inherit
821
0
Feb 14, 2018 10:43:36 GMT
7
thepiebaker
19
August 2016
thepiebaker
|
Post by thepiebaker on Sept 24, 2016 9:46:48 GMT
My outlook People died to make that tech/get that research. Make their death meaningful by using that resource. If you destroy it they died for nothing. And what better revenge than to use the philosopher stone made from the souls of a sacrificed civilization to obliterate the abomination that made it? In a way, this whole line of thought could be extended to the Reapers themselves. They are all a "collection" of data from innumerable past civilizations. Why not control and "use that data" to the benefit of the current cycle rather than outright destroy it? And that's TIMs and control's line of thought as well. The reason for my deviation of decision is not an ethical at that standpoint but security. The reaper abortion is less of a threat in aspects of the passive post mortem indoctrination vs what can go wrong with control (a virus like system rewriting shep or even what IT folk beleive) |
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
10,585
Ieldra
4,907
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Sept 24, 2016 10:24:56 GMT
I object to that assumption. Heck, you even try to put a cultural spin on it. I personally experience no discomfort in preserving Maelon's data even though I do consider it to be possibly unreliable because of the methods Maelon resorted to in order to generate it. That's why I said "most of us" instead of "all of us". I maintain that "most", though. I think most of us experience a flash of discomfort at the thought of using those data, even though it may not translate into a reason to destroy the data. Most people either reflect on the situation and make a pragmatic decision that can go either way or rationalize a decision driven by that discomfort. |
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
10,585
Ieldra
4,907
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Sept 24, 2016 10:30:17 GMT
In a way, this whole line of thought could be extended to the Reapers themselves. They are all a "collection" of data from innumerable past civilizations. Why not control and "use that data" to the benefit of the current cycle rather than outright destroy it? Yes, but that's not how Control is presented. Whether you consider them existentially valid or not, the Reapers are intelligent life forms, and controlling them carries all the moral implications of controlling intelligent life forms. The main idea of Control is to create an ultimate authority in order to maintain order and stability, and it sacrifices some freedom for it, both by making you take control of the Reapers and setting up an ultimate authority for the galaxy. The ending that uses the Reapers' collections of data for the benefit of galactic civilization - this is explicitly mentioned in the ending sequence - is Synthesis. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 10:55:10 GMT
In a way, this whole line of thought could be extended to the Reapers themselves. They are all a "collection" of data from innumerable past civilizations. Why not control and "use that data" to the benefit of the current cycle rather than outright destroy it? And that's TIMs and control's line of thought as well. The reason for my deviation of decision is not an ethical at that standpoint but security. The reaper abortion is less of a threat in aspects of the passive post mortem indoctrination vs what can go wrong with control (a virus like system rewriting shep or even what IT folk beleive) So, in a round-about way, you destroy the Reapers because the "data are unreliable" (if you view the Reapers as a "collection of data from past civilizations corrupted by the intent of the AI Catalyst and the process of the collection of that data). The differences in the situations can be reduced to the scale of each one. None of them has to involve a spiritual morality. Using data generated by scientists with an agenda can possibly be "unsafe" and cause harm to the population. The "control" of the data (i.e. the integrity of the scientists replicating the experiments and using the data forward) are then valid considerations. Each situation can be more a matter of "trust" in the "scientists" involved rather than some sort of "spiritual" or "cultural" aversion to the manner in which the data were collected. Since Miranda is a "scientist" of sorts, her "feels like a betrayal" line can actually be interpreted on the level that it represents a departure from ethical scientific practice. @ Straykat - I've played through the Collector Station again today and followed the paragon path throughout. Had Miranda and Jack on the squad and still did not trigger any line that mentioned the "soul of humanity." I'm afraid I'm going to need more details about what you're doing prior to that point to trigger that line. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 10:58:18 GMT
I object to that assumption. Heck, you even try to put a cultural spin on it. I personally experience no discomfort in preserving Maelon's data even though I do consider it to be possibly unreliable because of the methods Maelon resorted to in order to generate it. That's why I said "most of us" instead of "all of us". I maintain that "most", though. I think most of us experience a flash of discomfort at the thought of using those data, even though it may not translate into a reason to destroy the data. Most people either reflect on the situation and make a pragmatic decision that can go either way or rationalize a decision driven by that discomfort. "Most" is still an "off the wall" assumption unless you've collected hard data that actually shows this... a poll even? It belies your "agenda" in this discussion. From what I've seen posted here, there are responders other than myself who are indicating that destroying the collector base is a matter of mistrust in TIM... and, as I mentioned on the other thread, the game goes on to confirm that line of thought about it by enabling Shepard to clearly say "I destroyed that base because I couldn't trust you with the data." |
|
inherit
821
0
Feb 14, 2018 10:43:36 GMT
7
thepiebaker
19
August 2016
thepiebaker
|
Post by thepiebaker on Sept 24, 2016 11:03:07 GMT
And that's TIMs and control's line of thought as well. The reason for my deviation of decision is not an ethical at that standpoint but security. The reaper abortion is less of a threat in aspects of the passive post mortem indoctrination vs what can go wrong with control (a virus like system rewriting shep or even what IT folk beleive) So, in a round-about way, you destroy the Reapers because the "data are unreliable" (if you view the Reapers as a "collection of data from past civilizations corrupted by the intent of the AI Catalyst and the process of the collection of that data). The differences in the situations can be reduced to the scale of each one. None of them has to involve a spiritual morality. Using data generated by scientists with an agenda can possibly be "unsafe" and cause harm to the population. The "control" of the data (i.e. the integrity of the scientists replicating the experiments and using the data forward) are then valid considerations. Each situation can be more a matter of "trust" in the "scientists" involved rather than some sort of "spiritual" or "cultural" aversion to the manner in which the data were collected. Not the data itself is unreliable but that it can be perceived as a reaper sleeper agent in a way. |
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
10,585
Ieldra
4,907
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Sept 24, 2016 11:10:21 GMT
That's why I said "most of us" instead of "all of us". I maintain that "most", though. I think most of us experience a flash of discomfort at the thought of using those data, even though it may not translate into a reason to destroy the data. Most people either reflect on the situation and make a pragmatic decision that can go either way or rationalize a decision driven by that discomfort. "Most" is still an "off the wall" assumption unless you've collected hard data that actually shows this... a poll even? It belies your "agenda" in this discussion. From what I've seen posted here, there are responders other than myself who are indicating that destroying the collector base is a matter of mistrust in TIM... and, as I mentioned on the other thread, the game goes on to confirm that line of thought about it by enabling Shepard to clearly say "I destroyed that base because I couldn't trust you with the data." Read Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" for data that supports my assumption. Also, you misunderstand. I did not claim that most people who destroyed the CB or Maelon's data did it because they felt the resources were "unclean". I only said that most people likely experienced a flash of discomfort that is the emotional foundation for many conceptions of "uncleanness" at the thought of using the resource, regardless of the the decision they made in the end and their reasons for it. In fact, I expect most people here to have made a decision based on projected tangible consequences. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 11:11:36 GMT
So, in a round-about way, you destroy the Reapers because the "data are unreliable" (if you view the Reapers as a "collection of data from past civilizations corrupted by the intent of the AI Catalyst and the process of the collection of that data). The differences in the situations can be reduced to the scale of each one. None of them has to involve a spiritual morality. Using data generated by scientists with an agenda can possibly be "unsafe" and cause harm to the population. The "control" of the data (i.e. the integrity of the scientists replicating the experiments and using the data forward) are then valid considerations. Each situation can be more a matter of "trust" in the "scientists" involved rather than some sort of "spiritual" or "cultural" aversion to the manner in which the data were collected. Not the data itself is unreliable but that it can be perceived as a reaper sleeper agent in a way. ... so, AI sleeper agents are reliable data? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 11:13:21 GMT
"Most" is still an "off the wall" assumption unless you've collected hard data that actually shows this... a poll even? It belies your "agenda" in this discussion. From what I've seen posted here, there are responders other than myself who are indicating that destroying the collector base is a matter of mistrust in TIM... and, as I mentioned on the other thread, the game goes on to confirm that line of thought about it by enabling Shepard to clearly say "I destroyed that base because I couldn't trust you with the data." Read Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" for data that supports my assumption. Also, you misunderstand. I did not claim that most people who destroyed the CB or Maelon's data did it because they felt the resources were "unclean". I only said that most people likely experienced a flash of discomfort that is the emotional foundation many conceptions of "uncleanness", regardless of the the decision they made in the end and their reasons for it. In fact, I expect most people here to have made a decision based on projected tangible consequences. ... and do you have hard data that supports "most" Mass Effect players experience a "flash of discomfort" as you describe... or are you just pulling that impression off the top your head? |
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
10,585
Ieldra
4,907
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Sept 24, 2016 11:16:27 GMT
Read Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" for data that supports my assumption. Also, you misunderstand. I did not claim that most people who destroyed the CB or Maelon's data did it because they felt the resources were "unclean". I only said that most people likely experienced a flash of discomfort that is the emotional foundation many conceptions of "uncleanness", regardless of the the decision they made in the end and their reasons for it. In fact, I expect most people here to have made a decision based on projected tangible consequences. ... and do you have hard data that supports "most" Mass Effect players experience a "flash of discomfort" as you describe... or are you just pulling that impression off the top your head? I am applying the results of experiments that show that most people of a large cross-cultural sample are like that when faced with comparable situations. Of course, it is possible that ME players are outliers, but I do not have the means to test that hypothesis, nor direct access to a sample of ME players willing to take part in a psychological experiment. I also consider it unlikely. It is also possible that people are socialized in a way that situations like the CB decision don't trigger such a response. I assume that's rare, though, based on the observation that most people have a strong opinion about using the Nazi research. That observation is anecdotal, true. |
|
inherit
821
0
Feb 14, 2018 10:43:36 GMT
7
thepiebaker
19
August 2016
thepiebaker
|
Post by thepiebaker on Sept 24, 2016 11:18:49 GMT
Not the data itself is unreliable but that it can be perceived as a reaper sleeper agent in a way. ... so, AI sleeper agents are reliable data? Where are you even getting the idea that the data is at fault? The data is not a factor in my decision and I never said it was |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 11:40:45 GMT
... so, AI sleeper agents are reliable data? Where are you even getting the idea that the data is at fault? The data is not a factor in my decision and I never said it was If Shepard is characterized as believing that the Reapers are only machines (per statement made to Sovereign) and with the revelation that they are built by collecting the entire essence of a civilization (by sucking up their DNA as goo - DNA, which according to the Prothean belief, is constantly altered by experience such that it can impart memories through tough), then the "data" stored in the Reapers should be "good" data and certainly the experiences of numerous civilizations and knowledge about all that technology could be useful to the current cycle. If it can be reasoned pragmatically that the Collector Base should be kept for the value of the data it is believed to contain and to destroy it is "stupid" then why it is not "stupid" to destroy the Reapers when Shepard is handed the means to control them utterly and make that data accessible to everyone? It's a matter of trust - People advocate destroying the Reapers because they don't trust the Catalyst to be telling Shepard the truth and that he won't be vulnerable to "post-mortem indoctrination" (corruption through using the Reapers that comes from the Reapers themselves). IF you consider the Reapers to be a "collection of data" then it equates to the data misleading the scientist (represented by Shepard) now using that data going forward. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 12:06:14 GMT
... and do you have hard data that supports "most" Mass Effect players experience a "flash of discomfort" as you describe... or are you just pulling that impression off the top your head? I am applying the results of experiments that show that most people of a large cross-cultural sample are like that when faced with comparable situations. Of course, it is possible that ME players are outliers, but I do not have the means to test that hypothesis, nor direct access to a sample of ME players willing to take part in a psychological experiment. I also consider it unlikely. It is also possible that people are socialized in a way that situations like the CB decision don't trigger such a response. I assume that's rare, though, based on the observation that most people have a strong opinion about using the Nazi research. That observation is anecdotal, true. The situations are not directly comparable in that Mass Effect is a game designed to offer players agency - i.e. the option to play the thing out in a number of different ways - to role play as someone other than themselves. Different lines are triggered depending on 1) who the player has with them 2) whether or not they decide to investigate the matter with TIM (e.g. using the line "How would you use it?" (which generates neither paragon or renegade points in itself, but still allows for paragon and renegade points to be assigned farther along the tree)... and perhaps the conversation even plays out a little differently depending on even earlier choices made by Shepard (i.e. I'm still not getting any "soul of humanity" references as mentioned by StrayKat). No doubt, Bioware intended to include lines that provide for the "flash of discomfort" reaction... as well as reactions that might even be stronger... but there is also a provision for an alternative reaction of just not trusting TIM. Both the "abomination" reference and Miranda's "betrayal" line are readily avoidable. My other point has been that scientific ethics concerning "unclean data" are largely rooted in the belief that good experimental practices (including practices that do not abuse the subjects of those experiments) yield the most reliable results... results that can be more readily accepted by other scientists using that data. |
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
10,585
Ieldra
4,907
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Sept 24, 2016 12:57:58 GMT
I am applying the results of experiments that show that most people of a large cross-cultural sample are like that when faced with comparable situations. Of course, it is possible that ME players are outliers, but I do not have the means to test that hypothesis, nor direct access to a sample of ME players willing to take part in a psychological experiment. I also consider it unlikely. It is also possible that people are socialized in a way that situations like the CB decision don't trigger such a response. I assume that's rare, though, based on the observation that most people have a strong opinion about using the Nazi research. That observation is anecdotal, true. The situations are not directly comparable in that Mass Effect is a game designed to offer players agency - i.e. the option to play the thing out in a number of different ways - to role play as someone other than themselves. Different lines are triggered depending on 1) who the player has with them 2) whether or not they decide to investigate the matter with TIM (e.g. using the line "How would you use it?" (which generates neither paragon or renegade points in itself, but still allows for paragon and renegade points to be assigned farther along the tree)... and perhaps the conversation even plays out a little differently depending on even earlier choices made by Shepard (i.e. I'm still not getting any "soul of humanity" references as mentioned by StrayKat). No doubt, Bioware intended to include lines that provide for the "flash of discomfort" reaction... as well as reactions that might even be stronger... but there is also a provision for an alternative reaction of just not trusting TIM. Absolutely. The statements referring to the CB as an abomination appear only if you go full Paragon, and the line about the "soul of humanity" appears in the conversation with TIM after you completed the mission, but only if you chose certain Paragon lines earlier. So yes, the decision setup made provision for a pragmatic decision for destroying the base. That's why I said the full paragon decision set (as opposed to others) makes use of the concept of "uncleanness". If that hasn't become clear before, now it should be. Also, having that flash of discomfort (which I believe most people to experience) does not mean acting on it. In fact, I suspect most people ignore it in favor of something that makes more sense to them. I challenge people to observe their own emotional reactions while playing the SM, or better, if they can, recall their emotional reactions when playing the SM for the first time. By now our reactions have been shaped by our debates in such a way that they're probably not genuine any more. My own reaction, unfortunately, was overshadowed by the anger about the incoherent crap spewed, of all things, by EDI, about the "essence of the species based on people's DNA". I've rarely encountered such a load of bullshit in a work of SF, but I still find the idea of using the CB mildly discomforting, even though I almost always preserve it in the end. |
|
inherit
Mad Hermit
870
0
Aug 11, 2016 16:33:09 GMT
2,898
straykat
2,503
Aug 10, 2016 11:00:20 GMT
August 2016
straykat
|
Post by straykat on Sept 24, 2016 13:05:49 GMT
The only reason I can play with this option is it's simply written better and has the best emotional highlights. That's it. Purely a literary choice. The whole Krogan thing, that is. That includes Maelon, Wrex, Mordin, all of it. I don't see the point in trying to justify it in a serious way though. Just like many things in Mass Effect.
Otherwise, I despise it. I'm a little torn really. Because I'm all for the feelz. But the way they go about it taints it sometimes.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Sept 24, 2016 13:17:36 GMT
Yea did they have a 400 LBS fully armored Krogan with a shot gun capable of turning their body into a fine pink mist standing behind them? They had Jenny McCarthy and Autism "warrior moms" on one side (just as intimidating as fully armored Krogan) along with a formerly credible researcher (later shown to be less than credible - and I'm being kind there) vs. research sponsored by big vaccine companies on the other (publicly mistrusted as being biased). Children paid the price. It took many years and several less biased studies to sort out the mess... and some still don't consider it to be settled. So nothing alike . got it. |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Sept 24, 2016 13:34:57 GMT
Why is this an issue? Information is information no matter how it was created. Maelon's data might have been based on brutal experiments but you ended them. Throwing away the data is stupid. Collector Base how ever is another story. That kind of technology being allowed into the hands of TIM doesn't make any sense or have any logic short of a Shepard being a Human Supremacist like TIM. Shared among the races of the galaxy yes. Shared with a single group that has very questionable motives and questionable ethics. Not so much. Personally, I agree with you that destroying information because of how it was created is stupid, but many people recognize that "spiritual taint" I spoke of in my answer to straycat as morally relevant, and if you follow the paragon dialogue at the CB, that - and not possible bad effects of giving the CB to TIM - is exactly what the decision is intended to be about if you take the full paragon path (as opposed to following the neutral path and then destroying the base, IIRC). You and I may not recognize that as relevant, but studies appear to indicate that people not from western cultures, and many conservatives, tend to do so. People like you and me are an exception, worldwide, even though we may be the majority among players of Bioware games. Why is that so? I think it's because a descriptive account of human morality would show us that it is about more than promoting fairness and avoidance of harm in a society of autonomous individuals. It's about creating and sustaining functional communities. Naturally, that function loses importance as a society gets more individualistic, but it has, so far, never become irrelevant. Oh yes you can. The autism/vaccination research scandal... The scientific validity of the data is never the issue in these decisions. If it were, there would be a decision to keep the data for further testing. For instance, all we have in Maelon's case is "keep it in case we need it". The decision to to destroy it (on the full paragon path in case of the CB) is about the moral validity of the resource itself. Both in the case of Maelon's data and the CB, the relevant moral offense precedes any tangible adverse effects of using the resource. In the autism example, there is no preceding offense that results in the perception of "uncleanness". Of course, you can also destroy Maelon's data because you don't want the genophage cured, but I don't recall anyone who said they did it for that reason. I guess pragmatists mostly want to keep their options open. The older I get the more the statement "It is a matter of principle" means they don't have any logical reason. I just don't want to be wrong" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 13:37:25 GMT
The situations are not directly comparable in that Mass Effect is a game designed to offer players agency - i.e. the option to play the thing out in a number of different ways - to role play as someone other than themselves. Different lines are triggered depending on 1) who the player has with them 2) whether or not they decide to investigate the matter with TIM (e.g. using the line "How would you use it?" (which generates neither paragon or renegade points in itself, but still allows for paragon and renegade points to be assigned farther along the tree)... and perhaps the conversation even plays out a little differently depending on even earlier choices made by Shepard (i.e. I'm still not getting any "soul of humanity" references as mentioned by StrayKat). No doubt, Bioware intended to include lines that provide for the "flash of discomfort" reaction... as well as reactions that might even be stronger... but there is also a provision for an alternative reaction of just not trusting TIM. Absolutely. The statements referring to the CB as an abomination appear only if you go full Paragon, and the line about the "soul of humanity" appears in the conversation with TIM after you completed the mission, but only if you chose certain Paragon lines earlier. So yes, the decision setup made provision for a pragmatic decision for destroying the base. That's why I said the full paragon decision set (as opposed to others) makes use of the concept of "uncleanness". If that hasn't become clear before, now it should be. Also, having that flash of discomfort (which I believe most people to experience) does not mean acting on it. In fact, I suspect most people ignore it in favor of something that makes more sense to them. I challenge people to observe their own emotional reactions while playing the SM, or better, if they can, recall their emotional reactions when playing the SM for the first time. By now our reactions have been shaped by our debates in such a way that they're probably not genuine any more. My own reaction, unfortunately, was overshadowed by the anger about the incoherent crap spewed, of all things, by EDI, about the "essence of the species based on people's DNA". I've rarely encountered such a load of bullshit in a work of SF, but I still find the idea of using the CB mildly discomforting, even though I almost always preserve it in the end. Let's clarify "full paragon" - because I don't include deviating from the top right line when no points are being assigned by the game as not being "full paragon"... as opposed to just blindly selecting the top right line in every instance. It should be noted that also, a more "righteous" Shepard may be more inclined to treat TIM with disdain and disrespect and, therefore, respond to him with lines selected from the bottom right (renegade) position. There is no game guideline that says only "renegade" Shepards can be characterized as "righteous." There are also some places in the game where even points assigned are reversed - i.e. a bottom right selection results in the assignment of paragon points and vice versa. Lines can also change depending on how many paragon, renegade, and investigate options have been skipped over earlier in the game (I'm watching a ME series on YouTube where that player is kicking off several lines I've never triggered before and the only differences I can spot in the playthrough is that he has skipped some investigations that I did not skip). Furthermore, as I said, lines can also change depending on who you have in your squad with you. The lines triggered may determine whether or not the player experiences that "flash of discomfort" you describe. Since the situations are not comparable to the experiments you're citing, your extrapolation is merely an assumption that may or may not hold up (note - may or may not). Scientifically, the data on which you are relying to make that assertion here may be "good data," but you might be the "scientist" that's using it to prove up your personal agenda aabout the game... and forgive me if I am inclined to consider some of your previously stated opinions about the game in that assessment. You asserted that "The scientific validity of the data is never the issue in these decisions." In my case in this game, it is, ... and in the case of the development of scientific ethics in our world, it has been repeatedly one of the major issues. Never use never. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 13:43:23 GMT
They had Jenny McCarthy and Autism "warrior moms" on one side (just as intimidating as fully armored Krogan) along with a formerly credible researcher (later shown to be less than credible - and I'm being kind there) vs. research sponsored by big vaccine companies on the other (publicly mistrusted as being biased). Children paid the price. It took many years and several less biased studies to sort out the mess... and some still don't consider it to be settled. So nothing alike . got it. If you say so... but I do see an analogy. |
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
10,585
Ieldra
4,907
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Sept 24, 2016 14:14:40 GMT
Absolutely. The statements referring to the CB as an abomination appear only if you go full Paragon, and the line about the "soul of humanity" appears in the conversation with TIM after you completed the mission, but only if you chose certain Paragon lines earlier. So yes, the decision setup made provision for a pragmatic decision for destroying the base. That's why I said the full paragon decision set (as opposed to others) makes use of the concept of "uncleanness". If that hasn't become clear before, now it should be. Also, having that flash of discomfort (which I believe most people to experience) does not mean acting on it. In fact, I suspect most people ignore it in favor of something that makes more sense to them. I challenge people to observe their own emotional reactions while playing the SM, or better, if they can, recall their emotional reactions when playing the SM for the first time. By now our reactions have been shaped by our debates in such a way that they're probably not genuine any more. My own reaction, unfortunately, was overshadowed by the anger about the incoherent crap spewed, of all things, by EDI, about the "essence of the species based on people's DNA". I've rarely encountered such a load of bullshit in a work of SF, but I still find the idea of using the CB mildly discomforting, even though I almost always preserve it in the end. Let's clarify "full paragon" - because I don't include deviating from the top right line when no points are being assigned by the game as not being "full paragon"... as opposed to just blindly selecting the top right line in every instance. Since you want to be nitpicky: I define being "full paragon" in the CB decision as playing a Shepard whose stance on the matter is expressed best by making the final exit out of every decision node relevant to the CB decision by using its top right option, regardless of points assigned, and consequently choosing those top right options. Note: I define a "decision node" as any conversation node you can't repeat after you have exited it through one of the right options, even if by choosing it you do not make your final decision on a matter. I say "final exit" because you can also temporarily exit a decision node by choosing an investigation option, but you will land on the same node again when you exit the investigation node. Also, only exits of decision nodes count, and not exits of investigation nodes. Is that precise enough for you? I'd rather say my statement is an informed hypothesis. It's more than an assumption in empty space. Also, I do think that the situations are comparable, although they're more complex than those used by Haidt's experiments, and that could result in some statistical bias if used in an actual experiment using ME players. Also, I wonder what you think this supposed "agenda" is. I am unaware of any intent to prove anything in this thread. But it's probably best to leave this alone. You appear to have an agenda to discredit me, and if you want to find a flaw, you will always find one. |
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
10,585
Ieldra
4,907
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Sept 24, 2016 14:19:18 GMT
They had Jenny McCarthy and Autism "warrior moms" on one side (just as intimidating as fully armored Krogan) along with a formerly credible researcher (later shown to be less than credible - and I'm being kind there) vs. research sponsored by big vaccine companies on the other (publicly mistrusted as being biased). Children paid the price. It took many years and several less biased studies to sort out the mess... and some still don't consider it to be settled. So nothing alike . got it. I...agree with you *looks out of the window to see if there are any flying pigs*  |
|
inherit
Mr. Rump
46
0
8,995
Lavochkin
6,793
August 2016
lavochkin
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Lavochkin on Sept 24, 2016 14:19:28 GMT
I'm disappoint that there's no mention of Overlord in OP.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
10,585
Ieldra
4,907
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Sept 24, 2016 14:22:14 GMT
I'm disappoint that there's no mention of Overlord in OP. As I see it, Overlord is different. As opposed to the CB and Maelon's data, you do some actual harm if you let the project continue, so this is less about "unclean resources" rather than "does the end justify the means" (in this specific case). The CB and Maelon's data are connected to atrocities, but they're all in the past and you can't change anything about them regardless of which decision you make. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:41:15 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 14:31:34 GMT
Let's clarify "full paragon" - because I don't include deviating from the top right line when no points are being assigned by the game as not being "full paragon"... as opposed to just blindly selecting the top right line in every instance. Since you want to be nitpicky: I define being "full paragon" in the CB decision as playing a Shepard whose stance on the matter is expressed best by making the final exit out of every decision node relevant to the CB decision by using its top right option, regardless of points assigned, and consequently choosing those top right options. Note: I define a "decision node" as any conversation node you can't repeat after you have exited it through one of the right options, even if by choosing it you do not make your final decision on a matter. I say "final exit" because you can also temporarily exit a decision node by choosing an investigation option, but you will land on the same node again when you exit the investigation node. Also, only exits of decision nodes count, and not exits of investigation nodes. Is that precise enough for you? I'd rather say my statement is an informed hypothesis. It's more than an assumption in empty space. Also, I do think that the situations are comparable, although they're more complex than those used by Haidt's experiments, and that could result in some statistical bias if used in an actual experiment using ME players. Also, I wonder what you think this supposed "agenda" is. I am unaware of any intent to prove anything in this thread. But it's probably best to leave this alone. You appear to have an agenda to discredit me, and if you want to find a flaw, you will always find one. Well, I've gone through th entire Collector Base mission going "full paragon" by your definition... and I'm still NOT triggering any reference to "soul of humanity." So, maybe you better tell what earlier paragon I need to have selected to trigger the line. Hopefully, I won't have to replay the entire game. Oh, and on that last part... I'll just refer to your "pigs flying line above." |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Sept 24, 2016 14:40:17 GMT
So nothing alike . got it. If you say so... but I do see an analogy. Yes a bunch of angry moms equal to a heavily armed Krogan Clan that once cured will breed a massive army and slaughter all other Krogan Clans and all other races till they are wading hip deep in blood. Spreading across the entire known galaxy subjugating and slaughtering at will. On top of that we are talking about reproduction. It is incredibly hard to fake someone who was effected with the Genophage and unable to produce more then 1 kid per every 300. Suddenly produce 300/300 or even 50/300. You seem willing or more then willing to completely ignore all the factors involved when dealing with the data. And instead construct something more based in fantasy and discuss that instead. The Salarians researched how to create the Genophage to start with. Maelon was with the team lead by Mordin that researched and altered the Genophage to prevent the Krogan from adapting to it as they seemed to have been. Maelon had access to all their team's data since he was once in STG and the data was open to him. The entire point of his actions was he felt responsible for the problems of the Krogan people and that if only given a chance they could change from the some what brutish people they are now into more then that. Clan Weryloc was the only one willing to deal with him which is saying a lot considering the massive distrust of Salarians by the Krogan due to the Genophage in the first place. Weryloc had planet and then galaxy wide domination plans. Which means they would be watching him and demanding updates. He would be unable to falsify results because either the infertile female was able to give birth to alive babies or she didn't. It might take a while to see if it worked depending on how long the gestation period of Krogans are. He resorted to more brutal measures because his previous lighter handed measures kept failing so using the end justifies the means reasoning he started the experiments that we find him at and that cause Mordin to threaten to shoot him over. Seriously Mordin didn't threaten his life because he was trying to cure the genophage but because of how he was trying to do it. And here is the the thing. The game makes it very clear that Maelon was making progress. He might have had to use up 100 or more females and males. But he would have found the cure. |
|
