3618 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Meta-gaming.

It's sad how it's the only thing you can resort to the second the topic starts something you don't like. 

"Whaaaa, it's meta-gaming! We must talk about the same crap over and over and over again until the end of time, because that's how I like it!"

[pablodurando]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

 Except the 'dead' Human Reaper, and that every other interaction with known Reaper technology excepting the Relays and Citadel (and I have my suspicions about those) has resulted in indoctrination.

The human Reaper was blown apart. It is about as dangerous as Sovereign's pieces were. Less, actually, seeing as there is a lot less of it due to it not even being finished.

Frankly, you're going about this all ass backwards. You are right to be afraid of indoctrination, but you are not right to run from it. This is the best opportunity you've had to so far to study indoctrination, one of the Reaper's most insidious and effective weapons.

How do you expect to counteract it if you never study it?

You won't be able to run from it once the Reapers arrive and begin deploying it against you. You'll have to face it and you better be equipped to dead with the task.

Sandtrout wrote... 

Object Rho: Not an actual Reaper, but a piece of tech that caused indoctrination and remote control.

I'm amused that you would bring this up and think that it supports your argument. It actually does the opposite. You see if we'd followed your fear-driven advice we'd have never discovered the when and were of the Reaper's arrival. They'd have entered into the system un-noticed, conquered it, and swiftly invaded the rest of the galaxy.

Game over.

You have misplaced priorities. You are minizminig risks, but you're minimizing the wrong ones. You are reducing lesser risks and allowing the greater dangers to grow.

In avoiding study Reaper technology now you reduce the chance of being indoctrinated now, but leave yourself vulnerable when the Reapers arrive. The chance of catastrophe right now is reduced, but your chance of surviving the Reaper is potentially lessened.

Pretend for a moment that the Collector base does contain a critical piece of information or technology without which we cannot defeat the Reapers.

If you blew it up then you can't win. Period. You're dead and so is everyone else for eons to come.

If however you kept the base then even if Cerberus joins the Reapers you at least have a chance to obtain that life-saving information/technology. It's better than not even getting the opportunity, no matter how slim, is it not?


Lastly, there is no reason to believe the Collector base will indoctrinate anyone. The Normandy crew and colonists you rescued from it had potentially been there for a long time and yet were not indoctrinated. The Collectors themselves were not indoctrinated, actually being little more than husks.

Other than the "you can't win if you blew it up"  I agree with the post.

[Sisterofshane]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The arguments I have argued against do not fail because I disagree with them. I disagree with them because they fail. If you think they do not fail, then tell me why! For instance:
(1) Why would you think it is an unreasonable expectation that we find useful knowledge about the Reapers on the base?
(2) Why would you think that "Cerberus is evil. We shouldn't help them" is a sufficient reason to destroy the base, and why do you think that that overrides concerns about defeating the Reapers.

I have been arguing from two premises:
(A) Our primary objective is to defeat the Reapers
( Survival of intelligent life in the galaxy is more desirable than sticking to a moral principle.

Of course you may not accept these premises. Indeed, not for the first time I get the impression that it is many people's primary objective to defeat Cerberus and not the Reapers, and I have also seen the argument that there are things more important than survival of intelligent life in the galaxy. But if you accept those premises, then you will come to similar conclusions as I have about the validity of some arguments.

How very Machiavellian of you.  Does the end always justify the means?  Silly enough, the ending of Machivelli's famous book, "The Prince" has a very grim fate for those who practice this.
Machiavelli eventually notices that the very use of such tactics and thinking will ultimately leave said "ruler" vulnerable to the very tactics that placed him into power.
So, a supposition for you, if we do find what we need from the Collector Base, but at the cost of a Galaxy now dominated by Humans and Cerberus, does not this very act potentially lead to our very downfall anyway?  Then what was the point in defeating the Reapers themselves?

It was my intention to show which arguments will ultimately fail as justification for destroying the base.

Just because an argument is morally based and you do not see the reasoning behind it, does not mean the argument itself has failed.  Just that you have merely come to hold a different opinion (based on a different type of morality).

Even so, the reasoning for keeping the base is contained in my refutation of the arguments for destroying the base. It goes as follows:

(1) We are grasping at straws for a means to defeat the Reapers. We have no idea how that might be done.

We as *the player* have no idea how that may be done.  I think that may be important to argue here.  This is NOT because the devs have told us that this decision will not come back to haunt us in regards to the ending of ME 3, but rather because the entire story is being told from the main view point of the protaganist, which is Shepard.  To say that no other organization or person has been able to find a way from what we know of as Shepard's view of the universe is just arrogant.  Of course it is safer to assume that giving the base to TIM is the only logical answer, but it's not the only concievable one.

(2) The Reapers have superior technology and this is why they will most likely win. 

No argument here - this is definitely an advantage that the Reapers have on us.
But they aren't they only ones with advantages.

(3) Conclusion: to prevent that, we need to either close the technology gap, or obtain some other kind of understanding that will allow us to exploit an aspect of the Reapers to our advantage. 

(4) At the moment, the best chance of getting knowledge about the Reapers in order to do either is in a place where one was to be built, namely the Collector base. It is the best chance because the base is the *only* such place we know of. If you disagree with that, you will have to present a better place to obtain the knowledge.

This, as I said before, is *assuming* that this is our best chance.  This has yet to be proven. Knowledge of the enemies technology never worked before (think Protheans).  We also have to utilize other assets in order to stand a chance to defeat the Reapers.  We need to unite the galaxy and come up with some sort of defensive strategy *quick*, because when ME 3 starts, the Reapers are already here.  Perhaps letting TIM have the base makes sense now, but who's to say that the resources (money, manpower) needed to analyze the base would not be of better use elsewhere?

And, say TIM puts all his eggs into one basket and dedicates everything to analyze the base and turns up with nothing? (We know this to be possible because of all the resources he moved into resurrecting ONE person to go up against the collectors).  Then in hindsight, we will all feel a little foolish that our resources weren't put to better use(building up the size of fleet, upgrading the fleet with existing proven tech such as Thannix and EDI).  Heck, forget feeling foolish, we'll all be dead!  Not a risk I'm willing to take.

(5) What Cerberus will or will not do with the base is insufficient as a moral argument for destroying the base, because the Reapers are the greater evil even if we assume that Cerberus will wipe out every species but humans. In fact it works the other way round: as long as we don't have the slightest inkling of a better way to gain that understanding, we are morally obliged to take the opportunity and keep the base even at the cost of Cerbnerus doing something horrible with it. Disagreeing with this means disagreeing with premise ( aboive.

On this we can agree.  It really shouldn't matter with the Reapers knocking down our door.  Even if it leads to the eventual distruction of certain species, allowing organic life to continue and breaking the cycle of extinction is too important to ignore.
But I think that you forget that the possibility of ones' allies turning around and attacking is very demoralizing to other species.  In fact, they may not want to stand up and fight alongside us if they think that we might stab them in the back.  And as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if we have the tech from the base -- we stand no chance against the Reapers if most of the galaxy isn't united in this fight.   

(6) Cerberus may end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers. But even in this case, it is better to keep the base because it is a reasonable expectation that indoctrinated Cerberus will not be a great deal of help for the Reapers, considering the power they already wield, while if we can get our hands on the knowledge contained in the base, it might result in a decisive advantage.

This is dependent upon too many variables to hold up in a real life strategy.  Cerberus "may" not be indoctrinated, we "may" get something from it, it "might" be enough to give us the advantage. (all positives in favor of preserving the base)
Then again, it could be the exact opposite.  And who says that an indoctrinated Illusive Man will share the secrets leading to defeat of the Reapers with Shepard and the rest of the Galaxy?  Remember, we don't have the option to study the base ourselves - we either have to give it to TIM or destroy it.

I hold my reasoning to be conclusive except for (6). (1) is an obvious fact, (2) is what the experience with Sovereign shows us. (3) Is the conclusion of (1) and (2). (4) is again, an obvious fact of current knowledge. (5) Is a logical conclusion from premise (. I challenge anyone to poke holes in it not based on spurious assumptions. That something *can* (= is not impossible to) happen to make my claims invalid has zero weight unless you can show that it can reasonably expected to happen. It is possible to fight the Reapers another way? Tell me how, amek arguments that that scenario can reasonably be expected, or your argument has zero weight. It is possible to gain the necessary knowledge somwhere else? Tell me where, tell me that that source can be reasonably expected to contain that knowledge, or your argument has zero weight. 

So then, here is it: the only argument with weight for destroying the base, if you accept premises (A) and (, is that Cerberus might become indoctrinated and help the Reapers. I think it has not enough weight, but I accept that you can weigh the risks and benefits differently than I do and come to the conclusion that it's best to destroy the base.  But the main point remains: if you accept the premises, then this is the only argument with weight.

The biggest hole in your theory is that you base the outcome of an entire war on only one piece of the puzzle.  Knowledge is not the only thing that can definitively save us from the Reaper Invasion.  If this was the case, then the Salarians would be able to conquer this war all by themselves because they are the most gifted when it comes to winning wars just based upon intelligence.  Knowledge of one's enemy is important, but it isn't the only thing that we will need to worry about when it comes down to defeating the Reapers.
So if one doesn't feel the need to foreswear their moral obligation in order to beat the Reapers, it wouldn't be the end of times.

[SandTrout]

We differ in our weighing of the associated risks of indoctrination compared to the potential gains from studying the base. I agree that there is value in studying indoctrination, but I do not have as much confidence in the likelihood of a positive result. I can agree to disagree here.

If you blew it up then you can't win. Period. You're dead and so is everyone else for eons to come.

Stating that the CB is the proven only possible means to victory is as flawed in its premise as stating that the CB will not help us at all against the Reapers, though. It certainly has the potential to help, but it also can potentially be a time-bomb, and there is the possibility that no worthwhile research may result.

The human Reaper was blown apart. It is about as dangerous as Sovereign's pieces were. Less, actually, seeing as there is a lot less of it due to it not even being finished.

Not necessarily true. The detailed status of the HR is unknown other that some of its internal components appear to have 'burnt out' and that it fell into a 'bottomless pit' ™. There is also the possibility that some intact Collector technology may also be capable of indoctrination, considering its nature and source as Reaper communication technology.

We do not know anything with certainty regarding outcomes at this point, only reasonable guesses.

Lastly, there is no reason to believe the Collector base will indoctrinate anyone. The Normandy crew and colonists you rescued from it had potentially been there for a long time and yet were not indoctrinated. The Collectors themselves were not indoctrinated, actually being little more than husks.

We do not know for certain if any of the crew is indoctrinated or not. Indoctrinated agents are capable of acting as 'sleepers' and not immediately revealing their nature. Saren, the Arrival doctor, and Vigil's testimony all point to this. Also note that you have no interaction with colonists after they have been abducted (unless I've missed something somewhere), and Chakwas is noticeably more hostile to you if you do not immediately rescue your crew(therefor leaving them exposed to the CB for longer). While understandable, Chakwas's behavior could also potentially be a sign of indoctrination. Note that I am not saying that Chakwas is definitely indoctrinated, one could make the case that there are clues to indicate the possibility.

Stating that the Collectors are essentially husks does not mean that they are not indoctrinated. 'Husk' status is last-stage indoctrination. The subject's will is completely gone, leaving them as mindless zombies that attack anything that is not Reaper. The actual husk process can either occur from Evolution style indoctrination artifacts directly, or by indoctrinating a person thoroughly enough that the impale themselves on Dragon's Teeth.

In the cases of unwilling husks, it may be presumed that the direct injection of Reaper nano-technology allows for extremely rapid indoctrination that does sever damage to the cognitive abilities of the victim. Indoctrination degrades mental performance, with faster Indoctrination doing more damage, but, with husks, cognitive abilities are unnecessary, so a more rapid form of an Indoctrination type process become feasible. Instead of trying to bend the mind so that it is controllable, but functional, they simply break it without regard to most of its function.

It is still somewhat implied that the Husks are actively or semi-actively controlled by the Reapers, presumably through the same or similar methods through which Indoctrination is conducted. The implication comes from the fact that husks are directed to you during Horizon finale once they realize what you are trying to achieve. The Husks are not simply wandering aimlessly like a George Romero zombie.

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

It's sad how it's the only thing you can resort to the second the topic starts something you don't like. 

"Whaaaa, it's meta-gaming! We must talk about the same crap over and over and over again until the end of time, because that's how I like it!"

It's sad how you think metagaming serves any purpose in this discussion when targeting an incharacter point of view.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 août 2011 - 11:42 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

It's sad how it's the only thing you can resort to the second the topic starts something you don't like. 

"Whaaaa, it's meta-gaming! We must talk about the same crap over and over and over again until the end of time, because that's how I like it!"

It's sad how you think metagaming serves any purpose in this discussion when targeting an incharacter point of view.

He never said it did.

[SandTrout]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
He never said it did.

He has stated meta-game data as a premise to justfy, or argue against the justification of, peoples choices., then whines about it when people call him out for it.

Modifié par SandTrout, 01 août 2011 - 11:46 .

[Dave of Canada]

^ What he said.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 août 2011 - 11:46 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

..... Drive by post.....>>>

@Sisterofshane

Machiavelli wrote "The Discourses" after he wrote "The Prince". In "The Discourses" he refutes pretty much every idea in "The Prince" advocating a much different approach. Not many people read "The Discourses". People focus on "The Prince" and the ruthlessness.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Sisterofshane wrote...

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...

The arguments I have argued against do not fail because I disagree with them. I disagree with them because they fail. If you think they do not fail, then tell me why! For instance:
(1) Why would you think it is an unreasonable expectation that we find useful knowledge about the Reapers on the base?
(2) Why would you think that "Cerberus is evil. We shouldn't help them" is a sufficient reason to destroy the base, and why do you think that that overrides concerns about defeating the Reapers.

I have been arguing from two premises:
(A) Our primary objective is to defeat the Reapers
( Survival of intelligent life in the galaxy is more desirable than sticking to a moral principle.

Of course you may not accept these premises. Indeed, not for the first time I get the impression that it is many people's primary objective to defeat Cerberus and not the Reapers, and I have also seen the argument that there are things more important than survival of intelligent life in the galaxy. But if you accept those premises, then you will come to similar conclusions as I have about the validity of some arguments. [/quote]

How very Machiavellian of you.  Does the end always justify the means?  Silly enough, the ending of Machivelli's famous book, "The Prince" has a very grim fate for those who practice this.
Machiavelli eventually notices that the very use of such tactics and thinking will ultimately leave said "ruler" vulnerable to the very tactics that placed him into power.
So, a supposition for you, if we do find what we need from the Collector Base, but at the cost of a Galaxy now dominated by Humans and Cerberus, does not this very act potentially lead to our very downfall anyway?  Then what was the point in defeating the Reapers themselves?[/quote]

To live. That's the point.

Does this act potentialy lead us to our downfall? How exactly would it do that?

And if it does, that downfall should come a lot later. Ensuring thousands or millions of years more of human life..not a bad thing and nothng I'd regret.


[quote] It was my intention to show which arguments will ultimately fail as justification for destroying the base.[/quote]

Just because an argument is morally based and you do not see the reasoning behind it, does not mean the argument itself has failed.  Just that you have merely come to hold a different opinion (based on a different type of morality).



[quote]
[quote]
Even so, the reasoning for keeping the base is contained in my refutation of the arguments for destroying the base. It goes as follows:

(1) We are grasping at straws for a means to defeat the Reapers. We have no idea how that might be done.[/quote]

We as *the player* have no idea how that may be done.  I think that may be important to argue here.  This is NOT because the devs have told us that this decision will not come back to haunt us in regards to the ending of ME 3, but rather because the entire story is being told from the main view point of the protaganist, which is Shepard.  To say that no other organization or person has been able to find a way from what we know of as Shepard's view of the universe is just arrogant.  Of course it is safer to assume that giving the base to TIM is the only logical answer, but it's not the only concievable one.[/quote]

Really? That's just as silly argumen that makes no sense to boot.

Sheppard is the one making the decision.
As far as he knows, there is no other idea of how it may be done.

Not even we, as players, have any hint that someone else might have something.








[quote][quote]
(3) Conclusion: to prevent that, we need to either close the technology gap, or obtain some other kind of understanding that will allow us to exploit an aspect of the Reapers to our advantage. 

(4) At the moment, the best chance of getting knowledge about the Reapers in order to do either is in a place where one was to be built, namely the Collector base. It is the best chance because the base is the *only* such place we know of. If you disagree with that, you will have to present a better place to obtain the knowledge.[/quote]

This, as I said before, is *assuming* that this is our best chance.  This has yet to be proven. Knowledge of the enemies technology never worked before (think Protheans).  We also have to utilize other assets in order to stand a chance to defeat the Reapers.  We need to unite the galaxy and come up with some sort of defensive strategy *quick*, because when ME 3 starts, the Reapers are already here.  Perhaps letting TIM have the base makes sense now, but who's to say that the resources (money, manpower) needed to analyze the base would not be of better use elsewhere? [/quote]

Actually, it's exactly BECAUSE Of the Protheans that sovereign was stopped and the cycle delayed. Without the mleaving us a warning and wihout them finding a way to modify the keepers, the universe would have been done for.
The example you're using speaks agaisnt you.

Also, if you think the money could be better used elsewere, you have to prove that by giving a better alternative to the base.


[quote]
And, say TIM puts all his eggs into one basket and dedicates everything to analyze the base and turns up with nothing? (We know this to be possible because of all the resources he moved into resurrecting ONE person to go up against the collectors).  Then in hindsight, we will all feel a little foolish that our resources weren't put to better use(building up the size of fleet, upgrading the fleet with existing proven tech such as Thannix and EDI).  Heck, forget feeling foolish, we'll all be dead!  Not a risk I'm willing to take.[/quote]

The chance of turning up with nothing is infitesimal.
When you study something, you learn from it. And something as big as the CB has a lot of things to study.

Frak, in 5 minutes on the base Sheppard learned more about the Collectors than everyone else in the galaxy.
Not to meniotn that throwing money at a problem is an effective strategy only to a point.

And re-fitting the ships has nothing to do with the CB. Re-fits are done by shipyards, not by scientists. And there's enough scientists in the galaxy that you can spare some on the base.



[quote]
On this we can agree.  It really shouldn't matter with the Reapers knocking down our door.  Even if it leads to the eventual distruction of certain species, allowing organic life to continue and breaking the cycle of extinction is too important to ignore.
But I think that you forget that the possibility of ones' allies turning around and attacking is very demoralizing to other species.  In fact, they may not want to stand up and fight alongside us if they think that we might stab them in the back.  And as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if we have the tech from the base -- we stand no chance against the Reapers if most of the galaxy isn't united in this fight. [/quote]

I hardly think that will be an issue.
Not only is Cerberus small and it's fighting potential is insignificant on the galactic scale, but since no one practicly trusts them a nd they are not the race, and there'll be indoctrinated alines of all kinds fighting agaisnt you to boot, I don't see why any other race would loose faith in us. 



[quote]
(6) Cerberus may end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers. But even in this case, it is better to keep the base because it is a reasonable expectation that indoctrinated Cerberus will not be a great deal of help for the Reapers, considering the power they already wield, while if we can get our hands on the knowledge contained in the base, it might result in a decisive advantage. [/quote]

This is dependent upon too many variables to hold up in a real life strategy.  Cerberus "may" not be indoctrinated, we "may" get something from it, it "might" be enough to give us the advantage. (all positives in favor of preserving the base)
Then again, it could be the exact opposite.  And who says that an indoctrinated Illusive Man will share the secrets leading to defeat of the Reapers with Shepard and the rest of the Galaxy?  Remember, we don't have the option to study the base ourselves - we either have to give it to TIM or destroy it.[/quote]

We can take those secrets by force. Far easier to take already compiled research data from Cerberus, than from the reapers. It would actually be a double win - the Cerberus does the dirty work (research), and you get all the benefit.



[quote]
The biggest hole in your theory is that you base the outcome of an
entire war on only one piece of the puzzle.  Knowledge is not the only
thing that can definitively save us from the Reaper Invasion.  If this
was the case, then the Salarians would be able to conquer this war all
by themselves because they are the most gifted when it comes to winning
wars just based upon intelligence.  Knowledge of one's enemy is
important, but it isn't the only thing that we will need to worry about
when it comes down to defeating the Reapers.
So if one doesn't feel
the need to foreswear their moral obligation in order to beat the
Reapers, it wouldn't be the end of times.[/quote]

If we actually had any other advantages over the reapers, that might be true...but we don't.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 01 août 2011 - 11:56 .

[Someone With Mass]

SandTrout wrote...
He has stated meta-game data as a premise to justfy, or argue against the justification of, peoples choices., then whines about it when people call him out for it.

Find me a reason to give a flying **** beyond the childish claims that it makes my arguments null and void because it's not roleplaying according to Shepard's knowledge, which, by the way, wouldn't allow for much wiggle room, since everyone pretty much repeats the same crap over and over again, but with different words because of it.

I just find it to be the lamest excuse ever.

[Sisterofshane]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

..... Drive by post.....>>>

@Sisterofshane

Machiavelli wrote "The Discourses" after he wrote "The Prince". In "The Discourses" he refutes pretty much every idea in "The Prince" advocating a much different approach. Not many people read "The Discourses". People focus on "The Prince" and the ruthlessness.

Yeah I know.  Based upon his other works, many scholars agree that 'The Prince" was meant to be a satire.  Just a poor satire.
Still, my point was that people who ascribe to the "end's justify the means" often fall victim to others that hold the same moral view point.
And I think that was one of the few sentences in The 'Prince" that Machiavelli meant as the truth.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

SandTrout wrote...
He has stated meta-game data as a premise to justfy, or argue against the justification of, peoples choices., then whines about it when people call him out for it.

Find me a reason to give a flying **** beyond the childish claims that it makes my arguments null and void because it's not roleplaying according to Shepard's knowledge, which, by the way, wouldn't allow for much wiggle room, since everyone pretty much repeats the same crap over and over again, but with different words because of it.

I just find it to be the lamest excuse ever.

Nothing childish about that bub...

It's called logic
One makes arguments and decisions based on what is know, not on what is not known or cannot be known.
That's just common sense.

when you metagame in the context of this discussion, that does invalidate your argument...by default.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Exactly lotion,which is why you can't say "If you blow it up you lose".

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Still, my point was that people who ascribe to the "end's justify the means" often fall victim to others that hold the same moral view point.

Even people who don't hold that viewpoint fall prey to those who do....


It's like saying "gun owners often fall prey to people who have guns".

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Exactly lotion,which is why you can't say "If you blow it up you lose".

True, altough that is the most likely outcome.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Exactly lotion,which is why you can't say "If you blow it up you lose".

True, altough that is the most likely outcome.

Possibly,but it isn't a fact and therefore has no place.

[SandTrout]

Someone With Mass wrote...

SandTrout wrote...
He has stated meta-game data as a premise to justfy, or argue against the justification of, peoples choices., then whines about it when people call him out for it.

Find me a reason to give a flying **** beyond the childish claims that it makes my arguments null and void because it's not roleplaying according to Shepard's knowledge, which, by the way, wouldn't allow for much wiggle room, since everyone pretty much repeats the same crap over and over again, but with different words because of it.

I just find it to be the lamest excuse ever.

Give me a reason not to report you for trolling/flaming because that seems to be your intent. You certainly are not attempt to actually participate in the discusion. The discussion is the moral nature of the choice, not weather one choice was right or wrong. The discusion is the process, not the specific result, which is still an unknown. Moral justification can only be seen in light of the context that the decision was made, which does not include information unavailable to the protagonist. Trying to use meta-game data to justify the moral basis of destroying the CB is like blaming Stalin's mom for not aborting him.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

SandTrout wrote...
Trying to use meta-game data to justify the moral basis of destroying the CB is like blaming Stalin's mom for not aborting him.

New sig?

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Find me a reason to give a flying **** beyond the childish claims that it makes my arguments null and void because it's not roleplaying according to Shepard's knowledge, which, by the way, wouldn't allow for much wiggle room, since everyone pretty much repeats the same crap over and over again, but with different words because of it.

I just find it to be the lamest excuse ever.

If you honestly didn't care, you wouldn't rant about it every single time it's brought up. Don't participate in these discussions if you refuse to acknowledge the point of views presented within said discussion.

Non-metagame point of views result in very different ways to look at a situation, metagame just narrows it down and makes the argument completely pointless because you're using knowledge your character shouldn't be presented with and your point is made for you rather than you making your point.

If you don't want to look at the argument from a non-metagamer point of view, don't cry when people call you out on it. Don't call them "childish". Don't call them idiots. Just leave.

[Someone With Mass]

SandTrout wrote...
Give me a reason not to report you for trolling/flaming because that seems to be your intent. You certainly are not attempt to actually participate in the discusion. The discussion is the moral nature of the choice, not weather one choice was right or wrong. The discusion is the process, not the specific result, which is still an unknown. Moral justification can only be seen in light of the context that the decision was made, which does not include information unavailable to the protagonist. Trying to use meta-game data to justify the moral basis of destroying the CB is like blaming Stalin's mom for not aborting him.

Wow, reported for trolling (by the way, that red button isn't doing diddly dick) just because I don't like to follow some pathetic internet rules?

Good luck getting anywhere with this topic, when everyone's like "I'm right, you're wrong" all the goddamn time.

[SandTrout]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Exactly lotion,which is why you can't say "If you blow it up you lose".

True, altough that is the most likely outcome.

Possibly,but it isn't a fact and therefore has no place.

Not quite, Humanoid. It is a conclusion based on available facts and estimates of associated risk. Most of us have agreed that the disagreement of those estimates, resulting in differing conclusions, are valid.

The reasonable people know that it is a gamble either way, and we are guessing the odds based on available data and personal experience. The only really argument is over what considerations can be taken with respect to judging how those those decisions will affect the odds.

[Someone With Mass]

Dave of Canada wrote...


If you honestly didn't care, you wouldn't rant about it every single time it's brought up. Don't participate in these discussions if you refuse to acknowledge the point of views presented within said discussion.

Non-metagame point of views result in very different ways to look at a situation, metagame just narrows it down and makes the argument completely pointless because you're using knowledge your character shouldn't be presented with and your point is made for you rather than you making your point.

If you don't want to look at the argument from a non-metagamer point of view, don't cry when people call you out on it. Don't call them "childish". Don't call them idiots. Just leave.

You're really not the one to talk. You're showing up out of the blue the second it's mentioned, just because you obviously have nothing better to contribute with. By the way. IT'S JUST A GAME.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 02 août 2011 - 12:22 .

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

You're really not the one to talk. You're showing up out of the blue the second it's mentioned, just because you obviously have nothing better to contribute with.

I jumped into the thread at that moment because I had access to the internet, or do I need your permission to post?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 août 2011 - 12:22 .

[Someone With Mass]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I jumped into the thread at that moment because I had access to the internet, or do I need your permission to post?

Yeah, right. Just when I happen to be here and make a comment about meta-gaming. I don't think so, you ****ing twerp.