653 réponses à ce sujet

[Rip504]

The Council. Krogan are still around so wait until they die off to say that. And my Shepard saved the last Rachni Queen so what race did the council kill off? O none wow.



The Council controls the galaxy,and the galaxy agrees with them. Majority controls outcome and makes the decision for us.



Now with that said the Council and the majority of sentient life agrees Cerberus is evil,and so do I.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not entirely sure that it truly counts as genocide if the race in question will only continue on its path of extinction by its own choice.

Are you referring to the krogan, the rachni, the quarians, or the humans? 
 
Because the krogan weren’t on a path to extinction before they met the salarians and the rachni made no choice at all, they were being controlled. 
 
The quarians made the choice to settle on a world (in the Terminus Systems no less), when the Council attacked them.  Does failure to file the proper paperwork merit the orbital bombardment of refugee camps?
 
And the humans, being a Citadel species in good standing, and settling in a region designated to them by the Council, had a legitimate claim on Council protection once Saren attacked Eden Prime.  This is an example less of genocide than the Council's faithlessness.
 
The Citadel Council routinely uses genocide, and other evil acts, in pursuit of the higher goal of “galactic peace.” To my way of thinking, the Council is less interested galactic peace than in maintaining their own power. 
 
From that perspective, Cerberus is evil, but not as evil as the Council.  At least Cerberus is honest about its goals!

[Xilizhra]

The krogan for starters, but they can most definitely leave their extinctionary path if they change their behavior.



I've read the planetary profile where the quarians tried to snake a world, and recalled no actual attack; there might have been a threat of one, but never an actual one.



The humans had that whole Terminus Systems issue going with them, which I really don't think is an example of the Council's evil so much as it's... well, you could call it cowardice, but I'm not sure how fair that is.



Overall, it seems we've already seen the worst of what the Council has to offer, but not that of Cerberus, which is explicitly about the domination of a single species. I don't trust them in the least.

[lovgreno]

No one in the galaxy have clean hands. But what the Council manages to do is to get support from the majority of the people in Council space, despite that their results are far from perfect sometimes. Perhaps this is is because they actualy do more good than bad in the longer perpective?

Cerberus on the other hand has in a short time managed to make themselves enemies with almost everyone. Wich in turn makes the humanity they claim to represent and save from themselves from look bad. Perhaps this is because they create more bad than good in the long run? Speculations of course, but where there is smoke there may be fire. And Cerberus leaves a lot of smoking failiures behind them.

Modifié par lovgreno, 05 décembre 2010 - 10:35 .

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...
The krogan for starters, but they can most definitely leave their extinctionary path if they change their behavior.
 

But the krogan are only on a path to extinction in the first place because of the intervention of the Council.  How much of that is due to malice on the Council's part is the question.

Xilizhra wrote...
I've read the planetary profile where the quarians tried to snake a world, and recalled no actual attack; there might have been a threat of one, but never an actual one.
 

You don’t think the Council would have followed through with their threat? I think they had every intention of doing so.

Xilizhra wrote...
The humans had that whole Terminus Systems issue going with them, which I really don't think is an example of the Council's evil so much as it's... well, you could call it cowardice, but I'm not sure how fair that is.
 

Oh, I agree, cowardice is a fine descriptor. It’s just the fact that the Council has, twice that we know, of abandoned a Citadel member race during time of need (humans and quarians), that fact speaks none too favorably about the Council’s reliability as allies.

Xilizhra wrote...
Overall, it seems we've already seen the worst of what the Council has to offer, but not that of Cerberus, which is explicitly about the domination of a single species. I don't trust them in the least.

If exterminating one species, poisoning another, threatening a third, and abandoning a fourth isn’t the worst anyone can offer, I’d be surprised! And if the Council’s done all those things in the past, they could do them in the future.
 
I just don’t understand how the ruthless galactic domination by a small group of amoral people from one race is any better or worse than the ruthless galactic domination by a small group of amoral people from many races.
 
It sounds to me like being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

[Xilizhra]

But the krogan are only on a path to extinction in the first place because of the intervention of the Council. How much of that is due to malice on the Council's part is the question.

According to Mordin, they calibrated it so that it wouldn't kill off the krogan. Though the krogan might drive themselves into extinction later on.

You don’t think the Council would have followed through with their threat? I think they had every intention of doing so.

I don't know. All I know is that they didn't.

Oh, I agree, cowardice is a fine descriptor. It’s just the fact that the Council has, twice that we know, of abandoned a Citadel member race during time of need (humans and quarians), that fact speaks none too favorably about the Council’s reliability as allies.

I'm not sure how they could have lasted at all if they weren't helpful to their allies in enough circumstances for their allies to keep helping them, honestly.

I just don’t understand how the ruthless galactic domination by a small group of amoral people from one race is any better or worse than the ruthless galactic domination by a small group of amoral people from many races.

The Council has what amounts to a popular mandate from the majority of galactic civilization, or at least a plurality of it.

[lovgreno]

General User wrote...
I just don’t understand how the ruthless galactic domination by a small group of amoral people from one race is any better or worse than the ruthless galactic domination by a small group of amoral people from many races.

Pluralism is necesary to rule a big and diverse galaxy. The voice and opinion of as many different races as possible must be heard or it will just end in everyone against everyone. The multi racial Council often fails when trying to do this. But Cerberus and a all human Council doesn't even want to try. They consider one spieces to be worthy of dominance at the expense of others. A classical example of self glorifying imperial dreams. Empires are old fashioned and inefficent constructs based on one cultures delusions of grandeur.

[Barquiel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The genophage would have been applied regardless.

I don't think so.

The genophage was developed by the salarians and the council had never intended to use it.
The turians deployed it...and they gained their Council seat after the krogan rebellions.

no war = no genophage for the turians

Modifié par Barquiel, 05 décembre 2010 - 11:24 .

[mosor]

Barquiel wrote...

The codex states that the Citadel races fought a losing war against the rachni for nearly a century until the salarians uplifted the krogan. I think they have tried to find a better way to beat the rachni. But after 100 years (diplomacy wasn't possible)...I can't blame them.

And I doubt Wrex's reforms would be successful without the genophage.

Sure they were fighting a losing war. However, thats still short of saying they would have lost without the krogan. You're assuming:
1. Their defeat was imminent
2. That uplifting the krogan was their one and only  chance for victory

As for the turians. They were allies of the council at the time and the genophage was developed by the salarians. So if you believe the genophage was morally wrong, then the council bares some responsibility for turian actions. Especially considering they rewarded the turians with a council seat after the conflict.

[thegreateski]

From what I've gathered the Council races and the Rachni were at a stalemate when the Krogan were brought in.

[General User]

Xilizhra, Lovgreno ILOPC



The Council’s mandate is historical, not popular, but I take your point, they are a legitimate ruling body, fully and lawfully empowered to make galactic level policy decisions on wide ranging issues. But the fact that they have a right to exist and make decisions doesn’t mean they should. Indeed the Councils historical track record, and current obstinacy, are potent arguments for fairly radical reform and restructuring.



Races don’t have opinions, people do. I guess that’s the real heart of my disillusionment with the Council, they have a racially based view of the universe and the people in it. Such a way of thinking is, to me, um… alien.



The real problem I have with Cerberus is that they seem intent on playing the Council’s game, and using the most heinous means to win. In other words, Cerberus’ goals aren’t all that noble. And when you look at the truly abhorrent things they have done in pursuit of those goals, it makes Cerberus an organization as deserving of contempt, and worthy of destruction as any that has ever existed.



But one gave birth to the other. You can’t condemn Cerberus and give a pass to the system that created and sustained it.



On a macro level, is empire worse than stagnation? I don’t think so. But, here’s the thing, why must it be a choice between one or the other? Why does anyone have to be in charge in the first place? What’s so bad about individual planets and empires looking to their own interests?



I’ve never played the game with an all-human Council, what do they do that is so bad?

[Xilizhra]

For further Council-focused and not Cerberus-focused discussion, I recommend the thread I just made about the Council.

[lovgreno]

General User wrote..
But one gave birth to the other. You can’t condemn Cerberus and give a pass to the system that created and sustained it.

A good point. The galaxy is a unfair and often dangerous place so you got to play the cards you have. That doesn't mean the way Cerberus works is necesarily a very efficent way though.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not entirely sure that it truly counts as genocide if the race in question will only continue on its path of extinction by its own choice.

When you set the conditions for what's acceptable behavior, and start that condition at a point they aren't, yes. It is. It's coercion by genocide.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:10 .

[Dean_the_Young]

lovgreno wrote...

No one in the galaxy have clean hands. But what the Council manages to do is to get support from the majority of the people in Council space, despite that their results are far from perfect sometimes. Perhaps this is is because they actualy do more good than bad in the longer perpective?

The Council is also the only power structure in space and has copted, marginalized, or destroyed the threats to its dominance. This is less a promotion of the Council's virtue than its, well, being pretty much the only game in town other than the lawless, chaotic Terminus. Being a better existing alternative isn't the same as being good.

The Council is an influence racket that everyone wants in on, not loves, and it's spent mellinia keeping races dangling and disenfranchised all the while.

[Jagri]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Jagri wrote...

mosor wrote...

It's at very least cultural genocide. The council screwed krogan culture twice over. First by uplifting the krogan, preventing them from evolving their culture naturally. Second, by the genophage in an attempt to correct their first mistake. Lets face it, if Cerberus did that to the krogan rather than the council, you'd be screaming bloody murder and chalk it up as another Cerberus crime.

Cerberus would have completely purged the Krogan if they were in the same position as the Council. It would be in their eyes wasted resources unless they could come up with a method to enslave them or have a certain means to control them for their own ends.

Source?

Say what you will about the Council but they gave the Krogan a chance even after the war crimes they commited. People tend to disregard the fact the Krogan used asteroids as weapons and left three worlds completely destroyed. Thats potentially millions to billions of lives ended in what could be seen as cowardly acts. I would have to applaud Turian restraint cause if those were human worlds I can see our kind killing them to the very last.

Was this before or after the unprovoked Turrian intervention and attack from behind the Krogan?

Cerberus history often repeats the pattern of purging projects, bases, and test subjects. Why would the trend change with the Krogan?

Unprovoked attack? Didn't the Krogan begin the conflict taking a Asari colony by force or do you mean cause the Turians entered the war after it started? If that is what you were meaning then the Krogan inflicting acts of genocide is ok cause they were attacked unprovoked by the Turians who entered the war as allies to the Council?

Modifié par Jagri, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:47 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Jagri wrote...
Cerberus history often repeats the pattern of purging projects, bases, and test subjects. Why would the trend change with the Krogan?

I think you're confusing Cerberus for Commander Shepard. Perfectly understandable, if you're on the Council, but since you aren't-

The only purged project we've seen was Pragia, which went rogue and was pretty much already wiped out by Jack even before Cerberus arrived to finish the job. The Lazarus Base was blown up after all but three individuals were wiped out, not to kill everyone involved. Living test subjects are hardly the basis to claim as proof of genocidal willingness, especially when in some cases those experiments went against the threat of a genocidal war: Project Trapdoor being used to discredit a biotic sumpremacist matriarch, Overlord being aimed at ending a war with a genocidal instigator without a shot needing to be fired.

Unprovoked attack? Didn't the Krogan begin the conflict taking a Asari colony by force or do you mean cause the Turians entered the war after it started?

I was referring to the Turians declaring war by surprise and attacking the Krogan from the rear despite a lack of hostilities (or knowledge of) eachother prior to or during the war. Just a reminder of context.

If that is what you were meaning then the Krogan inflicting acts of genocide is ok cause they were attacked unprovoked by the Turians who entered the war as allies to the Council?

Nope. Krogan retaliation for the Turians attacking and conquering a number of planets wasn't good either.

[Jagri]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Jagri wrote...
Cerberus history often repeats the pattern of purging projects, bases, and test subjects. Why would the trend change with the Krogan?

I think you're confusing Cerberus for Commander Shepard. Perfectly understandable, if you're on the Council, but since you aren't-

The only purged project we've seen was Pragia, which went rogue and was pretty much already wiped out by Jack even before Cerberus arrived to finish the job. The Lazarus Base was blown up after all but three individuals were wiped out, not to kill everyone involved. Living test subjects are hardly the basis to claim as proof of genocidal willingness, especially when in some cases those experiments went against the threat of a genocidal war: Project Trapdoor being used to discredit a biotic sumpremacist matriarch, Overlord being aimed at ending a war with a genocidal instigator without a shot needing to be fired.

Unprovoked attack? Didn't the Krogan begin the conflict taking a Asari colony by force or do you mean cause the Turians entered the war after it started?

I was referring to the Turians declaring war by surprise and attacking the Krogan from the rear despite a lack of hostilities (or knowledge of) eachother prior to or during the war. Just a reminder of context.

If that is what you were meaning then the Krogan inflicting acts of genocide is ok cause they were attacked unprovoked by the Turians who entered the war as allies to the Council?

Nope. Krogan retaliation for the Turians attacking and conquering a number of planets wasn't good either.

Shepard was working for Cerberus during the events of Mass Effect 2.  So Cerberus is guilty of the actions Shepard may or may not have taken. I swear when the Rachni broke out of their cages in Mass Effect 1 a Cerberus operative log mentioned a order to end the project and blow up the space station. Paul Grayson was a test subject for reaper technology which was planted in his body guess what Cerberus wanted to do after they were successful? Purge the test subject! I could also mention the Thrasher Maul experiments but they did let someone go... Likely another classic Cerberus blunder.

Turian's entering the war through a surprise attack could be considered dirty however they made a alliance with the Council and they honored it in there time of need. Sadly the Krogan were likely very much unaware of the very exsistance of Turians.

Now that its established Krogan were using methods that would result in genocide it can be agreed that the Council gave them a mercy that the Krogan wouldn't have done so if the situation was reversed.

Modifié par Jagri, 06 décembre 2010 - 02:50 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Jagri wrote...
Shepard was working for Cerberus during the events of Mass Effect 2.  So Cerberus is guilty of the actions Shepard may or may not have taken.

So is the Council, if you made the Spectre decision. Since many people also make a distinction, supported in-game, of 'I'm working with, not for,' and Shepard's actions aren't exactly dictated by Cerberus at all...

I swear when the Rachni broke out of their cages in Mass Effect 1 a Cerberus operative log mentioned a order to end the project and blow up the space station.

...because the station was overrun with a wild, insane group of aliens that were spreading chaos across the quadrant?

How is this proof of genocidal intent?

Paul Grayson was a test subject for reaper technology which was planted in his body guess what Cerberus wanted to do after they were successful? Purge the test subject!

Again, how is one person indicative of overall genocide? TIM didn't order the scientists killed, or the station wiped out, or the entire cell liquidated. That isn't a project purge.

You've basically just asserted that anyone who kills anyone is a step away from genocidal intent. That's... well, incredibly stupid proposition to make.

I could also mention the Thrasher Maul experiments but they did let someone go... Likely another classic Cerberus blunder.

Not really. classic Cerberus doesn't blunder. Only the exceptional failures get any note.

Turian's entering the war through a surprise attack could be considered dirty however they made a alliance with the Council and they honored it in there time of need. Sadly the Krogan were likely very much unaware of the very exsistance of Turians.

No they didn't. There was no prior Council-Turian Alliance. The Council arranged with the Turians during the Rebellions, and convinced them to join in: probably on a basis of 'they'll come after you next,' but no doubt also with the promise of Council Membership.

Now that its established Krogan were using methods that would result in genocide it can be agreed that the Council gave them a mercy that the Krogan wouldn't have done so if the situation was reversed.

We never hear what the Krogan did to the populations of the colonies they took, but genocided is never alleged (though slavery is). A victorious Krogan Rebellion would have enslaved the races of the galaxy, but we never were told of genocide as a matter of policy as opposed to orbital drops as a means of attack.

Until after the genophage was implemented, that is.

[Jagri]

So is the Council, if you made the Spectre decision. Since many people also make a distinction, supported in-game, of 'I'm working with, not for,' and Shepard's actions aren't exactly dictated by Cerberus at all...

We are considering all the possiabilities and potential actions Shepard can take or views. I do recall posting about some actions and choices Shepard can make being dismissed because they are outright stupid, childish, or immature but was told by what people usally label as a "Cerberus Lawyer"  that it can and should be allowed in discussion.

...because the station was overrun with a wild, insane group of aliens that were spreading chaos across the quadrant?

How is this proof of genocidal intent?

Log 3 also reported that the Rachni shouldn't have been caged like animals but treated like POWs because of the intelligence they displayed. So despite any claims that could be made they were out to terminate all test subjects and given the vague defination established by the UN and a basic webster dictionary its genocide.

Again, how is one person indicative of overall genocide? TIM didn't order the scientists killed, or the station wiped out, or the entire cell liquidated. That isn't a project purge.

A "Cerberus Lawyer" made the case that the destruction of Soverign could be consider a act of genocide. Simply put a Gray Paulson was a unique being. A new race or hybrid all his own and for him to be hunted down also fits the vague defination of genocide.

You've basically just asserted that anyone who kills anyone is a step away from genocidal intent. That's... well, incredibly stupid proposition to make.

Again refere to vague defination of genocide.

Not really. classic Cerberus doesn't blunder. Only the exceptional failures get any note.

During the events of Mass Effect 2 out of 150 Operatives how many people did you think died between Project Overlord/Reaper Corpse/Lazarus Project? 

No they didn't. There was no prior Council-Turian Alliance. The Council arranged with the Turians during the Rebellions, and convinced them to join in: probably on a basis of 'they'll come after you next,' but no doubt also with the promise of Council Membership.

So a alliance was made and the Turians honored it? I never asked for conditions in which the alliance was established.

We never hear what the Krogan did to the populations of the colonies they took, but genocided is never alleged (though slavery is). A victorious Krogan Rebellion would have enslaved the races of the galaxy, but we never were told of genocide as a matter of policy as opposed to orbital drops as a means of attack.

Until after the genophage was implemented, that is.

Indeed it never went into such details in game but I can say the same for the discussions that lead up to the genophage being needed. Predictions and assumtions are all the fills these gaps.

Oh and here is the defination for genocide...


Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Modifié par Jagri, 06 décembre 2010 - 04:51 .

[Barquiel]

mosor wrote...

As for the turians. They were allies of the council at the time and the genophage was developed by the salarians. So if you believe the genophage was morally wrong, then the council bares some responsibility for turian actions. Especially considering they rewarded the turians with a council seat after the conflict.

Morally wrong - I don't know.

But I can't really blame the council.

Krogan rebellions...it doesn't look good for asari/salarians (again)
The turians help...great!
The krogan use asteroids as weapons against the turians (rendering three planets uninhabitable)
.
.
.
And now tell them this: We have a weapon to end the war, but you're not allowed to use it

[Arijharn]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
Pardon? Both runs were to keep the birth rate to pre-uplifting levels. The Krogan culture was based on those surivial levels, and there is no evidence that the war changed it , let alone in any positive way.
[/quote]
But read between the lines here. If they purposely kept their birth rate to 'pre-industrial' levels, but know how the Krogan work as a social unit, and also know that technology will continue to pour into Tuchanka (although not to the point where the Krogan can form a naval presence) then they should be fully cognizant of the fact that the Genophage (especially after the less-than-ethical second deployment of the strain) is going to have a massive detriment to the species.

The first Genophage was deployed to give the Council and it's Turian allies a military counterpoint to the Krogan strength of quick breeding and physical maturity during the time of Krogan Rebellions (the very strengths that were needed against the also quick breeding of the Rachni). What then, was the second deployment for then? To keep them down. The Krogan had went from honored combatants of the Rachni War to neutered pets of the Council.

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
The Krogan killed each other routinely before the uplifting, and continued to do so after. Their culture has been constant infighting for supremacy and power. Before the genophage and with no reason to want revenge for anything, the Krogan went to war against everyone else. Weyrloc's actions only prove that they have not changed from that mentality.
[/quote]
My point being is that it's ridiculous to plain asinine to pass judgement of an entire species based on the actions of a few individuals. I'm sure you wouldn't want Cerberus actions to be reflected on humanity as a whole, so why paint the Krogan with that brush as well?

Their culture is their culture, that isn't ever going to change too drastically as far as I see it, simply because believe it or not, their culture is what gives the Krogan strength. The Krogan Rebellions wasn't driven by 'revenge' (against what? Against whom?) It was driven primarily through its need to expand due to insufficient living space and insufficient resources. Action needed to be taken and the Genophage was decided upon. Whether that was the right thing to do or not at the time is irrelevant, it's the second Genophage (i.e., Mordin's) that is the real issue, because there was no pressing need (i.e., the decision for military action) for that situation

I guess the real way to gauge the Council's stance is if during ME3 the Council takes action via STG or Spectre involvement to assassinate (character or physical) Wrex/Wreav.

[quote]Moiassui wrote...
And yet there are Krogan on military vessels all over the place. There are Krogan mercenary leaders. The genophage ensures that Krogan population levels stay stable and that no ships have to be shot down.
[/quote]
What Krogan military vessels? If you can provide some I'll happily concede the point but the only Krogan vessel I've actually seen was the transport that ferried Gatatog if you and Grunt were successful in defeating the Thresher Maw.

Also, the Blood Pack is representative of Werloc Guld's clan, which obviously means that it isn't Gatatog's, Urdnot's or the many other clans that dots Tuchanka's surface... and transports (i.e., those with no to minimal armaments) aren't going to set off the DMZ because the Krogan aren't confined to Tuchanka.

We see viciousness in both games from proponents of other species as much or even more than we do the Krogan, and yet it's the Krogan who seem to be the only ones who get called animals etc.

[quote]Moiassui wrote...
Cerberus exists to protect humanity from everyone but Cerberus.
[/quote]
Are you implying then that Cerberus is out to get humanity? Cerberus dips into outright criminal activities of course, but that isn't the same as say abducting all the people from Hong Kong or all the people from Ireland. Cerberus isn't out to make people or even humanity in general to suffer for nothing but giggles which leads me to believe this was just sensationalistic rhetoric on your part.

[quote]Moiassui wrote...
Assuming humans did become dominant and Cerberus did end up in charge, do you really believe they would suddenly stop their experiments and political methods?
[/quote]
I don't agree that Cerberus wants human dominance in the sense that it actively oppresses other species. I see them as placing humanity in a position to strongly protect its own sovereignty from other parties. Humanity has had contact with other species for about 30-50 years now give or take, humanity isn't going to benefit from outright isolationism (like the batarians) nor would it benefit in the long run if humanity was outright kings of the world either (look how the other species treat humans if there's an all-human council).

But to answer your questions, no I don't think they would and frankly, I don't think they should stop trying to push the envelope (although; studying children? How is that going to help directly with adult biotic soldiers?) The nature of unknown threats is that they are unknown, so just in case humanity got to hold the conch shell doesn't mean some utter bastard isn't going to throw a stone at you. Case in point? Look at the world perception of US foreign policy.

[quote]Moiassui wrote...
Meanwhile, other than the reapers, how are the other races any more oppressive on humanity than Cerberus themselves? Is there any evidence of the other races interfering in Alliance politics directly (assassinations, support of key candidates, etc)?
[/quote]
Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence. We don't really know anything about how other species view us, other than of course with a sense of trepidation, unease and a view that we are bullies, but let me see if I can give you some answers.
Batarian Hegemony - state run fascist organisation, because of our military capabilities, proven during hostilities with the Turian Hierarchy during the First Contact War, we were given colonisation 'rights' to the Skyllian Verge (I think), an area that was previously declared a 'zone of Batarian interest.' When the Batarian pleas to the Council fell on deaf ears, they completely withdrew from the Council (closing its embassy) and retreated to their home system while funnelling money and supplies to pirates and slavers to give incentive to hit human worlds. We can hear in the game itself just how dimly they view humanity by hearing the state broadcasts from the Hegemony on Omega 4 (listen to the batarian news channel). Even Balak hits X57 purely on the basis that Terra Nova is a human world.

Personally though, I think you're pushing a car uphill if you are trying to push the view that Cerberus is somehow oppressive of humanity though. Assassinating the pope actually improved human diplomatic relations with other species; namely the Salarian's. And how is supporting 'key candidates' in any way 'oppressive'? Current political parties do it all the time. Who gets to be Prime Minister? We vote; but we vote on people the party puts forward.

[quote]Moiassui wrote...
Given how many Cerberus operations go rogue (TIM's explaination for failures), is TIM really that great a leader?
[/quote]
Considering:
a) Cerberus continues to operate despite the odds stacked against it.
We could never find out how many actual operations it has
c) How many operations fail because of their own actions (Pragia) vs how many operations fail due to outside influences (Shephard, Shadow Broker, Anderson)

Then yes, I think he is a great leader. Cerberus has it's fair share of troubles of course, but it's their ability to roll with the punches that is what makes them worthy of grudging respect at the least. Also, the game world would probably be pretty boring if Cerberus only ever had successes.

[quote]Moiassui wrote...
That is uncertain.  It is before Cerberus was declared rogue, but organizations usually don't up and announce one day 'Hey, everyone, we are going rogue today.' Since the surviving subjects were transferred to the Alliance facilities, the implication is that they might have kept the data. The data might even have been lost outright. Pragia had gone rogue from Cerberus let alone the Alliance.
[/quote]
That's your prerogative. The alliance would have benefited from the research in any case (even if not directly) in your example if it 'piggybacked' into the Alliance's Ascension program.

[quote]Moiassui wrote...
Hmm... how about the fact that there are Cerberus teams on the derelect reaper that noone else seems to know about? How about the fact that they conceiled information about the collectors? Not to mention leaking that Shepard was working with Cerberus and other similar misinformation.
[/quote]
True, but here's how I think of it.

Say you're building a car, your supervisor may know that you need 20,000 screws to complete it, but does your company's shareholders really need that information? Aren't the shareholders more likely going to care if the car is finished or not? Cerberus exists because of it's relative secrecy, not because it discloses information. Furthermore; the Council and it's associates have publicly suppressed information on the Reapers, and have even gone so far as to say to their saviour (providing of course, that you did) that he's a complete and utter nut job if (s)he continues to go on about it. Whether they privately think that as well or not is for ME3.

What Collector information did they conceal? As far as I recall, the Systems Alliance and the Council didn't actually give a sh*t about the abductions because they didn't happen within Council controlled space, and the Alliance had insufficient resources to pursue its investigations until Cerberus took advantage of their own infamy and got the Alliance to act because they name dropped Shephard, gambling on the fact that the Collector's still took an interest in him/her and anyone who was directly responsible in destroying Sovereign, and the Alliance was still more concerned about Shephard's involvement with a terrorist organization than it was with the colonists.

[quote]Moiassui wrote...
Shepard overran how many ops in ME1? And in ME2, TIM's excuse for those ops were that they went rogue, as if that isn't a problem in and of itself.
[/quote]
Maybe I'm running out of caffeine, but I'm not sure how this answers the question I asked. I guess our answer primarily depends on how many actions went rogue as opposed to how many failed due to outside influences. I can think of Pragia and Overlord failing in that it pushed the ethical boundaries too far, but they still proved the core things that they set out to do was doable. Lazarus succeeded in it's own case where it not for the Shadow Broker, and Grayson failed as far as I know because Anderson tipped off the Turian's who promptly kicked the front door down.

[quote]Moiassui wrote...
You are talking as if there have never been pyramid schemes in the world, and that is scams promising actual tangible returns in currency. Given Cerberus is only promising the ephemeral 'advancement of humanity,' false reports to investors are even easier to prepare. All they have to do to ensure support is trump up xenophobia, something that is rarely that difficult historicly.[/quote]
You don't think that giving the amount of money that the backers pour into Cerberus that actual tangible rewards wouldn't be expected (we are talking billions here, not $5 notes here)? Even if the backer was the most xenophobic person in the world, he's still going to want to get something for his troubles. Providing the super rich back Cerberus, I think it isn't unreasonable to assume that they don't have other professionals to go over any schematics that Cerberus provides.

Considering Cerberus depends on their good faith, I don't think it would be in Cerberus long term interests to 'fake it.'

[Arijharn]

lovgreno wrote...

No one in the galaxy have clean hands. But what the Council manages to do is to get support from the majority of the people in Council space, despite that their results are far from perfect sometimes. Perhaps this is is because they actualy do more good than bad in the longer perpective?

I'm not sure what you're saying, that legally enforced repression is better than unlawful repression? Isn't repression just repression?

[Arijharn]

Barquiel wrote...

mosor wrote...

As for the turians. They were allies of the council at the time and the genophage was developed by the salarians. So if you believe the genophage was morally wrong, then the council bares some responsibility for turian actions. Especially considering they rewarded the turians with a council seat after the conflict.

Morally wrong - I don't know.

But I can't really blame the council.

Krogan rebellions...it doesn't look good for asari/salarians (again)
The turians help...great!
The krogan use asteroids as weapons against the turians (rendering three planets uninhabitable)
.
.
.
And now tell them this: We have a weapon to end the war, but you're not allowed to use it

I think it ridiculous that the Salarian's didn't think the Turian's would use the weapon in all honesty. I don't even think restraint meshes with Salarian military doctrine either.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

General User wrote...
I just don’t understand how the ruthless galactic domination by a small group of amoral people from one race is any better or worse than the ruthless galactic domination by a small group of amoral people from many races.

Mainly that those ruthless people from multiple races are likely to balance eachother out as far as treating each respective race with respect.