3618 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

Arijharn wrote...

I don't agree, namely if they try to make an otherwise realistic setting, then a certain amount (however translated into the setting) of realistic reactions and motivations must therefore come into it, otherwise there is no point in doing so.

A certain amount doesn't mean all, which is the point i've been trying to make, simply put not everything in mass effect despite how much realism they are trying to go for correlates exactly to what occurs in our own real world. Which allows them to put things in that while they may not be realistic and completely exact copies of our own real world versions of the same thing still fit in overall into the universe they created.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


No. I didn't go off-topic. You were talking about visible limitations, I was talking about practical (below-the-table) ones.

No. Because that's not what I was talking about. While countries do get restrictions placed before they can join, the point was what happens AFTER they join. That even if on paper all the countries in the EU should be equal, they are not.

I didn't go off-topic. It's you who tried to forcibly discuss just one (limited) aspect of political power in an union, and now cry foul whne hte conversation shift in a direction you're not comfortable with.

Since these 3 responses are all in relation to a particular 1,2,3 part of my own response to you i'll address them all together.

You specified in you original argument which i responded to that humanity joining the council in mass effect was akin to slovenia and croatia joining the eu and that there were restrictions placed upon humanity in joining the council which is why you used the analogy you used.

When questioned about those restrictions rather than show where they existed, you began talking about the nature of power and domination and that these restrictions were there because of that explanation.

Your now again talking about practical (below the table restrictions) and trying to claim that it wasn't before they joined you meant (despite your own analogy) and that your bringing up the nature of power and changing your direction in the discussion and being called on it and asked to stay on topic somehow shows i dislike the direction the conversation has gone in, whch while true is not for the reason you suggest.

When i've tried to bring you back to explain your original point, rather than do so,you continue on with the same nature of power and domination arguments, then because i keep trying to get you to stay on that original point and explain how it was right, you accuse me of not liking where the discussion is going or the shift of direction the conversation has taken.

The simple truth is you argued a particular position, that humanity had restrictions placed on its joining the council, used an example that you claimed proved this position, when you were then called out on it and asked to explain it, rather than accept the original position and analogy you took were wrong Instead began trying to cloud the argument and hoping no one would notice that this wasn't what your original point was.

I have. Did you?

Clearly more than you did.

Orly? I disagree. They were saving their own butts.

Indeed they were but they were also saving everyone else's also, which considering the original point was your assertion that they only acted in their own interests shows that in the examples you gave this point is not shown.

Wut? That was never my original point. You obviously cannto read. I don't think we're talking about the smaek kind of restrictions at all.

Considering you've been trying to cloud your original point using arguments that don't even relate to it, not reading things is not the problem, its actually your own clouding tactics have confused even yourself now.

Except we've SEEN them share very human motivatons, so you have been proven wrong.

We have, what we haven't seen them do though is share every human motivation, they aren't carbon copies of the humans in mass effect just in a different skin, so no i haven't been proved wrong, but nice try.

No, they cna't be liberal with everything if it clashes with the already established. Everything they shown so far supports what I've said. We have proof of alians both acing like human, sharing same motications, having same weakneses - we seen evolution at works, we seen the dirty political arena. NOTIHNG suggest otherwise.

They are liberal with things game to game, in one we need high pressure space suits to explore certain enviroments in another we don't so what's already established doesn't always apply.

As for proof of what you said, your saying that because aliens act somewhat human, share some of the same motivations, have some of the same weaknesses and poltics follows some of the same rules that this in someway proves that everything you say in your argument is true.

The problem with this is that the aliens in mass effect also act alienlike, don't share all the motivations of humans, don't have all the same weaknesses of humans and politics doesn't follow exactly the same path as it does in our own world.

There are similarities of course but there are differences also, something your willing to accept only as long as it doesn't contradict the point your trying to make.

Modifié par alperez, 21 août 2011 - 05:42 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

SalsaDMA wrote...

I never understood why there wasn't an option of just putting a bullet to the forehead of them both. It would seem the logical renegade solution to ensure the problem wouldn't arise again.

The series does indeed need to allow for more variations of the big end of mission decision; only Tali's LM did this rather well. Many feel the CB decision should've been like this too, allowing you to use trump card army X to outplay TIM, but alas.

Say what you will of Alpha Protocol's combat system, it did handle choice like a champ, believe you me: first and foremost your choices having actual consequences within the game itself, and secondly how the order in which you played the missions affected later missions. The latter not only goes for missions within the same hub, but others as well.

Then again, when looking at Overlord nowadays it is obvious that they were already planning to have Cerberus controlling an unspecified amount of geth troops in ME3, and that the DLC itself was only there to 'justify' that from an in-universe perspective.

[alperez]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Then again, when looking at Overlord nowadays it is obvious that they were already planning to have Cerberus controlling an unspecified amount of geth troops in ME3, and that the DLC itself was only there to 'justify' that from an in-universe perspective.

Sorry for jumping in, but wanted to comment on this part.

I've always thought the very same thing regarding the CB also, considering Cerberus get their hands on the base whether you destroy it or not, to me it only enforces my position that the choice in destroying the base was about Cerberus and not the base itself.

So adding in extra variables like giving us an option to give the base to someone else would only make the ramifications of the choice that much harder to take effect if the intent was just cerberus related and not a the base helps in the upcoming war.

GIving us the choice how they did, instead you get something like, gave the base to cerberus then you made them stronger in your upcoming fight with them, destroyed the base then they are slightly weaker, so in order to ensure the outcome they want (in relation to cerberus) they phrase the choice as it is to make it a black and white one.

[Seboist]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

I never understood why there wasn't an option of just putting a bullet to the forehead of them both. It would seem the logical renegade solution to ensure the problem wouldn't arise again.

The series does indeed need to allow for more variations of the big end of mission decision; only Tali's LM did this rather well. Many feel the CB decision should've been like this too, allowing you to use trump card army X to outplay TIM, but alas.

Say what you will of Alpha Protocol's combat system, it did handle choice like a champ, believe you me: first and foremost your choices having actual consequences within the game itself, and secondly how the order in which you played the missions affected later missions. The latter not only goes for missions within the same hub, but others as well.

Then again, when looking at Overlord nowadays it is obvious that they were already planning to have Cerberus controlling an unspecified amount of geth troops in ME3, and that the DLC itself was only there to 'justify' that from an in-universe perspective.

Mordin's loyalty mission was also done well as far as giving more than the usual two arbitary rationales for doing something.

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

The simple truth is you argued a particular position, that humanity had restrictions placed on its joining the council, used an example that you claimed proved this position, when you were then called out on it and asked to explain it, rather than accept the original position and analogy you took were wrong Instead began trying to cloud the argument and hoping no one would notice that this wasn't what your original point was.

No, the simple truth is that your'e wrong and constantly try to weasle out of arguments by attmpting to cloud the issue.

Orly? I disagree. They were saving their own butts.

Indeed they were but they were also saving everyone else's also, which considering the original point was your assertion that they only acted in their own interests shows that in the examples you gave this point is not shown.

They really couldnt save their own butts wihotu saving everyone else in the process. The point is moot. And the point is that they used other species to do their dirty work.

Wut? That was never my original point. You obviously cannot read. I don't think we're talking about the same kind of restrictions at all.

Considering you've been trying to cloud your original point using arguments that don't even relate to it, not reading things is not the problem, its actually your own clouding tactics have confused even yourself now.

Teh only one muddying the water is you.

Except we've SEEN them share very human motivatons, so you have been proven wrong.

We have, what we haven't seen them do though is share every human motivation, they aren't carbon copies of the humans in mass effect just in a different skin, so no i haven't been proved wrong, but nice try.

You have been proven wrong. We seen asari motivated by greed, lust, power and practicely everything else you can think of. And you somehow want to assert that they are better than humans and that their politicials act out of benevolence, when we clearly seen that darker motivations are just as much present among them as they are among us.

No, they cna't be liberal with everything if it clashes with the already established. Everything they shown so far supports what I've said. We have proof of alians both acing like human, sharing same motications, having same weakneses - we seen evolution at works, we seen the dirty political arena. NOTIHNG suggest otherwise.

They are liberal with things game to game, in one we need high pressure space suits to explore certain enviroments in another we don't so what's already established doesn't always apply.

That is called plot hole and gamepy and story segregation. Nice try, but you fail.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 août 2011 - 08:34 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Excellent points as always lotion,"I disagree,your argument is invalid."

Aliens not acting human is a plot-hole....right.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Excellent points as always lotion,"I disagree,your argument is invalid."

Aliens not acting human is a plot-hole....right.

Excellent reply as always Typhoon, "waaah, you shupid!"

If you could only muster enough reading comprehension to realise the breathing thing is a plot hole.

[Arijharn]

alperez wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

I don't agree, namely if they try to make an otherwise realistic setting, then a certain amount (however translated into the setting) of realistic reactions and motivations must therefore come into it, otherwise there is no point in doing so.

A certain amount doesn't mean all, which is the point i've been trying to make, simply put not everything in mass effect despite how much realism they are trying to go for correlates exactly to what occurs in our own real world. Which allows them to put things in that while they may not be realistic and completely exact copies of our own real world versions of the same thing still fit in overall into the universe they created.

No of course not, but from reading back that wasn't what you were arguing. You were arguing that essentially the Turian's or whatever wouldn't act with 'human'-esque drives or motivations, and while obviously you're technically correct, it's amazing how human the aliens really are in the Mass Effect universe, which rather flies in the face of your point.

Sure, there are slight differences (for example; Turian's will want different food than us! Turians evolved differently from us! So things like prefered planets is going to be weighed differently for them compared to us), but every species is going to be looking out for numero uno first and foremost, and #1 for each species is obviously going to be themselves, because it's moronic (imo) to think otherwise (because if everybody 'loves' the Asari, then who is going to 'love themselves'? Which basically means you're going to be outbred at the least and thus become extinct, at the basest level).

This number #1 mentality is what I think of when I think 'political motivations' and verified by both the little I know about diplomacy ( i.e., each party seeking self-advantage) and even policy as enacted under the auspicies of the 'council,' (Treaty of Farixen, the main trade hub that is the Citadel, the Genophage, the Quarian planet issue with the Elcor, their response to the Krogan 'Rebellions', specifically how it even became the 'Rebellions' in the first place) then I think it should be fairly obvious that this is the way the wind is blowing.

[Seboist]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Excellent points as always lotion,"I disagree,your argument is invalid."

Aliens not acting human is a plot-hole....right.

Very few aliens act...... alien. Besides the Geth,Reapers, Rachni and Thorian the aliens are essentially just humans in costumes with stereotypical/exaggerated traits.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


No, the simple truth is that your'e wrong and constantly try to weasle out of arguments by attmpting to cloud the issue.

The only clouding being done here is by you, but at this stage i'm done with it. You stated something as a fact, used an analogy to prove that fact and when its pointed out that the analogy actually doesn't prove the fact your stating, rather than accept you were wrong, come up with complete irrelevant points hoping no one will remember what you originallly said.

Your arguing stance has gone from, your the only one using logic, to stating something in response to someone means that you've disproved their argument to now finally if you cloud the issue enough no one will remember how wrong your original stance was.

When it gets to that stage and those are the tactics you are willing to use, then there's no point even discussing things with you anymore, there are some exercises in futility even i'm not willing to engage in, discussing things with someone who behaves as you do in this respect is now added to that list.

They really couldnt save their own butts wihotu saving everyone else in the process. The point is moot. And the point is that they used other species to do their dirty work.

Yes the point is moot, simply because once again you use an example to prove your point which it in fact does not, so rather than accept you were wrong or try for a better example, you resort to avoidance and once again try to cloud the issue by suggesting it was actually a different point you were trying to make.

Your claim was that the council acted only in their own interests, your examples show them acting in their and everyone elses interests, so instead of just acknowledging your mistake, you then try to suggest the point was in fact that they use other species to do their dirty work as if this in someway proves anything connected with the original point.

Teh only one muddying the water is you.

Yes tactic number 23 in Lotion's manual, when all else fails accuse the other person of doing the very thing that Lotion is doing, people may not have read the entire context of the discussion and may therfore agree with Lotion and Lotion can sit at his computer and claim he is winning and all arguments that suggest otherwise have been torn down.

You have been proven wrong. We seen asari motivated by greed, lust, power and practicely everything else you can think of. And you somehow want to assert that they are better than humans and that their politicials act out of benevolence, when we clearly seen that darker motivations are just as much present among them as they are among us.

 Where the hell do you get this i'm suggesting that aliens are better than human idea from, i've never suggested that any race was better or worse than any other. I've never argued a pro alien or pro human slant in any of my arguments, what i have said is that the assertion you made that all alien races share all the same motivations of humans is a false one.

Yes we have seen Asari motivated by very human emotions, we've also seen the same thing in a variety of the aliens, however the assertion was that as entire races the council races share exactly the same motivations as humanity, not that indvidual aliens share some of the motivations but the entire species does.

When i asked you to show this, you point out indivual cases of indvidual aliens acting well indvidually, which considering the assertion you made was not the indvidual motivations of particular aliens but the motivations of the entire race and the council races in particular doesn't prove the point at all.

Basically its like saying that because Saren does x that means that all turians must do x also, which it doesn't, your assertion is that the council would do x because they share exactly the same motivations as humanity does, i ask you for an example that proves this and you respond with indvidual actions taken by indvidual aliens as if this shows what you say is true.

That is called plot hole and gamepy and story segregation. Nice try, but you fail.

Ah the you fail line, simple direct and to the point your trying to make, wrong of course but well why would Lotion allow the simple notions of being right or wrong influence anything he says.

If there are plot holes and gamplay and story segregation elements in place in one example, then these plot holes and gameplay and story segration elements can be in place in every other example also.

Which considering your point was that something could not happen because it goes against the rules not of the unverse created but our own real world actually disproves your own point completely.

The universe created is fictional not real, they are not creating an exact replica down to the tiniest fact and even if that was the intent which it isn't they sometimes mess things up, so real world laws don't apply.

They could have intended to create a political system exactly the same as the one we have (they didn't although they were no doubt influenced by it) but in recreating that system because of plot holes, because of story segration and gameplay elements, they may not have succeeded even if the intent was there, which it imo was not.

Lastly, this has now become a pissing contest rather than a discussion, so on this particular part of the discussion this will be my last post, respond if you wish, but i'm done on this particular part of the topic so i won't respond in kind.

No doubt you'll claim this proves you right and you've won and torn down my arguments, at this stage i could care less though i'm through with this particular exercise in fuitility and await the next one.

Modifié par alperez, 22 août 2011 - 02:22 .

[SpiffySquee]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Seboist wrote...

That's definitely the one.

I must say that I'm almost as curious as to the outcomes of the Rawlings data and Overlord missions in ME3 as I am with the CB. Those data packets from Overlord would also fit the bill of being innocuous..... if they have purpose beyond being for achievement grinding that is.

I don't really see Overlord mattering much, at least so far as your choices go; David or no David, Cerberus still gains control over a small legion of geth in the end, with perhaps only a line or two differing depending on your end-choice. No way in hell are those data packets going to matter even a little bit.

Were it up to me, Shepard would've immediately killed Archer after dealing with his brother. And then probably David himself as well, just in case. I don't particularly like to leave loose ends when not necessary.

I never understood why there wasn't an option of just putting a bullet to the forehead of them both. It would seem the logical renegade solution to ensure the problem wouldn't arise again.

Bioware has said on several occasions that a renegade is still a good guy. He may be a jerk, but the game has never allowed to to murder an innocent like David because that would be going too far... even for a renegade. (at least, that's why I think you don't have that option)

[alperez]

Arijharn wrote...



No of course not, but from reading back that wasn't what you were arguing. You were arguing that essentially the Turian's or whatever wouldn't act with 'human'-esque drives or motivations, and while obviously you're technically correct, it's amazing how human the aliens really are in the Mass Effect universe, which rather flies in the face of your point.

Actually what i was arguing was that it can't be certain they would use exclusively the same motivations as humans.

It may have become slightly more clouded and seemed like a different argument in response to specific points, but that's what the original thrust was.

Yes the aliens in mass effect are indeed quite alike to humans, simply to make it easier for us to relate to them imo, but to categorically state that in a particular scenario the aliens would act exactly the same as humans would in that same scenario is imo a flawed argument without evidence to back it up.

We can speculate that his would be the case, we can assume this could be true, but we can't back it up with anything other than a speculation based on that assumption.

My argument is that while they share a lot in common with the humans in mass effect there are also differences the races themselves are not each an exact replica of each other, its because of these differences that stating they would do x in a particular situation because we as humans would do x doesn't ring true. The differences they have could not would but could make them do y, which is all i've been saying.

Sure, there are slight differences (for example; Turian's will want different food than us! Turians evolved differently from us! So things like prefered planets is going to be weighed differently for them compared to us), but every species is going to be looking out for numero uno first and foremost, and #1 for each species is obviously going to be themselves, because it's moronic (imo) to think otherwise (because if everybody 'loves' the Asari, then who is going to 'love themselves'? Which basically means you're going to be outbred at the least and thus become extinct, at the basest level).

The survival of the fittest and the looking out for numero uno may apply if the species are taken on a simple singular race example, where each race is just a singular entity and its decision making is taken on a singular level.

The problem with this though is the council and the makeup of the galactic government, if there was no council or no galatic goverment then each race would probably only act in their own self interest and the argument would prove itself.

But mass effect deliberately created a system where galactic decisions are taken by consensus by a council, so this factors into how each race would act, for arguments sake say the turian counsellor only wished to put his own races interests forward, he is unable to do so unless he can get the back up of the other council members, between them a decision could be made to allow the turian's an advantage or the others could disagree and the turian consellor is outvoted.

So each race could wish to act seperately but because of how they system is set up this isn't always possible, since thus far in mass effect this is shown to be the case, then saying come me3 this won't be because each species will act as a single species is premature and without basis.

Now come me3, we may find that the council is disbanded or not in control and its everyone acting for their own self interests, which would change the argument completely, but like i say thus far its been shown in game a certain way, so until its shown different we're just speculating.

This number #1 mentality is what I think of when I think 'political motivations' and verified by both the little I know about diplomacy ( i.e., each party seeking self-advantage) and even policy as enacted under the auspicies of the 'council,' (Treaty of Farixen, the main trade hub that is the Citadel, the Genophage, the Quarian planet issue with the Elcor, their response to the Krogan 'Rebellions', specifically how it even became the 'Rebellions' in the first place) then I think it should be fairly obvious that this is the way the wind is blowing.

All of those cases though are of the council acting en masse, they are not examples imo of the 3 council races acting purely out of self interest, the krogan rebellions or the genophage or the quarians, the treaty were all decisions taken by consensus.

None of these actions to my knowledge (feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) were one particular council race taking an action to enhance their own race at the expense of another, they were in fact all consensus actions taken by the council en masse.

Modifié par alperez, 22 août 2011 - 02:54 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

alperez wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Then again, when looking at Overlord nowadays it is obvious that they were already planning to have Cerberus controlling an unspecified amount of geth troops in ME3, and that the DLC itself was only there to 'justify' that from an in-universe perspective.

Sorry for jumping in, but wanted to comment on this part.

I've always thought the very same thing regarding the CB also, considering Cerberus get their hands on the base whether you destroy it or not, to me it only enforces my position that the choice in destroying the base was about Cerberus and not the base itself.

True, as I've said this myself in the past as well.

So adding in extra variables like giving us an option to give the base to someone else would only make the ramifications of the choice that much harder to take effect if the intent was just cerberus related and not a the base helps in the upcoming war.

Meh, Alpha Protocol did extra variables as well (with actual ramifications), within the game you made the choice in.

GIving us the choice how they did, instead you get something like, gave the base to cerberus then you made them stronger in your upcoming fight with them, destroyed the base then they are slightly weaker, so in order to ensure the outcome they want (in relation to cerberus) they phrase the choice as it is to make it a black and white one.

Sure, if the CB decision would actually appear to amount to anything. It should have been the point in the series where the main path would finally split into two proper 'seperate' paths, just as the series finale started; the trial that ME3 opens with could go totally different, such as Cerberus breaking Shep out after which the prologue level would differ to some unspecified extent, Cerberus troops could come to your aid from time to time to help you out, extra dialogue here and there... ya know, the works. I don't say every single choice should alter the course of the series, but it wouldn't hurt the franchise to have just the one endgame decision matter in fairly big way. Stuff like that you could properlly market with, as they originally did with "the fan", albeit on a larger scale.

I mean, I have always been one to say how Cerberus as an organisation isn't all that bad, that it's just their magnificent bastard leader that would eventually inevitably screw you over. That doesn't mean I wanted to be right on that front, though. What I wanted to happen was the Cerbies finally getting their cake and eating it, although at an unspecified but ultimately negligible cost.

Now, what everything will probably come down to is the bigger choices only mattering during ME3's endgame, assuming they will indeed be represented.

Seboist wrote...

Mordin's loyalty mission was also done well as far as giving more than the usual two arbitary rationales for doing something.

True, true.

SpiffySquee wrote...

Bioware has said on several occasions that a renegade is still a good guy. He may be a jerk, but the game has never allowed to to murder an innocent like David because that would be going too far... even for a renegade. (at least, that's why I think you don't have that option)

He is a potential danger, which is why I feel it would be best to deal with him right there and then. Shepard also has been able to kill countless others for the exact same reason, so that isn't it either. At the very least, the Paragon ending should've had the option to actually kill Dr. Archer for his crimes, but it seems BioWare is intent on having him live to fight another day.

[Arijharn]

alperez wrote...
Actually what i was arguing was that it can't be certain they would use exclusively the same motivations as humans.

But... how are they going to be different when it comes down to it?

They want their own sovereignty, and in fact brutally suppress any part of their empire that wishes to leave, they want a roof over their heads etc, etc. They are a sapient species, so I don't think it's beyond plausible that they'll want to weigh things in the same manner as humans, since we're amazingly alike.

alperez wrote...
Yes the aliens in mass effect are indeed quite alike to humans, simply to make it easier for us to relate to them imo, but to categorically state that in a particular scenario the aliens would act exactly the same as humans would in that same scenario is imo a flawed argument without evidence to back it up.

But there is evidence. From the Citadel Council passing laws that only serve to reinforce their rule, from their self-centered attempt to maintain the status quo, to how militarised the Turian's are all mirror in some capacity real-world human cultures, which further points to just how 'human' the aliens are, and also makes your point refuted within the game itself.

alperez wrote...
We can speculate that his would be the case, we can assume this could be true, but we can't back it up with anything other than a speculation based on that assumption.

It's not an assumption if it's given to us in game, from Kaidan's personal experiences with individualistic and self-centered Turian's (for example) to our own experience with Warden Kuril and how 'misguided' (yet human-esque motivated) to the Citadel council. All this gives us precedence.

alperez wrote...
My argument is that while they share a lot in common with the humans in mass effect there are also differences the races themselves are not each an exact replica of each other, its because of these differences that stating they would do x in a particular situation because we as humans would do x doesn't ring true. The differences they have could not would but could make them do y, which is all i've been saying.

True, but also note that 'diversity' isn't as strong in alien species as it is in our own as per Mordin and Samara's statements. That means that each species is going to act far more similiarily to their species goals more than anything else, although this will be mitigated somewhat by individual members (for example; not all Asari are like Matriarch Benezia or even like Liara. Not all Turian's are like Warden Kurill).

Most Turian's are public servants and willing to become essentially martyr's for their neighbours, this is bred into them. It's why when during the Krogan Rebellions when the Krogan started to drop orbiting satellite's onto Turian worlds to break Turian morale, they instead found themselves fighting a re-energized Turian army. 

Human culture is divurgent, but species that are based on particular regions of human culture isn't.

alperez wrote...
But mass effect deliberately created a system where galactic decisions are taken by consensus by a council, so this factors into how each race would act, for arguments sake say the turian counsellor only wished to put his own races interests forward, he is unable to do so unless he can get the back up of the other council members, between them a decision could be made to allow the turian's an advantage or the others could disagree and the turian consellor is outvoted.

First of all, much apologies for leading you into my rant, but I feel the need to pick on this. Who voted for each representative of the Council? How can the Asari Councillor truly claim to represent the Elcor when she's an Asari and her job would surely be to represent Asari interests first and foremost? If the Elcor and Asari interests in some way collide, then it would create a conflict of interest, which means as a Councillor she can not do her job. So to extrapolate on this then, what if the Elcor's interests lay contrary to the Salarian and Turian's too? How does the Elcor get just representation? How can the Elcor even be sure that their concerns were aired in the first place considering the Council is a closed system (ie, only the Councillor's get to vote).

It's a pretty pathetic system for a government that claims to represent galactic interests.

alperez wrote...
So each race could wish to act seperately but because of how they system is set up this isn't always possible, since thus far in mass effect this is shown to be the case, then saying come me3 this won't be because each species will act as a single species is premature and without basis.

What? Each race is going to act in line with their own interests first and foremost, because no one else (not even the Council) can be expected to know what their interests are. I've already established 'basis' earlier in this post.

Alperez wrote...
All of those cases though are of the council acting en masse, they are not examples imo of the 3 council races acting purely out of self interest, the krogan rebellions or the genophage or the quarians, the treaty were all decisions taken by consensus.

I disagree. The Council acted out of self-centered interest. The Krogan Rebellions attacked other species colonies much before they attacked the Asari colony world of Lusia. The Council only demanded that the Krogan leave at this point, and not during the pleas of the other species beforehand.

This isn't an act of a 'galactic' Council, this is an act of a Council dominated by three species.

Modifié par Arijharn, 23 août 2011 - 03:21 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


No, the simple truth is that your'e wrong and constantly try to weasle out of arguments by attmpting to cloud the issue.

The only clouding being done here is by you, but at this stage i'm done with it. You stated something as a fact, used an analogy to prove that fact and when its pointed out that the analogy actually doesn't prove the fact your stating, rather than accept you were wrong, come up with complete irrelevant points hoping no one will remember what you originallly said.

Your arguing stance has gone from, your the only one using logic, to stating something in response to someone means that you've disproved their argument to now finally if you cloud the issue enough no one will remember how wrong your original stance was.

When it gets to that stage and those are the tactics you are willing to use, then there's no point even discussing things with you anymore, there are some exercises in futility even i'm not willing to engage in, discussing things with someone who behaves as you do in this respect is now added to that list.

Excellent job at discribing yourself.
Keep trying to act all insulted, while at the same time lying your ass off.

I haven't clouded anything. We've been discussing different things, something you don't even want to acknowledge at all. Instead you insist that I diverged fro mthe topic, when you're the one constantly harp on things I never said in the first place.

Your claim was that the council acted only in their own interests, your examples show them acting in their and everyone elses interests, so instead of just acknowledging your mistake, you then try to suggest the point was in fact that they use other species to do their dirty work as if this in someway proves anything connected with the original point.

Except it does prove my point.

Teh only one muddying the water is you.

Yes tactic number 23 in Lotion's manual, when all else fails accuse the other person of doing the very thing that Lotion is doing, people may not have read the entire context of the discussion and may therfore agree with Lotion and Lotion can sit at his computer and claim he is winning and all arguments that suggest otherwise have been torn down.

People are welcome to read everything I wrote and everything you wrote. The truth is written down on the pages past, any anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can see that you are the one who likes pointing fingers here (falsley I might add)

And pointing fingers leads to nowhere. Why don't you just accept that you diverged from the discission? You misred/misnterpreted the EU comparison post and went on a compeltely wrong tanget, and now refuse to accept that.

You have been proven wrong. We seen asari motivated by greed, lust, power and practicely everything else you can think of. And you somehow want to assert that they are better than humans and that their politicials act out of benevolence, when we clearly seen that darker motivations are just as much present among them as they are among us.

 Where the hell do you get this i'm suggesting that aliens are better than human idea from, i've never suggested that any race was better or worse than any other. I've never argued a pro alien or pro human slant in any of my arguments, what i have said is that the assertion you made that all alien races share all the same motivations of humans is a false one.

Yes we have seen Asari motivated by very human emotions, we've also seen the same thing in a variety of the aliens, however the assertion was that as entire races the council races share exactly the same motivations as humanity, not that indvidual aliens share some of the motivations but the entire species does.

When i asked you to show this, you point out indivual cases of indvidual
aliens acting well indvidually, which considering the assertion you
made was not the indvidual motivations of particular aliens but the
motivations of the entire race and the council races in particular
doesn't prove the point at all.

Basically its like saying that
because Saren does x that means that all turians must do x also, which
it doesn't, your assertion is that the council would do x because they
share exactly the same motivations as humanity does, i ask you for an
example that proves this and you respond with indvidual actions taken by
indvidual aliens as if this shows what you say is true.

Strawman argument. No one ever claimed the entire species. Not even humans are collectively motivated all the same. Are you on some drugs or soemthing?
The point is that all manners of motivations exist in aliens. Very human-like motivations. The entire range. And therefore, also among their leadership. Asari leadership can be just as self-centered, short-sighted and greeedy as human one.

If a human can come to the decision that it's best to serve the reapers, if a turan can come to that decision...then so can an Asari. If TIM or humanity is capalbe of sacrificing aliens to save humanity, then asari leaders are caapable of sacrificng humanity to save asariti (??)

That is called plot hole and gamepy and story segregation. Nice try, but you fail.

Ah the you fail line, simple direct and to the point your trying to make, wrong of course but well why would Lotion allow the simple notions of being right or wrong influence anything he says.

If there are plot holes and gamplay and story segregation elements in place in one example, then these plot holes and gameplay and story segration elements can be in place in every other example also.

Which considering your point was that something could not happen because it goes against the rules not of the unverse created but our own real world actually disproves your own point completely.

The universe created is fictional not real, they are not creating an exact replica down to the tiniest fact and even if that was the intent which it isn't they sometimes mess things up, so real world laws don't apply.

They could have intended to create a political system exactly the same as the one we have (they didn't although they were no doubt influenced by it) but in recreating that system because of plot holes, because of story segration and gameplay elements, they may not have succeeded even if the intent was there, which it imo was not.

So..existance of plot holes is now a good thing? And everything is equally acceptable too? :huh:This...what is th.. I don't even..

I guess one can create a universe in which 2+2=4..and then claim that 2+2=5. The universe, if anything, needs to be internally consistent.
The universe, if it wasnts to be taken seriously, needs to approach certain topics seriously.

Politics work as they are because of the very core of what politics is. The very essnece of something, so to speak. To lead, to negotiate, to dominate - those things remain the same regarless of the setting you put it in. Unless you have a setting where logic is upside down, and destroying yourself and not breeding is evolutionary advantagious.
But ME clearly isn't that setting.
We seen that all the elements that make politics what it is are alive and present in ME. You can continue to try and debate that the very nature of politics is different in ME, but we already know that that'not true. And not only that, it wouldn't even be politics if it was different.

[alperez]

Arijharn wrote...


But... how are they going to be different when it comes down to it?

They want their own sovereignty, and in fact brutally suppress any part of their empire that wishes to leave, they want a roof over their heads etc, etc. They are a sapient species, so I don't think it's beyond plausible that they'll want to weigh things in the same manner as humans, since we're amazingly alike.

Again though in the context presented that aliens species on the council who thus far have acted as a consensus council suddenly abandoning that ideal and acting as a singular species, the points you make while true for singular species, dismiss the fact that thus far in game the council has acted in consensus.

The turians, asari and salarians as singular species all within their own particular realms of control follow certain protocols that are similar to those that humanity act with, but they are also council members and also in terms of galactic decisions act on consensus rather than as singular species, so while making decisions that only effect their own internal governance may act humanlike, when it comes to galactic governance the choices they make don't always follow with the same motivations.

Example turian counsellor decides that a certain turian interest needs to be protected or advanced (a humanlike motivation) but because of how the council works is unable to get consensus to forward the agenda so while as a singular species he may be acting in a humanlike quality, its the fact that the council itself is the overall authoritythat doesn't allow that quality to be the prevelant one.

But there is evidence. From the Citadel Council passing laws that only serve to reinforce their rule, from their self-centered attempt to maintain the status quo, to how militarised the Turian's are all mirror in some capacity real-world human cultures, which further points to just how 'human' the aliens are, and also makes your point refuted within the game itself.

The council though is the authority in the universe, the laws they pass are agreed by consensus, its not a question of one species acting above all others or putting their agenda forward but a consensus decision making process that delivers the consensus viewpoint.

I'm not disputing that the turian military society is similar or mirrors our own real world culture, its more that despite the desire of that society if they wished to put their agenda above all others they cannot because of how the council in game has been represented.

Singular desire overruled by consensus decision making, basically since thus far in game its been shown that the council has the final say on x or y, to suggest that come me3 this will be abandoned and instead every single race would act only in their interests isn't imo based on evidence but conjecture.

It's not an assumption if it's given to us in game, from Kaidan's personal experiences with individualistic and self-centered Turian's (for example) to our own experience with Warden Kuril and how 'misguided' (yet human-esque motivated) to the Citadel council. All this gives us precedence.

It is though because its assuming that the system of governance that's been shown to be how things are would suddenly change into an every man for himself system which hasn't been shown to be the case in game.

Indvidual actions by specific aliens doesn't show that every single alien is the same what it shows is that indvidually certain aliens are as petty or as altruistic as other races.

I'm not sure what you mean by misguided in terms of the council, so rather than speculate i'll just ask instead, misguided how?

True, but also note that 'diversity' isn't as strong in alien species as it is in our own as per Mordin and Samara's statements. That means that each species is going to act far more similiarily to their species goals more than anything else, although this will be mitigated somewhat by individual members (for example; not all Asari are like Matriarch Benezia or even like Liara. Not all Turian's are like Warden Kurill).

Most Turian's are public servants and willing to become essentially martyr's for their neighbours, this is bred into them. It's why when during the Krogan Rebellions when the Krogan started to drop orbiting satellite's onto Turian worlds to break Turian morale, they instead found themselves fighting a re-energized Turian army. 

Human culture is divurgent, but species that are based on particular regions of human culture isn't.

If i'm correct that diversity was more in terms with genetic differences than any differences in motivations or how aliens may or do act, so it doesn't actually show what your trying to say here i think.

First of all, much apologies for leading you into my rant, but I feel the need to pick on this. Who voted for each representative of the Council? How can the Asari Councillor truly claim to represent the Elcor when she's an Asari and her job would surely be to represent Asari interests first and foremost? If the Elcor and Asari interests in some way collide, then it would create a conflict of interest, which means as a Councillor she can not do her job. So to extrapolate on this then, what if the Elcor's interests lay contrary to the Salarian and Turian's too? How does the Elcor get just representation? How can the Elcor even be sure that their concerns were aired in the first place considering the Council is a closed system (ie, only the Councillor's get to vote).

It's a pretty pathetic system for a government that claims to represent galactic interests.

No worries rant away.

All systems of government are badly handled representations of good ideas, but that's a different discussion for a different day.

But to take your point re. the asari councillor and the Elcor and the scenario you present, the simple fact is that its not been shown in game that the councillor puts forward her interests above other races and again since its a consenus vote then it can be argued that even if she did the others may not accept her doing so.

If there is an in game example that does show the council putting their own specific races above another race when making a decision i'm unaware of it, so until its been shown we're speculating on something that we don't know if or if not its the actual case.

Just because each council member is the representative of their species and may bring that agenda with them when making the choices they make, doesn't mean that those are actually the choices that are made, simply because of the consensus nature of how choices are made, so who speaks for the elcor in the scenario you present, perhaps the members who see the conflict of interest.

In game its been shown that despite what each council members own feelings may be it is in fact the consensus choice that gets passed, so without an example of the contrary we have to accept that this is how things work imo.

What? Each race is going to act in line with their own interests first and foremost, because no one else (not even the Council) can be expected to know what their interests are. I've already established 'basis' earlier in this post.

You've established that in terms of internal governance each race may act with their own interests perhaps, but not in terms of galatic governance which is actually the situation, as for the council not knowing what those interest are i'm not sure what you trying to say here.

If your saying the turian counsellor may have his own agenda and put that agenda forward to further his own races interests then i'd argue that the consensus nature of the council may make it impossible for this to happen, if its that the council don't know or interfere in the internal governance of races then i'd agree up to the point that the internal governance of those races interferes galactically then they do interfere.

I disagree. The Council acted out of self-centered interest. The Krogan Rebellions attacked other species colonies much before they attacked the Asari colony world of Lusia. The Council only demanded that the Krogan leave at this point, and not during the pleas of the other species beforehand.

This isn't an act of a 'galactic' Council, this is an act of a Council dominated by three species.

Read up on the krogan rebellions and you'll see that at first they adopted by consensus an appeasement tactic in regards to the krogans, it was only after repeated breaking of their word by the krogans that they realised appeasement didn't work and were instead forced again by consensus to act against the krogans.

In fact it was only the attitude of the krogan warlord Kredak when told to leave Lusia that forced the councils hand and forced them to abandon their initial appeasement tactics.

So yes you can say that this proves that the council acted when an asari colony was attacked proves that the council only cares about the 3 member species or you can realise the entire nature of what happened during the rebellions, the tactics taken and the approach the council took until they finally drew a line in the sand and realised that appeasement was never going to work.

The council have shown themselves throughout the game to act in a military solution is only used when all other solutions have failed, in the case you mention above this too is shown to be the case, so they acted completely in character with how we know they act.

Modifié par alperez, 23 août 2011 - 07:22 .

[Arijharn]

Of course they tried 'appeasement' tactics re Krogan Rebellions, but you don't find it remotely suspicious that they only abandoned their 'appeasement tactics' until after the Asari colony world was hit? What about the other representatives from the other species requesting assistance beforehand?

Where was the Citadel Council when Eden Prime was attacked by Geth? If they aren't protecting their associate members, then what are they good for?

Consensus only works for when it's them themselves on the line, it apparently doesn't work when the galaxy 'at large' is facing hardship, so where does that leave the other species when it comes down to 'galactic stability?' Or are only the Asari, Salarians and the Turian's necessary for it?

I also want to point out that arguing that the Council forming 'consensus' doesn't dismiss that member species are going to follow their own (human) way of doing things, because generally speaking the Council lets individual species self-govern.

When I mentioned 'mis-guided' I was specifically referring to Warden Kuril. His heart may have been in the right place re locking up the inmates, but the methods were rather contradictory to his stated goals (i.e., he locks them up because it's 'good for the galaxy', but if the prisoner's homeworld can't afford to keep him in Purgatory, then Warden Kuril will authorize the release of said prisoner back onto the homeworld at an unspecified place and time. In other words; extortion). He may or may not view this as an extension of his upbringing re: public service (running a prison!) but it's definitely been overshadowed by mercenary-esque leanings.

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...
The turians, asari and salarians as singular species all within their own particular realms of control follow certain protocols that are similar to those that humanity act with, but they are also council members and also in terms of galactic decisions act on consensus rather than as singular species, so while making decisions that only effect their own internal governance may act humanlike, when it comes to galactic governance the choices they make don't always follow with the same motivations.

Example turian counsellor decides that a certain turian interest needs to be protected or advanced (a humanlike motivation) but because of how the council works is unable to get consensus to forward the agenda so while as a singular species he may be acting in a humanlike quality, its the fact that the council itself is the overall authoritythat doesn't allow that quality to be the prevelant one.

Lol..unless he has enough influence or some leverage to sway another councilor. Something like..I don't know.. refusing their military duties to the Council? Trade restrictions?

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along - regardless of what's on paper, real power is what you can get away with. You get a concensus, but it's a forced one.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Lol..unless he has enough influence or some leverage to sway another councilor. Something like..I don't know.. refusing their military duties to the Council? Trade restrictions?

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along - regardless of what's on paper, real power is what you can get away with. You get a concensus, but it's a forced one.

The problem though with what your saying is that its a hypothetical with no factual proof which is what i've been arguing against.

You can suggest that because of x or y anyone can do z, what you've instead argued is that because of x or y they would only do z, which in game is not shown to be the case.

So yes in theory what you say is possible, possibly even probable but in the actual game there haven't been shown to be examples of it being done, so since we have to go with how things are portrayed in game and not in the real world, real world examples don't actually define how things in game are done.

Again the point i've been trying to make all along is that just because something is done in one way in the real world and even though they try to make things as realistic as possible in mass effect they aren't tied into exactly replicating real world outcomes to further the story or plot in mass effect, sometimes they can and do make what we think is the most logical outcome of events be completely different to how they portray the outcome of those events in game.

If in game they've shown the council races to act on consensus and haven't shown any singular race using their position on the council to further only their own agenda or shown them using leverage to get the desired results, then saying they would do as you suggest is not at this point something you can know, instead your speculating based on an assumption of how things may work, but not proving that this is in fact how things work.

[alperez]

Arijharn wrote...

Of course they tried 'appeasement' tactics re Krogan Rebellions, but you don't find it remotely suspicious that they only abandoned their 'appeasement tactics' until after the Asari colony world was hit? What about the other representatives from the other species requesting assistance beforehand?

You can argue it was suspicious and take that line of thought in terms of how and why the council acted when they did, i can see why that could be the case of course.

But as far as i can remember in reading about the rebellions, its not mentioned that other species asked for assistance (logically we can assume this to be the case) but despite that when using appeasement tactics and in negotiations with the krogans we can almost consider the parellel with our own history and the similarity with the appeasement tactics used.

You accept the word over and over of the aggressive race that this is the end of it, that they are finished and happy now, until eventually they cross a line in the sand where it becomes clear that no appeasement will ever work.

The fact that it in the end was an asari colony that tipped the balance to me is not suspicious because in terms of the appeasement, eventually something would have forced the council's hand, it was just happened to be an asari colony that did so.

Where was the Citadel Council when Eden Prime was attacked by Geth? If they aren't protecting their associate members, then what are they good for?

The in game reasoning behind why they acted how they did is perfectly in line with every single facet of how they've shown the council to act, they deliberate, pontificate until finally being hit in the face with a hammer forces them to act.

In terms of Eden Prime and the geth, what action would you have thought they should have taken considering A. the evidence shepard presented and B. the fact that Saren was implicated.

So they appoint a Spectre to examine the facts and resolve the problem rather than risk an all out war for an incident that at that point they had mixed details upon, of course later on we find out that they probably should have acted differently, but at the time of the event, Eden Prime was an isolated incident that they took steps to resolve without risking plunging the entire galaxy into an all out war.

Consensus only works for when it's them themselves on the line, it apparently doesn't work when the galaxy 'at large' is facing hardship, so where does that leave the other species when it comes down to 'galactic stability?' Or are only the Asari, Salarians and the Turian's necessary for it?

I'm sorry but your argument here is unproven, your saying that in game its shown that they only come to consensus decisions when they themselves are at risk and don't do anything when other races are at risk  or galactic stability is at risk, yet you have no examples to prove your point, unless your claiming the asari colony in the krogan rebellions is an example which i'm sorry but i disagree with you on.

In game its been shown that the council act a certain way always, the decisions they make in game have explanations as to why this is the case, at no point to my knowledge in these decisions is it shown that only their own interests are important.

When they take no action there are perfectly valid reasons behind it, be it not sending ships in me2 or sending only shepard in me1, the reasoning is sound, its careful to the point perhaps of recklessness but its in game explanation doesn't show what your trying to suggest imo.

I also want to point out that arguing that the Council forming 'consensus' doesn't dismiss that member species are going to follow their own (human) way of doing things, because generally speaking the Council lets individual species self-govern.

The self government applies internally and of course in a lot of ways is completely humanlike, however the council itself acts galactically which overrules indvidual species making self interest decisions that affect the galaxy as a whole.

The problem with saying each species when it comes to the reapers will act as seperate entities only looking out for their self interest is that the council exists, its an extra factor that has to be taken into account when trying to show that in terms of galactic problems species would act a certain way.

Basically in game the council is the supreme authority, wheras in terms of the argument they're being equated to nothing more than the UN.

Since in game thus far its been shown that when it comes to galactic decisions its the council who decide how the response will be, not the turians or the asari or the salarians acting on their own but the entire council acting as the complete authority over all races, then to suggest that this will change in me3, is going against how its been shown to work in game to this point.

When I mentioned 'mis-guided' I was specifically referring to Warden Kuril. His heart may have been in the right place re locking up the inmates, but the methods were rather contradictory to his stated goals (i.e., he locks them up because it's 'good for the galaxy', but if the prisoner's homeworld can't afford to keep him in Purgatory, then Warden Kuril will authorize the release of said prisoner back onto the homeworld at an unspecified place and time. In other words; extortion). He may or may not view this as an extension of his upbringing re: public service (running a prison!) but it's definitely been overshadowed by mercenary-esque leanings.

Ok i get that now, i thought you were speaking specifically about the council, when in fact you were speaking about indvidual actions taken by an indvidual.

[jedierick]

WOW

[Omega4RelayResident]

Response @ Ieldra2...

1) Fist of all Casey Hudson confirmed that Cerberus is in fact INDOCTRINATED and that is how they justify Cerberus comming after you in the beginning of ME3... no matter the choice you made concerning the Collector Base. This is not speculation it is fact. www.newsarama.com/games/e3-2011-mass-effect-3-closed-door-110616.html 

How the H*** does a man who can see all possible outcomes, has resources that are only rivaled by the Shadow Broker him self, and has intel only rivaled by the Shadow Broker allow his own faction get INDOCTRINATED unless he waned them to become INDOCTRINATED?

Giving a space station that is capable of MANUFACTURING REAPERS to a group that is definitelly INDOCTRINATED is a BAD idea. I do not understand how anyone can argue against this logic. It MIGHT be a good idea if the Alliance got there first or took it away from Cerberus, but the Alliance does not have data from the Reaper IFF in order to safely navigate the Omega 4 Relay... dont forget I would know because I live there. LOL

So it is safe to assume that the base is in the hands of an INDOCTRINATED enemy group. The Alliance can not get there to take it back. What is to stop Cerberus from making the Human Reaper in the mean time? In addition since the facility is capable of MANUFACTURING a REAPER it also has REAPER tech on it that would create more Indoctrination.

2) Also... It is fact that TIM a.k.a. Jack Harper came across a Reaper Artifact in the First Contact War. Chris Priestly redirects your attention to these facts, and since he works for BioWare and you do not I will take his word over yours. Not being a d**k or anything just being honest. Ben Hislop and Jack Harper were hit by energy blasts from the artifact. Ben died but Jack survived and his eyes began to glow blue and I quote "usually an early sign of indoctrination". social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/324/index/7829868 www.newsarama.com/games/10-must-know-facts-mass-effect-novels-comics-mass-effect-3-110707-1.html So it is safe to assume that he suffered early effects of INDOCTRINATION since then... which is around the time Shep was a child. Plenty of time to become fully INDOCTRINATED.

As RENEGADE Shep you will notice that your eyes glow RED but in the same pattern as Jack Harper's. Reaper tech was used in order to bring Shep back to life. Also IF you had read any of the Graphc Novels or Books you would know that:

A) Cerberus has been using Reaper Tech for a long time now and "knows plenty about Indoctrination"
TIM used Reaper Tech to transform Paul Grayson into an Indoctrinated Tool much the same way Saren was changed.
C) Paul Grayson tried to take his life like Saren did at the beginning but The Reapers prevented this from happening.
D) In the book it confirms that Paul Grayson was an "organic host" for the Reapers while they slept.

Sources Cited: ME: Ascention , ME: Retribution Novels

Now smarty pants why dont you come up with a logical explanation as to why TIM knowingly created an "organic host" for the Reapers to use as they please? Instead of being stubborn about this argument why dont you go READ THE BOOKS. You do not have to take my word for it but I guarantee you will replay all of your Shep profiles you wanted to have with a Paragon ending after you read the books. For crying out loud you are even expected to read the novels since you can purchase them on the Citadel Zakera Ward level 27.

I would respect you more if you had said: "I want my Shep to become a Reaper and thats is why I kept the Collector Base". I am fine with that and people that want to play the game their own way for their own outcomes. However do not misslead people into screwing up their game experience. That is just messed up dude. The books give you more info that you realy need to make the "correct" decision as to whether or not one should keep the Collector Base... especially if they are going for the Ultimate Paragon "I just saved as many lives as possible" ENDING.

If you are not knowingly trying to manipulate people into making the "wrong" choice then I am sorry I thought you are, but I can not clearly see how anyone can assume that keeping the Collector Base is a good thing.

Oh and BTW this is not Saren's fault. In the ME Novel Revalation you learn that the Reapers return is because of the Alliance... Saren just happened to be there.

Modifié par Omega4RelayResident, 24 août 2011 - 11:42 .

[Arijharn]

alperez wrote...
You can argue it was suspicious and take that line of thought in terms of how and why the council acted when they did, i can see why that could be the case of course.

But as far as i can remember in reading about the rebellions, its not mentioned that other species asked for assistance (logically we can assume this to be the case) but despite that when using appeasement tactics and in negotiations with the krogans we can almost consider the parellel with our own history and the similarity with the appeasement tactics used.

I agree, but this whole thread is about 'logical outcomes.' That's why it seems ridiculous that there could be any other explaination other than it was the Asari that was the 'tipping point' since prior to that every world that the Krogan annexed was 'just one more.'

Also, to further my point in how 'self serving' the Council is; consider the Genophage and take note that there are two versions of it. Genophage v1 was perfectly legal (if not immoral) yet post Genophage v1 the Council authored the limitations of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This would make the Genophage v2 an illegal operation by the Council's own law, moral issues nonwithstanding.

alperez wrote...
You accept the word over and over of the aggressive race that this is the end of it, that they are finished and happy now, until eventually they cross a line in the sand where it becomes clear that no appeasement will ever work.

I do not disagree that sooner or later a 'tipping point' would have to occur, I just find it suspicious that it took until a Council colony world provided that impetuousness. Maybe the way you infered it is different to me, but from reading the in-game codex and the Mass Effect wikia, it seemed to me that Lusia was the first and only colony world (because of the absence of information that would refute it.)

Prior to this though; they were happy with their appeasement tactics and the Krogan delegation saying: "just one more." 

alperez wrote...
In terms of Eden Prime and the geth, what action would you have thought they should have taken considering A. the evidence shepard presented and B. the fact that Saren was implicated.

Move fleet assets closer to human worlds deemed at risk for one, and launch a team of investigators and not just one lone C-Sec investigative agent. It's a fact that the Geth attacked, and it's a fact that humanity is a member associate species. It's also a fact that the Geth aren't a member associate species. To me, it's exactly as if a Terminus System species decided to invade Council space, because... that's exactly what happened.

alperez wrote...
So they appoint a Spectre to examine the facts and resolve the problem rather than risk an all out war for an incident that at that point they had mixed details upon, of course later on we find out that they probably should have acted differently, but at the time of the event, Eden Prime was an isolated incident that they took steps to resolve without risking plunging the entire galaxy into an all out war.

You don't need to provoke a war by sending a fleet, it's just 'saber rattling' and essentially a 'show the flag' type exercise. Personally, I feel the fact that Shephard was sent after Saren was more to do with the fact that Saren was working with the Geth more than the Council being particularly concerned about the Eden Prime colonists. The fact that the two situations were concurrent was a happy circumstance for them, but the Council could just have easily put Tela Vasir on the case, but I can accept that other people (namely you) may feel differently on this issue.

alperez wrote...
I'm sorry but your argument here is unproven, your saying that in game its shown that they only come to consensus decisions when they themselves are at risk and don't do anything when other races are at risk  or galactic stability is at risk, yet you have no examples to prove your point, unless your claiming the asari colony in the krogan rebellions is an example which i'm sorry but i disagree with you on.

There is that case, but there is also Genophage v2 and how it directly contravenes the Citadel laws on WMD; specifically (off the top of my head) Tier 2 devices. As described above (but stated again for emphasis) The Genophage v1 could be considered legal (albeit possibly not moral) due to the fact that no laws were passed that expressly forbid it's use, however, it was after the events of the Krogan Rebellions that lead to the formation of the Citadel Conventions for WMD, but the Genophage v2 was performed after this (and by a considerable amount of time). Proof? Mordin worked on Genophage v2 within at max 35 years (due to his age) of current date (2185CE) whereas the Krogan Rebellions ended I believe around 700-900 CE.

Also; as further cause; the Council forbid the Quarians from settling on a new world (specifically because the Quarian's had already settled it and then asked permission) and instead issued the rights to the Elcor, threatening planetary bombardment on the squaters. 

In addition to all this; the Council ignored the plight of the Quarian's at the hands of their own creation the Geth during the Morning War; this seems confusing for a couple of reasons:
a) The loss of Council species citizens (i.e., Erinya's bondmate)
The Quarian's would have member associate status
c) The Geth didn't have member associate status.
and potentially even d) The Geth are AI, apparently an illegal development (and I say potentially because there's some confusion as to whether the Geth was the 'tipping point' that made it illegal or whether it was always illegal; sources in the game are contradictory)
d) It seems preposterous to assume that the Council would be willing to let a species potentially die out due to the fact that some members of the species performed illegal operations. It would be like legally killing everyone in Columbia because some are drug lords.

Changing the subject a bit though specifically your question about the Reapers and how the Council will act, I think it should be one motivated primarily from self preservation more than anything else; since precedent has been set that if they don't think they'll suffer 'loss' they wont 'care.'

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Lol..unless he has enough influence or some leverage to sway another councilor. Something like..I don't know.. refusing their military duties to the Council? Trade restrictions?

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along - regardless of what's on paper, real power is what you can get away with. You get a concensus, but it's a forced one.

The problem though with what your saying is that its a hypothetical with no factual proof which is what i've been arguing against.

You can suggest that because of x or y anyone can do z, what you've instead argued is that because of x or y they would only do z, which in game is not shown to be the case.

So yes in theory what you say is possible, possibly even probable but in the actual game there haven't been shown to be examples of it being done, so since we have to go with how things are portrayed in game and not in the real world, real world examples don't actually define how things in game are done.

Again the point i've been trying to make all along is that just because something is done in one way in the real world and even though they try to make things as realistic as possible in mass effect they aren't tied into exactly replicating real world outcomes to further the story or plot in mass effect, sometimes they can and do make what we think is the most logical outcome of events be completely different to how they portray the outcome of those events in game.

If in game they've shown the council races to act on consensus and haven't shown any singular race using their position on the council to further only their own agenda or shown them using leverage to get the desired results, then saying they would do as you suggest is not at this point something you can know, instead your speculating based on an assumption of how things may work, but not proving that this is in fact how things work.

Dude, the very existance of the possiblity proves that it DOES exist. Don't you get it?
The nature of power and influence is what it is.

And also, if such leverage is to be used, it wouldn't be used openly. Such deals and arragmenents are made in private. It's not like the prime minister of GB publicly threatens Slovenia with X if they don't vote on Y. And you can really see in game how the balance of power is skewed. The interaction between Udina/Anderson and the Council shows it rather nicely.

You constnatly argue agaisnt all logic and reason that the ME universe works in some misterius, illogical way where reaons, poer nad logic are upside down, and yet we see tehy are alive and well. You lsot this argument a long time ago, but you just cna't accept it.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 25 août 2011 - 07:37 .