3618 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I can see this:

1) by some stroke of luck we defeat the Reapers. Cerberus provides some amazing tech from the CB that tips the balance.
2) later, Cerberus builds a Reaper at the Collector base, probably out of Batarian prisoners of war, or from dead humans on the earth acquired during the cleanup (flash frozen so they don't deteriorate too much more).
3) the cycle starts again.

All this has happened before and will happen again.

We need to learn how the Reapers got built in the first place, and why. AI gone wild?

Woot! Page 72. Onward toward 80!

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 07 août 2011 - 10:29 .

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

alperez wrote...

Considering one of the people he sends you out to recruit is an assassin and he has someone he uses specifically for his own assainations (kai leng) then its more likely that its not just suitability for the job thats his overriding concern.

Eh? Waht's your point here?

 
In Kai leng TIM has one of his most trusted and devoted followers, someone he uses for his own assasinations and yet rather than put Kai with Shepard on the normandy, TIM instead tells you to recruit Thane.

Considering Kai is TIM's own go to guy and his skill set is pretty much the same as what Thane brings to the table if TIM's only justification in picking who to put with Shepard was suitability for the job then it makes sense that Kai would have been put with Shepard, the fact that Kai is someone who hate's aliens though would be a nice reason not to if your intent was not to portray your organisation in a bad light.

That works only up to a point. You don't really work for killers if you pasinately disagree wiht killing.
Besides, people you talk too seem to be fine with Cerberus and have no qualms working for them. The only who ever sez anything is Miranda, and it's hardly damning.
If your point is that everyone who's nice works for Cerberus out of ignorance, then I'm labeling you a consipracy theorist.

 
Like i said people work with people they disagree with for a variety of reasons, Jacob gives you an example of the mindset of someone not agreeing with cerberus or their methods and yet still working with them.

My point wasn't that everyone who works with cerberus was working out of ignorance, but more to disprove your point regarding Kelly.

You argued that people wouldn't work with Cerberus if they believed them to be nothing more than killers or terrorists and used Kelly to illustrate that point, so i raised you Ken and Gabby and what they say about Cerberus's questionable actions.

When you actually break down the reasons behind why people on the normandy are working with cerberus, more of those reasons seem to be justifiable, i argue that the reason for this is an intent to portray Cerberus as something different than they are and this is why the xenophobic zealots aren't put with you.

We're being given a skewed portrait of cerberus by the simple fact that no racist xenophobes are put with Shepard even though we know they're are some in cerberus, i argue that this is deliberate and it makes sense for that to be the case.

The way I see it, he recruits skilled people he could use. I haven't noticed that being a xenophobe is a pre-requisite for being Cerberus.

Again though your missing the point, of course he recruits skilled people he could use, he also recruits people who's xenophobia is extreme, my argument is that its more the latter than the former, we haven't seen all the true believers yet, although apparently that's about to change come me3.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There is a differene between a "rough theoretical plan" and a "plan that will work".

Also, it is impossible to tell before it if would be even possible to capture the base AT ALL.
When you have so little to go with, making plans is useless. Such plans never survive contact with the enemy anyway.

Does everything about TIM has to be nefarious for you people? God help if things such a s practiciality ever factor into it.....
Next thing you'll be telling me the cigarettes he smokes are made out of kittens.

The whole SM (based on the criteria you've used to dismiss why a plan to capture the base would have been inconcievable to TIM) though is based on a leap of faith. We're being sent beyond the omega Iv relay to destroy a theoretical base, face an unknown force with limited info.

Yet that's the plan that TIM comes up with, if in theory that plan makes sense then it stands to reason that using the same criteria it would make sense that a plan to capture the base would also make sense.

Considering basic military procedure would require the creation of various contingencies, then why is it so hard for you to accept that a contingency to capture the base would exist?

Your argument is that it can't because we don't have the relevant date before we set off, but that's also true with the plan we set off with, if its true for one then it holds that it could be true for the other also.

Now in terms of making TIM out to be nefarious, he does that himself.

Considering he shows you in game his willingness to keep info to himself when he feels its justified, then it stands to reason he could also keep any real intent regarding the base to himself until he wishes to reveal it.

[TMA LIVE]

Speaking of Kai Leng, don't forget that TIM specifically picked him and considered him a perfect recruit, not just because he was once an N7, but because his anti-alien leanings and violence towards aliens were proof of character.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What other horse besides the CB do we have?

Once again though this argument is based on whether or not the CB is actually a horse in your analogy.

Your basing your argument on the fact in your own mind that the base in some way is an advantage to defeating the reapers, while completely dismissing the idea that it may be a disadvantage.

The argument you present is based on basic assumptions.

A, the base contains some advantage in stopping the reapers.

B. Cerberus can be trusted to do what they say.

C. even if they don't they're not a threat.

But instead of accepting that you any or all of these 3 assumptions could be wrong, you continually argue as if these assumptions were fact and logic and that anyone not accepting this as the case is either wrong or basing their own arguments on flawed logic.

If someone argues that the reasons for destroying the base (again also based on 3 basic assumptions)

A. the base contains inherent dangers that may be a disadvantage to stopping the reapers.

B. cerberus can't be trusted

C. Cerberus in possession of whatever the base can give them are in fact a threat.

Your argument is that this is flawed logic and you dismiss any arguments by restating your own opinion and suggesting your isn't based on assumption but logic.

The simple truth is that in the end the choice is not a logical one, humans don't rely completely on logic and any logic they do use is based on emotion and understanding of events that may not be entirely correct, its in fact nothing more than a judgement call.

[alperez]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Speaking of Kai Leng, don't forget that TIM specifically picked him and considered him a perfect recruit, not just because he was once an N7, but because his anti-alien leanings and violence towards aliens were proof of character.

Exactly my point, if all cerberus did was recruit the best people for the job or even if this was the main criteria for who they recruit then the organisation would be completely different.

The fact is though, its not the best people for the job that's the key reason behind who cerberus recruits, like any other organisation with an idealogy its idealogical reasoning that defines their recruitment more times than not.

If that idealogy was just human dominance or trying to ensure humanities role in the galaxy was one which they were entitled to, why hire someone whose violence toward and hatred of aliens is actually the key cornerstone of their character, unless of course you intended to use that person for those very traits.

[Someone With Mass]

TMA LIVE wrote...

No, they've arrived. They're at the edge of our galaxy in Arrival and at the end of ME2. And now have been traveling from the south in batarian space towards the Local Cluster. Jesse said so in the Live Stream Demo.

http://www.livestrea...b85c03e9b&utm_s

23.00

I meant at the Citadel.

[TMA LIVE]

Pretty much, the choice is choosing based off fear. Do you fear that you can't win without this technology, and willing to give it to Cerberus? Or do you fear that, once they gain this technology, they'll become a new threat? And believe you can find another way?

Depends on what you fear more.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 07 août 2011 - 11:19 .

[Arijharn]

They (we) don't dismiss the fact it may be a disadvantage at all, we just look at the lack of any other option and choose accordingly.

Given at the time of ME2 that apparently not even Dreadnought firepower can breech a Reaper's shield devices, then it should be pretty obvious that in any engagement we win we will suffer untenable losses to maintain any sense of momentum. Hence the need to study and hopefully reverse-engineer anything above our current technology level -- enter the Reaper base.

Cerberus is a threat, but Cerberus is also a threat that can wait until the Reaper's are defeated in the sense that Cerberus' capabilities as an entity are vastly outmatched due to the capabilities of a Reaper, let alone a Reaper fleet. It's a combination of these factors that make destroying the base 'illogical' in the sense of the broader picture.

Cerberus is an 'avowed terrorist organisation', it does not have fleet assets to make even the Elcor or Hanar populations worry (why? Because despite the fact that we know nothing about Elcor or Hanar military; we do know that they're each sovereign nations and each has an economy to not only build fleet assets, but also to maintain them).

[TMA LIVE]

Someone With Mass wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

No, they've arrived. They're at the edge of our galaxy in Arrival and at the end of ME2. And now have been traveling from the south in batarian space towards the Local Cluster. Jesse said so in the Live Stream Demo.

http://www.livestrea...b85c03e9b&utm_s

23.00

I meant at the Citadel.

Ah. Well, like I said, the Relay in the Local Cluster takes them directly to the Citedal. So unless they simply want to take their time on Earth, their first target would be the Citedal in order to control the Relays again. So I'm guessing the Council stops them by locking that Relay, forcing the Reapers to FTL to other places.

[Arijharn]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Speaking of Kai Leng, don't forget that TIM specifically picked him and considered him a perfect recruit, not just because he was once an N7, but because his anti-alien leanings and violence towards aliens were proof of character.

An anti-alien viewpoint can be a good motivational aspect as part of human 'dominance', but that still doesn't mean that Cerberus' goal is to eliminate other species because for one that's an unrealistic goal to pursue. Here's another reason: economics. Humanity as do all the other species, depends upon trade etc to 'remain strong,' killing off other species would be detrimental to that.

Cerberus is a pretty small organisation, even if (metagaming wise) they become an 'army' come ME3, they're still going to be smaller than what any sovereign nation can wield. Why? Because presumably any sovereign nation has a recruitment pool from all it's able bodied citizens (some of which military service may be mandatory -- like the Turian's), whereas the recruitment pool for Cerberus would be much smaller due to the fact it isn't a sovereign nation, and smaller again if they're full of 'xenophobes.'

[alperez]

Arijharn

Firstly let me be clear i'm not saying destroying the base is the right choice because its the choice i made, rather i'm saying that the choice to keep or destroy it is based on assuming outcomes of unknown events.

Keep the base.

A, possible advantage in fighting the reapers

B. Cerberus can be trusted to fight the reapers.

C, cerberus forces are no real threat.

Destroy the base.

A. Possible disadvantages in fighting the reapers

B. Ceberus can't be trusted

C. An untrustworthy Cerberus with added tech advantage are in fact a big threat.

If you believe any 2 from either of these statements then your choice is clear, it leads you to choose to destroy or keep the base.

However its because the fact that even if that's what you believe you are in fact assuming an outcome you don't know that means either choice could be wrong

Your argument fits within those 3 choices i've listed for keeping the base and your conclussion is completely valid, i disagree with that conclussion but that doesn't make my counter any less valid.

Basically what i'm saying is this, you being right for the reasons you put doesn't make me being wrong for the reasons i put forward, in the end its nothing more than a judgement call and because of that either or both of us could be making the right or wrong one.

[Arijharn]

In theory, I very much agree with you, but in 'practice' I can't, because not all choices are 'equal' no matter how much we may wish otherwise. I'd go into detail (maybe a bit later?) But atm I'm actually waiting for someone in real life, so I might not get around to explaining why I think the way I do about the other decisions in a timely fashion.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Wasn't DA the only dreadnaught at the BoTC,and it was disabled by the Geth

[TMA LIVE]

Arijharn wrote...

They (we) don't dismiss the fact it may be a disadvantage at all, we just look at the lack of any other option and choose accordingly.

Given at the time of ME2 that apparently not even Dreadnought firepower can breech a Reaper's shield devices, then it should be pretty obvious that in any engagement we win we will suffer untenable losses to maintain any sense of momentum. Hence the need to study and hopefully reverse-engineer anything above our current technology level -- enter the Reaper base.

Cerberus is a threat, but Cerberus is also a threat that can wait until the Reaper's are defeated in the sense that Cerberus' capabilities as an entity are vastly outmatched due to the capabilities of a Reaper, let alone a Reaper fleet. It's a combination of these factors that make destroying the base 'illogical' in the sense of the broader picture.

Cerberus is an 'avowed terrorist organisation', it does not have fleet assets to make even the Elcor or Hanar populations worry (why? Because despite the fact that we know nothing about Elcor or Hanar military; we do know that they're each sovereign nations and each has an economy to not only build fleet assets, but also to maintain them).

True. One thing I do use as a motivator for keeping the base (for Femshep) is Arrival, if done after Horizon. By the end of that mission, you know the Reapers are right at your doorstep. You know the Reapers are pretty much here. And you're given a chance to do something before going on trial. Because once you go on trial, you're most likely either going to be put in a batarian prision, or executed. Which means, once you go to your trial, you're out of the game. You're not going to be fighting the Reapers. Someone else is going to have to do that for you. And that someone is Cerberus. Because they are the only ones making any effort to do something about them (or they seem like the only ones). And you need to grab something that's going to give them an edge before you turn yourself in. You need something that's going to justify those people you sacrificed. You have to do something before then. Do you have to like it? No. Do you have to trust them? No. Do you have to think Cerberus is going to use it for good when the Reapers are finished? No. Which is ok. Because desperate times comes desperate measures.

As for Cerberus not being a major threat compared to the Reapers, I agree, but I still consider them a threat that might try to take you out one way or the other. As Tali says "Right now, your their best weapon. But as soon as they don't need you, they'll discard you". Or something like that. If TIM found a way to stop the Reapers AND dominate the other races, but considered you as someone who'd get in the way, he'd take you out despite the price tag on your head. Or say, after the Reapers are defeated, and then TIM takes you out. And then starts his plans for Human Dominance.

It's almost like say, Cerberus is a deadly virus in your system, and the Reapers are guys with machine gun chasing you. The guys with the machine guns are the major threat. One false move and your dead. But if you don't make any effort to get yourself cured, you die anyways. You either hope you can cure yourself after you take out the bad guys, and that it's not too late for the cure to work. Or you try to take care of both at the same time, which is also a risk.

Or at least, that's how I looked at it before ME3 started getting more advertised.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 07 août 2011 - 11:49 .

[Someone With Mass]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Wasn't DA the only dreadnaught at the BoTC,and it was disabled by the Geth

Well, the Arcturus fleet was supposed to have dreadnoughts too, but they never made it into the game.

[Lotion Soronarr]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I can see this:

1) by some stroke of luck we defeat the Reapers. Cerberus provides some amazing tech from the CB that tips the balance.
2) later, Cerberus builds a Reaper at the Collector base, probably out of Batarian prisoners of war, or from dead humans on the earth acquired during the cleanup (flash frozen so they don't deteriorate too much more).
3) the cycle starts again.

All this has happened before and will happen again.

We need to learn how the Reapers got built in the first place, and why. AI gone wild?

Woot! Page 72. Onward toward 80!

Why the hell would Cerberus ever what to build a reaper...EVER?

If you know how to build one, then you know how to build a starship of equal size and power, WITHOUT the goo bits and AI.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]alperez wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]alperez wrote...

Considering one of the people he sends you out to recruit is an assassin and he has someone he uses specifically for his own assainations (kai leng) then its more likely that its not just suitability for the job thats his overriding concern.[/quote]

Eh? Waht's your point here?
[/quote]
 
In Kai leng TIM has one of his most trusted and devoted followers, someone he uses for his own assasinations and yet rather than put Kai with Shepard on the normandy, TIM instead tells you to recruit Thane.

Considering Kai is TIM's own go to guy and his skill set is pretty much the same as what Thane brings to the table if TIM's only justification in picking who to put with Shepard was suitability for the job then it makes sense that Kai would have been put with Shepard, the fact that Kai is someone who hate's aliens though would be a nice reason not to if your intent was not to portray your organisation in a bad light.[/quote]

Or maybe Thane is better than Kai?
May TIM was pissed because of Kai's last faliure?
We can specuialte all we want, but we don't really know.

I prefer to work with more palptable and predictable things in debates - guessing what's in people's heads is not one of them.



[quote]
That works only up to a point. You don't really work for killers if you pasinately disagree wiht killing.
Besides, people you talk too seem to be fine with Cerberus and have no qualms working for them. The only who ever sez anything is Miranda, and it's hardly damning.
If your point is that everyone who's nice works for Cerberus out of ignorance, then I'm labeling you a consipracy theorist.



[quote]
 Like i said people work with people they disagree with for a variety of reasons, Jacob gives you an example of the mindset of someone not agreeing with cerberus or their methods and yet still working with them.

My point wasn't that everyone who works with cerberus was working out of ignorance, but more to disprove your point regarding Kelly.

You argued that people wouldn't work with Cerberus if they believed them to be nothing more than killers or terrorists and used Kelly to illustrate that point, so i raised you Ken and Gabby and what they say about Cerberus's questionable actions.

When you actually break down the reasons behind why people on the normandy are working with cerberus, more of those reasons seem to be justifiable, i argue that the reason for this is an intent to portray Cerberus as something different than they are and this is why the xenophobic zealots aren't put with you.

We're being given a skewed portrait of cerberus by the simple fact that no racist xenophobes are put with Shepard even though we know they're are some in cerberus, i argue that this is deliberate and it makes sense for that to be the case.
[/quote]

Or TIM is simply smart enough to want more friendly and less tense work enviroment.
You'd have to be pretty dumb to put raging xenophobes on the same ship are aliens.



[quote]
Again though your missing the point, of course he recruits skilled people he could use, he also recruits people who's xenophobia is extreme, my argument is that its more the latter than the former, we haven't seen all the true believers yet, although apparently that's about to change come me3.
[/quote]

And we can't really tell given the sample we have is too small.

[TMA LIVE]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I can see this:

1) by some stroke of luck we defeat the Reapers. Cerberus provides some amazing tech from the CB that tips the balance.
2) later, Cerberus builds a Reaper at the Collector base, probably out of Batarian prisoners of war, or from dead humans on the earth acquired during the cleanup (flash frozen so they don't deteriorate too much more).
3) the cycle starts again.

All this has happened before and will happen again.

We need to learn how the Reapers got built in the first place, and why. AI gone wild?

Woot! Page 72. Onward toward 80!

Why the hell would Cerberus ever what to build a reaper...EVER?

If you know how to build one, then you know how to build a starship of equal size and power, WITHOUT the goo bits and AI.

Probably for the same reason why the Reapers were created ingeneral. They are warships with advanced AI afterall.

And who's the say they can't find a way to make a non-goo version? EDI is based off them. Same with Sov's gun. No fleshy stuff involved as far as I'm aware. Still, Cerberus Reapers. Human Dominance. Sounds bad.

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There is a differene between a "rough theoretical plan" and a "plan that will work".

Also, it is impossible to tell before it if would be even possible to capture the base AT ALL.
When you have so little to go with, making plans is useless. Such plans never survive contact with the enemy anyway.

Does everything about TIM has to be nefarious for you people? God help if things such a s practiciality ever factor into it.....
Next thing you'll be telling me the cigarettes he smokes are made out of kittens.

The whole SM (based on the criteria you've used to dismiss why a plan to capture the base would have been inconcievable to TIM) though is based on a leap of faith. We're being sent beyond the omega Iv relay to destroy a theoretical base, face an unknown force with limited info.

Yet that's the plan that TIM comes up with, if in theory that plan makes sense then it stands to reason that using the same criteria it would make sense that a plan to capture the base would also make sense.

Considering basic military procedure would require the creation of various contingencies, then why is it so hard for you to accept that a contingency to capture the base would exist?

Your argument is that it can't because we don't have the relevant date before we set off, but that's also true with the plan we set off with, if its true for one then it holds that it could be true for the other also.

Now in terms of making TIM out to be nefarious, he does that himself.

Considering he shows you in game his willingness to keep info to himself when he feels its justified, then it stands to reason he could also keep any real intent regarding the base to himself until he wishes to reveal it.

GAh..There's a hiuge difference between the two.

You are sent in blid..partially to find out WHAT is out there, so you can determine your next step.

There is only so many contingencies you can have and "captuire the base" isn't a contingecy plan..it's 3 words. HOW do you captire that base? Without knowing anything about it or it's defenses you CANNOT make any practical plan.

Destroy or recon ar far easier to plan as it's easy to react ot the situation immediately - shoot or run, depending on strength. With capture it's not as nearly as simple.

So I don't really see wha't you're trying to prove here. Not only is it highly unlikely TIM has any practical plans, it's also completley unnecessary for him to tell you any untill he has confirmation they would work.

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What other horse besides the CB do we have?

Once again though this argument is based on whether or not the CB is actually a horse in your analogy.

Your basing your argument on the fact in your own mind that the base in some way is an advantage to defeating the reapers, while completely dismissing the idea that it may be a disadvantage.

The argument you present is based on basic assumptions.

A, the base contains some advantage in stopping the reapers.

B. Cerberus can be trusted to do what they say.

C. even if they don't they're not a threat.

But instead of accepting that you any or all of these 3 assumptions could be wrong, you continually argue as if these assumptions were fact and logic and that anyone not accepting this as the case is either wrong or basing their own arguments on flawed logic.

If someone argues that the reasons for destroying the base (again also based on 3 basic assumptions)

A. the base contains inherent dangers that may be a disadvantage to stopping the reapers.

B. cerberus can't be trusted

C. Cerberus in possession of whatever the base can give them are in fact a threat.

Your argument is that this is flawed logic and you dismiss any arguments by restating your own opinion and suggesting your isn't based on assumption but logic.

The simple truth is that in the end the choice is not a logical one, humans don't rely completely on logic and any logic they do use is based on emotion and understanding of events that may not be entirely correct, its in fact nothing more than a judgement call.

I don't dismiss the other 3 posibilities, but they are realisticly so low and insignificant, and the situation so dire, that even if hte risks were 100 times higher, it would STILL be worth taking them.

And yes, I do consider the 3 a flawed logic, in that they focus on the wrong things and that the conclusions are wrong.

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

Arijharn

Firstly let me be clear i'm not saying destroying the base is the right choice because its the choice i made, rather i'm saying that the choice to keep or destroy it is based on assuming outcomes of unknown events.

Keep the base.

A, possible advantage in fighting the reapers

B. Cerberus can be trusted to fight the reapers.

C, cerberus forces are no real threat.

Destroy the base.

A. Possible disadvantages in fighting the reapers

B. Ceberus can't be trusted

C. An untrustworthy Cerberus with added tech advantage are in fact a big threat.

If you believe any 2 from either of these statements then your choice is clear, it leads you to choose to destroy or keep the base.

However its because the fact that even if that's what you believe you are in fact assuming an outcome you don't know that means either choice could be wrong

Your argument fits within those 3 choices i've listed for keeping the base and your conclussion is completely valid, i disagree with that conclussion but that doesn't make my counter any less valid.

Basically what i'm saying is this, you being right for the reasons you put doesn't make me being wrong for the reasons i put forward, in the end its nothing more than a judgement call and because of that either or both of us could be making the right or wrong one.

I'd like to poitn out that 1 and 2 are not really in the game.

1) Cerberus wihth or wihout the base is not a big threat. And any research on the base they do, you can take from them by force - thus making it your own.

2) Trusting Cerberus is irrelevant. Not only because you're really lacking options, but also because of 1.

[Sebby]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

alperez wrote...

Arijharn

Firstly let me be clear i'm not saying destroying the base is the right choice because its the choice i made, rather i'm saying that the choice to keep or destroy it is based on assuming outcomes of unknown events.

Keep the base.

A, possible advantage in fighting the reapers

B. Cerberus can be trusted to fight the reapers.

C, cerberus forces are no real threat.

Destroy the base.

A. Possible disadvantages in fighting the reapers

B. Ceberus can't be trusted

C. An untrustworthy Cerberus with added tech advantage are in fact a big threat.

If you believe any 2 from either of these statements then your choice is clear, it leads you to choose to destroy or keep the base.

However its because the fact that even if that's what you believe you are in fact assuming an outcome you don't know that means either choice could be wrong

Your argument fits within those 3 choices i've listed for keeping the base and your conclussion is completely valid, i disagree with that conclussion but that doesn't make my counter any less valid.

Basically what i'm saying is this, you being right for the reasons you put doesn't make me being wrong for the reasons i put forward, in the end its nothing more than a judgement call and because of that either or both of us could be making the right or wrong one.

I'd like to poitn out that 1 and 2 are not really in the game.

1) Cerberus wihth or wihout the base is not a big threat. And any research on the base they do, you can take from them by force - thus making it your own.

2) Trusting Cerberus is irrelevant. Not only because you're really lacking options, but also because of 1.

They proved themselves trustworthy as an anti-Reaper ally in ME2 though.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Or maybe Thane is better than Kai?
May TIM was pissed because of Kai's last faliure?
We can specuialte all we want, but we don't really know.

I prefer to work with more palptable and predictable things in debates - guessing what's in people's heads is not one of them.

Or maybe as i suggested originally its because of Kai's leanings that cerberus don't put him with shepard, everything we're doing is speculating, the difference is at times you paint your speculations as fact.

As for not guessing what's in people's heads, your the one who brought that into the equation by suggesting what tim's motivations in recruiting people was in the first place, so now when an alternative is presented you prefer to deal with more palatable and predictable things.

Or TIM is simply smart enough to want more friendly and less tense work enviroment.
You'd have to be pretty dumb to put raging xenophobes on the same ship are aliens.

Your now just arguing my point for me, i suggested that was the reason in my original response, you refuted it only to later make the same point yourself, seriously do you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

And we can't really tell given the sample we have is too small.

The sample though can be used to prove the point, by recruiting people for other reasons than their usefulness even if it was simply an isolated case which the law of averages suggests it wouldn't be, it proves that TIM's reasoning isn't always how you portrayed it to be.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


GAh..There's a hiuge difference between the two.

You are sent in blid..partially to find out WHAT is out there, so you can determine your next step.

There is only so many contingencies you can have and "captuire the base" isn't a contingecy plan..it's 3 words. HOW do you captire that base? Without knowing anything about it or it's defenses you CANNOT make any practical plan.

Destroy or recon ar far easier to plan as it's easy to react ot the situation immediately - shoot or run, depending on strength. With capture it's not as nearly as simple.

So I don't really see wha't you're trying to prove here. Not only is it highly unlikely TIM has any practical plans, it's also completley unnecessary for him to tell you any untill he has confirmation they would work.

There isn't  a huge difference, both situations play out in exactly the same manner, you can't suggest something to be untrue for one scenario by using something that makes little sense in the other, as justification for why one wouldn't exist.

If we're sent in blind with no info to destroy the base then it stands to reason a plan could have been created under the exact same circumstances to keep the base, either way your going in blind with no real info.

Considering like i said that TIM witholds info until he deems it relevant then its also completely sensible that he could have been witholding his real plan until the last possible moment, which is basically all i suggested.

The only thing i'm trying to prove is that your original statement that TIM would not have a plan to keep the base is invalid because your justification for why that is the case, can be used to justify why we shouldn't have a plan to destroy the base either.

Saying a lack of info means a plan couldn't have existed, when the same lack of info is the basis for the plan we're working on makes no sense, destroying the base was a general plan, we get the relevant info later, so how does this preclude keeping the base being a general plan that TIm had, when exactly the same conditions are present?