402 réponses à ce sujet

[Excella Gionne]

N7 being the top rank while there are the bottom ranks as well....N1, N2, N3, and etc....

[Kurt M.]

1) Yes, I know. But they couldn't make those armies move in whatever direction they desired. They were bound to their army. Their army wasn't bound to them. I can inspire loyalty and dedication and results from my army without brain implants. And with them, I can get them to become an extension of my physical self. They are me. I am them. They will do as I wish because they are me. That's what I want.

 

2). Absolutely. If you had said power, you wouldn't be worrying about the concerns of others would you? What gives me the right? I do. I'm the winner, the guy who will win this war. They have their choice of me or the Reapers. Bend to my will, or be destroyed by them. The choice is theirs. I don't care what they choose. 

 

3) I can motivate people to follow me. That's not in question. I want more. I want them to be me. To define them. To have them be the extension of my will.

 

1) WRONG.

 

Just what kind of military man are you? I just cannot believe you're one, as you seemingly know absolutely nothing about military discipline. Soldiers move at their superior's command, and everything that contradicts that is reason for punishment, or a military hearing. The thing is that you KNOW or that you SHOULD know that when enlisting. And it makes sense, because if they're telling you to defend X position, you MUST do it even if you find that your orders makes no sense, as it could be a part of a bigger plan that you can't notice right away. In other words, you must trust your superiors. And again, that's a part of what a good leadership is for.

 

As an historical note, Scipio moved with him 3 entire roman LEGIONS out of the way of a battle because he needed to talk to someone who was a bit far away from his destination. In Scipio's own words when asked about that matter: "Where the Roman Consul goes, his legions follows". So yes, boy, armies have always moved to their leaders' command, and probably always will. Without being ****** robots.

 

2) If I had that kind of power, I'd surely be saddened by it and probably restrain myself of using it, as I prefer by far to obtain that kind of power by convincing others, and not by restraining them. There's a little thing called "nobility" that allows you to do that. I prefer grateful allies than hateful enemies every day, thanks. And if you think that weakens me, I think just the same about you, given the enormous opposition and sabotage you'd have to face.

 

The fun part is that if you REALLY were military (which I doubt), you'd have nearly the same power you're seeking for just by wanting to have it, by applying talent, studies and hard work. You're only choosing the "easy" way, the way that supposed "leaders" who shouldn't even had lead a cart full of bananas have historically chosen again and again. And naturally, History has slaughtered them and turned them into ashes. That's why no one remembers them now (or are remembered as...well, Hitler).

 

3) That very line is like saying "I hate sugar, just cannot stop eating sugar". In other words, you blatantly contradict yourself. If you manage to motivate people (which is a laughable statement, given of what you've said), you wouldn't need any way to control them as you said you'd want to control, because you ALREADY would have the control, and they already would become kind of a part of you, methaporically speaking. Again, it shows how much "military" you really are. Things like that only shows on someone who understands absolutely nothing about morale and group cohesion.

[KaiserShep]

Whenever I see the word nobility within this context in these forums, which isn't often, the first thing that comes to mind is:

 

[DeinonSlayer]

Just what kind of military man are you?

Oh boy, here we go...

[Kurt M.]

Whenever I see the word nobility within this context in these forums, which isn't often, the first thing that comes to mind is:

 

 

*sigh*

 

Nobility in the good sense of the word. Which, I know, it has been biased over the eras. I live in Spain, remember? I know a thing or two about "nobles" who are everything but that.

 

 

Oh boy, here we go...

 

Here I go what? You expect me to believe he's a soldier when he doesn't even knows the basics of the basics behind military discipline?

 

Even I know more of that than him, and that having in mind I only did the mandatory military service of my country.

[DeinonSlayer]

 
Here I go what? You expect me to believe he's a soldier when he doesn't even knows the basics of the basics behind military discipline?
 
Even I know more of that than him, and that having in mind I only did the mandatory military service of my country.

No, here "we" go, in the sense that I can see where that question will take the thread. Massively can (and has previously) gone into quite a bit of detail about his service history. I said "here we go" because I anticipate a fight over this.

[Zazzerka]

"Here we go" is definitely applicable. Gladiador, you're going to learn everything there is to know about the guy. Whether you want to or not.

[themikefest]

 

Just what kind of military man are you? I just cannot believe you're one, as you seemingly know absolutely nothing about military discipline.

 

Incorrect.  He's a military officer in the US Army who knows how to train and discipline soldiers as well as anyone else.

[KaiserShep]

*sigh*
 
Nobility in the good sense of the word. Which, I know, it has been biased over the eras.

What I mean to say is that you won't get far in this discussion if you attempt to appeal to one's sense of nobility, especially not in this case.

[TheTurtle]

*sigh*

Nobility in the good sense of the word. Which, I know, it has been biased over the eras. I live in Spain, remember? I know a thing or two about "nobles" who are everything but that.



Here I go what? You expect me to believe he's a soldier when he doesn't even knows the basics of the basics behind military discipline?

Even I know more of that than him, and that having in mind I only did the mandatory military service of my country.

You should leave while you still can because this is going to end the same way it always does. Massively is going to come in and curb stomp you with facts about his service and Military history. You'll also probably get reported because this is what he considers a personal attack. So take this word of advice and get the hell out of dodge while you still can.

[Farangbaa]

I think it's frightening Massively's in the military.

[themikefest]

I think it's frightening Massively's in the military.

Why?

[Farangbaa]

Why?

 

He doesn't hesitate to shoot civilians if 'they are in the way'.

 

Which is the prime reason I do not believe he's in the military. At least, not the military of a developed, civilized country.

[themikefest]

He doesn't hesitate to shoot civilians if 'they are in the way'.

 

Which is the prime reason I do not believe he's in the military. At least, not the military of a developed, civilized country.

I'll tell you what. I was in the military a long time ago and if anyone was in my  way that prevented me from completing my mission, I to would shoot them dead.

 

He is in the military. Read his posts. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to the military.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

He doesn't hesitate to shoot civilians if 'they are in the way'.

 

Which is the prime reason I do not believe he's in the military. At least, not the military of a developed, civilized country.

 

That's not a very good assessment of the military on your part then. 

 

We have a term for it; collateral damage. And we tend to minimize it, but if they are in the way, we do shoot through them (namely with the Demon of War, aka indirect fire support and inbound air and fast-mover assets on CAS missions). 

 

And you're taking a very illogical approach to my personal conduct and initiative as well. You're saying that since I actually support the ideal of such action when applicable (I do, wholeheartedly) and am talking about doing it in a game, you must mean that transfers to me personally and that I'm some kind of murdering monster. I won't be the one to take the title of another's judgement, particularly one I have no real investment behind, but that's not my title. 

 

If a civilian's in the way, shoot through them. They're expendable. That's my personal opinion, and the personal opinion of many of my peers. We have a job to do, a mission to accomplish. We aren't around to play nice or look pretty for civilians. We have a dirty job, and we do what we do to clean up.

[Farangbaa]

That's not a very good assessment of the military on your part then. 

 

We have a term for it; collateral damage. And we tend to minimize it, but if they are in the way, we do shoot through them (namely with the Demon of War, aka indirect fire support and inbound air and fast-mover assets on CAS missions). 

 

And you're taking a very illogical approach to my personal conduct and initiative as well. You're saying that since I actually support the ideal of such action when applicable (I do, wholeheartedly) and am talking about doing it in a game, you must mean that transfers to me personally and that I'm some kind of murdering monster. I won't be the one to take the title of another's judgement, particularly one I have no real investment behind, but that's not my title. 

 

If a civilian's in the way, shoot through them. They're expendable. That's my personal opinion, and the personal opinion of many of my peers. We have a job to do, a mission to accomplish. We aren't around to play nice or look pretty for civilians. We have a dirty job, and we do what we do to clean up.

 

That's all fine and dandy, but I did not transfer it from the game world to real life. You did that yourself, as you always do in every topic that even remotely hinges on military things, by applying it your real life job.

 

And mind you, when a Dutch soldier causes collataral damage, the entire situation will be scrutinized till it's inside out and if there is any way, no matter how slim, the soldier could've avoided said damage, he will be prosecuted. Medals might even be stripped.

 

But I guess that doesn't fly for the US military. Which makes sense ofcourse, for a country that already has passed laws to invade my country in case one of their soldiers will be tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague:

 

http://en.wikipedia...._Protection_Act

[Mrs_Stick]

This won't be good.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

1) WRONG.

 

Just what kind of military man are you? I just cannot believe you're one, as you seemingly know absolutely nothing about military discipline. Soldiers move at their superior's command, and everything that contradicts that is reason for punishment, or a military hearing. The thing is that you KNOW or that you SHOULD know that when enlisting. And it makes sense, because if they're telling you to defend X position, you MUST do it even if you find that your orders makes no sense, as it could be a part of a bigger plan that you can't notice right away. In other words, you must trust your superiors. And again, that's a part of what a good leadership is for.

 

As an historical note, Scipio moved with him 3 entire roman LEGIONS out of the way of a battle because he needed to talk to someone who was a bit far away from his destination. In Scipio's own words when asked about that matter: "Where the Roman Consul goes, his legions follows". So yes, boy, armies have always moved to their leaders' command, and probably always will. Without being ****** robots.

 

How's it wrong? Particularly, why am I wrong when I'm not even talking about modern military compliance and discipline standards? Why did you bring in discipline and obedience to orders into this discussion all of sudden? I thought we were talking about a futuristic game where an idea to make an army of soldiers completely bound to my will via mental implementation of controlling technology to functionally transform an independent professional army into a hive mind focused on my will and ideology and obedient to my personal authority. Why are you changing this around to being about the discussion of military discipline and its historical applications in the past when the discussion is clearly in the future?

 

But I'll play along briefly: We have a little rule in our UCMJ that prohibits officers from issuing unlawful or unconstitutional orders. Breaking such is a war crime, and I know it, my Soldiers (who have the UCMJ closer to their heart than other Soldiers since I'm tired of processing JAG reports and issuing their affidavits to my Soldiers every time one of them gets a DUI) know it, and, most importantly, I know they know it so that they know I know it. There's a great deal of things you have to be aware of when issuing a military command or order. Number one, it has to be in writing. Beyond an operational execution in the field, where I'd be using a Sand Table to make a small representation of what it is I want to achieve tactically using what elements I have at my command. Any professional military force is going to have the discipline to do what I order them to do. If I order my element on the line to position themselves on a hill, I'd be an idiot if I put them at the crest of the hill to provide a silhouette and distance indicator for the hostile artillery. That's why my element would be in a reverse slope defense. Any insubordination would be grounds for punitive charges and, in cases of extreme unbecoming, a trial by a tribunal of officers. Operationally, insubordination is defined as any unwillingness or willful disability to carry out an order by which issued by their commander. It's separate from discourteous conduct towards any officer or non-commissioned officer in a higher position in peacetime. 

 

Now, we get to the tricky stuff. I think you're letting your seep of history get in here. For starters, modern commanders aren't going to have that kind of autonomy with their unit. These men are loyal and dedicated and trained and professional and they'll follow you to hell and back, but one thing they won't do is be hell for you. And one thing you certainly can't do (which is a pliable reality in the context of the Mass Effect Universe) is to actually be you in a physical sense of them being versions of one man with many minds but all bound to one will. In the gist of the game, I'm going to tell you that I want even more control over my military force. Here you are coming in calling me 'boy' over a purely fictional and hypothetical setting because you're aggravated that I'm not following historical precedent examples in this circumstance and calling into question my personal service which is completely unrelated to the discussion so you're making a genetic fallacy by basing a false claim on irrelevant personal details (not to mention a red herring of the argument). I'm not insulted by it. Should I be? It's a pretty ****** poor challenge if you're coming here going on a tirade about history and my own capabilities when discussing a purely notional idea in a futuristic and nigh-fantastical setting, and the attractiveness I have over a particular ideal that others might find particularly emetic. 

 

But enough about me and you drawing an out of context historical example and false scrutiny on me (I'm not the target or purpose of this argument am I). My goal is to create a means by which I not only ensure the complete and total obedience of an army that is completely bound not only to my will, but to my mentality, my ideology... me. They are me. What would be the perfect fighting force? An army of Shepards (Me) that all think like Shepard, perform like Shepard, and are Shepard. Not an army of clones, though that would actually be a lot better. They're an army, under one leadership of one man, who will do absolutely everything that this man would do because they are an extension of him, with their information his information, their knowledge his knowledge, and his capabilities their capabilities. That's his army to carry out his will, perfectly. No question, no discord, no remorse, no hesitance, no compassion, no empathy, no unwillingness to do absolutely everything. They have no individuality. They have no personality beyond my own. They are me. I am them. It's a collective, an army not of people bound to me by loyalty, faith, etc. etc. but of people who have nothing to them any longer beyond what I put in them. An army of robots so to speak, each with my creativity (as Shepard), my training and capability (as Shepard), my knowledge (as Shepard), and my will and ideology and attitude (as Shepard). I am the army. The army is me. It's a perfect fighting force because of the absolute uniformity of it. No needs, no wants, no desires beyond what I put into them. That sounds more like the futuristic discussion on the ideology of a notional concept in a video game to me.

 

If I had that kind of power, I'd surely be saddened by it and probably restrain myself of using it, as I prefer by far to obtain that kind of power by convincing others, and not by restraining them. There's a little thing called "nobility" that allows you to do that. I prefer grateful allies than hateful enemies every day, thanks. And if you think that weakens me, I think just the same about you, given the enormous opposition and sabotage you'd have to face.

 

The fun part is that if you REALLY were military (which I doubt), you'd have nearly the same power you're seeking for just by wanting to have it, by applying talent, studies and hard work. You're only choosing the "easy" way, the way that supposed "leaders" who shouldn't even had lead a cart full of bananas have historically chosen again and again. And naturally, History has slaughtered them and turned them into ashes. That's why no one remembers them now (or are remembered as...well, Hitler).

 

My, you've really taken the argument and directed it against me personally haven't you. Remember what I said about this being a fictional setting with a decidedly notional concept and ideology? Yeah. More of that, less whining at me please. Keep it on track, and lay off the Godwin fallacy, the genetic fallacy, the red herring fallacy, the ad hominem, the straw man, and the appeal to ridicule of the statements I've made about said putative futuristic and fictional discussion.

 

I'll be honest, if I had that kind of power, I wouldn't worry about any kind of rebellion or uprising or hatred. Essentially, everyone would be indoctrinated to my will. For all intents and purposes, I'd be a god. I wouldn't have to worry about convincing or restraining my people, since they'd essentially be me. But then, this discussion wasn't about that either, so I've digressed because you've made me go into one. Basically, that's my ultimatum. They follow my lead. Or they fail. The game's clear on who's the most universally important figure (yours truly). Now, I can (and have) inspired the undying loyalty and dedication and love of most of the galaxy at this point in the game. 

 

And to me, that's not enough. I need more than just that to fight the Reapers, and beyond. Not just the Crucible, but to actually set the stage for how I want my galaxy to function post-war. I'm not trying to maximize society's survival (take notes Deinon) in general; No, I'm actively sculpting the galaxy to be what I want when the whole shithouse finally get's put out. Now, there isn't going to be a large system in the world or galaxy that is going to convince anyone that that's such a great idea. Except, I have the convenient excuse/lie of the Reapers. I can shape things during the war that can be remolded after the war. Essentially, it's almost like a power play. 

 

3) That very line is like saying "I hate sugar, just cannot stop eating sugar". In other words, you blatantly contradict yourself. If you manage to motivate people (which is a laughable statement, given of what you've said), you wouldn't need any way to control them as you said you'd want to control, because you ALREADY would have the control, and they already would become kind of a part of you, methaporically speaking. Again, it shows how much "military" you really are. Things like that only shows on someone who understands absolutely nothing about morale and group cohesion.

 

Man, you just can't stop on me can you? Do you want to ask me something personal or something? Going with how you've been unwilling or unable to take the gist of the discussion and my intent in it, I'm going to say that what I've been saying in the past two paragraphs registered like a brick thrown at a battleship. So, against my better judgement, I'll reiterate: the question isn't whether or not I can motivate my military force (in this purely fictional and futuristic setting, sorry, but I believe that I'm going to have to be very redundant here with you). It's not a contradiction. How is saying "I want more" a contradiction? How is saying that I have the control over them that I want in the sense that you finally (collective sigh of relief) got what I was going for with the control schtick somehow un-corroborative with saying that I also have the ability to motivate and inspire people outside my technological ability to control them? I can motivate and inspire them. It's a fact. And I want to do more than motivate and inspire them. I want to control them to a point where they might as well be me. Hence the technological industry I've been talking about all this time.

 

Again with the personal attacks! Really, I think I can understand morale and unit cohesion, and understand their value. In fact, I know I can. 

 

And somehow, you're saying I can't because I want to take both to a level through control that is above and beyond anything that can be achieved without control. I'd say that's just misunderstanding or willful ignorance of both my point and the concept I'm telling you about.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

That's all fine and dandy, but I did not transfer it from the game world to real life. You did that yourself, as you always do in every topic that even remotely hinges on military things, by applying it your real life job.

 

And mind you, when a Dutch soldier causes collataral damage, the entire situation will be scrutinized till it's inside out and if there is any way, no matter how slim, the soldier could've avoided said damage, he will be prosecuted. Medals might even be stripped.

 

But I guess that doesn't fly for the US military. Which makes sense ofcourse, for a country that already has passed laws to invade my country in case one of their soldiers will be tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague:

 

http://en.wikipedia...._Protection_Act

 

I brought up examples of how a concept might work in a practical, applied setting and, when applicable, I brought in personal experience. That's still categorically different than you coming in and decrying me personally over some ideology I've brought up.

 

That's on your military. Not ours. When we have collateral damage, the first thing we look at is whether or not we accomplished the mission. If we did, it's usually dropped, unless it was an egregious example of blatant force. IMO, that's fine. This is likely going to stem from a different perspective culturally and militarily. We believe in the concept of shock and awe. Terrify them into submission with hopelessly overwhelming force. It's worked pretty well. 

 

If the mission was accomplished, we look at the lengths taken to accomplish the mission and whether or not it was within the power of the assaulting element that conducted said collateral damage were within capability of accomplishing the mission. It almost never goes to a criminal proceeding unless the Soldier(s) were outright going out of the way to commit murder of a civilian populace. That said, we do have our limitations. For example, I can't order my gunner to fire his fifty in a populated environment. I disagree with that personally. I think the number one thing we should look out for is the safety of our own servicemen, especially in a town where civilians have been behaving particularly hostile.

 

Beyond this, I'm not going to get into a patriotic pissing contest with you.

[Mrs_Stick]

Massively I have a question. Regarding your Shepards army. Now would you use said army to gain power for humanity in the galaxy or would you try to take the galaxy over leaving only humanity in charge? I am not sure if you have said this answer before. Just curious.

[Farangbaa]

Beyond this, I'm not going to get into a patriotic pissing contest with you.

 

Has nothing to do with patriotism, but fine.

 

I brought up examples of how a concept might work in a practical, applied setting and, when applicable, I brought in personal experience. That's still categorically different than you coming in and decrying me personally over some ideology I've brought up.

 

That's on your military. Not ours. When we have collateral damage, the first thing we look at is whether or not we accomplished the mission. If we did, it's usually dropped, unless it was an egregious example of blatant force. IMO, that's fine. This is likely going to stem from a different perspective culturally and militarily. We believe in the concept of shock and awe. Terrify them into submission with hopelessly overwhelming force. It's worked pretty well. 

 

If the mission was accomplished, we look at the lengths taken to accomplish the mission and whether or not it was within the power of the assaulting element that conducted said collateral damage were within capability of accomplishing the mission. It almost never goes to a criminal proceeding unless the Soldier(s) were outright going out of the way to commit murder of a civilian populace. That said, we do have our limitations. For example, I can't order my gunner to fire his fifty in a populated environment. I disagree with that personally. I think the number one thing we should look out for is the safety of our own servicemen, especially in a town where civilians have been behaving particularly hostile.

 

Just realize that this sounds appaling to a lot of people, and it makes the US military look incredibly vicious and ruthless.

 

And the bolded is just... *shakes head*. You're there 'liberating' those people (which they haven't asked for), you destroy their country (which they haven't asked you to do) and impose your morals unto them (which they, surprise surprise, haven't asked you for) and if they rightfully object to your presence there, you're answer is to kill them.

 

And then people wonder why the USA is hated. (before this gets outta hand: not by me. I don't hate the USA. And I would've traded in my life to have been born in some obscure football town in Texas... )

[DeinonSlayer]

Has nothing to do with patriotism, but fine.



Just realize that this sounds appaling to a lot of people, and it makes the US military look incredibly vicious and ruthless.

And the bolded is just... *shakes head*. You're there 'liberating' those people (which they haven't asked for), you destroy their country (which they haven't asked you to do) and impose your morals unto them (which they, surprise surprise, haven't asked you for) and if they rightfully object to your presence there, you're answer is to kill them.

And then people wonder why the USA is hated. (before this gets outta hand: not by me. I don't hate the USA. And I would've traded in my life to have been born in some obscure football town in Texas... )

Ever read Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden? During the fighting in Mogadishu, civilians were acting as voluntary human shields. There was a guy laying belly-down on the street with a woman and her three kids sitting on his back while he shot at the rangers with an AK variant. The rangers shot back and killed all five of them. It was that or allow themselves to keep getting shot at. I don't hold it against them at all.

The military doesn't choose which wars to fight. Politicians do.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Has nothing to do with patriotism, but fine.

 

 

Just realize that this sounds appaling to a lot of people, and it makes the US military look incredibly vicious and ruthless.

 

And the bolded is just... *shakes head*. You're there 'liberating' those people (which they haven't asked for), you destroy their country (which they haven't asked you to do) and impose your morals unto them (which they, surprise surprise, haven't asked you for) and if they rightfully object to your presence there, you're answer is to kill them.

 

And then people wonder why the USA is hated. (before this gets outta hand: not by me. I don't hate the USA. And I would've traded in my life to have been born in some obscure football town in Texas... )

 

That's the purpose of the U.S. Military. To be incredibly vicious and ruthless. That's the purpose of any military. We're the arm that carries the sword after all. You don't hold a sword because it's shiny and pretty.

 

I'm not there for any of those. Neither are any of my Soldiers, or any of my fellow Lieutenants, or any of my superiors and Commanders. We're there because that's where Congress decided we should be utilized. While we're there, we're going to do the finest job capable, and we're going to look out for our own. But even then, that's a strawman of the entire argument on policy. We're there to stop the growth and spread of Fundamentalist Islamic Insurgencies that give rise to radical groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Fatah al-Islam, and to prevent power bases from national governments such as the Taliban, from taking power and allowing them to fester. 

 

I didn't go there for them. I went there because that's where 1) I was ordered to report to with my unit for assignment, and 2) that's where I likely knew I'd end up at some point during my service (I was in Italy and then Afghanistan less than 2 weeks after I graduated High School). I understood when locals weren't happy to see us. A lot more times than you give them credit for, they were. But in the event that they are not only unfriendly, but hostile and even actively acting up against us, we have to protect ourselves while carrying out our mission. If that means shooting the kid that is throwing the hand grenade at us because some guy in a white chafiye paid him $12 dollars to do it, then we'll shoot to kill. Politics don't trump safety. If a woman or kid is pointing a gun at me, I'm not going to focus on the humanitarian aspect of why it's happening or what's making her do it, I'm going shoot back and eliminate a threat to my personal security and that of my subordinates.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Massively I have a question. Regarding your Shepards army. Now would you use said army to gain power for humanity in the galaxy or would you try to take the galaxy over leaving only humanity in charge? I am not sure if you have said this answer before. Just curious.

 

We'd gain power for humanity. I'm not going to systematically exterminate any races, except perhaps the Krogan. Humanity would be in an advantageous power position, being relied on economically and politically by other races. For starters, I'm keeping the Citadel where it's at for now.

[DeinonSlayer]

To inject a bit of humor back into this discussion, Massively, would we expect every member of the "Army of Me" to be horny for Miranda?

Unintended side-effect...