1939 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

joriandrake wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

What's your take  on what the point of destroying the CB is jorian?

taken from other thread:

joriandrake wrote...

i think it was obvious using reaper
tech is a bad idea, there were hints for that, think indoctrination,
cybernetic skeleton zombie, geth cultists, revealed reaper involvement
in tech advantage and the Citadel, history of the "Ancients"

the
only reaper tech I was willing to use and keep was tech-related hand
weapons, and EDI, despite the risks and Cerberus connection


also,
the cerberus team going crazy in various events in ME1, and on the
reaper "corpse" in ME2 made it 120% clear to me that Cerberus can't be
helped, they either side with the reapers on their own or get
indoctrinated, so it was a no-no for me to ever send them any optional
tech info or allow them to keep the collector base

When making decisions one cannot ignore chances and possible outcomes, the reason to make decisions is that after all.

I kept any tech I got to myself (doesn't mean I would use it due to indoctrination risks), I didn't give them Grunt or Legion either. I believe the same what  Legion said, tech advancement should be made on our own, we may CAREFULLY study reaper tech, but we should avoid building on it as much as possible.

If my argument for my decision is not enough I also toss in the fact that I disagree with the ideology/methods Cerberus represents.

This is just a personal opinion ofc, just as everything else is until ME3 comes out and proves some of us right/wrong.

Excellent.TY for your contribution.

Also I agree.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 29 juillet 2011 - 10:43 .

[Someone With Mass]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
I don't believe you're one to speak, considering your little outburst against Zulu not too long ago.

Zulu is something entirely different.

He rejects the Codex information and tries to come up with his own, which is just stupid.

Somewhat creative, but stupid.

[alperez]

joriandrake wrote...


I didn't do "the very same", I posted a personal opinion on the current situation and a warning that the thread may be closed for it

I took your comments to be regarding my posts and therefore trolling/baiting, which was why to me your personal opinon seemed to be you doing exactly the same thing your were posting against.

If i took it wrong or it wasn't regarding my posts then i apologise.

[joriandrake]

alperez wrote...

joriandrake wrote...


I didn't do "the very same", I posted a personal opinion on the current situation and a warning that the thread may be closed for it

I took your comments to be regarding my posts and therefore trolling/baiting, which was why to me your personal opinon seemed to be you doing exactly the same thing your were posting against.

If i took it wrong or it wasn't regarding my posts then i apologise.

no, it was not directed towards you at all, still, doesn't mean you shouldn't try to keep a polite and plausible discussion just because it wasn't meant for you, same for everyone else


apology accepted btw

Modifié par joriandrake, 29 juillet 2011 - 10:56 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It will also survive without YOUR trolling and YOUR insults.

I'm trolling just because my opinion isn't the same as yours? That's rich.

Take a good look at your own comments before you start accusing other people.

Same to you....

[Lotion Soronarr]

CuseGirl wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

No one is trying to get you to except the paragon choice as the right one,we are saying that you cannot say which is the right one,because there is enough data to make a smart logical decision either way.You keep arguing logic,but you flat out refuse to use it if it doesn't work in your favor.

Agian with the "right one".

I'm not telling you which is the RIGHT one, I'm telling which is the LOGICAL one. You cannot seem to grasp the difference.

And yes, you can make the most logical decision BASED ON DATA AVILABLE:
It doesn't have ot be all the data. But from that data you can come to several decision and not all are equally logical or "good".


CONGRATS! You have spent the ENTIRE THREAD arguing something that you misunderstaood from day 1.

the issue most us have is that u've already decided only one of the 2 choices is logical. And considering the information we have about Cerberus, the Reapers, TiM himself and Shep, it's wrong to say "only keeping the base is logical". In the opinion of most players, it's illogical to give a fully complete reaper factory to TiM.

I don't care about what most players did. Numbers are not an indication of anything. Unless you think Titanic really is the greatest movie ever made (or is it Avatar now)?

Besides, masses can be wrong...and very often so.

Yes, keeping the base is MORE logical. You don't have to like it.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Lotion,please go look up fallacy.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 29 juillet 2011 - 11:32 .

[joriandrake]

oh God it continues -.-

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

joriandrake wrote...

oh God it continues -.-

We are trying to convince a colorblind person that roses are red.He only sees what he wants to see and any evidence the contradicts his point of view,no matter how logical,he takes as being irrational and therefore "illogical".

He doesn't understand logic so he bends it to mean what he wants it to be.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 29 juillet 2011 - 11:40 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]alperez wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...



Your explanation was that Cerberus aren't a threat no matter what benefit they may get from the tech/info on the base and even if they were, the threat was so insignificant that this threat could be snuffed out easily.

Correct.

[/quote]

Only if your right in your appraisal of that threat something you refuse to accept even the possibility that you could be wrong[/quote]

Given that I don't base my apprisal on fantasy, and given that I havn't seen a better apprisal.
Give a better apprisal and I might change my mind.



[quote][quote]
It does actually. By acknowledging the threat exists, you prepare for it. And that doesn't chance the fact ath the threat IS minor...compared to the Reapers..or let's say..Rachni
[/quote]

Actually your not preparing for it, your preparing for a threat you believe to be minor in a situation where you don't know if your resources could handle any potential threat.[/quote]

Eh?
If my rescouces cannot handly any potential threat, then taking steps to remedy that is prepearing for it.
And preparing for the potential negatives IS preparing for it.



[quote][quote]
What do you mean by "now" I've been mentioning that scenario and plan for ages. READ THE DAMN THREAD.
And what do you mena by the last bit?
[/quote]
 Again you haven't your orignal stance has been there is no threat that's signifcant, it was only when the threat was brought up that you amended it to that scenario and since we've been discussing it of course you've mentioned it for ages now.[/quote]

Nope, I haven't changed my stance.
The Cerberus threat isn't significant. I specificly repeated that several times and explained why in detail.


[quote]
I meant you know irregardless of whatever action you think could be taken, none of these in fact are leading to events my scenario suggested all along.[/quote]

Which scenario?



[quote]
The mere fact its not presented to me as an option at the time i'm forced to make the choice shows that its not an option i have when making that choice.

Your instead bringing up that something later you may get that option which is not something you can know when making the choice, the simple fact is that we're not giving the option at time instead we're forced into making a black and white choice with the options we're given, no other options exist.[/quote]

Again, thinking as a player, not as a character in-universe.

The game does give you only 2 options, but it doesn't give you any specific on the later sub-options. It's rahter broad in that regard.

Again, if ME universe were real, Sheppard really would have an option to tell the Alliance about that base. Thus, it reamins on the table as a preventive measure agaisnt Cerberus.

If I were to folow your logic, anything the game doesn't explicitly tell me is not possible. You never get the option to tell the Alliacne to focus on researching Prothean tech..yet that doesn't stop you from using that as an answer to the reaper invasion proiblem.

So please, spare me the metagaming.



[quote][quote]

If 1 cruiser is too much to cover a potentialy vital research station, and a possibel minor threat, then the Alliance/council is doing something wrong.
This shouldn't be hard really.. Keep tabs on the station - as soon as the reapers come (or even before) make a quick evalution of the situation and act accordingly - blow it up and have the ship re-join the fleet or do something else.

[/quote]
 
So in the midst of the reaper invasion we're supposed to hope the alliance may have resources available to cover the base and keep tabs on it, irrespective of anything else that's going on?[/quote]

If the base is that vital, then yes.
If you don't have resources to guard strategic targets, you already lost.
It's not like they need a lot of resources for this...

Tell me, do they have the reasources to fight the Reachni and the Reapers? Resources to fight the reapers suddenly become so very important..and yet you yourself would deny the reources in that base to the galaxy.

[quote]
We're also supposed to trust that the alliance/counci,l people who thus far have been reluctant to act on Shepard's information will actually do something that so far they've shown an unwillingness or reluctance to do?[/quote]

Shep has very soldid information and proof about the base tough.
And he doesn't evne have to tell them it's Reapers. Collectors or Cerberus would do, since the Alliance already believe those two exist.



[quote]
You've given NO plausibe examples or how Cerberus can be a massive danger to the galaxy - especialy not compared to other potential dangers that paragon players just glady accept.[/quote]


I've given potential scenarios in relation to cerberus, you deem them not plausible because these scenarios go against your view of what could potentially happen, not because they are implausible but because they are contrary to your own perception of just how big a threat cerberus could be with the right tech.[/quote]

I didn't dimsmiss them cause i didn't like them, I dismissed them because Elvis coming back to life and riding on the heaven in a golden chariot is more likely than what you theorize.

Give me plausibe scenarios...Or heck, repeat those you think are the best. If you really think I missed something, I'll go over them again.




[quote]
My accusations on your behaviour and how you respond to anyone who takes a different view to yours are proved valid by how you respond every single time.

My arguments are hollow in your opinion only because you refuse to accept any view contrary to yours.

You as usual missed the point i was making when i quoted your statments, its not that some are right or wrong but that your position is irrespective of contrary views your right on some things, therefore the contrary view must be wrong.

Its called an entrenched position, where no matter what you will not allow certain things you believe to be questoned, so by default these things must be correct and is the basis for the argument you continually use.[/quote]

Blah, blah, blah..

Can we skip the accusation and insults, which I would only reply in kind.
It's getting boring and getting us nowhere..




[quote]
I've never asked you to accept that i'm right just as i don't accept that you are wrong, what i've asked all along is for you to accept the validity of both sides of the coin, something you continually refust to accept.

Keeping the base is wrong for me.

Keeping the base is right for you.

Which one of these statements in any way invalidates the choices that were made.
[/quote]

What do you define as "valid"?

A choice you are allowed to make?
A choice that is truly smart (best chances of success, least fallout)?
A choice that is logical?
A choice that fits your character?

If 1 and 4 - yes
If 2 and 3 - no

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion,please go look up fallacy.

Go look up BRAINS.

[joriandrake]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion,please go look up fallacy.

Go look up BRAINS.

all stop. now


go look up forum rules <_<

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

lol
Lotion -"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
Shepard doesn't tell the alliance in game,therefore your assumption that (s)he would IS metagaming,if the ME was real how do you know what Shepard would do? Maybe (s)he would give the base to the Alliance instead,you are yet again enforcing your opinion as fact.You refuse to see any other side of the argument as logical because they don't support your claims.

You continue to argue logic logic logic,but you outright refuse to use it.So you using fallacy to support your own "unshakable,omnipotent,and infallible" logic,is you being childish.

TIM says he'll help me,so TIM will help me
Problem:TIM has lied before.
I say the base is useful therfore the base is useful
Problem:You could be wrong.

Fallacy lotion,that is your tool.

So I return to your original argument Lotion- "Lalalalala can't hear you,lalalalalala can hear you",so continue your petty insults,and keep throwing out the word logic,it only makes our point more evident.

go ahead and quote my post and turn it into an insult or the typical "I disagree,therefore I'm correct."

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 30 juillet 2011 - 12:22 .

[alperez]

Lotion

It's already gotten way beyond the point where any purpose is served by my answering your post's line by line.

Nothing i say will even factor into your responses because your opinion is so entrenched that at this point we're just going in circles covering the same points over and over again.

Your stance is that your choice is the only logical choice and that no other choice can be logical, to back that up you dismiss any pov that disagrees with your stance and claim that this dismissal in some way proves your logic sound.

You accuse me of portraying my choice as a player in a game and not as a character in the universe when the simple truth is that the choice you make is playing as that character in that universe.

You then say i'm metagaming because i bring up the simple fact that an option not being available to you when your forced to make a decision has to influence how you make that decision. If i'm metagaming by saying not having that option open to me means its unavailable, then what are you doing by saying that option will become open later.

Now if you want we can continue this dance over and over and i'll continue to respond to your posts, line by line, but i've already come to the conclussion that nothing i or anyone else would or could say, make it possible for your position to be any less entrenched.

You believe that the logical conclussion based on your perception of the information and your assessment of any potential cost vs. benefit makes keeping the base the logical choice.

I can accept that.

I believe based on my perception of both the info and the cost vs benefit of not keeping the base for myself but handing it over to cerberus ,that it would be illogical for me to do so.

But rather than accept that this too could be a logical choice, instead your stance is only your own choice is logical.

Why is it so hard to accept that whats logical for you would be illogical for some else?

Modifié par alperez, 30 juillet 2011 - 12:39 .

[javierabegazo]

That's quite enough insults thank you. LOCKDOWN.

Start over folks