437 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

lovgreno wrote...

"Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our
technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we
desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because
we allow it, and you will end because we demand it"

That sounds like the reapers wants us to use their technology so they can more easily controll us. As we see in the game reaper tech is used for just that purpose. EDI have been hacked before and can be so again. Familiar reaper tech could make hacking easier for a reaper. So perhaps we should do as the geth do and find an alternative.

When the Reaper speaks of paths, he spoke literally. The Reaper trap was based around civilizations rising, using the Mass Relays, and sitting in the Citadel until a certain of growth, at which the Reapers would kill them. The exact technology involved was irrelevant: we've seen evidence of plenty of species with different technologies, from the bio-ships of the Leviathan of Dis to the mind-meld technologies of Protheans to the modern conventional techs (and unconventional, as the Normandy shows) of the modern galaxy.

The Reapers already tried to spring their trap. Their trap was broken.

The Reapers never desired or intended races to go past that point in technology on their own, ever.

And EDI was not hacked. The Normandy systems, from which EDI was isolated from, were hit with a virus. EDI was able to purge as soon as she was connected to the ship.

But can Cerberus use it? We only have TIMs word for that. He cannot be trusted and have failed many times before.

If Cerberus can't use the technology against all logic and lore-history, than it provides no threat to anyone else and occupies Cerberus's attention and resources in a giant time sink. And if there are traps set up, Cerberus is the group which will bear the costs of overcoming them.

Which, if you don't trust TIM or Cerberus, is exactly what you'd like them to do: waste all their time and energy not being pests to the galaxy, and to suffer the brunt of any costs in doing so.

[Dean_the_Young]

Pacifien wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
But the assumption underlying many of the arguments that "nothing good can come of it", that is fallacious because it's based on the completely irrational belief that reality has to follow human morality.

Since the base goes to the Illusive Man whether you want it to or not, it's not a completely irrational belieft that nothing good can come of it. It's based on how you feel about Cerberus. No matter what results Cerberus manages, there is an underlying feeling that they are never to be trusted completely. They could use the technology found on the base to help against the Reaper threat, but after that threat is over, then they still have the technology and a goal of human dominance on the galactic sphere. This could potentially pit them against people's various versions of Shepard, and it was your decision that gave them the upperhand.

Since Cerberus has done unquestionably good things, it is completely irrational to believe nothing good can come from it or them.

You have yet to substantiate why a dominant humanity is a bad thing, for either humanity or the galaxy (as opposed to the Council's own priviliges) as a whole. Moreover, you have even further to go to suggest that human dominance later is worse than galactic survival now.

But if that were the case, then we're talking about a completely different war that occurs after the Reaper threat. And to some people, defeating the Reaper threat at all cost should be the primary goal to ensure there are even other wars for humans to even have in the future. Then keeping the base is your necessary evil. (Unless you're a Cerberus supporter, then just take out the word "evil.) However, keeping the base isn't going to ensure success just as destroying the base isn't going to ensure failure. Decisions and consequences do not follow a straight line. Doing A does not guarantee that B will follow. All the best planning in the universe, all the rational, clear-heading, pragmatic, pratical thinking isn't going to guarantee the plan works. Sometimes the irrational works, even if everything tells you that it only worked by accident.

Few things will even ensure anything, in life or war. If I shoot at someone charging me with a battle axe, I have not ensured that he will die before he gets close to me. But I have greatly increased my chances of surviving even so.

That sometimes the irrational works is not an argument to be irrational, because the extension of that observation is that while sometimes the irrational succedes, usually the rational is far superior. There are far more ways to be wrong than right.

[Dean_the_Young]

Pacifien wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
But the assumption underlying many of the arguments that "nothing good can come of it", that is fallacious because it's based on the completely irrational belief that reality has to follow human morality.

Since the base goes to the Illusive Man whether you want it to or not, it's not a completely irrational belieft that nothing good can come of it. It's based on how you feel about Cerberus. No matter what results Cerberus manages, there is an underlying feeling that they are never to be trusted completely. They could use the technology found on the base to help against the Reaper threat, but after that threat is over, then they still have the technology and a goal of human dominance on the galactic sphere. This could potentially pit them against people's various versions of Shepard, and it was your decision that gave them the upperhand.

Since Cerberus has done unquestionably good things, it is completely irrational to believe nothing good can come from it or them.

You have yet to substantiate why a dominant humanity is a bad thing, for either humanity or the galaxy (as opposed to the Council's own priviliges) as a whole. Moreover, you have even further to go to suggest that human dominance later is worse than galactic survival now.

But if that were the case, then we're talking about a completely different war that occurs after the Reaper threat. And to some people, defeating the Reaper threat at all cost should be the primary goal to ensure there are even other wars for humans to even have in the future. Then keeping the base is your necessary evil. (Unless you're a Cerberus supporter, then just take out the word "evil.) However, keeping the base isn't going to ensure success just as destroying the base isn't going to ensure failure. Decisions and consequences do not follow a straight line. Doing A does not guarantee that B will follow. All the best planning in the universe, all the rational, clear-heading, pragmatic, pratical thinking isn't going to guarantee the plan works. Sometimes the irrational works, even if everything tells you that it only worked by accident.

Few things will even ensure anything, in life or war. If I shoot at someone charging me with a battle axe, I have not ensured that he will die before he gets close to me. But I have greatly increased my chances of surviving even so.

That sometimes the irrational works is not an argument to be irrational, because the extension of that observation is that while sometimes the irrational succedes, usually the rational is far superior. There are far more ways to be wrong than right.

[Ieldra]

Pacifien wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
But the assumption underlying many of the arguments that "nothing good can come of it", that is fallacious because it's based on the completely irrational belief that reality has to follow human morality.

Since the base goes to the Illusive Man whether you want it to or not, it's not a completely irrational belieft that nothing good can come of it. It's based on how you feel about Cerberus. No matter what results Cerberus manages, there is an underlying feeling that they are never to be trusted completely. They could use the technology found on the base to help against the Reaper threat, but after that threat is over, then they still have the technology and a goal of human dominance on the galactic sphere. This could potentially pit them against people's various versions of Shepard, and it was your decision that gave them the upperhand.

But if that were the case, then we're talking about a completely different war that occurs after the Reaper threat. And to some people, defeating the Reaper threat at all cost should be the primary goal to ensure there are even other wars for humans to even have in the future. Then keeping the base is your necessary evil. (Unless you're a Cerberus supporter, then just take out the word "evil.)

So far I'm with you....

However, keeping the base isn't going to ensure success just as destroying the base isn't going to ensure failure. Decisions and consequences do not follow a straight line. Doing A does not guarantee that B will follow. All the best planning in the universe, all the rational, clear-heading, pragmatic, pratical thinking isn't going to guarantee the plan works. Sometimes the irrational works, even if everything tells you that it only worked by accident.

...this, however, is bullsh*t. No, all planning can't guarantee success. Nothing can. But I can do the best I can - and that usually doesn't involve depending on fortunate accidents, but on strategy and planning. And if I don't study the base, then I'm depending on the fortunate accident that we can, by some implausible, miracle-like event, defeat a technologically superior enemy without studying their technology. Since this is a game, I know this irrational ploy will work. But if I take my fictional worlds seriously, then I won't depend on the universe bending to my will no matter what. 

[Nightwriter]

Human dominance is a bad thing for many reasons.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...
I do not believe we have any reason to assume an utterly alien base we know nothing about is safe.

This is not me saying it is therefore unacceptable to keep the base, understand - just that we most certainly can't assume it's safe. There is signficant possibibility of risk here and it should be acknowledged.

I don't think that just because you have conquered what you consider to be its defenses it means the threat has been neutralized. The Cerberus crew aboard the dead Reaper made that mistake. You can't be complacent.

Complacent? No, and there's never reason to become complacent no matter what. More positive than not? Yes.

The most secure areas besides wheverever you're looking are the ones you've just been through. Having cleared through much of the base, Shepard has gone through a lot of that. And Shepard knows increasingly more of the base each second as EDI breaks through more and more firewalls: even on a crash landing, he can get accurate blueprints of the base. With enough time, all the remaining data can be observed from outside.

Also I don't believe we'll necessarily be exploring Reapers when they invade - I imagine we'll be blowing them up from space.

What does boarding a Reaper have to do with the dangers of their technology? Reapers can place indoctrination-emitting relics anywhere, release bio-engineered plagues, hack computers, land entire armies. You'll have plenty of occasions in which you'll have to overcome their technologies.

I don't know what TIM will do with this base. All I know is I can't trust him - he might actually do something that costs us the galaxy. This is a complete unknown we're working with here, and TIM doesn't have a shiny track record. Cerberus has a history of doing more damage than it prevents.

What has Cerberus done that suggests that TIM is more likely to doom the galaxy with a major tech edge at his and your disposal than without? The easier any victory can be, after all, the greater your margin of error. Do you think TIM won't act out if he doesn't have the Base?

I have the Reaper datapad, it is not as if I came away with nothing. I am confident that with this informaiton and the forces I hope to have amassed - geth, rachni, krogan, quarians - I am not throwing my only chance away.

If the data pad were equivalent to the gains of the entire base, there would be no impetus to keep it. TIM would already have everything regardless (because EDI was constantly updating him and sending him data), and would be more, not less, secure in limiting the knowledge.

However much or little is on that pad, the Base is worth far more which you have thrown away after accepting the benefits of the choice in the first place.

A good point, but I feel that the whole galaxy studying the same technology equally (I assume strong laws will be passed in this regard very quickly to regulate the studies) is better than only TIM studying it.

Why would anyone be expected to obey the laws, when they have every incentive to break them? The Alliance will break them: they created Cerberus in the past for just that purpose, and doubtless have a new version now. The Turians hid data about the Thannix cannon development. The Salarians aren't even worth pretending to be strict followers of the laws. Corporate worlds like Noveria or Illium don't even have to pretend to apply Council law.

And those are just the Council races. Quarians have interest in Reaper tech to overcome the Geth. Batarians and Terminus species aren't under Citadel laws at all.

You are betting on the worst sort of law: one that can not (will not) be enforced, everyone has incentive to break, and isn't uniform in the first place.

Also it isn't necessarily that Reaper technology will lead to harmful things no matter what, just that TIM will use it for harmful things.

It isn't necessary that TIM will use them for harmful things either. More relevantly, it isn't necessary that TIM will use them for more harmful things than helpful things.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Human dominance is a bad thing for many reasons.

Why is humanity worse than the Council? The Council makes extortion rackets merciful by comparison to how it defends it's own interests and influence, and has been willfully blind and obstructive multiple times in living memory alone.

What makes Human dominance worse for the Quarians, the Rachni, the Geth, the Krogans, the Batarians, the Elcor, the Hanar, or the countless Terminus and Citadel species alike that are locked out by the Asari, Salarians, and Turians? About the only non-Council species with a vested interest in the Council is the Volus, clients of the Turians, but they've been denied Council access longer than the Turians have been known.

[Barquiel]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Imagine yourself in that situation.

I would give the base to the council.
- If we find something useful (I am not sure) = every species benefits.
- evidence

I destroyed the base because I didn't want TIM to have it. He never tried to conceal the fact that he'll use the base to ensure human (cerberus?) dominance. How? I doubt he would only study indoctrination...
I'm not saving the galaxy so he can turn it into a human tyranny.

No matter which way you put it, the reapers are far worse than Cerberus ever will be.
Reapers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cerberus.

And I'm just putting it too mildly.

And if TIM decides it's a good idea to build his own reaper?
Reapers=Cerberus

[nikki191]

my standard play through involves blowing up the collector base, yes it might help with the war against the reapers but frankly im getting sick of fixing up cerberus experiments A through Z that has gone wrong.



I really dont want to have to clear the collector base again from husks, etc not to mention how bad the screwed up experiments will be if they get their hands on a collector base and reaper technology enmass.

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Imagine yourself in that situation.

I would give the base to the council.
- If we find something useful (I am not sure) = every species benefits.
- evidence

I destroyed the base because I didn't want TIM to have it. He never tried to conceal the fact that he'll use the base to ensure human (cerberus?) dominance. How? I doubt he would only study indoctrination...
I'm not saving the galaxy so he can turn it into a human tyranny.

No matter which way you put it, the reapers are far worse than Cerberus ever will be.
Reapers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cerberus.

And I'm just putting it too mildly.

And if TIM decides it's a good idea to build his own reaper?
Reapers=Cerberus

Besides the general unreasonableness of that hypothetical for reasons already addressed (Now akin to 'what if Joker drives the Normandy into a star?' levels of seriousness), a Reaper that is not out to kill all sentient life is not an inherently malevolent entitity and is not equivalent to the Reapers in dark space for reasons that should not have to be explained to you.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 28 mai 2010 - 08:36 .

[Pacifien]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You have yet to substantiate why a dominant humanity is a bad thing, for either humanity or the galaxy (as opposed to the Council's own priviliges) as a whole. Moreover, you have even further to go to suggest that human dominance later is worse than galactic survival now.

I don't want human dominance for the galaxy. It has nothing to do with whether it'd be a good or bad thing. You might wonder why a human wouldn't want their own species to be the dominant force of galactic civilization. I suppose you'll have to keep wondering.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
That sometimes the irrational works is not an argument to be irrational, because the extension of that observation is that while sometimes the irrational succedes, usually the rational is far superior. There are far more ways to be wrong than right.

I'm not arguing either that irrational thinking is the way to go. Irrational thinking happens. Humans make errors in judgement. Expecting perfectly rational decisions 100% of the time is something I find unobtainable unless, perhaps, if you were a machine. Even then, a machine has to work with the irrational. Which is why Joker said EDI gave him permission to screw up.

I do argue that someone shouldn't start chest thumping that they have come out ahead in the decision making process because they have completely properly thought out the decision. We don't know what becomes of the decision. And I doubt either decision is going to make you lose the game.

So to backtrack, I blew up the base. For completely irrational decisions. "You FOOL! Where are you going to get the technological advantage needed against the Reapers now?" Yep, one man has doomed all of galactic civilization. Perhaps that's why decisions shouldn't be given to one man. In any case, I bet I win ME3 in spite of it. Then you've got someone who won in spite of completely irrational decisions made throughout. That must drive a completely rational person insane.

[Pacifien]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Why is humanity worse than the Council?*snip*

Not only do I not want human dominance, I wouldn't mind if the Council system was completely dismantled as well. But this has nothing to do with my decision to destroy the Collector base.

[Dean_the_Young]

Pacifien wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You have yet to substantiate why a dominant humanity is a bad thing, for either humanity or the galaxy (as opposed to the Council's own priviliges) as a whole. Moreover, you have even further to go to suggest that human dominance later is worse than galactic survival now.

I don't want human dominance for the galaxy. It has nothing to do with whether it'd be a good or bad thing. You might wonder why a human wouldn't want their own species to be the dominant force of galactic civilization. I suppose you'll have to keep wondering.

No, I don't wonder. Since you've admitted you don't even have a valid reason for why the galaxy is worse off for being human-dominant, you've merely abandoned a large part of the argument against the consequences of giving the base to TIM.

I'm not arguing either that irrational thinking is the way to go. Irrational thinking happens. Humans make errors in judgement. Expecting perfectly rational decisions 100% of the time is something I find unobtainable unless, perhaps, if you were a machine. Even then, a machine has to work with the irrational. Which is why Joker said EDI gave him permission to screw up.

If you know you're taking an irrational action, you're intelligent enough to be berated for it. If you don't have the wisdom, you're foolish enough to be bereated.

Harmful foolishness is not a defense. It's a failing.

[Barquiel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Besides the general unreasonableness of that hypothetical for reasons already addressed (Now akin to 'what if Joker drives the Normandy into a star?' levels of seriousness), a Reaper that is not out to kill all sentient life is not an inherently malevolent entitity and is not equivalent to the Reapers in dark space for reasons that should not have to be explained to you.

TIM learns how to indoctrinate organics (reaper base)
TIM indoctrinates some alliance admirals/politicians
Alliance Navy (controled by TIM) attacks batarians
batarians=/citadel space...nobody cares
Alliance Navy > batarian military; humans win
TIM "harvests" batarians
TIM builds a batarian reaper
TIM can't control his reaper...

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Complacent? No, and there's never reason to become complacent no matter what. More positive than not? Yes.

I am glad this is conceded then.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The most secure areas besides wherever you're looking are the ones you've just been through. Having cleared through much of the base, Shepard has gone through a lot of that. And Shepard knows increasingly more of the base each second as EDI breaks through more and more firewalls: even on a crash landing, he can get accurate blueprints of the base. With enough time, all the remaining data can be observed from outside.

There are many factors that would counter this argument.

Charging through the base quickly might not give the time needed for the base's true dangers to fully take effect. Worse, you may have been affected but don't know it yet. You're only there for an hour tops.

There is no knowing what EDI's breakthroughs might uncover behind the firewalls or if EDI herself might be affected by the process. There may be technology there the nature and danger of which raw data cannot contain.

But this is all pointless considering it's not about the base's inherent technological danger, which I myself find a negligible obstacle.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What does boarding a Reaper have to do with the dangers of their technology? Reapers can place indoctrination-emitting relics anywhere, release bio-engineered plagues, hack computers, land entire armies. You'll have plenty of occasions in which you'll have to overcome their technologies.

This is true enough. Getting closer to one isn't known to help matters much though.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What has Cerberus done that suggests that TIM is more likely to doom the galaxy with a major tech edge at his and your disposal than without? The easier any victory can be, after all, the greater your margin of error. Do you think TIM won't act out if he doesn't have the Base?

Well... every experiment they have done, supposedly in the interests of getting an edge, has blown up in their faces and killed a bunch of people. This doesn't exactly inspire faith.

I fully expect us to have a confrontation with TIM if we destroyed the base and am looking forward to it.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If the data pad were equivalent to the gains of the entire base, there would be no impetus to keep it. TIM would already have everything regardless (because EDI was constantly updating him and sending him data), and would be more, not less, secure in limiting the knowledge.

However much or little is on that pad, the Base is worth far more which you have thrown away after accepting the benefits of the choice in the first place.

I agree. I had to fight my natural instincts to keep the base. The base is more valuable than the datapad, no question, but the datapad does contain some information. I didn't come away with nothing.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why would anyone be expected to obey the laws, when they have every incentive to break them? The Alliance will break them: they created Cerberus in the past for just that purpose, and doubtless have a new version now. The Turians hid data about the Thannix cannon development. The Salarians aren't even worth pretending to be strict followers of the laws. Corporate worlds like Noveria or Illium don't even have to pretend to apply Council law.

And those are just the Council races. Quarians have interest in Reaper tech to overcome the Geth. Batarians and Terminus species aren't under Citadel laws at all.

You are betting on the worst sort of law: one that can not (will not) be enforced, everyone has incentive to break, and isn't uniform in the first place.

You focus too much on the law aspect of my post. Though I should say that it's the same as saying why would anyone be expected to obey the law when they have every incentive to just steal the money they want? What's important is that the laws are there and that they are enforced.

But the key to my post was that everyone would then have this technology, so they're equal. No one person has all the power.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It isn't necessary that TIM will use them for harmful things either. More relevantly, it isn't necessary that TIM will use them for more harmful things than helpful things.

Foreshadowing. Sitting in his dark room, smirking at the Collector base plans, smoking that cigarette with that dark ominous twinkle in his eye.

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Human dominance is a bad thing for many reasons.

Why is humanity worse than the Council? The Council makes extortion rackets merciful by comparison to how it defends it's own interests and influence, and has been willfully blind and obstructive multiple times in living memory alone.

What makes Human dominance worse for the Quarians, the Rachni, the Geth, the Krogans, the Batarians, the Elcor, the Hanar, or the countless Terminus and Citadel species alike that are locked out by the Asari, Salarians, and Turians? About the only non-Council species with a vested interest in the Council is the Volus, clients of the Turians, but they've been denied Council access longer than the Turians have been known.

Human dominance is a bad idea because:

1.)    It is unequal and unfair, by principle. It would be like the Vulcans or the humans dominating the Federation. They would both tell you that this is not fair, and that the Federation is about a joint friendship between the species. The question is not "why is humanity any worse than the Council?" It's "why is humanity any better than the Council?" The Council and the Council races have done nothing we have not done ourselves.

2.)    I do not believe humanity is fit to rule the galaxy on its own. Our history tells us we are prone to corruption and violence, and this does not appear to have changed. Having joint control and a ruling voice is desirable; having total control and being the only voice is not. Imperfect though the other races are, they have been ruling the galaxy for much, much longer than we have, and have managed to avoid destroying themselves, which in a galaxy full of radically different cultures and species is saying something. Frankly we are new at galactic rule. 

3.)    It will not last. You will be oppressing people with your dominance in some way or another, taking all the power and giving none to others. Eventually the other races and cultures of the galaxy are going to object to this and revolt. Then it will be bad for us, because nothing unites like a common enemy.

[Pacifien]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
No, I don't wonder. Since you've admitted you don't even have a valid reason for why the galaxy is worse off for being human-dominant, you've merely abandoned a large part of the argument against the consequences of giving the base to TIM.

I didn't say the galaxy was worse off for being human-dominant. Maybe someone else in this thread said that, but that wasn't me. I simply don't want human dominance in the galaxy.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If you know you're taking an irrational action, you're intelligent enough to be berated for it. If you don't have the wisdom, you're foolish enough to be bereated.

Harmful foolishness is not a defense. It's a failing.

I roleplay. I have half a dozen playthroughs and some of them keep the base. There are different reasons for every one. I personally, as the player, prefer to carry over the playthrough where I destroyed the base as my main playthrough.

As I said before, I tend to think those who post in the debate tend to get fanatically
serious about their point of view.

We are talking about a game. The question was what you did for the collector base and why. The decisions run the gamut between the deadly serious realistic as possible to the completely inane. And on the deadly serious realistic side of the equation there's a lot of what ifs, you don't know, there's no evidence accusations thrown around because we're limited simply to what we see in the game. The developers didn't go for the most nuanced of portrayals here.

One poster in a thread from a long time ago wondered what the point of the debate was if you didn't take it seriously. As if the simple exchange of opinions and ideas wasn't good enough, the debate clearly had to have a winner and one correct way of thinking. I have no idea what your intentions are other than some awknowledgement that your thought process on this decision trumps others. It doesn't. It really doesn't.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Complacent? No, and there's never reason to become complacent no matter what. More positive than not? Yes.

I am glad this is conceded then.

You take disagreement as concession? My, you must win arguments quickly then.

There is no knowing what EDI's breakthroughs might uncover behind the firewalls or if EDI herself might be affected by the process. There may be technology there the nature and danger of which raw data cannot contain.

EDI hasn't been hacked yet. Even the IFF Virus couldn't take her out: why should the Collector Base be debilitating, when she's actively able to get so much now?

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What does boarding a Reaper have to do with the dangers of their technology? Reapers can place indoctrination-emitting relics anywhere, release bio-engineered plagues, hack computers, land entire armies. You'll have plenty of occasions in which you'll have to overcome their technologies.

This is true enough. Getting closer to one isn't known to help matters much though.

I honestly have no idea what track of argument you're on now. Last I knew, I was saying you'd have to overcome the dangers of the Collector Base when the Reapers came regardless. Restart?

Well... every experiment they have done, supposedly in the interests of getting an edge, has blown up in their faces and killed a bunch of people. This doesn't exactly inspire faith.

No they haven't. They wouldn't even be in the position they are today if they weren't more successful or not. Simply by existing as a genuine force that the Council and Collectors can't beat, Cerberus proves itself effective.

Even the worst projects we know of, the ones with the most fallout, met their mission objectives despite the cost. Jack's treatments, done by a rogue cell, did find ways to produce the strongest human biotic. The Rachni experiments were an attempt if the Rachni could be controlled, the answer being no.

I agree. I had to fight my natural instincts to keep the base. The base is more valuable than the datapad, no question, but the datapad does contain some information. I didn't come away with nothing.

No one said that. You did, however, throw away an opportunity.

You focus too much on the law aspect of my post. Though I should say that it's the same as saying why would anyone be expected to obey the law when they have every incentive to just steal the money they want? What's important is that the laws are there and that they are enforced.

Laws about money are routinely broken, especially when the amounts become big enough: in large part they are observed simply because it is easier and cheaper to follow the laws than not.

With Reaper technology, in which the benefits far surpass the costs of not cheating while others do, even less inclination to follow the laws will exist.

But the key to my post was that everyone would then have this technology, so they're equal. No one person has all the power.

If you take the track you do, that since everyone will have it then everyone will be equal, handing the Base to TIM won't matter in the long run: everyone surviving will have Reaper tech by the end of the war, and hence be equal. At which point giving the base to TIM isn't giving an un-stoppable advantage to Cerberus alone, but an advance on the Reaper tech in time to help the galaxy.

Foreshadowing. Sitting in his dark room, smirking at the Collector base plans, smoking that cigarette with that dark ominous twinkle in his eye.

That isn't foreshadowing at all. Foreshadowing would be some insinuation or musing of TIM along the lines of 'we'll need to depopulate a few colonies', or 'I wonder how many corpses make a Reaper'. Something that suggests an action.

Why shouldn't TIM smile? You've evened the odds against the Reapers, which will benefit humanity, which is his life's goal. Moreover, you've (by game foreshadowing) handed him the keys to make Humanity secure and dominant after the threat as well.

TIM's eyes glow. They always twinkle.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...
Human dominance is a bad idea because:

1.)    It is unequal and unfair, by principle. It would be like the Vulcans or the humans dominating the Federation. They would both tell you that this is not fair, and that the Federation is about a joint friendship between the species. The question is not "why is humanity any worse than the Council?" It's "why is humanity any better than the Council?" The Council and the Council races have done nothing we have not done ourselves.

Humanity is better than the Council because the Council has stagnated as an institution, refusing to help members in trouble and standing by when members are threatened even though it has the power to assist. Humans, Quarians, and Batarians can all atest to this, as can all the other Citadel races who saw their colonies handed over to the Krogan until they had the audacity to take an Asari colony. The Council is a stagnant institution resistent to change: Humanity is active and dynamic, and far better placed for reforming the system in a more realistic way. In a sense, it's the Mandate of Heavens from ancient China: the Council had it's chance, and the fact it lost it speaks that they aren't the unquestionable best anymore.



Since we're pulling from Star Trek now, consider this: in the Star Trek movie, the Vulcans are nearly wiped out. The Federation is going to be dominated by the humans.

2.)    I do not believe humanity is fit to rule the galaxy on its own. Our history tells us we are prone to corruption and violence, and this does not appear to have changed. Having joint control and a ruling voice is desirable; having total control and being the only voice is not. Imperfect though the other races are, they have been ruling the galaxy for much, much longer than we have, and have managed to avoid destroying themselves, which in a galaxy full of radically different cultures and species is saying something. Frankly we are new at galactic rule. 

Unless the Council races are less suceptible to such flaws, that is not an argument why humans are not fit to rule. Which one, after all, has sanctioned more alien genocides: humanity, or the Council? It also hasn't ruled the galaxy with wisdom as much as inertia and luck, if the experiences of the Rachni Wars, Krogan Rebellions, and Saren are representative.

Being one voice out of many is better if the many are wise, just, and egaltarian. The Council is not: it is just strong enough and clever as an alliance of three self-interested groups to keep the rest of the Citadel species compliant.

3.)    It will not last. You will be oppressing people with your dominance in some way or another, taking all the power and giving none to others. Eventually the other races and cultures of the galaxy are going to object to this and revolt. Then it will be bad for us, because nothing unites like a common enemy.

Dominance is not necessarily oppressive. Dominance that is oppressive is the sort that is fleeting in the first place: dominance combined with alliances and friendships endures far longer.

A look at history will show that most dominant powers are not universally hated, or else they don't become dominant in the first place. Dominant powers make alliances that keep them dominant: Humanity can strike alliances with races other than the Turians, Asari, or Salarians, and can do so with species that the Council has turned it's back on. Consider the Hanar, the Volus, the Elcor, or even the Krogan (Wrex), the Geth, or the Quarians. And that's if the Salarians, or the Turians, or the Asari don't join in to advance their own interests.

The argument that humanity isn't strong enough to hold the galaxy off on its own is the lead in to humanity building strong ties and making effort to consider other person's interests, even for it's own sake. Just a wee bit of wisdom will see a far more representative ruling power than thousands of years of Council pretending.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 28 mai 2010 - 09:25 .

[Nightwriter]

Dean this is getting a bit messy and a little out of hand, so look - I destroyed the base because I can't trust TIM. Period. I'm sure you've heard the reason before, I'm sure there are different opinions, it's just my personal choice.

And with the I'm glad you concede thing I wasn't being nasty or anything, I meant I'm glad you concede that it's more positive than not.

I think the Council could put in laws regulating Reaper research just as easily as they did for AI research. But it doesn't matter. We're talking in elaborate hypotheticals now and there is no way of knowing that it's okay to keep the Collector base if everyone gets the technology, considering we have no way of knowing TIM will share.

If Cerberus's only achievement is that it has managed to keep itself alive, no, that most certainly does not mean it is effective - at saving the galaxy. It needs to do more than just survive. It needs to achieve its mission, which is not self-survival but the protection of humanity.

If an experiment is a success when it causes great death and destruction just to get the answer "no", I feel we must reevaluate the word "success".

Also there is more foreshadowing than that. "We could use this technology, against the Reapers and beyond!" - A telling line.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Dean this is getting a bit messy and a little out of hand, so look - I destroyed the base because I can't trust TIM. Period. I'm sure you've heard the reason before, I'm sure there are different opinions, it's just my personal choice.

Sure. Your choice just hasn't been supported to my satisfaction.

I think the Council could put in laws regulating Reaper research just as easily as they did for AI research. But it doesn't matter. We're talking in elaborate hypotheticals now and there is no way of knowing that it's okay to keep the Collector base if everyone gets the technology, considering we have no way of knowing TIM will share.

TIM sharing would be irrelevant, since people will get the Reaper tech from the Reapers post-battle (if they survive). That's a pretty valid conclusion, and it does open up very reasonable avenues of approach if you argue that everyone having Reaper tech bits is equal.

If Cerberus's only achievement is that it has managed to keep itself alive, no, that most certainly does not mean it is effective - at saving the galaxy. It needs to do more than just survive. It needs to achieve its mission, which is not self-survival but the protection of humanity.

Cerberus's achievements have been far more than to survive: it's been to prosper and succede in the scope and scale of things that they can even take the risks they do. You can't be considered a legitimate threat by the Council if you fail everything, and you can't maintain an organization and beat the Reapers if everything you do blows up in your face.

In the same sense that "I think, therefore I am" is proof of being, "Cerberus is capable, therefore it is successful" is proof of past action.

If an experiment is a success when it causes great death and destruction just to get the answer "no", I feel we must reevaluate the word "success".

In an experiment to determine whether something is possible, 'yes' and 'no' are equally successful. Costs and disasters acrued during so add to the bill and consequences, but the only failure of such an experiment is getting an 'I don't know' for your question.

Whether you feel the costs were worth it is a different matter to whether the experiment was successful or not.

Also there is more foreshadowing than that. "We could use this technology, against the Reapers and beyond!" - A telling line.

That hardly foreshadows massacre, genocide, or other such things worse than the Reapers.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 28 mai 2010 - 09:35 .

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

]Humanity is better than the Council because the Council has stagnated as an institution, refusing to help members in trouble and standing by when members are threatened even though it has the power to assist. Humans, Quarians, and Batarians can all atest to this, as can all the other Citadel races who saw their colonies handed over to the Krogan until they had the audacity to take an Asari colony.

So yes, the question for whether humanity is better for the galactic good than the Council is "why is humanity worse."

The UN has stood by when many nations were invaded. There are many times in Earth history when bodies with the power to act have not. If you're saying the Council has committed injustices we haven't you're wrong. And you have no way of knowing we won't commit just as many injustices once we're in power.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since we're pulling from Star Trek now, consider this: in the Star Trek movie, the Vulcans are nearly wiped out. The Federation is going to be dominated by the humans.

Well... I have no idea why this is relevant so I'll just move on. The humans are stepping in because there's no one else now and it's early in Federation history, very early.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Unless the Council races are less suceptible to such flaws, that is not an argument why humans are not fit to rule. Which one, after all, has sanctioned more alien genocides: humanity, or the Council? It also hasn't ruled the galaxy with wisdom as much as inertia and luck, if the experiences of the Rachni Wars, Krogan Rebellions, and Saren are representative.

We've committed genocide. The only reason we haven't committed alien genocide on as big a scale is because we didn't have the opportunity while trapped on Earth. You think if the scope of the universe hadn't been bigger, the scope of the damage caused by our wars wouldn't have been bigger? You're wrong.

Seriously, put us in the galaxy for a few thousand years and come back to me. It's not fair to say they've made mistakes where we haven't when we've only been here a few decades. We're just as flawed.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Being one voice out of many is better if the many are wise, just, and egaltarian. The Council is not: it is just strong enough and clever as an alliance of three self-interested groups to keep the rest of the Citadel species compliant.

The Council has many flaws and I have strong opinions about them. I'm not saying that's not the case - I'm opposing human dominance. If there's an answer it's not that.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Dominance is not necessarily oppressive. Dominance that is oppressive is the sort that is fleeting in the first place: dominance combined with alliances and friendships endures far longer.

I wouldn't object to that. Be more specific. Most people paint a much more human aggressive picture.

And races which were formerly in control of the galaxy would object to humanity grabbing the reins.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A look at history will show that most dominant powers are not universally hated, or else they don't become dominant in the first place. Dominant powers make alliances that keep them dominant: Humanity can strike alliances with races other than the Turians, Asari, or Salarians, and can do so with species that the Council has turned it's back on. Consider the Hanar, the Volus, the Elcor, or even the Krogan (Wrex), the Geth, or the Quarians. And that's if the Salarians, or the Turians, or the Asari don't join in to advance their own interests.

Human dominance as described by most people is more of a dictatorship; these are hated.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The argument that humanity isn't strong enough to hold the galaxy off on its own is the lead in to humanity building strong ties and making effort to consider other person's interests, even for it's own sake. Just a wee bit of wisdom will see a far more representative ruling power than thousands of years of Council pretending.

You seem very sure we will solve all the problems and everyone will see how we do it right.

[Nightwriter]

It's about what TIM will do with the base. Nothing else.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Cerberus's achievements have been far more than to survive: it's been to prosper and succede in the scope and scale of things that they can even take the risks they do. You can't be considered a legitimate threat by the Council if you fail everything, and you can't maintain an organization and beat the Reapers if everything you do blows up in your face.

You most certainly can be considered a legitimate problem to the Council if everything you do is dangerous, careless and destructive.

I'm not saying everything they do blows up in their face, just that every time they try to study dangerous technology and conduct risky experiments they seem to f*ck up and do awful,  awful things.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

In an experiment to determine whether something is possible, 'yes' and 'no' are equally successful. Costs and disasters acrued during so add to the bill and consequences, but the only failure of such an experiment is getting an 'I don't know' for your question.

Whether you feel the costs were worth it is a different matter to whether the experiment was successful or not.

No, you misunderstand me. I am talking about success according to Cerberus's main goal, which is the advancement of humanity. The goal of these experimentations, as well, is to produce results which will contribute to the advancement of humanity.

When they fail, they are failing that mission and the goal behind the purpose of the experiments.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That hardly foreshadows massacre, genocide, or other such things worse than the Reapers.

It foreshadows something ominous. Those things you have listed are specifics that are not provided.

I admit this foreshadowing and this knowledge that something awful will come of it is purely emotional - you need not try to pick that apart, I make no attempt to defend it. Much of my gut went into this decision.

[lovgreno]

If humans was best at everything they would be good rulers of the galaxy. But they are not. Much better to work in a coalition where many races can complete eachothers weakneses and strenghts. Like the three original council races for example. They have specialised in different things and have on purpose become dependant on eachother. If they attacked or mistreated eachother they would harm themselves. A asari way of ruling doesn't fit the turians and vice versa. One of them can't force their ways upon a different culture. We have tried that before in human empires and it always ends in war and suffering with only a few ruthless people having bigger profits. Humans can rule humans but are not fit to rule a alien culture. Simply because we are not that alien race and culture.



Empires and dictatorships are inefficent and old fashioned.

[Nightwriter]

I agree lovgreno. Good post.