282 réponses à ce sujet

[VampireSoap]

Malanek999 wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

You're asking for things to PROVE a theory. You can hypothesise a theory which you are unable to prove. However your thread title does not adhere to the same standards you seem to be demanding from others. You claim this thread has debunked the IT when it has done nothing of the sort.

Until someone gives me the actual evidence for IT, I have done exactly what I said.

You've obviously never done mathematics to any reasonable level. To disprove a theory you need to offer a single example of why the theory CANNOT BE TRUE. Simply claiming no one has been able to prove it does not do this. Even your latest reply shows a shudderingly bad understanding of what you are talking about. You say  "Until someone gives me the actual evidence..." is in your own words acknowledging the fact you haven't disproved it.

The fact of the matter is that this is a story and until the EC comes out or bioware definitively confirm or deny it, no one is going to be able to PROVE anything, because the fundamentals are not solid enough to build a proof even without the possibility of plotholes. For the record, I thought the IT was highly likely after just viewing all the clues in the game. But after what Bioware devs have come out and said since that time I now find it highly unlikely, unless they were deliberately misleading us.

I am a science student in the university of Berkeley. And I can tell you I have done a lot of mathematics, but I'm not sure if all of them are on "reasonable" level. I will only say this to you, I need NOTHING to disprove something that has NOT been proven yet.

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

VampireSoap wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanaton and prediction for a class of phenomena, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

Now, tell me, is IT qualified to be called a theory?

Naughty, naughty, VampireSoap.  Some of us can look up dictionary.com, too.  And "theory" has more than one definition:


1.  a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.  a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.  Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.  a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6.  contemplation or speculation: the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture: My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically: In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.





 


Synonyms
1. Theory, hypothesis  are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory  in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis  is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

[Ladyinsanity]

VampireSoap wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanaton and prediction for a class of phenomena, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

Now, tell me, is IT qualified to be called a theory?

If you want to try and argue semantics, you can also throw in your source Dictionary.com's second definition of Theory in there:"a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact"


Which, in that definition, allows IT to visibly be considered a theory.

Edit: Christ, beat by two minutes. Still, the fact remains that arguing the legitimacy of IT by the use of knocking its name is flimsy.

Modifié par Ladyinsanity, 03 mai 2012 - 04:01 .

[MACharlie1]

VampireSoap wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

You're asking for things to PROVE a theory. You can hypothesise a theory which you are unable to prove. However your thread title does not adhere to the same standards you seem to be demanding from others. You claim this thread has debunked the IT when it has done nothing of the sort.

Until someone gives me the actual evidence for IT, I have done exactly what I said.

You've obviously never done mathematics to any reasonable level. To disprove a theory you need to offer a single example of why the theory CANNOT BE TRUE. Simply claiming no one has been able to prove it does not do this. Even your latest reply shows a shudderingly bad understanding of what you are talking about. You say  "Until someone gives me the actual evidence..." is in your own words acknowledging the fact you haven't disproved it.

The fact of the matter is that this is a story and until the EC comes out or bioware definitively confirm or deny it, no one is going to be able to PROVE anything, because the fundamentals are not solid enough to build a proof even without the possibility of plotholes. For the record, I thought the IT was highly likely after just viewing all the clues in the game. But after what Bioware devs have come out and said since that time I now find it highly unlikely, unless they were deliberately misleading us.

I am a science student in the university of Berkeley. And I can tell you I have done a lot of mathematics, but I'm not sure if all of them are on "reasonable" level. I will only say this to you, I need NOTHING to disprove something that has NOT been proven yet.

Unfortunately, this isn't a science. Your better off studying political "science" and law to disprove IT. 

Most of the time in criminal cases, as I said before, there is absolutely no "direct evidence". I know your used to watching Law & Order where they just crack a case wide open. If it only it worked like that in reality. Same concept. If only everything in life could be explained with math...

EDIT: I just realized I suck at math. 

Modifié par MACharlie1, 03 mai 2012 - 04:01 .

[dreman9999]

VampireSoap wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

You're asking for things to PROVE a theory. You can hypothesise a theory which you are unable to prove. However your thread title does not adhere to the same standards you seem to be demanding from others. You claim this thread has debunked the IT when it has done nothing of the sort.

Until someone gives me the actual evidence for IT, I have done exactly what I said.

You've obviously never done mathematics to any reasonable level. To disprove a theory you need to offer a single example of why the theory CANNOT BE TRUE. Simply claiming no one has been able to prove it does not do this. Even your latest reply shows a shudderingly bad understanding of what you are talking about. You say  "Until someone gives me the actual evidence..." is in your own words acknowledging the fact you haven't disproved it.

The fact of the matter is that this is a story and until the EC comes out or bioware definitively confirm or deny it, no one is going to be able to PROVE anything, because the fundamentals are not solid enough to build a proof even without the possibility of plotholes. For the record, I thought the IT was highly likely after just viewing all the clues in the game. But after what Bioware devs have come out and said since that time I now find it highly unlikely, unless they were deliberately misleading us.

I am a science student in the university of Berkeley. And I can tell you I have done a lot of mathematics, but I'm not sure if all of them are on "reasonable" level. I will only say this to you, I need NOTHING to disprove something that has NOT been proven yet.

But you need something to disprove something that has fact supporting it. That is what  one of the meaning of Theory is, an consept or beleif that has fact supporting it's speculation......Or do you wan to use the method meaning?

[Malanek]

VampireSoap wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanaton and prediction for a class of phenomena, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

Now, tell me, is IT qualified to be called a theory?

Even in the definition of theory you chose to use, which isn't really a very good one, the words  "commonly regarded as correct," mean that you still haven't disproved it.

There are other definitions of theory, the one you chose to use relates to the group of scientific theories which have already been proved but retain the word theory. Some other definitions...

-a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation
-a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

[dreman9999]

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanaton and prediction for a class of phenomena, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

Now, tell me, is IT qualified to be called a theory?

Naughty, naughty, VampireSoap.  Some of us can look up dictionary.com, too.  And "theory" has more than one definition:


1.  a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.  a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.  Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.  a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6.  contemplation or speculation: the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture: My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically: In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.





 


Synonyms
1. Theory, hypothesis  are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory  in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis  is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/theory ...All stated here.. I post some of this already...

Now, that we proven IT is a theory...We need to change this topic to something else.....I prepose it should be on the oddity of how Jack puts on more clothes in ME3 then ME2 and some how shows way more then before.:innocent:

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 mai 2012 - 04:07 .

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

@ dreman9999: FTL forums FTW! *halo*

[dreman9999]

Did vampy abandon his topic?.....Funny...

[VampireSoap]

I'm sorry if I can't reply every post, but I'll try. (Man, I just went out for about 10 mins, and all of a sudden...)

Modifié par VampireSoap, 03 mai 2012 - 04:19 .

[dreman9999]

VampireSoap wrote...

I'm sorry if I can't reply every post, but I'll try. (Man, I just went out for about 10 mins, and all of sudden...)

Start with KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH's.......It should be funny to see you comment on that. You can do mine on the other page, too. It's the last one....

[VampireSoap]

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanaton and prediction for a class of phenomena, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

Now, tell me, is IT qualified to be called a theory?

Naughty, naughty, VampireSoap.  Some of us can look up dictionary.com, too.  And "theory" has more than one definition:


1.  a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.  a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.  Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.  a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6.  contemplation or speculation: the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture: My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically: In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.

OK, so you are saying that IT is a theory that is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact, but not a theory that is a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena like Einstein's theory of relativity?

Good, I was hoping you can find that out yourself because you finally admit that IT has not been proven....And all I want from the very beginning is just simply proofs that can make IT a theory that fits the first definition.

Modifié par VampireSoap, 03 mai 2012 - 04:18 .

[TheBigM145]

 I prefer a different princible when it comes to discussing IT. Occam's Razor.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor 

In short, IT has too many assumptions and there are far simpler explanations. 

[dreman9999]

VampireSoap wrote...

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanaton and prediction for a class of phenomena, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

Now, tell me, is IT qualified to be called a theory?

Naughty, naughty, VampireSoap.  Some of us can look up dictionary.com, too.  And "theory" has more than one definition:


1.  a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.  a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.  Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.  a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
6.  contemplation or speculation: the theory that there is life on other planets.
7. guess or conjecture: My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically: In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.

OK, so you are saying that IT is a theory that is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact, but not a theory that is a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena like Einstein's theory of relativity?

Good, I was hoping you can find that out yourself because you finally admit that IT has not been proven....And all I want from the very beginning is just simply proofs that can make IT a theory that fits the first definition.

It's a defination...Thus making IT theory. You can't say a dictonary is wrong.

[UnstableMongoose]

VampireSoap wrote...

I post this thread to remind everyone that whenever an Indoc Theorist is trying to assert that IT is true, you don't have to look for evidence against the theory. The burden of proof is always on the one who's making the claim, and in this case the IT theorists are always the ones who are making that claim. And so far I've seen only speculations.

What is actual evidence?

Samples of actual evidence:
1. Official documents confirming the "theory".
2. A video clip with a Bioware developer saying that IT is correct.

3. A DLC that illustrates the whole story using IT.
     and so on....

I encourage you not to answer the IT theorists anything unless they give actual evidence instead of
speculations. Until they give official evidence instead of far-fetched speculations, none of us should be convinced.


To IT theorists: If you want to post your lists of "reasons" here, please first prove their credibility. What are the sources? Has any Bioware official supported your reason?

Your premise is false at its core, so by your own argument, I can dismiss your thread without evidence. However, since I'm a nice guy, I'm going to outline reasons why rather than putting myself above everyone else.

You assume that there was originally intended to be a single, canon, "true" ending. This is at odds with most facts pertaining to the ending. Why do you think that BioWare has started they wanted fan speculation on the ending and that every writer that gets interviewed has something different to say about it? The ending was written so that a number of interpretations would be equally valid, IT among them. There is no "true" ending. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand when BioWare has essentially told it to them straight.

It is entirely possible that The Extended Cut may put forward that there is a "true" ending. However, the fact that the Extended Cut is a last-minute band-aid, weighed against the fact that pre-release statements and immediate post-release statements indicate that there is not supposed to be any single ending that is true, mean that even were the Extended Cut only to be interpreted in one manner, it would be very difficult to consider IT something that was not considered to be a valid interpretation by BioWare given the pre-release history hinting at the existence of multiple interpretations regarding the events of the ending.

The problem is that to dismiss IT, you must dismiss all of its claims as being unconnnected coincidences. If IT only had somewhere in the neighboorhood of 5-10 points they were hanging on to, this would be a fairly reasonable interpretation. However, to dismiss IT as being something that BioWare did not plan at all, you must independently assume that every single claim made by IT is an unconnected coincidence. If even one was intended to be a hint at indoctrination and ninety-nine were false, IT would still at that juncture be something that BioWare had intended.

The vast number of baseless assumptions required to dismiss IT as something that "BioWare didn't intend" mean that Occam's Razor chops the head off your pet theory. One or two would be fine. Dozens are not.

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 03 mai 2012 - 04:23 .

[dreman9999]

TheBigM145 wrote...

 I prefer a different princible when it comes to discussing IT. Occam's Razor.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor 

In short, IT has too many assumptions and there are far simpler explanations. 

Not at all....Look at this for a bit....These are concrete facts that support it.
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 

[Malanek]

dreman9999 wrote...
You can't say a dictonary is wrong.

I could disprove this theory by finding a single error in any dictionary ever printed.

Not that I can be bothered, but that is how to disprove something.

[VampireSoap]

dreman9999 wrote...
But you need something to disprove something that has fact supporting it. That is what  one of the meaning of Theory is, an consept or beleif that has fact supporting it's speculation......Or do you wan to use the method meaning?

What kind of facts? Shepard's blue eyes? Running slow in the dream? Collector ship parts on the citadel? I said it from the beginning, GIVE ME THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

[ChildOfEden]

VampireSoap wrote...

I post this thread to remind everyone that whenever an Indoc Theorist is trying to assert that IT is true, you don't have to look for evidence against the theory. The burden of proof is always on the one who's making the claim, and in this case the IT theorists are always the ones who are making that claim. And so far I've seen only speculations.

What is actual evidence?

Samples of actual evidence:
1. Official documents confirming the "theory".
2. A video clip with a Bioware developer saying that IT is correct.

3. A DLC that illustrates the whole story using IT.
     and so on....

I encourage you not to answer the IT theorists anything unless they give actual evidence instead of
speculations. Until they give official evidence instead of far-fetched speculations, none of us should be convinced.


To IT theorists: If you want to post your lists of "reasons" here, please first prove their credibility. What are the sources? Has any Bioware official supported your reason?

Then perhaps BioWare shouldn't have made such an open ended ending.

[wolfstanus]

Just because their is no evidence does not mean the evidence does or does not exist. It's a unknown unknown.

[UnstableMongoose]

VampireSoap wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But you need something to disprove something that has fact supporting it. That is what  one of the meaning of Theory is, an consept or beleif that has fact supporting it's speculation......Or do you wan to use the method meaning?

What kind of facts? Shepard's blue eyes? Running slow in the dream? Collector ship parts on the citadel? I said it from the beginning, GIVE ME THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

You've got it all mixed up backwards in your head. IT is an interpretation of fictional work. Proof of this concept existing is the presentation of different themes, elements, and dialogue within the game. Outside interviews with people who wrote the dialogue is not required to outline such a theory. The dialogue that they wrote into the game substitutes nicely for such extraneous materials.

It is you who have the burden of proof to prove that elements of the game clearly hinting that Shepard is becoming indoctrinated were in no way intended by BioWare. That is the stance that would require numerous outside interviews and insider knowledge of the team's intentions. 

The interpretation of IT is simply letting the game and the elements that the developers put into it speak for themselves.

[VampireSoap]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Your premise is false at its core, so by your own argument, I can dismiss your thread without evidence. However, since I'm a nice guy, I'm going to outline reasons why rather than putting myself above everyone else.

Except that I'm not the one who's making the claim. How can you dismiss anything I say without giving any ACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT? I'm already in a denial position.

[dreman9999]

VampireSoap wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But you need something to disprove something that has fact supporting it. That is what  one of the meaning of Theory is, an consept or beleif that has fact supporting it's speculation......Or do you wan to use the method meaning?

What kind of facts? Shepard's blue eyes? Running slow in the dream? Collector ship parts on the citadel? I said it from the beginning, GIVE ME THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

...This...
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/
To truly understand this, you'll need to understand that the goal of this it to point out:
How indoctrination works.
The fact that Shepard has been in point in the plot that allows contact with indoctrination waves.
The simptoms of indoctrination.
Finally, the fact that Shepard is showing signs of these symtoms.

Fact 1. People are indoctrinated by being near reapers and reaper tech. 

Fact 2. People that at are under the process of indoctrination here whispers.

Fact 3.Shepard is near allot of reaper tech through out ME1 and ME2.

Fact 4. Shepard is hit by an indoctrination field in the arrival dlc, in which he see's visions
and hears voices....

Fact 5.Indoctrination does not just go away...http://masseffect.wi.../Rana_Thanoptis



'If Rana survived Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, she will appear in an ANN Report on
indoctrination. She has apparently murdered several top asari officials and
then committed suicide. While in custody, Thanoptis reported "voices"
in her head (a typical symptom of indoctrination) to investigators."



Fact 6. The reapers can manipulate dreams...http://www.youtube.c...JFRvDUp4#t=690s

The reseachers on project rho in Arrival also taked about strange dreams  when they were being indoctrinated.

http://www.youtube.c...tYTITiTw#t=249s 

Fact 7. Reapers can indoctrinatewith quantum intanglement.http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Arrival:_The_Reapers'_Secrets 

The third discovery is that the object broadcasts signals and information on many different spectra. One such pulse, suspected to be similar to a quantum entanglement communicator, reaches into. Another broadcast is infrasound, consistent with frequencies that trigger feelings of awe and fear in , a known factor in Reaper indoctrination. Kenson's laboratory is filled with equipment dedicated to monitoring any signal coming from the artifact in the hopes that some clue will prove the Reapers' undoing before it's too late. "

Fact 8. You hear whispers in sheps dreams....

[soapmode]

I really don't see how a further set of plot inconsistencies in the finale, such as the infinite ammo in Shepard's gun, the bullet wound in their side, the ground rubble in the 'secret' cutscene etc., can be used to seriously explain away an ending that makes no sense; especially given ME3 is filled with similar minor inconsistencies long before the climax. The IT is a fine attempt to fix a horrible situation, but it fails because its base assumption is that BioWare had this all figured out from the start. A close reading of the plot of ME3 shows they definitely didn't. It's just that, up until the ending, all those minor inconsistencies are completely forgivable.