80611 réponses à ce sujet

[BansheeOwnage]

AresKeith wrote...

Banshee I like the picture of your Shepard

You mean this one

<-------------------


Or this one?

(Sorry for off-topic)

[Bill Casey]

A couple of pictures for you to enjoy...

[BansheeOwnage]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

As in, just convinced by good arguments?

Didn't Byne say they slightly changed the way they think?

Isn't that messing with free will, as in, the control kind?

Yet at the same time, people are saying, no they were not being controlled, they were just influenced. I mean is influence still only influence if it isn't just something you perceive, but something that changes the way you think?

It's really confusing.

It's certainly confusing when it comes to fine-line things like this. It's hard to say.

Edit: You never disappoint Bill.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 24 novembre 2012 - 02:42 .

[BatmanTurian]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

Omega drops in 4 days!

....

If Omega drops major clues and people can't or won't connect the dots, I will be disappointed.

agreed

Don't wanna he a downer, but... prepare to be disappointed.

No kidding.

[Krimzie]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

Omega drops in 4 days!

....

If Omega drops major clues and people can't or won't connect the dots, I will be disappointed.

agreed

Don't wanna he a downer, but... prepare to be disappointed.

While we will probably be disappointed in people not connecting the dots (or refusing to look like they've connected the dots because Peer Pressure), I have nooooo doubts that Omega will have SOME clues. I mean COME ON, adjutants!

That's like, I dunno, dropping a hint about indoctrination by introducing us to an organic race with mind-control capabilities that created the Reapers or something and they would NEVER write anything like tha--OH WAIT!

Weeeee, Omega countdown. 

[401 Kill]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

Omega drops in 4 days!

....

If Omega drops major clues and people can't or won't connect the dots, I will be disappointed.

agreed

Don't wanna he a downer, but... prepare to be disappointed.

Oh, my expectations are already low because of the absence of squadmates, aka my favorite feature of the game.

[DoomsdayDevice]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

byne wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Let's change the example a bit: The Reapers wrote a book, but you obviously shouldn't read it because the physical part of the book is made out of Reaper tech. So instead you copy the words of the book (ctrl+c) onto a physical book you built yourself, and add and remove parts to make it work for you better.

You're using Reaper knowledge, there's nothing wrong with that. It's the same as the Protheans building their own mass relay and us building Thanix cannons.

-Are we using physical Reaper tech, as in, the stuff that indoctrinates? No.
-Are we using technology without understanding how it works, as in, advancing along the path the Reapers desire? No.

No problem then.

Yes, I understand that. But what if Reaper code is the synthetic form of indoctrination? An incredibly advanced and complex code with hidden subroutines?

I realize that's not really a question that can be answered. Let me phrase it like this:

How do the Reapers control synthetics?

Through code? Nanites that influence their processors? Both?

Do we even have an idea?

Legion says they dont really control the geth, they just changed the way they thought a bit. The heretics were technically following the Reapers of their own free will, and not being controlled at all.

Right, which is exactly what indoctrination is: No control, just influence. If you choose to agree with the Reapers' ideology or methods, you're indoctrinated. Period.

Yes, real life indoctrination is just influence.

"But we already controlled him."

Where does influence end, and true control begin?

We know that Reaper indoctrination rewrites neural pathways, that's physically changing how someone thinks. Sure, it's influence, but it's more than just influence, it's messing with free will.

Which raises the question: how do they mess with the will of the synthetics? Or are you saying synthetics still have complete free will, if they join the Reapers? There has to be some kind of manipulation going on, other than just convincing arguments.

As Legion says they change basic subroutines.

Yes, I remember the conversation where Legion explains how they reach a different conclusion, but what does that involve? Changing the Geth code, right?

So do they substitute Geth code with Reaper code? Or do they just modify existing Geth code?

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 24 novembre 2012 - 02:42 .

[BleedingUranium]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Read Retribution. It can be both.

Well, there are two different kinds of Reaper influence that have the same name. The kind I was talking about, and the kind we talk about here, is the influence kind.

The other is the control kind, like husks, but really that's more like Entrallment 2.0.

The Heretics were indoctrinated.

As in, just convinced by good arguments?

Didn't Byne say they slightly changed the way they think?

Isn't that messing with free will, as in, the control kind?

Yet at the same time, people are saying, no they were not being controlled, they were just influenced. I mean is influence still only influence if it isn't just something you perceive, but something that changes the way you think?

It's really confusing.

I meant control as in physical control of the body, like entrallment and all forms of husks. Standard, manipulating indoctrination does involve messing with the way they think though, as I understand it.

It's the difference between the Reapers infecting the Heretics with the math error that gives a slightly different result, and Shepard/Tali/MP character using AI Hacking on a Geth.

[MegumiAzusa]

masster blaster wrote...

Meg I had a crazy theory. What if Legion is a geth Heritc, and the Geth we Destroy, or over write are the non Indoctrinated Geth. That would be a messed up twist, but what if, and that could go along just very well with DD's theory, but I doubt any of this is true, but speculation.

No, it's at least not the original intention as you can see from the game files.

[BatmanTurian]

Krimzie wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

Omega drops in 4 days!

....

If Omega drops major clues and people can't or won't connect the dots, I will be disappointed.

agreed

Don't wanna he a downer, but... prepare to be disappointed.

While we will probably be disappointed in people not connecting the dots (or refusing to look like they've connected the dots because Peer Pressure), I have nooooo doubts that Omega will have SOME clues. I mean COME ON, adjutants!

That's like, I dunno, dropping a hint about indoctrination by introducing us to an organic race with mind-control capabilities that created the Reapers or something and they would NEVER write anything like tha--OH WAIT!

Weeeee, Omega countdown. 

[AresKeith]

@Banshee both

[Davik Kang]

Lucky for me the infighting continues, so I'm not hitting the thread with too big a downer when I reply to this one...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Now from an outsider point of view, at times the thread can do itself and IT no favours when it accepts any and all pro-IT evidence, irrespective of content, and dismisses any anti-IT evidence, irrespective of value.


But at its worst, this mentality lets the thread down badly.  Some of the stuff suggested as pro-IT is (imo) complete garbage, and it makes the whole thing look worse as a result.  You guys may not care because you're already convinced of IT, but there are plenty of people who lurk on this thread yet hardly, or even never, post.  If you decide on any evidence principally on the check-box value of if it's pro- or anti- IT, then imo you can sometimes hurt the theory pretty badly.

What a lot of people don't understand is that there is not much point saying "Oh look I found something that could or could not be interpreted as IT evidence" everytime we find something. There are a few reasons for this:
1. It would be a bit redundant; most people in the thread know that.
2. A lot of it is just for fun - since we've already found most of the big points.
3. We're at the point where we are looking at many things that may be nothing because we have found so much already. Is some a meaningless coincidence? Sure. But we don't know what (as of yet).
4. "From an outsider point of view" Well, most of the people here are not outsiders. I'd recommend outsiders read the OP or ask questions before judging. If that's way too hard for them then I don't really care for their company here anyway.

Anyone want to add anything to that?

I'm, not saying you need to add a redundant disclaimer down.  I argued with DD about post content before, but then saw I was wrong - you guys can and should post whatever you want.

What I'm saying is that some of the pro-IT stuff that gets suggested has little or no merit.  Other stuff has lots of merit.  But the response of the regualr ITers is almost always the same.  If it supports IT, it's good; if it doesn't, it's bad.  

It doesn't happen all the time, but fairly often, an incredibly weak point will have everyone nodding in agreement, while a decent counter-argument to IT, or a decent pro-Control or Synthesis point, will be lambasted and get everyone angry.  At these times the thread becomes very much like a religious cult, where people simply want to reaffirm what they already believe, and are completely unwilling to consider counter-arguments.

This weakens IT because it means ,any of the people who supprt IT do so without application of logic or evidence, but simply because they want to.  I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it does happen.  And when it gets really trying is when it becomes hypocritical - literalists and Con/Syn supports are bashed pretty hard in this thread for using identical kinds of reasoning that is used in this thread at times.

The "outsider" I mentioned is me.  I support IT and I think it's a solid theory that mnakes a lot of sense, but ultimately I think it's wrong.  It's only my opinion, but there it is.  As I said yesterday, I don't think that you guys need to be like a scientific community, presented evidence and being incredibly serious about everything.  I'm just saying that sometimes this thread as a whole - (it's not the fault of any individual member btw, everyone is pretty reasonable individually) - this thread as a whole can be quite hypocritical at times when it comes to examining evidence or proof of A, B or C, and the corresponding attitude towards how others (non-ITers, Literalists, basically everyone else) examine various things.

There's not much more to be said about it, it's an observation - I'm not trying to create an argument or claim someone is right or wrong.  Imo IT is still evolving with every new or re-remembered piece of evidence being brought to the forefront of the minds of those who are still participating in the thread.  And so if bad ideas are taken on with open arms, IT itself will become weaker.  I think that might be why people are arguing a lot at the moment, because the thread has become a little lazy in terms of actually trying to explain or justify certain ideas being brought up, and counter-arguments are often crushed by sheer numbers, rather than weight of logic.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 24 novembre 2012 - 03:04 .

[BansheeOwnage]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

So do they substitute Geth code with Reaper code? Or do they just modify existing Geth code?

As far as I know, they just modified geth code, but Legion also seemed to imply there was a virus, so I have no idea. That help?

Edit: OOPS meant geth code. Fixed.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 24 novembre 2012 - 02:48 .

[MegumiAzusa]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

As Legion says they change basic subroutines.

Yes, I remember the conversation where Legion explains how they reach a different conclusion, but what does that involve? Changing the Geth code, right?

So do they substitute Geth code with Reaper code? Or do they just modify existing Geth code?

Sounds like slightly rewritten Geth code.

[masster blaster]

Also have we ever talked about what Gravin archer tells Shepard if or not you did overlord, and ask him about the project, and what else there is. He is in a mission when you save the Cerberus science team.

The 1 Jacob is in.

[BansheeOwnage]

Krimzie wrote...


While we will probably be disappointed in people not connecting the dots (or refusing to look like they've connected the dots because Peer Pressure), I have nooooo doubts that Omega will have SOME clues. I mean COME ON, adjutants!

That's like, I dunno, dropping a hint about indoctrination by introducing us to an organic race with mind-control capabilities that created the Reapers or something and they would NEVER write anything like tha--OH WAIT!

Weeeee, Omega countdown. 

Hello Krimzie. There will be at least something to discuss in Omega. My guesses are Cerberus propaganda and Adjutants (synthesis?).

[BatmanTurian]

Davik Kang wrote...

Lucky for me the infighting continues, so I'm not hitting the thread with too big a downer when I reply to this one...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Now from an outsider point of view, at times the thread can do itself and IT no favours when it accepts any and all pro-IT evidence, irrespective of content, and dismisses any anti-IT evidence, irrespective of value.


But at its worst, this mentality lets the thread down badly.  Some of the stuff suggested as pro-IT is (imo) complete garbage, and it makes the whole thing look worse as a result.  You guys may not care because you're already convinced of IT, but there are plenty of people who lurk on this thread yet hardly, or even never, post.  If you decide on any evidence principally on the check-box value of if it's pro- or anti- IT, then imo you can sometimes hurt the theory pretty badly.

What a lot of people don't understand is that there is not much point saying "Oh look I found something that could or could not be interpreted as IT evidence" everytime we find something. There are a few reasons for this:
1. It would be a bit redundant; most people in the thread know that.
2. A lot of it is just for fun - since we've already found most of the big points.
3. We're at the point where we are looking at many things that may be nothing because we have found so much already. Is some a meaningless coincidence? Sure. But we don't know what (as of yet).
4. "From an outsider point of view" Well, most of the people here are not outsiders. I'd recommend outsiders read the OP or ask questions before judging. If that's way too hard for them then I don't really care for their company here anyway.

Anyone want to add anything to that?

I'm, not saying you need to add a redundant disclaimer down.  I argued with DD about post content before, but then saw I was wrong - you guys can and should post whatever you want.

What I'm saying is that some of the pro-IT stuff that gets suggested has little or no merit.  Other stuff has lots of merit.  But the response of the regualr ITers is almost always the same.  If it supports IT, it's good; if it doesn't, it's bad.  

It doesn't happen all the time, but fairly often, an incredibly weak point will have everyone nodding in agreement, while a decent counter-argument to IT, or a decent pro-Control or Synthesis point, will be lambasted and get everyone angry.  At these times the thread becomes very much like a religious cult, where people simply want to reaffirm what they already believe, and are completely unwilling to consider counter-arguments.

This weakens IT because it means ,any of the people who supprt IT do so without application of logic or evidence, but simply because they want to.  I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it does happen.  And when it gets really trying is when it becomes hypocritical - literalists and Con/Syn supports are bashed pretty hard in this thread for using identical kinds of reasoning that is used in this thread at times.

The "outsider" I mentioned is me.  I support IT and I think it's a solid theory that mnakes a lot of sense, but ultimately I think it's wrong.  It's only my opinion, but there it is.  As I said yesterday, I don't think that you guys need to be like a scientific community, presented evidence and being incredibly serious about everything.  I'm just saying that sometimes this thread as a whole - (it's not the fault of any individual member btw, everyone is pretty reasonable individually) - this thread as a whole can be quite hypocritical at times when it comes to examining evidence or proof of A, B or C, and the corresponding attitude towards how others (non-ITers, Literalists, basically everyone else) examine various things.

There's not much more to be said about it, it's an observation - I'm not trying to create an argument or claim someone is right or wrong.  Imo IT is still evolving with every new or re-remembered piece of evidence being brought to the forefront of the minds of those who are still participating in the thread.  And so if bad ideas are taken on with open arms, IT itself will become weaker.  I think that might be why people are arguing a lot at the moment, because the thread has become a little lazy in terms of actually trying to explain or justify certain ideas being brought up, and counter-arguments are often crushed by sheer numbers, rather than weigth of logic.

There is so much to the IT, that we (especially me) forget things regularly or we don't think things through at the time. This is a common human error. Also, this is not science, it's literary theory, so it's a little more loose and harder to pin down. I've said a couple times that we would be better served by having a wiki.

[MegumiAzusa]

Davik Kang wrote...

Lucky for me the infighting continues, so I'm not hitting the thread with too big a downer when I reply to this one...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Now from an outsider point of view, at times the thread can do itself and IT no favours when it accepts any and all pro-IT evidence, irrespective of content, and dismisses any anti-IT evidence, irrespective of value.


But at its worst, this mentality lets the thread down badly.  Some of the stuff suggested as pro-IT is (imo) complete garbage, and it makes the whole thing look worse as a result.  You guys may not care because you're already convinced of IT, but there are plenty of people who lurk on this thread yet hardly, or even never, post.  If you decide on any evidence principally on the check-box value of if it's pro- or anti- IT, then imo you can sometimes hurt the theory pretty badly.

What a lot of people don't understand is that there is not much point saying "Oh look I found something that could or could not be interpreted as IT evidence" everytime we find something. There are a few reasons for this:
1. It would be a bit redundant; most people in the thread know that.
2. A lot of it is just for fun - since we've already found most of the big points.
3. We're at the point where we are looking at many things that may be nothing because we have found so much already. Is some a meaningless coincidence? Sure. But we don't know what (as of yet).
4. "From an outsider point of view" Well, most of the people here are not outsiders. I'd recommend outsiders read the OP or ask questions before judging. If that's way too hard for them then I don't really care for their company here anyway.

Anyone want to add anything to that?

I'm, not saying you need to add a redundant disclaimer down.  I argued with DD about post content before, but then saw I was wrong - you guys can and should post whatever you want.

What I'm saying is that some of the pro-IT stuff that gets suggested has little or no merit.  Other stuff has lots of merit.  But the response of the regualr ITers is almost always the same.  If it supports IT, it's good; if it doesn't, it's bad.  

It doesn't happen all the time, but fairly often, an incredibly weak point will have everyone nodding in agreement, while a decent counter-argument to IT, or a decent pro-Control or Synthesis point, will be lambasted and get everyone angry.  At these times the thread becomes very much like a religious cult, where people simply want to reaffirm what they already believe, and are completely unwilling to consider counter-arguments.

This weakens IT because it means ,any of the people who supprt IT do so without application of logic or evidence, but simply because they want to.  I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it does happen.  And when it gets really trying is when it becomes hypocritical - literalists and Con/Syn supports are bashed pretty hard in this thread for using identical kinds of reasoning that is used in this thread at times.

The "outsider" I mentioned is me.  I support IT and I think it's a solid theory that mnakes a lot of sense, but ultimately I think it's wrong.  It's only my opinion, but there it is.  As I said yesterday, I don't think that you guys need to be like a scientific community, presented evidence and being incredibly serious about everything.  I'm just saying that sometimes this thread as a whole - (it's not the fault of any individual member btw, everyone is pretty reasonable individually) - this thread as a whole can be quite hypocritical at times when it comes to examining evidence or proof of A, B or C, and the corresponding attitude towards how others (non-ITers, Literalists, basically everyone else) examine various things.

There's not much more to be said about it, it's an observation - I'm not trying to create an argument or claim someone is right or wrong.  Imo IT is still evolving with every new or re-remembered piece of evidence being brought to the forefront of the minds of those who are still participating in the thread.  And so if bad ideas are taken on with open arms, IT itself will become weaker.  I think that might be why people are arguing a lot at the moment, because the thread has become a little lazy in terms of actually trying to explain or justify certain ideas being brought up, and counter-arguments are often crushed by sheer numbers, rather than weigth of logic.

MegumiAzusa likes this post.

[BansheeOwnage]

AresKeith wrote...

@Banshee both

Thanks

[IronSabbath88]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Krimzie wrote...


While we will probably be disappointed in people not connecting the dots (or refusing to look like they've connected the dots because Peer Pressure), I have nooooo doubts that Omega will have SOME clues. I mean COME ON, adjutants!

That's like, I dunno, dropping a hint about indoctrination by introducing us to an organic race with mind-control capabilities that created the Reapers or something and they would NEVER write anything like tha--OH WAIT!

Weeeee, Omega countdown. 

Hello Krimzie. There will be at least something to discuss in Omega. My guesses are Cerberus propaganda and Adjutants (synthesis?).

I think the biggest discussion will come in the form of what exactly Cerberus did with the Collector base material and how Omega fits into it all.

[BansheeOwnage]

Davik Kang wrote...

What I'm saying is that some of the pro-IT stuff that gets suggested has little or no merit.  Other stuff has lots of merit.  But the response of the regualr ITers is almost always the same.  If it supports IT, it's good; if it doesn't, it's bad.  

I think it would help everyone if you could provide an example or 2.

[badmojo88]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Lucky for me the infighting continues, so I'm not hitting the thread with too big a downer when I reply to this one...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Now from an outsider point of view, at times the thread can do itself and IT no favours when it accepts any and all pro-IT evidence, irrespective of content, and dismisses any anti-IT evidence, irrespective of value.


But at its worst, this mentality lets the thread down badly.  Some of the stuff suggested as pro-IT is (imo) complete garbage, and it makes the whole thing look worse as a result.  You guys may not care because you're already convinced of IT, but there are plenty of people who lurk on this thread yet hardly, or even never, post.  If you decide on any evidence principally on the check-box value of if it's pro- or anti- IT, then imo you can sometimes hurt the theory pretty badly.

What a lot of people don't understand is that there is not much point saying "Oh look I found something that could or could not be interpreted as IT evidence" everytime we find something. There are a few reasons for this:
1. It would be a bit redundant; most people in the thread know that.
2. A lot of it is just for fun - since we've already found most of the big points.
3. We're at the point where we are looking at many things that may be nothing because we have found so much already. Is some a meaningless coincidence? Sure. But we don't know what (as of yet).
4. "From an outsider point of view" Well, most of the people here are not outsiders. I'd recommend outsiders read the OP or ask questions before judging. If that's way too hard for them then I don't really care for their company here anyway.

Anyone want to add anything to that?

I'm, not saying you need to add a redundant disclaimer down.  I argued with DD about post content before, but then saw I was wrong - you guys can and should post whatever you want.

What I'm saying is that some of the pro-IT stuff that gets suggested has little or no merit.  Other stuff has lots of merit.  But the response of the regualr ITers is almost always the same.  If it supports IT, it's good; if it doesn't, it's bad.  

It doesn't happen all the time, but fairly often, an incredibly weak point will have everyone nodding in agreement, while a decent counter-argument to IT, or a decent pro-Control or Synthesis point, will be lambasted and get everyone angry.  At these times the thread becomes very much like a religious cult, where people simply want to reaffirm what they already believe, and are completely unwilling to consider counter-arguments.

This weakens IT because it means ,any of the people who supprt IT do so without application of logic or evidence, but simply because they want to.  I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it does happen.  And when it gets really trying is when it becomes hypocritical - literalists and Con/Syn supports are bashed pretty hard in this thread for using identical kinds of reasoning that is used in this thread at times.

The "outsider" I mentioned is me.  I support IT and I think it's a solid theory that mnakes a lot of sense, but ultimately I think it's wrong.  It's only my opinion, but there it is.  As I said yesterday, I don't think that you guys need to be like a scientific community, presented evidence and being incredibly serious about everything.  I'm just saying that sometimes this thread as a whole - (it's not the fault of any individual member btw, everyone is pretty reasonable individually) - this thread as a whole can be quite hypocritical at times when it comes to examining evidence or proof of A, B or C, and the corresponding attitude towards how others (non-ITers, Literalists, basically everyone else) examine various things.

There's not much more to be said about it, it's an observation - I'm not trying to create an argument or claim someone is right or wrong.  Imo IT is still evolving with every new or re-remembered piece of evidence being brought to the forefront of the minds of those who are still participating in the thread.  And so if bad ideas are taken on with open arms, IT itself will become weaker.  I think that might be why people are arguing a lot at the moment, because the thread has become a little lazy in terms of actually trying to explain or justify certain ideas being brought up, and counter-arguments are often crushed by sheer numbers, rather than weigth of logic.

There is so much to the IT, that we (especially me) forget things regularly or we don't think things through at the time. This is a common human error. Also, this is not science, it's literary theory, so it's a little more loose and harder to pin down. I've said a couple times that we would be better served by having a wiki.

I believe IT has a wiki blog

[AresKeith]

Banshee

Megumi gets one too

[MegumiAzusa]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

@Banshee both

Thanks

I dislike that BW made the faces in ME3 more uniform. The slider values don't have as much of an effect as they had.

[BleedingUranium]

ANDERSON KNOWS!