Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Quote
Originally posted by Joshua Harris: 1. Examine the first sentence. It specifically mentioned that not the Confederation, but the elite and powerful members were behind the oppression. As I specifically stated earlier, a just system of democracy and republicanism should not be blamed for the actions of its rulers. Those individuals in command themselves should be blamed. In fact, it is likely that they are no longer even alive.
Reason why you think they likely wouldn't be alive? If the oppression continues after their death, there is something wrong with the system or a good number of the people within it. Alternatively, if the system keeps oppressive people in power, it will require an external force to remove them.
With the corrupt individuals gone, the Confederation is no longer being used as a force of oppression. The Confederation, at the present time, is a successful republic that has created wealth through capitalist practices.
At the expense of the outer colonies. With your logic, slavery is justified as it creates wealth through capitalistic practices.
Those who committed the injustices are no longer in power,
No evidence for that.
and the system has returned to being a force of good.
No evidence for that, but rather evidence to the contrary. Besides, didn't you say good and evil are relative. Are you contradicting yourself?
Would you suggest that the US be invaded and eliminated because Mr. Grant was a corrupt President? Of course not, because the free and fair system of republicanism compensated for his injustices with better Presidents.
Do you think that if a country continues to keep corrupt people in power who support the oppression of a good number of its citizens in order to benefit others, that it is doing a good job and should be congratulated, or that it is immoral, corrupt and should stop? Is it worth sacrificing the freedoms of a minority for the wealth of a majority?
Also note that, according to your sacred text, the oppression lasted fifteen years, and it logically follows that it does not continue to this day.
No, the text says 'This reign of terror lasted for fifteen years; then the insurrection began.' There is no evidence that the opression stopped. It is simply saying that it was after 15 years that a substantial rebellion grew up. If the opression ceased, there would be no reason for rebellion. They would lose their support.
2. The Rebels are terrorists. The Rebel cause illegally used force to compel and coerce the Confederation into submitting to rule by the Rebellion.
Where does it say they want to rule? It says that they are trying to defend and liberate themselves from oppression.
Observe that the Rebellion destroys civilian freighter traffic devoid of military significance, a common terrorist tactic, while the Confederation does not.
Confed freighters carry supplies for the Confed navy. And the crew will have escape pods to get to.
3. Protecting themselves from the Confederation? That's laughable. Read your sacred introductory text: the Rebellion was formed with the express purpose of annexing the Confederation and destroying it.
Oh really? Now where, exactly, does it say that? All I can find is: 'The outer colonies, weary of the Confederations practices of exploiting their land and denying them any representation in the Senate, formed an organized rebellion aimed at destroying their oppressors.'
They want to destroy their oppressors, not the Confederation in its entirety.
They didn't merely want freedom from the oppression of certain powerful individuals (like perhaps a colonial America did), they wanted to eliminate a sovereign polity, and deny the inner colonies to freedom to decide what kind of government they want. The Rebels seek power - the power to impose themselves over others.
'The outer colonies, weary of the Confederations practices of exploiting their land and denying them any representation in the Senate, formed an organized rebellion aimed at destroying their oppressors.'
Sounds to be like they're trying to remove a corrupt government who is not representative of the people, with the intention of replacing it with one that is.
4. Now, you tell me, how do we know this source is even accurate at all? It does not present an objective view of the situation (check the amount of coverage for each side, and the language employed), and is biased in favor of the Rebellion. We do not know who wrote it, or what their agenda is. Remember, be skeptical. Look at the facts for yourself, do not take the word of the author of a partisan document with an agenda.
We have no reason to doubt the text. There is no indication that it is a Rebel text. Given that it is an intro which leaves you the freedom to chose your own side, it is logical to assume that it is from a neutral source.
5. Evil is a relative term. Or do you believe in moral absolutism, in which case I will destroy that concept as well.
How do you intend to do that? And doesn't this view contradict with your statements about just and unjust causes? If there are no absolutes, how can you say that a just cause will always and inevitably triumph over an unjust one?
6. Finally, let me note a small but significant part of the text: "with the help of sympathetic corporations". This raises a massive red flag - corporations do not act out of benevolence, they act out of motivation for profit. The only reason a corporation would help the Rebels is if it sees an advantage in it.
That's very cynical. Corporations are run by people. Is it not possible that some of these people are benevolent/sympathetic and wish to help? And it is arguable that there is profit to be made in aiding the Rebellion - selling weapons is a good way to make money, gaining favour with people who could potentially have a lot of influence in the future is a good idea. Fear and suspicion of a corrupt government could be another driving force.
Referring to the Artemis thread, I think it is quite clear that galactic corporations support the Rebels not because their cause is just, but because they want the war to continue. They are not interested in peace, and justice, they want a political climate which is viable for the sale of their merchandise. Judging from the text, it is probable that the Rebellion would be a mere shadow of itself if it wasn't supporting by war mongering companies. Of course, a just cause, being just, would intrinsically gather significant support over such a long period of time, and easily crush an unjust power. But then again, the Confederation is not an autocratic regime - it bring prosperity its citizens, and is inherently benevolent, a system that more often than not prevents dictators and powerful citizens from taking power.
Evidence for these claims? The outer colonies were oppressed, denied representation. How can that be a good thing? Or is it excusable because the majority of the citizens are benefitting?
7. Ever notice the disparity in the designs of various ships from both the Rebellion and Confederation. Where the Confederation's ships are geared towards defending their holdings, and make poor assault ships, Rebel vessels are designed to attack. They make sub-par defense vessels. If the Rebellion simply wanted to exist in peace, would they not concentrate on defense, rather than exterminating the Confederation? And if the Confederation really wanted to annex the Rebellion's holdings, wouldn't they actually build some a-class assault vessels (and believe me, from the quality of Confederate designs, they certainly could)?
The Rebels need offensive ships because they require an offensive strategy. They can't sit still and wait for the Confeds because the Confeds are the ones in power and the ones with numbers. The Rebels can only have an effective navy by launching hit and run attacks and preventing the Confederation from concentrating force on them. And Rebel design is dictated largely by whatever ships they can get their hands on.
In what way do you feel the Confeds are lacking in the assault department? Cruisers are very effective vessels. Park a few over a planet and you've got a nice assault on what really matters - territory. Gunboats are good for assaulting capital ships, frigates have plenty of projectile power and patrol ships are superior to Mantas.
------------------ (url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/jonathanboyd/evn/index.html")Classic4Nova plug-in(/url)
(This message has been edited by Jonathan Boyd (edited 09-21-2003).)
this is gonna make things real tough for Mr. Seldon . . . eventually
------------------
**Originally posted by Joshua Harris: (3. Protecting themselves from the Confederation? That's laughable. Read your sacred introductory text: the Rebellion was formed with the express purpose of annexing the Confederation and destroying it. They didn't merely want freedom from the oppression of certain powerful individuals (like perhaps a colonial America did), they wanted to eliminate a sovereign polity, and deny the inner colonies to freedom to decide what kind of government they want. The Rebels seek power - the power to impose themselves over others.
4. Now, you tell me, how do we know this source is even accurate at all? It does not present an objective view of the situation (check the amount of coverage for each side, and the language employed), and is biased in favor of the Rebellion. We do not know who wrote it, or what their agenda is. Remember, be skeptical. Look at the facts for yourself, do not take the word of the author of a partisan document with an agenda. **
I'll tell you who wrote the intro text: The good people working with ASW. Why did they do this? To make a crackin' good game. Oh, and in order to remove a government from power (as is implied by "revolution" the existing government structure must be changed/destroyed. Did the American patriots ask for the permission of the 2/3 or so of the colonists who raised no objection to British rule before they destroyed the British colonial system? You can bet they didn't. And they got their way through killing of dissidents (like our friend the Tory), and through destruction of property. Gee, maybe they are terrorists, and that would make them unjustified and power hungry in their revolt against a legitimate government! In this particular case we have no reason to be skeptical of the motives of the Rebellion for the reason that ASW motives were not subversion but the creation and cohesion of a storyline. If such a government and rebellion existed in the REAL WORLD, then I would be at the front lines being suspicious with you, as it is, the makers of the game clearly want our sympathies to lie with the rebels. I'll bring in a trivial exa of Star Wars into the picture. There, nearly all of the information is presented from the rebel side. Does that mean that it is biased? Most definitely. Does that make the Empire less evil? No, not really. Your arguments, while they have some merit (and my quibbling doesn't lessen that fact), ignore the clear effort by the creators to make a work of fiction that makes the Confeds the bad guys.
------------------ Hail to the Mage King! May the Wind of the Falcon guide you. (url="http://"http://members.tripod.com/lunarproductions/tc.html") Phoenix (/url)
(This message has been edited by liquid_doom (edited 09-22-2003).)
I've already addressed this debate at great length (see some of the old topics on the Escape Velocity board for examples), so I'll only make a few points. Some time I should go through and summarise the many problems with the common Star Wars -inspired view of the Escape Velocity universe (since the arguments seem to usually be almost all the same) and put them in an article less ephemeral than web board debates.
The introductory text to Escape Velocity is indeed written from the perspective of someone within the game's universe; this is easily determined from phrases such as "we beat them" (referring to the aliens). It is therefore perfectly valid to examine the biases that occur within it, of which there are many, and to consider it to be on the same level as 'Scumdog's' account in the game's documentation.
It is demonstrable (again, see the old discussions) that civilian ships from the Confederation bear 'Confed' transponders, and the 'Confed' freighters that the rebels attack do indeed include non-military ships (the best example being the frequent destruction of luxury liners in the Capella system). Citizens of rebel worlds evidently do not bear a transponder code, and there is no parallel destruction of civilian ships (whether marked as rebel vessels or not) by the Confederation).
Regardless of any supporting texts, what we actually see in the game is largely an aggressive rebellion (missions in the rebel storyline include assasinating senators, stealing Confederation technology, and the aforementioned attacks on civilan ships are also to be considered here) and a Confederation acting largely in defence of its worlds (missions include ~recovering~ technology stolen by the rebellion and tracking down rebel fleets amassing to attack Confederation worlds).
------------------ David Arthur | (url="http://"http://davidarthur.evula.net/")davidarthur.evula.net(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.ev-nova.net/")EV-Nova.net(/url) The people united can never be ignited!
Originally posted by David Arthur: The introductory text to Escape Velocity is indeed written from the perspective of someone within the game's universe; this is easily determined from phrases such as "we beat them" (referring to the aliens). It is therefore perfectly valid to examine the biases that occur within it, of which there are many, and to consider it to be on the same level as 'Scumdog's' account in the game's documentation.
Fair point.
However, the Rebles do not attack independent vessels and it is easily demonstrable that if a Confederate vessel chanced upon a freighter with a Rebel transponder, it would destroy it.
I don't think they're as bad as Joshua made out or the Confeds as innocent as he would suggest. Neither side is without blame. I think the Rebellion came into existence because of an oppressive corrupt government, but the methodology they employ to rid themselves of it is highly questionable. Ireland would be a good parallel. For centuries, the British greatly abused the Irish, but the methods employed by so called 'freedom fighters' such as the IRA are clearly wrong. Incidentally, for anyone who's noticed that I'm wrong Northern Ireland, I like being part of the UK and wish the past could be left in the past.
patrol ships are superior to Mantas
Quite the contrary. Many a time have I seen a Manta defeat a Patrol Ship in a dogfight.
It is demonstrable (again, see the old discussions) that civilian ships from the Confederation bear 'Confed' transponders, and the 'Confed' freighters that the rebels attack do indeed include non-military ships (the best example being the frequent destruction of luxury liners in the Capella system). Citizens of rebel worlds evidently do not bear a transponder code, and there is no parallel destruction of civilian ships.
Correct me if I am wrong, but are these ships not helping the Confederation? If they allow the supply ships to slide, they will be allowing them to create more ships and weapons.
Besides, this is part of the game's programming. The Rebels were made to be hostile toward the Confeds, and therefore any Confed ship seen will be attacked. Think about it: if the AI in the game were that smart, would Mantas go after vastly superior Confed Cruisers? As these freighters are representative of the Confederation, it is ridiculous to accuse them of anything wrong.
Also, is Matt (the writer of the intro text you ignorant fools) not human? So is it not fair to assume that he was referring to the human race in general? Also, according to Scumdog's account, it was the Confederation that fought the aliens. And it says we, so if he was not referring to the human race...HOW THE HELL WOULD IT BE BIASED TOWARD THE REBELS?
On a side note: The Rebels want the war to end. Jonathan conveyed most of my cross-examinations to Joshua, but not this. Tell me, if they wanted the war to continue, would they hire a random captain to help fight for them? Do some of the most dangerous missions ever? Would it not be more logical to employ some well-known captain to lead the assault on the alien cruiser? Obviously, they are desperate for an end.
------------------ The programmer's code of etemology: "There's always another bug." (Etemology is defined as the study of insects.) (Or was it just bugs in general?)
Originally posted by Jonathan Boyd: However, the Rebles do not attack independent vessels and it is easily demonstrable that if a Confederate vessel chanced upon a freighter with a Rebel transponder, it would destroy it.
Neither side attacks independent vessels, and it's civilians of the belligerent powers that I'm talking about, not people from non-aligned planets. As far as I know, the only freighters with rebel transponders that appear in the game are indeed military freighters, so it's not relevant to this issue whether the Confederation would attack them or not.
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: Correct me if I am wrong, but are these ships not helping the Confederation? If they allow the supply ships to slide, they will be allowing them to create more ships and weapons.
These are civilian vessels , not navy freighters. A luxury liner or a freighter carrying food from Earth to New Sahara is not a military target.
That's not valid here the way it would be for a plug-in or even for one of the subsequent games; Escape Velocity is the game the engine was developed for, and if he had wanted to, Matt could easily have made Confederation warships attack rebel civilians, or rebel warships not attack Confederation civilians, or any other combination. For that matter, many of these things could be done with the existing engine and a little ingenuity.
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: Also, is Matt (the writer of the intro text you ignorant fools) not human? So is it not fair to assume that he was referring to the human race in general?
I'm quite well aware that Matt Burch is the author of the game, thank you very much. I'm talking, however, not of the author , but of the speaker , which is a different thing entirely - Matt is the author of just about everything in the game, but the introductory text is a different speaker than, say, Admiral Sykes, or the Diphidian official, or any other character.
If you say 'we beat them', that implies that you're part of the group or at least the nation that 'beat them'. Any human living at the time of the Great War could indeed say this, but nobody living before it could.
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: Also, according to Scumdog's account, it was the Confederation that fought the aliens. And it says we, so if he was not referring to the human race...HOW THE HELL WOULD IT BE BIASED TOWARD THE REBELS?
The Confederation fought the aliens, and then afterwards a group who were not satisfied with the postwar condition broke off and began fighting it. It's obvious from the text of the introduction where the speaker's sympathies lie, and the biases must be considered accordingly.
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: (b)Tell me, if they wanted the war to continue, would they hire a random captain to help fight for them? Do some of the most dangerous missions ever? Would it not be more logical to employ some well-known captain to lead the assault on the alien cruiser? Obviously, they are desperate for an end.
Have we forgotten that it is a GAME, and that some things are in theory rather than incorporated into the engine? Tsk, tsk, tsk, someone's too used to making plug-ins...
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: Quite the contrary. Many a time have I seen a Manta defeat a Patrol Ship in a dogfight.
Well they have better shielding and armament and their performance isn't far off so technically I think the Patrol ship is the superior fighter. I've certainly seen them beat up more Mantas than vice-versa. Of course, it's been quite a while since I played EV, so my recollection may be flawed.
Originally posted by David Arthur: Neither side attacks independent vessels, and it's civilians of the belligerent powers that I'm talking about, not people from non-aligned planets. As far as I know, the only freighters with rebel transponders that appear in the game are indeed military freighters, so it's not relevant to this issue whether the Confederation would attack them or not.
My point is that the Confederation and Rebels are no different on this matter. Thanks to ResEdit et. al. we can effectively look at the psychology of a typical Confederate captain and see that he'll shoot any Rebel vessel that moves. He doesn't care what kind of ship it is, or what kind he is in himself; he'll blow them out of the sky, or die trying.