alliance is the key issue. Not the overarching story or big picture as the player sees it. Because neither Shepard nor the VS can even see the big picture in that moment on Horizon, all they can see is their tiny piece of th puzzle. And the VS is even more hamstrung than Shepard, because Anderson refused to give the VS vital information that would have allowed them to draw different conclusions about seeing Shepard in the company of Cerberus.

Your preaching to the converted. I've made similar points to people on here and a few of my friends.

Oh I know, I quoted your post, but my reply was targeted toward the general readers of the thread.

[Ryzaki]

Oh I don't know. If the VS was with Cerberus and saved Shep's ass (along with most of a colony) I'd definitely want to hear everything they had to say about why they were working together (and if I thought the reasoning was good enough would be eager and willing to jump ship). 

Ah I love how the part where the VS witnesses Shep fighting the actual threat is completey brushed over like it's insignficant. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 août 2011 - 09:01 .

[1136342t54_]

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh I don't know. If the VS was with Cerberus and saved Shep's ass (along with most of a colony) I'd definitely want to hear everything they had to say about why they were working together (and if I thought the reasoning was good enough would be eager and willing to jump ship). 

Ah I love how the part where the VS witnesses Shep fighting the actual threat is completey brushed over like it's insignficant. 

Don't start this again. We pretty much already explained the reasons why this happened in the entire thread. Don't act like dozens of pages of arguments was pointles. This thread has run its course a while ago and many points have been beaten into the ground.

[Ryzaki]

1136342t54 wrote..
Don't start this again. We pretty much already explained the reasons why this happened in the entire thread. Don't act like dozens of pages of arguments was pointles. This thread has run its course a while ago and many points have been beaten into the ground.

As long as people keep acting like the only reason players are irritated is because the VS got mad becuase of them working for Cerberus and didn't bow and scrap to Shepard I'll start it up again. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 août 2011 - 09:18 .

[1136342t54_]

Ryzaki wrote...

As long as people keep acting like the only reason players are irritated is because the VS got mad becuase of them working for Cerberus and didn't bow and scrap to Shepard I'll start it up again. 

Part of your original argument was related to the VS getting mad because Shepard was working for Cerberus.

Also there is not point in starting it up when both sides have reasonable arguments and some of it is true.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 19 août 2011 - 09:22 .

[Ryzaki]

1136342t54 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

As long as people keep acting like the only reason players are irritated is because the VS got mad becuase of them working for Cerberus and didn't bow and scrap to Shepard I'll start it up again. 

Part of your original argument was related to the VS getting mad because Shepard was working for Cerberus.

Also there is not point in starting it up when both sides have reasonable arguments and some of it is true.

You want me to take important bits out of your argement too? 

I personally wasn't mostly annoyed at them being mad about Cerberus. Hell they had a right to be mad at that. What they shouldn't have done however was act like that was the most important thing. Let's ignore the 1/3rd of the colony (or more) that got dragged away by aliens! Those other colonies that could've beneitted from whatever tech Shep was using to make him/herself immune to the seekers! Oh noes Cerberus is far more important than that! Let's also not give Shepard any leeway to start explaining! Nope. Let's keep aiming at Cerberus like a foaming at the mouth idiot and completely ignore the aliens that just got away and completely disabled an entire colony.

Obviously that's less important right? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 août 2011 - 09:28 .

[1136342t54_]

Ryzaki wrote...

You want me to take important bits out of your argement too? 

What the hell are you talking about? I'm just saying that part of your argument did involve that. Maybe I needed to put up a lame smiley face to show that I was being less than half serious about pointing that out but don't twist what I said as if I meant it as a representation of your whole argument or even most of it.

Hint the word part of your argument. It wasn't even a major one.

[SojournerN7]

Don't think I need to restore trust with VS. They got upset, wrote an apologetic email and got over it. As far as I'm concerned, they're welcome aboard so long as they understand that in that particular instance, the ends justified the means.

[Ryzaki]

1136342t54 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

You want me to take important bits out of your argement too? 

What the hell are you talking about? I'm just saying that part of your argument did involve that. Maybe I needed to put up a lame smiley face to show that I was being less than half serious about pointing that out but don't twist what I said as if I meant it as a representation of your whole argument or even most of it.

Hint the word part of your argument. It wasn't even a major one.

If it was meant to be in jest than apolgies for overreacting. Too much in this thread has that been reduced to "see see! You can't deal with Shep being criticized 1111!!!" 

[Siansonea]

Ryzaki wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

As long as people keep acting like the only reason players are irritated is because the VS got mad becuase of them working for Cerberus and didn't bow and scrap to Shepard I'll start it up again. 

Part of your original argument was related to the VS getting mad because Shepard was working for Cerberus.

Also there is not point in starting it up when both sides have reasonable arguments and some of it is true.

You want me to take important bits out of your argement too? 

I personally wasn't mostly annoyed at them being mad about Cerberus. Hell they had a right to be mad at that. What they shouldn't have done however was act like that was the most important thing. Let's ignore the 1/3rd of the colony (or more) that got dragged away by aliens! Those other colonies that could've beneitted from whatever tech Shep was using to make him/herself immune to the seekers! Oh noes Cerberus is far more important than that! Let's also not give Shepard any leeway to start explaining! Nope. Let's keep aiming at Cerberus like a foaming at the mouth idiot and completely ignore the aliens that just got away and completely disabled an entire colony.

Obviously that's less important right? 

Those would have been good things to discuss. But EITHER of them could have brought it up. Shepard could also have volunteered to give Mordin's seeker swarm tech, but it didn't occur to her either. In any case, the VS is naturally upset about Shepard being there with Cerberus, it's understandable that because the imminent threat is over, that Cerberus becomes the Big Question. What are they supposed to discuss about the colonists that got abducted? "Did you see those colonists get abducted?" "Yeah." "Me too." And what leeway did Shepard not get? If there was any lack of opportunity for Shepard to explain herself, it's because BioWare didn't give it to her. She just stood there like a bump on a log and spouted pro-Cerberus rhetoric. She could have used that opportunity to explain things more fully, to urge the VS to talk to Anderson and Tali, to offer the seeker swarm tech. But she didn't. Yeah, the VS "didn't ask", but if Shepard has something to say, why does she have to wait until she's asked to say something? How about a "Speak Up Interrupt" for our girl Shepard? I agree that the VS could have asked a lot of question that they didn't ask, but they were very rattled by seeing Shepard alive at all, much less in the company of Cerberus, who was a much-hated foe in the first game. That kind of thing tends to throw people off their game. 

[Ryzaki]

They were supposed to ask how Shepard got away from the swarms. Kind of interesting that they disabled everything but Shepard and his/her crew.

And it's the VS's JOB to find about the link between Cerberus and the missing colonies. Shepard doesn't have to explain him/herself. (He/she *should* but they didn't go to Horizon with the intent of discovering something and then ignore a source of intel about that something). They were there to investigate the missing colonies (and most likely to see ways it could be stopped.) Not stomp off because Shepard was with Cerberus. It was very human of them to do true but not at all professional and I fully expect them to prove to my Shep that they can deal with other similar situations in a professional manner. Sure Shep could've told them (kind of hard to do so when they fly off the handle because you say Cerberus) but they had a job to do. I'd feel the same way if the position was reversed.

If the VS lets their emotions get ahead of the mission ever again as far as my Shep's concerned they can go their own way. My Shep's not gonna deal with someone who lets their emotions blind them to the mission. Especially not when there's lives at stake and their outburst could potentially cause the loss of lives and leave the people they are supposedly protecting vulnerable to attack. Sorry but suck it the hell up. More than your feelings are at stake. We don't have to be nice to each other but we do need each other. If nothing else but for bullet shields. (or until one of us betrays the other). 

I just wish Shepard could've said that. Damn plotrailorading. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 août 2011 - 10:08 .

[Ryzaki]

DP 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 août 2011 - 09:57 .

[whywhywhywhy]

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh I don't know. If the VS was with Cerberus and saved Shep's ass (along with most of a colony) I'd definitely want to hear everything they had to say about why they were working together (and if I thought the reasoning was good enough would be eager and willing to jump ship). 

Ah I love how the part where the VS witnesses Shep fighting the actual threat is completey brushed over like it's insignficant. 

  <^>---This is a well articulated point.

Ryzaki wrote..
As long as people keep acting like the only
reason players are irritated is because the VS got mad becuase of them
working for Cerberus and didn't bow and scrap to Shepard I'll start it
up again. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

I think this is the biggest point of contention.  You give point after point only to be told "that's only because you praise Shepard!" 

[ChaplainTappman]

1136342t54 wrote...

To be honest its likely some Cerberus cells are like that. Cerberus work with aliens multiple times its not something thats new but yes I could see a reformed Cerberus working more like the Lazarus cell. Archer isn't what I'd call the most moral scientist but I would let him work for the new Cerberus. Just not as a cell leader though. TIM and a few others like him should be killed.

Consensus acheived. Although, re: Archer, I'll quote Jacob:

"I still say our best interests involve an airlock."

EDIT: I love how cyclical this thread is. People argue, we come to the shockingly reasonable conclusion that the VS has a right to be upset at Shepard and Shepard has a right to be upset with the VS. Someone new jumps in and trolls. Rinse and repeat.

Modifié par ChaplainTappman, 19 août 2011 - 10:54 .

[1136342t54_]

ChaplainTappman wrote...
Consensus acheived. Although, re: Archer, I'll quote Jacob:

"I still say our best interests involve an airlock."

This is how this thread should have ended lol.

EDIT: I love how cyclical this thread is. People argue, we come to the shockingly reasonable conclusion that the VS has a right to be upset at Shepard and Shepard has a right to be upset with the VS. Someone new jumps in and trolls. Rinse and repeat.

I mentioned this earlier in a different way. We pretty much came to a consensus on the matter of the VS now people just want to start up this whole argument again. I am tempted to just copy and paste one of the arguments that pretty much ended this debate.

[1136342t54_]

jreezy wrote...

Sojourner83 wrote...

Don't think I need to restore trust with VS. They got upset, wrote an apologetic email and got over it. As far as I'm concerned, they're welcome aboard so long as they understand that in that particular instance, the ends justified the means.

A sensible poster? I believe you are in the wrong thread.

Wrong thread? Oh my dear jreezy Sojourner83 is in the wrong forum.

[ChaplainTappman]

1136342t54 wrote...

I mentioned this earlier in a different way. We pretty much came to a consensus on the matter of the VS now people just want to start up this whole argument again. I am tempted to just copy and paste one of the arguments that pretty much ended this debate.

Yeah, but then I'd be tempted to copy and paste a troll response. Recursive loop...

Wrong thread? Oh my dear jreezy Sojourner83 is in the wrong forum.

Whong forum? Sojourner's on the wrong internet.

[ChaplainTappman]

Effing double post.

Modifié par ChaplainTappman, 19 août 2011 - 11:54 .

[Ryzaki]

LOL wrong internet indeed.

There are no true agreements just pauses until the bickering starts again

[1136342t54_]

ChaplainTappman wrote...
Yeah, but then I'd be tempted to copy and paste a troll response. Recursive loop...

Understandable

Whong forum? Sojourner's on the wrong internet.

lol Epic win.

[ChaplainTappman]

Ryzaki wrote...

LOL wrong internet indeed.

There are no true agreements just pauses until the bickering starts again

NO YOUR RONG AND ARE EVIL!1!1!!

[whywhywhywhy]

[quote]jreezy wrote... More arguments please. I don't want one of
my favorite threads to die down.[/quote]Well I was done but since it's you asking I guess I will.  Last one though, boring and time consuming.  But this one's for you Jreezy!!
[quote]Siansonea II wrote... Didn't see that movie. [/quote] You mean you don't remember it ?  :lol:
It's about people with memory issues, you don't remember it ?

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Except I never said the VS shouldn't ask Shepard more questions, only that laying the blame on the VS for the Horizon failure BECAUSE he/she didn't ask more questions is silly. Shepard can chime in any time she feels she's being misunderstood, you know.[/quote] Backpedal by 10 sec Siansonea comin to a store near you!!  The problem is the break down happened because the VS didn't ask more questions, you freely admit that Shepard had info that the VS isn't aware of information that could have potentially changed the outcome of feelings towards the encounter even if pretty much resulted in the same divide.  I think and those who disagree please chime in, most people who disagree with or heavily questions the actions of the VS would have no problem or less of one.  If the VS asked questions rather then blow up at Shepard then walk off. 

Again if this is the case and shepard has nothing to prove to the VS but should be questioned, how does the VS get a free pass from the consequences from not asking those questions ? Furthermore with all we know now how could any of this play out in the VS's favor in ME3 ?  My guess is it won't unless it's sweeped under a rug.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
No. When you actually do make a good point, I'm willing to acknowledge that.[/quote] Or one simple enough for you to understand.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Shepard spent a lot of time in the Alliance. I think she would care if other Alliance soldiers thought ill of her for working with Cerberus. Unless she likes working with Cerberus, that is.[/quote]Isn't that a false dilemma ?  Oh ?? you didn't get to that fallacy in your studies ?  I'll wait for you to read up on it
[quote][quote]Siansonea II wrote...
All the circumstantial evidence seems to point toward Shepard being completely on board with Cerberus' goals, methods, and ideals. If that's NOT the case, she needs to supplement the circumstantial evidence with testimony. That is, if she cares what the VS thinks.[/quote] 
From the perscepetive of the VS, maybe but I'm indifferent because the VS was wrong.  So how does the restoration take place from that basis when they meet in me3 ?[/quote]
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
But the VS isn't "wrong". Just because you don't like what the VS has to say doesn't mean he or she is wrong. Shepard is betraying the Alliance by working with Cerberus, whatever her reasons are. It could well be that in the final analysis that betrayal will be offset by what has been gained in the process, that is, stopping the Collectors. But Shepard hasn't stopped the Collectors when she meets the VS on the Horizon, that's still a long ways off. And in any case, the VS doesn't know anything about the Collectors when Shepard shows up on Horizon. So "wrong" in this case should be changed to "uninformed". And whose fault is that?[/quote] The VS is wrong in their accessment of the situation when this is pointed out you say the VS doesn't know that.  If the information didn't matter why does the VS need to know ?  If the VS's needed to know the information it would be to increase their understanding.  If the VS needed to understand something more then what they knew it means they were mistaken.  If the VS was mistaken and they were then they were wrong.

Betrayal is in the eye of the betrayed the VS, Ash in particular can feel betrayed but they have no authority to claim Shepard betrayed the Alliance or anything else.  In the end it doesn't matter.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Well, if Shepard doesn't care, why should the VS? After all, Shepard was just as "wrong" on Horizon. It may be that the VS is done trying to make nice with a person of such poor character as Shepard. I would be.[/quote] Shepard was blameless on Horizon.  He saved the day the VS and told the truth couldn't ask for a greater hero or friend.
All hail Shepard:lol:  (I bet that's how my statement translates in 10 sec Siansonea's mind)
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Because Shepard isn't a Chatty Cathy doll waiting for her pull-string to be pulled. Shepard has some explaining to do. [/quote] No, we just agreed Shepard doesn't have to explain anything but does.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
She doesn't need to wait around for somebody to ask a bunch of very specific questions. Why is Shepard allowed to passively withhold information?[/quote] Shepard didn't withhold anything the VS just wasn't receptive you know this why the back pedal ?
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
If she's concerned about her reputation, she'll do everything she can to make the VS understand her reasons for working with Cerberus. She won't just wait around for the VS to happen upon the right questions. Seriously, how hard is that to understand? I've said this MULTIPLE times. [/quote] Maybe shep isn't concerned about reputation over people surviving the onslaught of the reapers and any of their minions.  That's way more important.  Saying it multiple times doesn't make it any less silly.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
If Shepard had shared the pertinent information, then she could make her position more clearly known. But for everyone to just assume Shepard Knows Best™ and refrain from questioning her judgment and motives when she shows up in the company of criminals, that's just stupid. The VS gives Shepard every opportunity to explain herself, and she comes off like she supports Cerberus.[/quote] Why if he has nothing to prove ? The VS ran off after hearing Cerberus despite what she/he just witnessed.  Career first that's cool VS, Shep's Mission first now which takes precedence ?
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
You can dish it out, but you can't take it. "LOL", as they say.[/quote] You went from making a point and us having a discussion to the same old drivel, I was disapponted.  I thought it was the end of misdirection and deflection because you don't want to answer a question.  My statement's point was how could you have responded to me with a point to something I hadn't contended before.  If you want to chalk your nonsense up as some type of victory go right ahead:
whywhywhywhy: 999999999  10 sec Siansonae: 000000001
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Now see, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm sure you'll just hypothesize that I have subpar reading comprehension, but the fact is that this is not the best way to say whatever it is you're trying to say. Bread crumbs that lead to a box? Stick and string? Like WHAT that happened above? Clear antecedents would be very helpful, instead of assuming that everyone instantly knows which specific item you happen to be talking about when you refer to something upthread.[/quote] Just stay in the dark you tend to run from illumination despite many cries that the sun won't harm you.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
No. There aren't any points for playing "nice". Being nice is of little value. People clearly value being nice over being right, and I'd rather champion logic and truth than "nice". [/quote] Oh, really.  Well then actually do it rather then claim you do. Cause it would be a refreshing change from overwhelming emotional outbursts.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Nope. And your stubborn refusal to provide backup proves the weakness of your argument. I have continually restated my stance over and over and over in this thread, for clarity's sake. Because I'm not afraid to let my words stand on their own. I don't have to hide behind misdirection. You ask me for my viewpoint, I give it, even if I just gave it a couple of posts back. In fact, here it is again:[/quote]I have provided it.  Plenty in this forum you simply choose to ignore it.  If your too lazy that's your personal problem you need to overcome after all we aren't playing nice, right ?  Look it up yourself.  I will do nothing for you   And I don't get why you think it'll change makes me grin that your so persistent proves you have issues.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Cerberus is a criminal organization who has killed and tortured many Alliance soldiers in the past, including an Admiral. It is only natural that a loyal Alliance soldier would be very upset to encounter another Alliance soldier in the company of Cerberus. It is incumbent upon the other soldier to explain why she is with Cerberus, if she cares what the loyal Alliance soldier thinks. It is not the loyal soldier's responsibility to ask a series of leading questions to pull the story out of the traitor, she can explain herself without being asked.[/quote] Why ?  Especially to a subordinate, why ?
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...  And that went right over your head. [/quote] Actually it didn't you just failed.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
My "spelling correction" was an illustration of an ad hominem tactic, to lampoon your own.[/quote]No, your spelling correction was exactly what I called it to be, you just didn't expect me to call you on it.  Claiming what you've claimed above proves you have no understanding of what your talking about. You lack understanding, bring your floaties if you wanna swim in my waters be careful I can be a shark and you keep throwing chum in the waters. 

If I wanted I could have belittle your ignorance on philosophy I could list this cite that and hone in on your misunderstanding from reading some simplied misinterpreted version on some website.  It would have been incredilbly off topic and humiliating for you you've already humiliated yourself.  If you are a student of Philosophy get your money back, seriously.  This is why it pays to be nice some people aren't as cool of a guy as I am.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I'm not surprised you misunderstood it. I guess you're just not smart enough. [/quote]  This makes me sad at the state of education not only in the states but worldwide, that you believed you were correct isn't even funny it's sad.  BTW the fallacy you commited was a Red herring and not Ad Hominem.  Now I'm going to go have a drink your ignorance depresses me.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Did you get it that time?[/quote] yep.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I DID admit that I didn't understand your point, but why is it a foregone conclusion that the failure was in my understanding, and not your communication? Rather than even consider that you could have phrased something better, you assume I lack basic reading comprehension, though a cursory review of my posts should indicate to an unbiased person that nothing could be further from the truth.[/quote] uhmm hum whatever you say seem so dumb to respond to you now, I don't feel like talking to you now.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I understand. Your points can't bear scrutiny. I repeat my own points as often as necessary, and I invite any and all scrutiny from all and sundry. I don't hide behind ambiguous references to words buried in posts many pages back. If the points were so well-reasoned, you'd parrot them continually. But it's a lot easier to just plant your feet and be stubborn, rather than accept a request for clarification. But no one is fooled by this tactic. No one is going to just believe you made a good point because you say you made a good point. They're going to want to actually review that point for themselves. [/quote]They can it first takes someone with the mental capacity to do so.  Can't wait to finish this post now.
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
And by the way, if anyone else DOES happen to run across this mysterious great point that why4 has made, could you quote/repost it? Because it's existence is becoming more mythical by the second.[/quote] sigh, yeah. 
[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Thank you for continuing to illustrate my point! [/quote]
The folowing statement is not aimed at anyone on the forums but the internet as a whole:

So proud, so bold, so misguided, so dumb and prevalant are the internet vigilantes of the world...

May not be back for a bit.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 20 août 2011 - 12:23 .

[Ryzaki]

ChaplainTappman wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

LOL wrong internet indeed.

There are no true agreements just pauses until the bickering starts again

NO YOUR RONG AND ARE EVIL!1!1!!

NO U!