5087 réponses à ce sujet

[KitaSaturnyne]

37.2 meters per second, of course.

EDIT: Hell. Aw, y'know what? I'm leaving it at that.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 16 juin 2012 - 06:46 .

[giveamanafish...]

delta_vee wrote...

ismoketoomuch wrote...

Are people starting to recognize how problematic it is to discuss thematic incongruities without reference to the plot and setting of a story? (Just saying).

I'm not sure what you mean. We've been over just about every inch of both.

I was referring to the original post.

[edisnooM]

@delta_vee

African or European?

Modifié par edisnooM, 16 juin 2012 - 06:49 .

[Sable Phoenix]

Tuchanka Harvester or Tarith Harvester?

edit: Darnit! Ninja'ed!

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 16 juin 2012 - 06:50 .

[edisnooM]

Yours is more appropriate to the universe though. Also the word 'yours' looks weird.

[delta_vee]

@ismoketoomuch

I'm...still not sure what you're saying. drayfish's original post touched on plot and setting plenty...

@Sable

I don't know that...STEEEEEEVE! *is thrown into thresher pit*

Edit: /night

Modifié par delta_vee, 16 juin 2012 - 06:59 .

[edisnooM]

Also how do harvesters transport Reaper forces?

It grips them by the husk.

Doesn't make a lot of sense but it's late and the best I could come up with. :-)

[giveamanafish...]

delta_vee wrote...

@ismoketoomuch

I'm...still not sure what you're saying. drayfish's original post touched on plot and setting plenty...

Edit: /night

I'm not sure what you mean by that., but let me infer. The discussion, as you say""touched on plot and setting", but the thematic elements discussed mostly only reflected the gameplay experience, not the story as a whole.

Maybe the problem some people are having relates to this kind of disjuncture between the gameplay experience and the story and this is the real issue that needs to be addressed .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

To get back on the distinction between killing the Reapers and killing the Geth, I want to talk about Technical Categorization Failure and the Wonder Woman threshold.

"Technical Categorization Failure" is when things that are completely dissimilar are grouped because the categorizations in question have not been designed to encompass the actual realities of the situation that's being assessed.

To prevent yourself from suffering from TCF, you have to think about the situation you're examining, and ask yourself if it crosses the "Wonder Woman Threshold."

The Wonder Woman Threshold is related to a specific story. I'm sure someone more comics savvy than me can quote the chapter and verse, but here's how it shakes down. Supes, WW, and the Bat have captured this guy who keeps mind-controlling Superman and using him to go on murderous rampages. WW uses her lasso to make him tell the truth and asks him "What would it take for us to prevent you from mind-controlling Superman and using him to go on murderous rampages" and the guy says "You'd have to kill me." Wonder Woman says "fair enough" and kills him. Done and done.

Only, since this is comics, Supes yells at Wonder Woman for killing the guy, 'cause heroes don't kill people. Wonder Woman points out that they'd done their level best to put themselves in a situation where they wouldn't have to kill him, but it was one of those rare situations that actually did necessitate it.

The Wonder Woman Threshold refers to two different things: You have crossed the WWT when:

1. A hero has done their due diligence in trying/considering other solutions, but it's pretty clear to 99.9% of people that killing the villain is both completely warranted and probably the best decision for everyone, in the long run.

2. The situation is so fundamentally different from anything that could occur in reality that most real-world worldviews are not directly relevant

In this case, we have a few factors, and it is the simultaneous existence of all three of these things that makes this the definitive case. Firstly, this guy has killed before and is explicitly stating that he will kill again. Secondly, we have a mechanism in place that actually guarantees he's telling the truth. Thirdly, he has superpowers that make any kind of conventional imprisonment impossible..

Once you discover the WWT, it makes certain metafictional debates make a lot more sense, especially when you realize that a story can be made up of a combination of threads; some that do cross the WWT, and some that don't.The Reapers are almost the definition of a villain that crosses the WWT. Most Lovecraftian horrors also cross the WWT by default - they're beings who are usually intelligent and sentient, but who by definition cannot be reasoned with.

Now let's look at an example of a villain who doesn't cross the WWT: the Romulans on Star Trek. I want to stress that a villain not crossing the WWT doesn't mean that we've assessed the situation and determined that peace is possible. A situation not crossing the WWT just means that some semblance of conventional morality can be applied to the situation. It's the difference between a scenario where a person is fighting a Xenomorph and one where they're fighting a Romulan. In both cases, an alien is trying to kill you... but in one, the conflict reflects similar morality to interpersonal conflict throughout history, and the situation must be evaluated on an individual case to determine whether an alternative solution might be possible.

In the other, you nuke the site from orbit: it's the only way to be sure.

I don't know if any of this makes sense. This rant is probably long and pointless. Also, I wish Prometheus were a better movie.

[Hawk227]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


The problem is the last time we had this discussion, you went to the Godwin, and I'm strenuously trying to avoid that... but it seems that without the Godwin we're just talking in circles, and you're unable to separate my question from the Mass Effect ending. I do want to try one more time, because I do really, really want to understand your thought process here. I also want to avoid invoking the Godwin, though.

My problem isn't that you're ignoring my point, it's that my main aim isn't to make a point, it's to really ask a question. I'm trying to understand your thought process, and where you draw a particular rhetorical line.

I'm trying to understand under what circumstances you would consider a villain advocating a course of action a reason not to pursue that action, and under what circumstances you would ignore their opinion. Does it have to do with how closely the ideas are related in your opinion? Or does it have to do with how closely the ideas are related in the villain's opinion? Or is it a mix of both? Does the scale of the villain's evil play a part? If so, how does it relate to the other factors?

The Balak example you use seems to indicate that either scale of villainy or relatedness of ideas is a factor, but I can't tell if it's one of the two, or both.

I'm going to try a different tactic here and not use any examples at all.  think using examples is probably what's been causing this misunderstanding.

I'd also like to clarify and say that there are circumstances under which I would take a villain's opinion into consideration, but my guidelines for when I would do so seem to be completely unrelated to yours.

I thought the Godwin was actually really appropriate in that situation, but opted to replace it with the unabomber/neo-luddism one instead.

I'm not sure I understand you, but I would say neither. Also the scale of villainy is not terribly important. I would consider the Catalyst multiple orders of magnitude more evil than Balak, but I wouldn't trust Balak on human/batarian relations either. I chose Balak as an example because he was in the ME universe, he was an evil villain, and his politics are completely unrelated to the Organic/Synthetic/Reaper politics of the ending decision. I was trying to illustrate my point, but I'll try and spell it out instead.

For me, the relevance of a villain's input is based on 1) the relationship between villain and issue, and 2)how much cumulative data there is with which to make a decision. If Balak was presenting the ending options, his opinion would not effect me (just like Manson and Global warming), because he doesn't have a well established bias within the context of this decision. If Balak was presenting a similar set of options regarding human colonies near Batarian space, his input would become relevant (like Unabomber/Neo-Luddism). It has to do with the relationship of the villain to the issue at hand. In this case, the Catalyst is strongly tied to the issue, to the extent that his entire existence is tied to it.

The second factor is how much data we have. If Synthesis had been explicitly spelled out and was moderate and reasonable (and didn't reek of eugenics) I might be inclined to take it regardless of the catalyst. But there is effectively no data available. The only data we have is the Catalyst's advocacy, and his judgement is horrendous. Choosing synthesis, for me, is a blind jump predicated on the word of a mad man who's already demonstrated his taste in solutions (not to mention his inclination towards subterfuge). This is why I emphasized the ambiguity of the choice in both the Godwin and Unabomber examples. We are put in a position where we have to take his word that 1) something will happen 2) It won't be super awful and 3) It'll solve the problem we want solved (as opposed to him).

Also, I wish Prometheus were a better movie.

On this, we can agree. I was sooo disappointed. I'm even struggling with my own "rewriting the script to Prometheus" issues.

Modifié par Hawk227, 16 juin 2012 - 08:24 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Hawk227 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


The problem is the last time we had this discussion, you went to the Godwin, and I'm strenuously trying to avoid that... but it seems that without the Godwin we're just talking in circles, and you're unable to separate my question from the Mass Effect ending. I do want to try one more time, because I do really, really want to understand your thought process here. I also want to avoid invoking the Godwin, though.

My problem isn't that you're ignoring my point, it's that my main aim isn't to make a point, it's to really ask a question. I'm trying to understand your thought process, and where you draw a particular rhetorical line.

I'm trying to understand under what circumstances you would consider a villain advocating a course of action a reason not to pursue that action, and under what circumstances you would ignore their opinion. Does it have to do with how closely the ideas are related in your opinion? Or does it have to do with how closely the ideas are related in the villain's opinion? Or is it a mix of both? Does the scale of the villain's evil play a part? If so, how does it relate to the other factors?

The Balak example you use seems to indicate that either scale of villainy or relatedness of ideas is a factor, but I can't tell if it's one of the two, or both.

I'm going to try a different tactic here and not use any examples at all.  think using examples is probably what's been causing this misunderstanding.

I'd also like to clarify and say that there are circumstances under which I would take a villain's opinion into consideration, but my guidelines for when I would do so seem to be completely unrelated to yours.

I thought the Godwin was actually really appropriate in that situation, but opted to replace it with the unabomber/neo-luddism one instead.

I'm not sure I understand you, but I would say
neither. Also the scale of villainy is not terribly important. I would
consider the Catalyst multiple orders of magnitude more evil than Balak,
but I wouldn't trust Balak on human/batarian relations either.

I chose Balak as an example because he was in the ME universe, he was an evil villain, and his politics are completely unrelated to the Organic/Synthetic/Reaper politics of the ending decision. I was trying to illustrate my point, but I'll try and spell it out instead.

For me, the relevance of a villain's input is based on 1) the relationship between villain and issue, and 2)how much cumulative data there is with which to make a decision. If Balak was presenting the ending options, his opinion would not effect me (just like Manson and Global warming), because he doesn't have a well established bias within the context of this decision. If Balak was presenting a similar set of options regarding human colonies near Batarian space, his input would become relevant (like Unabomber/Neo-Luddism). It has to do with the relationship of the villain to the issue at hand. In this case, the Catalyst is strongly tied to the issue, to the extent that his entire existence is tied to it.

The second factor is how much data we have. If Synthesis had been explicitly spelled out and was moderate and reasonable (and didn't reek of eugenics) I might be inclined to take it regardless of the catalyst. But there is effectively no data available. The only data we have is the Catalyst's advocacy, and his judgement is horrendous. Choosing synthesis, for me, is a blind jump predicated on the word of a mad man who's already demonstrated his taste in solutions (not to mention his inclination towards subterfuge). This is why I emphasized the ambiguity of the choice in both the Godwin and Unabomber examples. We are put in a position where we have to take his word that 1)something will happen 2) It won't be super awful and 3) It'll solve the problem we wan't solved (as opposed to him).

This right here is why I was trying to separate the idea from Mass Effect itself, at least for the purpose of some of the questions. We're getting closer, but I'm not 100% sure I understand yet, because your answers rely on some assumptions about both Mass Effect and the starchild that we don't share, so I am still a bit confused.

I've come up with three different and somewhat contradictory modes of thinking that could potentially relate to factors you've brought up during the discussion. I dont' think any of these are a complete picture of your thought process, but I'd be interested in seeing where you agree and disagree on each one: 

1. You feel that it is impossible to make a rational decision in the Starkid chamber. Since there is no way of verifying anything that is said, the best bet is to do the opposite of what the evil guy seems to suggest. You don't even know if the red thing will destroy the Reapers, you're basing everything 100% on the idea that the Starkid doesn't like that one, because there's literally no other fact you can have any reasonable degree of certainty about.

2. The Starkid is giving at least semi-accurate descriptions as to what each station does: Red destroys the Reapers while committing genocide, Blue kills Shepard and controls, Green kills Shepard and creates hybrid creatures. You consider all three options equally bad, so the deciding factor is which one the Starkid likes least.

3.  You consider each option based primarily on how repellant you consider the idea the Catalyst associates with the choice to be. In your mind, synthesis is related explicitly to the idea of eugenics, and it is not in any way related to the idea of building understanding between different groups by breaking down racial barriers. You cannot concieve that Synthesis could mean anything other than eugenics.  Since the Catalyst does not actually seem to care that Destroy is related to genocide, the genocide inherent in destroy is less relevant to your decision-making process than it would be if the Catalyst was advocating genocide.

I also have to ask straight out: do you consider all forms of bio-engineering that seek to improve health a worse crime than genocide? If not, what determines for you whether you consider a particular case of bio-engineering to be worse than genocide? If a government released mandatory gene-therapy that prevented anyone from getting cancer ever again but that made fundamental changes in DNA, would that be as bad as genocide because of the inherent violation of forcibly altering someone's DNA?

Again, I feel the need to clarify that I'm not trying to attack here, or make a specific point. I was just looking up different terms that are applied to different methods of bio-manipulation, and I wanted to see what aspect of altering DNA you most strongly object to.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 09:48 .

[Ieldra]

@CulturalGeekGirl:
To bring this closer to the decision in ME3, you might want to add this to your thought-experiment: suppose you had a one-time opportunity to push a button and make the required changes for that cancer immunity in everyone, or do nothing and lose the knowledge of how to do it for the foreseeable future. Would you push the button? Would you push the button if not pushing it meant condemning a million people to death?
Obviously the picture is a little more complex in Synthesis, I just want to know how far people are willing to take their principle of "unwanted genetic change is the worst thing you could possibly imagine".

(Would you mind if I quoted your thought-experiment in one of my threads?)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 10:22 .

[drayfish]

Once again I have stepped away from the thread for what seemed but a moment and returned to find an exquisite wealth of wit and rich insight. Truly, every time I return to this thread it's like opening a gift. Thank you all. Indeed, this time (in less than twenty four hours) it was pages of magnificent commentary. Brilliant. 
 
Sadly I've missed out on much of the conversation in real time, so my responses (over the next couple of posts) will be a bit scattershot and (as appears to be the story of my life now) tragically out of date. But, here goes...
 
 
Yes, much as everyone has been stating, while I would have loved to have had the comprehensive, brain-meltingly satisfactory ending to the series that I always hoped for (and on some level must have suspected would be impossible), this thread has certainly gone beyond simply numbing the ache. Perhaps at this point me repeating this sentiment is probably getting tiresome, but: this continues to be the finest discussion of a text in which I have ever participated – the diversity of analysis and generosity of spirit has been a joy, and has opened the work up to me in wholly new and exciting ways.
 
@ CulturalGeekGirl (from many pages back now), you are right to note that when I spoke briefly about the civility on the forums I was certainly not speaking of you – nor of anyone in this thread. I would never criticise anyone for having passion; and it would be shamefully hypocritical of me to judge anyone for allowing their passion to manifest itself in descriptive and emotional excess. Hell, in the span of this thread I have shot Haley Joel Osment in the face (and been judged for it), turned into a Godzilla rage monster, called in Bill Cosby to shake his head in judgemental disappointment with me, and made several hundred pissy, petulant jabs at any minor pop culture aggravation that my psyche has tripped over in the past several years: Twilight, The Last Airbender movie, the cult of Justin Bieber, the last few seasons of the X-Files. ...Oh, I haven't criticised that yet? Well, add it to the list. No doubt I'll get there eventually.
 
Passion is what has drawn us all here to these forums, what has made us fans instead of just consumers. We all let our enthusiasm and spirit fire us up because it is those very things that this fiction has touched in us, and that is never a bad thing as long as we remain mindful of the validity of each other's passion and perspective – something that I could not be happier to say has been the constant throughout this wondrous, inclusive thread.
 
I think that the major reason that other threads fall apart is because people come to confuse this subjective passion with personal judgement, and I am glad to say that every single contributor here (alongside being thrillingly insightful) has remained supportive and welcoming to all opinions, alert to the truth that it is the themes that we are critiquing, not the people who rightly invest in or reject them.
 
I cannot think of a single page of this thread of which any one of us should feel ashamed – except perhaps my reference to Harbinger getting a prostate exam. That one people could have probably lived without. 
 
...Although prostate exams are pretty 'mature', aren't they? 
 
* The More You Know... *

Modifié par drayfish, 16 juin 2012 - 10:53 .

[Tallestra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@CulturalGeekGirl:
To bring this closer to the decision in ME3, you might want to add this to your thought-experiment: suppose you had a one-time opportunity to push a button and make the required changes for that cancer immunity in everyone, or do nothing and lose the knowledge of how to do it for the foreseeable future. Would you push the button? Would you push the button if not pushing it meant condemning a million people to death?
Obviously the picture is a little more complex in Synthesis, I just want to know how far people are willing to take their principle of "unwanted genetic change is the worst thing you could possibly imagine".

Well, would you push this button if it also meant that there will be no more mutations at all, including the beneficial ones? As the matter of fact, as biologist I'm not sure if such a massive change in our genetic structure won't have some negative consequences. You will have to trust the being that offers it to you, that everything will be ok.
Here another variation - you can eliminate prostate cancer by turning everyone female and making them able to reproduce without males. Will it be acceptable to you?
Or, let's play it differently - you don't have to push the button, you have to kill someone to save everyone from cancer. How far will you be willing to take your principles? 
But yes, there might be conditions that will make me shoose morally questionable action, but I just don't believe that you can discuss this particular situation by playing "what if..." 

[drayfish]

memorysquid wrote...

@Drayfish In context, I thought the synthesis ending was very hopeful and was portrayed as such. For magic hand wavey reasons the Catalyst needed someone to splatter so it could advance all life into a new, better form and Shepard's response was to take a running jump in. Sheer heroism and if no hope for the hero, certainly hope for an entire galaxy. I don't like the sacrifice model of heroism, but there are situations that simply require it. Shep leapt on the grenade without a second thought. Good man. What's wrong with a story that explores the best way to die in a situation that ethically demands it?

Every option affects the entire galaxy without its consent. Someone has to choose how to stop the slaughter and the options included a whole form of life-icide plus multiple galacticide, Reaper tyranny but dominated by Shepard [and how many examples had he seen of successful domination of synthetics] again without consent or lastly some funky magic that gives flora, fauna and robots roboDNA. The issue isn't really about consent, it's about which choice you make in a vacuum of further information and in an emergency situation. Some decision must be made and the results are not clear in advance; inaction results in another Reaping.

Not being a big fan of Doctor Who, I can't say much, but in reality, usually you simply have to make due with what is there. It sounds like the Doctor sidesteps moral di[tri]lemmas usually; that isn't really a story about a moral dilemma then, which is what Mass Effect was always about, making REALLY hard choices and being satisfied with them.

@ memorysquid: (as part of a shamefully delayed response to your question about Doctor Who) I suspect you're right that Synthesis is meant to be the hopeful ending, and I'm extremely glad that you saw it as such – I certainly think that's how the creators intended it to be read (even in spite of the involuntary application that risks souring its inherent poetic beauty). Unfortunately, as the last few pages of this thread reveal, it's almost impossible to get a definitive read on what any of the three endings actually mean or what ramifications they entail. 
 
I was no doubt momentarily sliding back into my default setting of indignant outrage, and clearly failed to explain the Doctor's special capacity to create those 'fourth' options – no doubt making his actions sound all hand-wavey and easy-outs. In truth he doesn't deus ex machina up his own get-out-of-jail-free cards to cheat his way around the facts with which he is presented; he thinks through a situation and uses his limitless well of intellect, imagination and (most importantly) compassion to find new valid, but as yet unconsidered possibilities – options that once they are voiced seem profoundly simple and elegantly true.
 
The cheeky way to mock Doctor Who is to suggest that when things look grim he just pulls a Get-Out-Of-Danger-A-Tron from his pocket and fixes everything, but in the real stories, in the ones that matter, he is taking the circumstances he has been dealt, but finding an entirely new perspective from which to view them.  He is, after all, the ultimate alien observer – he's the outsider who can see (and has seen) the big picture, the galactic scale – putting it into contexts we can scarcely comprehend. But the great beauty of the Doctor, the most romantic, evocative thing, is that even though he'd seen it all, even though he's lived countless years seen countless atrocities and heartbreaks: he remains hopeful. Throughout his ageless life he constantly reaffirms that it is in the smallest acts of kindness, forgiveness and love that one can find the most worth. And it is almost always these attributes – the things that bind us, that define us as human beings, creatures with the capacity to search for meaning beyond the borders of ourselves – that he spins new options to outwit the plans of villains who can think only in terms of division, death and dominance.
 
And that's why I don't think he'd Synthesise, Destroy or Control. He'd so something far more marvellous than boring old doing-what-we're-told-by-the-bad-guys. No doubt he'd laugh when the Catalyst laid out his options. He'd amble about like a giraffe for a moment, probably slap his forehead and chortle, but he would never just agree. He wouldn't compromise. Because in imposing his will upon others he would cross a line from affirming to altering life.  And I'm not convinced he could even take that option.
 
...Again, as much as the discussion over the last several pages reveals, however, there are still simply too many variables and non-specifics and flat-out unknowns attached to each of the choices with which we're currently presented in this unfinished ending, that it's impossible to know what any of us (including the Doctor) would do. We are each compelled to fill up the narrative gaps that should have been sealed by Bioware, and consequentially no one can be wrong or right. At best we can just be contented that we did the best with what we were given, and hope that perhaps the EC will bring us its promised 'clarity' (if not the fourth options I'm praying for...)

Modifié par drayfish, 16 juin 2012 - 01:08 .

[drayfish]

Sorry.  Double Post. 


...Or was it?  I remember a blue telephone box, and a strange whining sound, and suddenly I was back one post previous.  But that couldn't be true.  Could it?  Could it!?! 



No it couldn't.  I am an idiot.  Sorry for the double post.

Modifié par drayfish, 16 juin 2012 - 12:47 .

[drayfish]

Okay, a sequence of unabashed love-posts. I'm sending the affection out to everyone tonight - this past several pages has been a truly fascinating old read - but here are just a few specific nods:
 
 
@ delta_vee: Again, shameless quoting in the vague hope that I can bask in the reflected glory of other people's brilliance, I loved this summation, delta_vee:
 

delta_vee wrote...
And to expand on my earlier thoughts, I believe the central conflict of the series was never with the Reapers, nor with synthetics in general. The latter was an imposition from on high. The former was necessary, as metaphorical Crucible and Catalyst, for the real conflict, which was with ourselves. As characters, as factions, as species, as belief systems. We spent so little time over the course of the three games, ultimately, fighting the Reapers directly. It was always about clearing varren out of colonial tunnels, putting personal histories to rest, resolving ages-long conflicts in whichever manner one could. The meat of the three games was about the galaxy as it stood - the Reapers were only the crux of the galaxy's change, with Shepard our means of pushing this way or that.

Love it love it love it love it...
 
 
@ osbornep: I am loving your every post. As you say, as though experiments go the ending is something of a dead end for now – despite being impossible to stop obsessing over and talk about. And chmess was fantastic. Thank you. 
 
 
@ Fapmaster5000: How do you do that? In twenty minutes you sculpted a whole scenario and filled it with vibrancy and verve? I want your brain. I want your brain for imaginings. (I'll be Zombie-Krusty for a moment:) Send me your brain immediately. Put it in a jar and send it to my address.
 
 
@ JadedLibertine: Firstly, I couldn't agree more: the religious analogies in the ending were tired. How many blatant Edens and 'sacrifices' and ascensions and deity-figures are we going to have to sit through in fiction before writers agree those motifs are lazy? (Shepard even 'Crucified' himself when he leapt into the green beam for the love of Go...  Oh.  Uh, religion?)
 
And you just sold me on Beyonetta! I must say, nothing in the pre-release advertising drew me in, but your description makes me want to play it immediately! 
 
 
@ CulturalGeekGirl and Hawk227: I know the debate/clarification has risked tipping into heated territory, but it has been fascinating - but also heartening to see that you are both so eager to comprehend where each other is coming from. Mucho respect for walking that line.


@ Seijin8: I support the idea of an index for this thread also. There's just too much great stuff in the preceding discussions that are often difficult to track down... Also: love!
 
 
@ The Muppets: I just watched your latest movie. I love you guys. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for my childhood. You have filled me with unbridled glee and wonder, and I love having you back in all our lives.
 
 
@ The '@' sign: You know, for years I never gave you the appreciation you deserved. I took you for granted, and for that I am sorry & I love you too. 
 
...Wait.  &, what are you doing here? Oh, you heard that, did you? Well, hey, &, baby, it's not what you think... Me and @ are just friends. Come on, &, don't be like that. No. No, that's not fair. This is nothing like what happened with me and #. I've changed...
 
 
...Okay, that lunacy might be a sign that it's time for me to go to bed. Night all. And truly, thanks for the gift of your minds.

Modifié par drayfish, 16 juin 2012 - 01:52 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@Drayfish

I have never really liked new Dr who (or really watched classic either) because of the solve everything at the last minute atron, and I personally think 45 minutes is not enough time to have a self contained story, because they always have to wrap it up with a last min atron after a benny hill esque chase. I think the two part episodes improve things slightly, but I am not a fan of the way they try to link the self contained episodes into some major reveal at the end of each series with foreshadowing and hints.

As for the "stories that matter" perhaps they need solving everything fairly easy to be the the norm, so when that's not possible, and he becomes nearly powerless to save people the story becomes more interesting. I do think the doctor would take a 4th option if given the three choices because the situation is so ridiculous its not worth some drama filled decision over, he should just make starkids head explode, (leaving him to wander about waving his arms), with his screwdriver, pull a panel of the wall and hotwire the crucible to make his own custom solution. Though I think the doctor may have possibly endorsed some synthesis style solution to a problem in the past, I don't think under the context of the situation he would choose it.

@Nearly Everyone

I think (as its been said) the problem with our "all thematically revolting, but if I had to pick one..." debate is in the absence of any information about what the real outcome of any of the choices are we have to fall back on our own thoughts and interpretations of each one, no matter how well anyone justifies how they come to the outcome they do it all relies on interpretations that can't be easily swayed by argument, since the other side came to their interpretation in with equally poor evidence.

For example for the with "best worst" is destroy, people make the judgement, that the worst outcome of destroy is not as bad as the worst outcomes of control and synthesis. and though the best outcomes of control and synthesis could be better than the best outcome of destroy, they feel given the unclear nature of the situation its best to go with the situation that is best under the worst circumstances.


For synthesis people take the view that the best outcome of synthesis is better than the best outcomes of the other choices, and the worst outcomes of synthesis are still better than choosing the destruction of the geth, or risking reaper control.


For control people think the best outcomes of control are better than the best outcomes of the other two, and I think people think that the worst outcomes of control are at least equal to the worst outcomes of the other choices.


As a gambling analogy destroy has less of a reward for getting the best outcome, but you don't lose as much money if you get the worst outcome.

While with synthesis and control you either win big or go utterly bankrupt if you get the worst outcome.


What I think my first thing shows is that people come to opposite conclusions for similar reasons, and its down to their individual interpretation of the best/ worst consequences that being formed from limited information is a good a guess as the other side.

Most people have an individual bias to one interpretation, (not in the bad sense as "your biased!", but everyone has some bias, you just have to understand it) so when applied to a logical interpretation where there is not a clear winner, the belief in one interpretation being more likely than the other is the deciding factor in the choice.

If bioware actually explain what the true outcomes are at some point, then we can have a debate as to which one is potentially the best worst, but before then I think its of limited value.


Note, all that's just my thought process so feel free to disagree...

Wow what a ramble....

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 04:52 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I realized last night as I was falling asleep how much this relates to my inability to classify pretty much anything as "worse than genocide," which is why, again, I object so strongly when people insist that killing the Reapers is also genocide, especially when they loop that in with the genocide of the geth.

"Oh hey, you were planning on committing genocide anyway, so really, you're a hypocrite if you insist that genocide is the fundamentally objectionable bit here. What's one genocide more or less, at that point?"

No, screw that. Calling the destruction of ancient Cthulu machines who are engaged in an active attempt to destroy us "genocide" devalues and minimizes the horror of that concept. It is so past the WWT that it's not even funny.

But the Geth thing isn't past the WWT. You're not killing an army of enemy combatants who are sworn to defeat you, who are currently actively attempting to kill everyone. You're killing a race of sentients that are allied with you when options to not kill them are readily available at hand.

I understand intellectually that others can consider genocide "not the worst thing in the world," however I personally consider genocide the worst thing that has ever actually happened in reality, so it's hard for me to classify fictional, ineffable maybe-horrors as worse than the actual worst thing, especially when the thing that people are fearful of is so ill-defined.

Basically, I'm not as afraid of the unknown as I am of genocide, and I don't think that will ever change.

To give a perspective on Biggle's gaming metaphor, I don't think the simple badness of the worst case scenario is a rational way to evaluate a gamble. This is how I see the choices given:

Say your total net worth is 100,000. You can play one of three games

In game A, odds are 90% that you will lose $99,000, 9% that you will lose $99,900, and 1% that you'll win $10,000.

In game B, odds are 50% that you will lose everything, 50% that you will win $50,000.

In game C, odds are 50% that you will win $70,000, 40% that you will win $30,000, 9.5% that you will lose $40,000, and .5% that you will lose everything and someone will stab you.

People are saying that they won't play game C because of the .5% chance of stabbing, whereas otherwise it is clearly the best bet. I mean the stabbing isn't even guaranteed to be fatal! You guys are such stab-wusses.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 06:43 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@CGG

I think the total destruction of another species should be called a genocide, no matter how justified you are in doing it, the human classification is not based on situations involving alien superpowers so it is poor, but saying something is not a genocide because you really believe that they deserve it is not a good argument IMO. There is nothing worse than genocide, but the consequences for synthesis could last forever, mass torture or mind altering for 1000's of years could easily be considered on par.

As a side exercise you could argue that the geth already committed themselves to victory or death like all the other partners in the massive fleet, while not nice to think about how would ordering the geth to launch a suicidal attack for victory to occur be different to taking an action that causes victory at the cost of them being destroyed? Yes you could argue that in a conventional attack situation its unlikely the geth would take 100% casualties, and you are not asking them first whether they would be willing to sacrifice themselves, though as defacto leader its assumed you have the right to make decisions, in the same vein you don't ask anyone if they are willing to become synthetic hybrids, so consent for any of the choices is already given in some way.



^ And the problem is everyone thinks the odds are different so the gambling example is imperfect

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

BigglesFlysAgain wrote...

@CGG

I think the total destruction of another species should be called a genocide, no matter how justified you are in doing it, the human classification is not based on situations involving alien superpowers so it is poor, but saying something is not a genocide because you really believe that they deserve it is not a good argument IMO..

"They deserve it" isn't my argument, has never been my argument, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. That you could read anything I've written over the past day and think that "they deserve it" is my argument is unbelievably aggravating and frustrating. I must be completely failing to communicate on every concievable level, if you can get that from what I've written.

I will simplify and clarify my arguments.

1. In real life, there will never be a scenario where a superpowered evil that has no civilians and cannot be reasonsed with will attack us. Thus looping such scenarios into discussions of things that actually do have some level of resemblance to real world issues is stupid and completely destroys the ability to have rational debates about real horrors.

2. I'm not saying we're killing the Reapers "because they deserve it." I'm saying we're killing entities that are actively engaged in combat with us at precisely the second that we are killing them. Do you believe that killing someone because they are actively trying to kill you and killing them is the only way you can concieve of to prevent them from killing you is a "poor excuse?"

My more meta argument is this: if you call killing a race of superpowered monsters who are all actively trying to murder you in combat "genocide," that removes the stigma from the idea of genocide and  makes people more willing to consider genocide as a valid option. We can see literal evidence of that everywhere in this forum: people who consider killing the Reapers to be genocide are much much more willing to murder an entire peaceful sentient race in a way that has similar ethical connotations to real world genocide.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 07:07 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@CGG

Ok I am sorry if I seem to be misreading you, I just got that from this:

"No, screw that. Calling the destruction of ancient Cthulu machines who are engaged in an active attempt to destroy us "genocide" devalues and minimizes the horror of that concept."

I'm not trying to set out to make people feel like criminals for killing the reapers, we should kill the reapers! crush the reapers! kill reaper babies with sledgehammers ect ect. Maybe I just feel that wiping them out is genocide if not an actual crime.

Given that A.I.s do not exist and may never exist can they be brought into a situation where destroying them would be called genocide?

Maybe using the word genocide in a fictional setting does devalue it compared to all the terrible things that have happened, but its in all kinds of fiction so its hard to avoid using it.


Edit.


Ok I see you want the word genocide to just be used to describe it as a crime, but I am trying to use the general usage of it becuase that definition is to vague and has been argued over since it was first defined in 1948

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 07:13 .

[giveamanafish...]

To repeat a point made earlier in response to a comment by (something) geekgirl, necessity can be a complete answer to a criminal charge of murder (or genocide) where the following elements can be proved by the defendant in a court of law
[indents added for ease of reading]:

"(1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm;
(2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and
(3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law.
Some jurisdictions require in addition that the harm must have been imminent and that the action taken must have been reasonably expected to avoid the imminent danger.

All these elements mirror the principles on which the defense of necessity was founded:
1) that the highest social value is not always achieved by blind adherence to the law;
2) that it is unjust to punish those who technically violate the letter of the law when they are acting to promote or achieve a higher social value than would be served by strict adherence to the law; and
3) that it is in society's best interest to promote the greatest good and to encourage people to seek to achieve the greatest good, even if doing so necessitates a technical breach of the law."
http://legal-diction...cessity defense

The point is that necessity is a context-based defense, it depends on the circumstances -- not just the facts and all the facts but all the relevant facts. This is relevant here because people in this thread seem to be cherry-picking the story to suit their arguments re the validity of the ending. Contextually, the Reaper invasion is not just the back-drop to the story behind the game, it is the leit motif, the driving factor behind the main protagonist's actions and decisions, including those involved in the end. A lot of discussion here, in my mind at least, is not informed by that basic recognition. ("Moby Dick" w/o the whale, is just a story about a group of men sailing the world, talking; while Captain Ahab is just a mean guy with a wooden leg).

[delta_vee]

@CGG

Yeah, the potential for stabby is kind of a big deal. Thus why normal people do their gambling in Vegas instead of the local mob-run card room.

We don't even have the kind of breakdown of the odds that you give. We have so little to go on. The mistrust of Glow-Boy stems from the horrendously incomplete picture of him in the text. Is he surrendering to the Crucible, and merely attempting to convince us to solve his problem in our victory? Has he won, and only grants us the choice out of fear of another cycle completing the Crucible instead? On the one hand, he is presented in the manner of every other trustworthy expository fount in the series, with a dash of expected scale and awe. On the other, he is in control of the very enemy we fight, and we are asked to solve his problem, not ours. The variances born of EMS score complicate things further, with the answers to the above shifting with our relative completion of the game.

Which brings me to my main point, and here I want to emphasize that this is born of respect instead of malice: you're looking too closely at the text, angered and confused by other players' choices, rather than the paratext of the choice itself, its incongruity and its waste.

I have a friend who's an artist, curator, photographer, et cetera. (He likes Twombly and Ryman and Shore and Brutalism, so it's not like I trust his taste.) One of our recurring arguments is paratext versus text - which is more important, how much one can weigh each, how to separate them. I tell him "the paratext is not the text" so often that he commissioned a cross-stitch of the phrase (proudly mounted on my desk).

The Catalyst makes a liar out of me.

This choice, these three (revolting) options, and all the resultant hand-wringing and arguments and rationalizations and conspiracy theories they inspire - all of that is thrust upon us by the developers, not the story.

I never asked for this.

The text - the merits (or lack thereof) of the three choices - is almost immaterial. The paratext of an insistent, cancerous final choice, grafted onto the game to make us sweat and agonize and argue afterwards, is what's more important. We were denied the victory we were near-as-dammit promised. The relative popularity of Destroy, I believe, has less to do with tolerance of genocide or collateral damage or anything except that it is the closest thing to what most of us expected, the nearest thing to the resolution we craved. And as much as it goes against my usual objections, in this case the paratext of denying the player a straightforward resolution is more relevant than the semantics of genocide or suspicion of the exposibot or the unknown boundaries of possibility spaces.

I agree with you that stories are powerful things. If they weren't - if this one wasn't - we wouldn't be here bothering to examine the details. But I think you're focusing too much on the text, and not enough on the paratext. I don't think you can view the choice in a vacuum; much as I'd love to excise it entirely and toss it in the biohazard bin, we have to study the parasitic lump while still attached to its host. And it really is a parasite, existing to the detriment of its carrier, and while its removal would make for a healthier host, it cannot be evaluated on its own.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

BigglesFlysAgain wrote...

@CGG

Ok I am sorry if I seem to be misreading you, I just got that from this:

"No, screw that. Calling the destruction of ancient Cthulu machines who are engaged in an active attempt to destroy us "genocide" devalues and minimizes the horror of that concept."

I'm not trying to set out to make people feel like criminals for killing the reapers, we should kill the reapers! crush the reapers! kill reaper babies with sledgehammers ect ect. Maybe I just feel that wiping them out is genocide if not an actual crime.

Given that A.I.s do not exist and may never exist can they be brought into a situation where destroying them would be called genocide?

Maybe using the word genocide in a fictional setting does devalue it compared to all the terrible things that have happened, but its in all kinds of fiction so its hard to avoid using it.

Augh. Ok, let me clarify further, in big letters: "engaged in an active attempt to destroy us" was meant to relate to previous statements that they are actively trying to murder you right this second, I mean look out the bloody window.

My argument isn't that the word genocide shouldn't be used in fiction.

It's that it has no relation to a race composed entirely of superpowered beings who have explicitly stated that they are trying to murder you and who are, at that precise second, trying to murder you.

It could have some application as a concept in almost every other concievable situation related to killing sentients, but not that one.

I know you're not trying to make people feel like criminals for killing the reapers, but if you think that killing the Reapers is genocide, then not only do you think there are some situations where genocide is acceptable, you are also explicitly stating that you believe there are circumstances under which genocide isn't even a crime.

Any rhetorical framework under which there are ever circumstances where genocide isn't even a crime is rhetorically bankrupt. Genocide is a warcrime. To use it to represent something-that-is-not-a-warcrime is nauseatingly repellant to me.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 07:27 .