Talk:Jack

---Duplicate Page?--- There appears to be a "Jack: Subject Zero" page which contains less information than this one. Svartalfimposter 20:01, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

---Cleaned up--- I edited a few things, rewrote the trivia, and specified the thesis correctly to let viewers know that Subject Zero's name, as used by Shepard, and Jack herself, is indeed Jack. The only characters in game that consistently refer to her as Subject Zero are the guard terminals in the base where you do her loyalty mission. Killchain 12:44, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Does any one think we should abreviate her name as SZ? Drsdino 01:11, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but I wouldn't have a problem calling her "Zero". --Tullis 01:39, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno, seems to me that Subject Zero works fine. SpartHawg948 03:11, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, where do we refer to anyone on the wiki just by their initials? If two words is too many for whatever reason (though I can't imagine what circumstance that would be), stick with Zero for now. --Tullis 03:33, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

---a possible theory--- Mass Effect Ascention is said to be a spiritual prequel to this game. I use that as a point of evidence in saying that Subject Zero might have been experimented on by Cerberus in their attempts to develop drugs to enhance the biotic capabilities of Gillian Grayson. Cerberus is too careful to just test a drug under only lab conditions before sending it on to the primary test subject (Gillian) so perhaps they had a test case, someone to run preemtive tests on, to confirm the chemicals would work, a Subject Zero. Steve the wraith 18:08, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is also a possibility that she was part of the BaaT program, which was the result of the literally defective L2 biotics. They got terrible headaches and migraines, which drove a few in the first game to hold a committee person hostage. In short, gone insane. --Unic of the borg 19:39, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Mass Effect: Ascension isn't a spiritual prequel, it is a LITERAL prequel. I do see validity in this theory, however.


 * Well, those piotics weren't insane, they were just sick and tired of being denied reperations by the CoT-HS. They thought that was the only way to get what they wanted, which normally sane human beings do all the time. And i doubt it was BAaT and the implants that drove her insane. Repeated injections that altered her mind in different, radical ways were probobly more than enough to dot he job. Steve the wraith 17:45, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

is it possible that subject zero is the escaped batarian slave girl that shepard can encounter if he has the colonist background? i might of misheard her, but i thought she referred to herself in the third person a couple of times in the trailer. there is a resemblance (2 years and some tatoos can change an appearance) and her backstory seems to fit. maybe the alliance needed a new test subject? just a theory. what do you guys think?


 * You mean Talitha? Sure, you can think that, but I don't think there's any merit to that theory. Sure, they both have buzz cuts, and... well, that's about it. The slavers cut her hair. Subject Zero said in her trailer that she "joined a cult, kept the haircut." She bears no resemblance to Talitha other than that.--Effectofthemassvariety 07:38, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

I've got a theory about Subject Zero being Rahna, who had a rough life since the last time we heard of her. We only know about Rahna as a kid, so there's enough time to become what she is now. Especially since in the trailer she says she was 'made' a bitch and wasn't born that way.
 * Now that I think about it, you may be right. Considering that this character's alias is Subject Zero and and Rahna was at Jump Zero, or Gargarin Station, for early human biotic development, there is a possible chance that these two individuals are one and the same. No doubtedly the developers of the next game are tying up loose ends, expanding on certain stories.--Unic of the borg 20:38, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

what about gillian grayson?


 * No. As for why, please see my rather lengthy response to your query over at Talk:Gillian Grayson. SpartHawg948 07:57, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Someone should add that she can be found in Purgatory. The blur trailer pretty much gives it up.


 * Trailers tend to go for looking good over absolute accuracy. While it's likely, it's not yet confirmed. So, no. --Tullis 16:21, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it is now, check the new 12 min video on Gamespot.


 * "Rahna had a close circle of friends on Jump Zero including Kaidan, who describes her as being smart, charming and gentle: everybody loved her and protected her. "
 * Just something I found on Rahna's wiki page.


 * Theres been a stir recently saying that Subject Zero's name is Jack. Something about each character having a theme song in some Mass Effect soundtrack. Not sure if its true or not but anyways; If her name is Jack, its probably a nod to the character Jack in the movie Pitch Black with Vin Diesel. here a pic: http://www.gothamyearone.net/wiki/images/thumb/f/f6/Jack.jpg/200px-Jack.jpg


 * Not sure if its true or not, but it might be something. 24.87.4.53 09:38, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

http://tvgry.pl/?ID=808 Confirms that Subject Zero's name is indeed Jack (01:20) 147.143.241.136 17:30, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose there's a version in English? My Polish is not so good (ie nonexistent). And as far as I know, none of the other admins speak Polish either, so it's hard to get confirmation when you can't understand the purported "confirmation". SpartHawg948 20:51, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm Polish and i know about there is no translation of Jack in Polish. Jack is just an american name. Midey
 * Actually, it's an English name, short for James. An "American" name would be something along the lines of Tecumseh, or Crazy Horse, or something like that, or south of the border, something like Cuauhtemoc or Ixtlilxochitl. Regardless, the point stands. In order for something to be confirmed, it really needs to be independently verifiable, and something in Polish isn't really independently verifiable to a wiki with a majority of users (and 100% of admins) who don't understand the language. SpartHawg948 21:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Spart, but I'm failing to see how the narrators native language matters? The video is of an English-speaker oriented version of the game and all text is in English as are the voices. Why does it matter what the narrator speaks as a native tongue?--Xaero Dumort 21:08, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, during the brief time the squad selection screen is up, you can see that all the other names are in english (and did anyone else noticed that Miranda's outfit was all black?) Matt 2108 21:10, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The dialogue is in English? That's all I needed to know! I heard the Polish narration and figured the rest would also be in Polish. (Figures, I always warn people not to assume, and the one time I do it...). So I agree, Xaero, I too fail to see why the narrator's language matters. My concern was over the dialogue. Of course, since it's the text that's the confirmation, the language of the dialogue also seems pretty irrelevant. SpartHawg948 21:19, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the black outfit is the one you unlock by gaining their loyalty. Apparently getting their loyalty unlocks a new ability and a new outfit. Subject Zero's is a vest you see in the Fight for the Lost video and Miranda's must be the black outfit. Come to think of it, Garrus' looks different as well, assuming his default is the same one he's wearing in the videos of him we've already seen.


 * Also, what do we do about Subject Zero's name? Absolutely all in game sources refer to her as Jack, and none of them as Subject Zero. Seems odd to have the page name 'Subject Zero' when clearly the character's name is Jack. JakePT 07:20, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Important caveat- Absolutely all in game sources we've seen thus far refer to her as Jack. The official website, however, refers to her as Subject Zero. Given this disconnect, it seems to me that the best option is to wait till next week and see how the game actually treats her (rather than relying soley on the snippets of game we've seen thus far as opposed to the rather more voluminous material that refers to her aas Subject Zero). SpartHawg948 07:41, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be a snit, but this seems overly cautious. I mean, the CHARACTER SELECTION SCREEN refers to her as Jack... it's likely that this is either her actual name (if she's in fact female) or this is the name she prefers to be called. In either case it would be a more appropriate title for the page as it's likely what people refer to her as in the game. --ABCoLD 07:59, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't make undue assumptions around here, nor do we rush to unfounded assumptions. The Character Selection Screen refers to her as Jack. The official site refers to her as Subject Zero, as does Casey Hudson in the recent Sci vs Fi special about ME2, which aired after it had become public knowledge that SZ and Jack are one and the same. There is a disconnect. To resolve said disconnect, we should wait and see what she is referred to consistently. I do have to thank you for helping to make my point for me though! We should title the page based on what people refer to her by in game. To do this, we need to wait for the game to come out, which was my point! We cannot, however, title the article based on what name it is likely people refer to her as. We don't know for sure what she is referred to as yet, so we need to wait and see. Simple enough, isn't it? SpartHawg948 08:33, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Someone put her name down as Jack on her page, was this ever confirmed?UNCxTrinity 21:07, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Casual Sex
I didnt found any hint on this page, if it is possible to continue another romance after you had casual sex with jack.
 * No you can't. Once you do that with Jack, then your current romance ends and you can't puruse it further. Lancer1289 23:25, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

A recent addition to the article says, " It is possible to have casual sex with Jack even after Shepard successfully pursues other romantic options such as Tali or Miranda." Does it mean, after the romance is consummated, or before, or both? And is this true? Any confirmations or denials? If so, give some account of it. --AnotherRho 05:22, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Moving to "Jack"
I'm pretty sure that I have yet to see Jack referred to as "Subject Zero" in ME2. Don't know why the devs decided to market her as SuZe if they're not using that name in the actual game. Anyway, if Jack is the only name ever mentioned or is the name used most, then I think we should move this article to "Jack" and have "Subject Zero" be the redirect. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:30, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Her name is Jack. That is the name on the Squad screen, on the subtitles, and what Shepard calls her after meeting her. Killchain 12:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Commdor. Jack is her only known real name. Subject Zero is her class (preevolution into either Primal Adept or Primal Vanguard),. It's also what the scientists called her during her years as a lab rat. DanteShepard 16:38, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody see a possible allusion in name to Jack from the Chronicles of Riddick series? http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/pb_045_RhianaGriffith.jpg - Shaved head badass chick who ends up being imprisoned on a prison planet


 * Doubt it. Jack isn't running around trying to pretend she's a "boy", if you remember her in Pitch Black. No goggles either. What is with the supposed references in every single game nowadays? This wasn't made by Bethesda.Killchain 12:35, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, i'm fairly sure that it *does* refer to Riddick. In the second movie, Chronicles of Riddick, she is not pretending to be male anymore, along with other changes to her personality from Pitch Black. The thing that really does make me think that ME2 Jack is based on Riddick Jack is because in both IP's she is rescued from a maximum security prison called "Purgatory". That doesn't really seem like a coincidence anymore ;p Xirtharri 05:54, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Fuck Off!
I did not do the quick sex with jack ever, nor have i ever attempted to pursue a relationship with her. I merely spoke to her alot, but i politefully disregarded her first mention of sex. I did, however, side with miranda when they had their argument, but i later charmed jack back into loyalty (it was lip service), and my squad screen now once again indicates that i have her loyalty (i am able to take her special power, she is able to use it, and i am able to toggle her outfits). However, everytime i attempt to talk to her she merely says FUCK OFF, as mentioned in the article. Howcome i can find no record of this happening to anyone else? It is bugged?


 * No. When you sided with Miranda you cut off the romance sub plot with Jack, even though you regained her loyalty you can not reopen that romance. DanteShepard 14:21, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have 100% paragon, you can paragon your way through the argument between Jack and Miranda, and they will both remain loyal and on speaking terms. I assume it is the same for renegade Shepard. In my game they fought right after I did Jack's loyalty mission. Because she learned that Cerberus agents were her captors, I'm fairly positive this is the trigger for the Jack vs. Miranda event on board the Normandy. It may be worth mentioning this in the article. I tried this with approximately 95% paragon and the paragon option was greyed out. FarmerBob12 06:25, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Jack as Lisbeth Salander (from Millennium books & films)
I think that Jack is pretty similar (antisocial, renegade, bits of autism, etc.) to Lisbeth Salander (from the Stieg Larsson's Millennium triology: originally as bestselling books, now in films, and there is going to be a Quentin Tarantino/Brad Pitt remake too).

They have many things in common, starting with their early history (both imprisoned, abused, ...). Also, they are both skilled in one 'elite' area: Lisbeth is a top-level hacker; whereas Lisbeth is a top-level biotic. Moreover, they are antisocial (and a bit autistic) and haven't friends (few or none at all) until Shepard/Mikael Blomkvist and his team (the Shepard's squad/the Mikael's Millennium magazine team) come and help her. Both of them are very tattoed and they like to wear uncommon clothes, with spikes and other metal accesories, etc. Jack is a sci-fi version of Lisbeth Salander.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Trilogy

Checking with Google, it seems that more people has realised the parallelism between Jack and Lisbeth. ME2 was developed when the books where most popular. In addition, the movie was released in early 2009. I think the storyline writer from ME2 may got some inspiration from this books. It is not that Lisbeth Salander/Jack are truly original stereotypes: they are pretty common in fact. Still, I think it is remarkable, so I am writing this for the record. That way, maybe other Millennium readers can give their opinions in case they happen to read this (if Tarantino and Pitt make a Hollywood movie of Salander, I'm pretty sure that a lot of people will be reading this in the future, even more if Jack makes it into ME3 ;)

Elenur 212.183.240.1 22:46, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * autism? i didnt see any of that, never mind that its about as real as a unicorn is (thats about 90% if you inlcude the horse bits) i certainly didnt see any autistiic traits in jack. Although the definition of it is so broad that they can cram anyone into the spectrum (thats how they get you) but i kind of fail to see it based on the current standards and definitions of autism. ralok 22:49, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Expletives
Hi. I think Jack is the most prolific user of expletives. As this website is a written form of communication, I think the expletives must be bleeped. "F*** off" instead of "Fuck off". That's in the main pages. What you write in the talk pages is at your own discretion. The game is definitely mature, should we designate this site as mature to? What do you think? Braveangel 11:45, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm on the fence for this one. It doesn't matter to me whether it gets censored or not, as long as I understand the message she's trying to get across. And being a real mean b****, she definitely wants her expletives be heard loud and clear! :P Teugene 11:59, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Censoring of expletives sets a somewhat dangerous precedent. Given that this wiki would probably only be seen by fans of the games (who presumably are of an age to deal with the language and themes), I'd be inclined to say we keep the full words. The words on the article page are in context and reasonable (i.e. not in bold or splashed everywhere), so I don't see it as too much of an issue. Bronzey 12:18, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my opinion on this subject. Personally I agree with Bronzey that censoring does set a dangerous president. Also probably most of the people who visit this site are either old enough, or mature enough, to not go giggling like school girls. The games are rated Mature, (going of the ESRB here), so censoring seems like a very bad idea. Lancer1289 16:28, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Censoring the cuss words would only make the article seem messy. This game is rated Mature for a reason. The Yoshiman 97 01:27, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Sure, this is the sort of language that editors would be cautioned against using, but it is a direct quote from a character in-game, and as such, I see no reason to censor it. Plus, I'm not the biggest fan of censorship to begin with. SpartHawg948 01:48, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

romance quote?
I've been looking around for a suitable quote for her romance section. It's pretty hard, considering Jack doesn't say too many things like that. I think I found one, though. Here it is: "You know what it's like... to think you're alone and find our you're not?" from this video, where she tries to explain how she feels about Shepard. Thoughts? Tecni 03:04, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. SpartHawg948 03:06, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Works well. Lancer1289 03:13, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Should this go into the guide proper?
Hi... I've posted this message into the Jack: Subject Zero talkpage. Seems that I posted it in the wrong place. Here we go again. I think the part "If Shepard had casual sex with her, sides with Miranda during her argument with Jack, or if he breaks off their relationship, Shepard will not be able to converse with Jack and she will retort with "Fuck off!" when she is approached. Siding with Miranda will also cause Jack to be disloyal," should be moved into the guide proper. Because it is not a trivia at all, its a part of the gameplay. Anybody disagrees? Braveangel 03:42, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I sure do disagree! The info that you described above is character information about Jack. The Jack: Subject Zero page is not for character information about Jack, it's for information related to a specific mission (Jack's loyalty mission). None of the info you proposed moving has the slightest thing to do with the mission Jack: Subject Zero. This is why that information is here and not there. SpartHawg948 05:16, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

source?
What's the source on this paragraph:

"Eventually, she was captured and imprisoned in the Blue Suns operated prison ship Purgatory. During her time there, she was attacked by a group of guards and prisoners who raped her, despite her efforts at fighting back. Their victory was short-lived however, as Jack personally killed every one of her attackers as soon as she healed. The incident led the Warden, eager for the amount of credits Jack could bring him from Cerberus and other buyers, to lock Jack in cryostasis, for both her and others' safety until Shepard's team came to buy her freedom."

Jack mentions being attacked on Purgatory when prompted in the bathroom of the Dark Star Lounge, on the Citadel. It is easy to miss. Check it on the Jack/Unique dialouge page.Ironreaper 14:51, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well at least someone found the source for the information. Also when did two and a half hours become enough time to remove things like this? Usually it takes longer than that to find the source for these things. Lancer1289 16:50, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was added without explanation by an anonymous user half a year ago, and I haven't seen any references to it in game or books, so I removed it. If there's a source, it's easy to revert; if not, it won't stay in the article waiting for someone to read the talk page and give a damn.
 * Yeah . . . that was me. Before i signed up. Still now sure how to source things yet. Ultimately though, that’s not really your job. its the admin's. you should really alert them when you think something it wrong before editing another’s work. Helps avoid edit wars and pointless conflicts that clutter up talk pages.Ironreaper 11:36, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Editing the wiki isn't really anyone's "job", but the idea is that everyone can contribute his two cents in a way he believes is correct. Don't worry, I really don't care about this wiki that much to waste my time on edit wars.
 * (edit conflict) Ok first let me point out that this is no one's work, this is a community page that anyone can edit in a constructive manor. I wrote most of the walkthroughs for ME and ME2, and improving them where I can, but I do not take ownership of those page nor do I consider them my work. I do however, make sure they stay free of spam and incorrect things, because I have always found walkthroughs useful and I want to make sure that anyone visiting this site for them gets the best walkthrough on the net. Again things like this take time to check, which in most cases, 2 1/2 hours isn't enough time to check these kind of things, especially something like that. Just because an anonymous user, like yourself, added it without explanation doesn't mean that it was a valid addition. Just because you haven't seen a reference, doesn't mean that it isn't valid because these things again take time to double check, which we are pretty good about here for most issues on a talk page. As to the admin's responsibility, bringing up an issue on the talk page is usually the best way to go about these kind of things, and frequently someone will pick up on it, whether it be an admin or another editor. Usually an admin only has to get involved when an argument ensues, edit warring, or when they themselves know the answer. This is not to say that don't drop the admins a line on these things, but for an issue like this concerning a specific article and the sourcing of a piece of information, usually the talk page for an article is the best place to bring something like this up. Admins are overseers or facilitators, and we are held to the sane standards that everyone else is. However, usually these things need time to be double checked because usually, they are valid additions, with a few exceptions, and removing it constitutes removal of valid information. Just because you haven't seen something or heard it referenced, doesn't mean that anyone else has. I have learned that these issues are best left for a few days before taking action unless it is completely wrong, because people need to double check on sources. And again 2 1/2 hours isn't enough time for a thorough double check. Lancer1289 15:38, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of implied rape
[QUOTE=Lancer1289](undo)uh no, what else does sexually assaulted mean? its the nice and politically correct way of saying raped[/QUOTE]

While I agree she probably was raped, sexual assault is not the same thing. I believe you are right in the fact that Bioware just didn't want to get in hot water by saying it outright. However, based on the available dialogue, "possibly raped" seems to be the most accurate wording. GiantEnemyCrab 22:06, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Am Ithe only one who thinks this entire bit didn;t make any sence, to begin with? Why was she in the showers at all? I mean, this is the person who had a special cell with several giant robots guarding her just because she was so dangerous. Why would she ever have been let out for anything? At all? EVER? We're not talking about a Micheal myers kind of person where he's just really strong. We're talking about psychic superpowers that are stroner than normal. And I'm pretty sure they knew she had this to begin with.NickTyrong 15:52, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um she was moved to that cell after this becuase she hunted down her attackers and killed them. Before that, she was in general population. See Jack/Unique dialogue for more. I'm pretty sure they had knowledge of her biotic powers, but probably not to the extent she showed. Lancer1289 16:20, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things, first, that link doesn't work. Secondly, okay, I can buy that. But it's still pretty stupid for them to ever leave the biotics alone in any capacity, nonetheless piss them off. Oh well. Writers probably just didn't think of it.
 * So I messed up on the link, it is still somewhat easy to find. Also Purgatory has a lot of saftey features and again I don't think they knew the extent of Jack's biotics until after this incident. Lancer1289 17:04, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * And using that line of thinking is just absurd. I mean, if we want to think in those terms, how did anyone capture her? At all? EVER? Obviously her powers have limitations. If not, she wouldn't have been captured, subdued, and shoved into an icebox. Considering that they were able to capture, subdue, and imprison her, I feel it's safe to say that they would be confident enough in their ability to prevent her escape to let her out from time to time. As Lancer says, they likely didn't know initially what she's capable of, and you do have to factor in that she really isn't as powerful as she's being made out to be here. SpartHawg948 21:20, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gameplay wise, no, but according to the lore she is supposed to be one of the most powerful. Thus why only she and Samara/Morinth are able to help in the endgame with their biotics. I get she has limits, but as I understand it then need to somehow have a canneling bodypart, ie the hand or foot, in the case of a certain "biotic kick". That, as far as I can tell (And from what I've seen) is her only real limitation. And they'res til pretty damn stupid for letting her out, or any biotics, even if they're confident. I mean, she later went on to kill all those people who raped her. Obviously she was let out more, and unsupervised. It suposedly, I don;t think at least, wasn;t a secret that she had all these mega biotic powers. Ad again, just having biotics would, to me, make it so that they'd have to be more careful. But again, i think this was just an oversight by the writing team.NickTyrong 21:54, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt she was ever let out unsupervised. Saying that she must have been because she killed the guys who raped her doesn't add up. It's very possible to kill someone in prison while under direct supervision from guards. It happens all the time. When I said "limitations", what I meant is that her power is not unlimited. Though you do bring up a good point. She has to be aware of something to lash out at it biotically, and has to be able to do so physically, at least in as much as use of a hand or foot would be required to channel the blast. So bind her ankles and wrists, keeping her hands in front of her, and march behind her with assault rifles pointed at her back. Simple enough. And remember those nifty force fields we got to see that they use for crowd control and to isolate troublesome inmates. And while it's no secret she's a biotic, it does seem that it was somewhat of a secret how powerful she is, at least in as much as it seems one has to see to believe. Remember, Shepard was sent there by the Illusive Man specifically to get Jack because of her biotic powers, and how powerful she was surprised Shep! Someone who was there specifically because of how powerful she is! I have to say, I can't see any evidence of a writing oversight here. SpartHawg948 22:13, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * "So bind her ankles and wrists, keeping her hands in front of her, and march behind her with assault rifles pointed at her back." But they didn;t do that. They should really have done that with al their biotics. Let's say she DID do thi, the binding and rifles. How did she kill? And the forcefeilds didn;t really help that much during her escape, now did it? Really, the entire rison seems ill equipped to handle biotics of ANY kind. And just ebcause Shepard didn;t know about her doesn;t mean the guards didn;t. Shep's been dead. It;s a good excuse. So yeah, i stand by it being an oversight, namely because of the lack of biotic security.NickTyrong 23:06, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was merely pointing out what they could do, though I do suppose that wasn't really needed. As for the force fields, of course they didn't help during the breakout, because Kuril was using them to protect himself. He did this because Shepard and team were running around and had released all the prisoners. This is a set of circumstances that wouldn't exist when they were taking Jack out to the showers or whatever. As for the guards, my point was that if Shepard, who has been given intel on Jack by Cerberus, and who is going to retrieve her specifically because of her biotic powers, didn't realize how powerful she was until she showed him, the Blue Suns guards, who didn't have Cerberus intel on her, likely also had no idea how powerful she was until after she'd unleashed her powers. Shep's being dead literally has nothing to do with it, as my entire point concerned events that happened after Shepard ceased to be dead. Making assumptions based on the lack of ability to contain Jack during a massive prison-wide breakout complicated by having a Spectre and some other nasty people running loose proves nothing. We barely saw any of Purgatory, or of the Blue Suns' methodology and operations onboard. So we can't just assume that they have a "lack of biotic security". In fact, given that they successfully incarcerated one of the most powerful biotics in the galaxy, we pretty much have to assume the opposite, that they do have effective biotic security, but that its operations were hindered by having the entire prison population released at once! This seems to be going nowhere, as it's basically a matter of opinion whether there was any "oversight" or not. Canon says it happened, so it happened, whatever the reason. SpartHawg948 23:16, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * "As for the force fields, of course they didn't help during the breakout, because Kuril was using them to protect himself." I got the indication that there wee more in the prison than those three. Didn;t I see a few destroyed ones whle fighting through? I forget. I don;t have the game right now to check. As for the rest, first, I enevr said it wasn;t cannon. And yes, I DO assume they have impliments in place for biotics. it's only that because she somehow managed to kill all those people despite those safeguards, i see that as an oversight by the writing staff. That's all. We can assume there were safeguards, and yet she was able to do all that. And we can assume those safeguards were greater because she's a biotic of any strength, and really should have stopped her from hunting them down. Thus, writing oversight. Just a detail that the writers forgot.NickTyrong 02:09, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we saw at least another two while Kuril was walking Shepard through the facility. However do you konw the writers forgot that, unless you are prevy to things that we don't have access to, or can read their minds, then no. What was forgotten is from you and from your point of view. However I feel that while this has been stated many times now, they knew that Jack was a biotic, they probably didn't know to what extent until after this incident. Also modern prisions have safeguards to prevent people from killing each other, and yet it still happens and weapons are still made. You can't stop everything in a prision, and this case falls under the prision officials, a.k.a. the Blue Suns and Warden Kuril, not having enough/correct information about Jack until after this happened. Because they didn't know the extent of her powers, they didn't take extra security meausures. After she killed those people, they took the extra measures because they had to, but again, before they didn't because they didn't know the extent of Jack's biotic abilities. Lancer1289 02:23, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. My whole problem with the "writing oversight" is that it is, to say the least, extremely implausible. It's assuming that the writers, while writing for this character, would forget or overlook the single most defining characteristic of this character. Let's just assume that, while writing for a character that has been epitomized as the uber-biotic, that it was forgotten that she's a powerful biotic. Another thing to consider here is the nature of the safeguards. Let's think about it. Who are safeguards primarily intended to protect? Are safeguards put in place primarily to protect guards from dangerous prisoners, or to protect dangerous prisoners from dangerous prisoners? The former. Prisoners, for better or for worse, are forced to rely primarily on themselves and other prisoners for protection from their fellow inmates. It's the primary reason prison gangs exist. In fact, this is highlighted in the story, not just in the part where Jack offs the guys who raped her. What? Somehow it's perfectly plausible that prisoners would be able to rape each other but not kill each other? Somehow it's plausible for prisoners to rape an insanely powerful biotic, but that somehow she is so powerful that the guards wouldn't possibly have taken her out to the showers to begin with? If we're pointing out plot holes or lack of safeguards, we should start there. Again though, assuming writer's oversight is assuming that they forgot who it was they are writing for, and I just don't buy it. SpartHawg948 04:36, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And neither do I for that matter. Lancer1289 04:40, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're missing my point. The oversight is simply in HOW it would have been possible for her to ever kill people, considering all the extra precautions they would have taken with ehr being a biotic. This isn't like a prison today. They're not going to "still have incidents" in regards to a biotic. The most she could have done is beat people to death with any hand restraints they would have given her, and that doesn;t seem likely, as she would have constantly been watched.NickTyrong 07:23, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And you know they aren't going to "still have incidents"... how, exactly? No prison or precaution is foolproof. Again, I find it highly unlikely that the writers could commit this sort of an oversight. Forgetting that Jack is a very powerful biotic when writing for her is akin to forgetting that Thane is a drell, and writing about him having hair. They obviously intended for it to be something that happened to her for the purpose of character development. Again, I can't see any evidence to support the idea that there was any oversight on the part of the writers here. She obviously was let out, the guards and Warden Kuril obviously did feel at the time that they could do so safely. Clearly, she wasn't always in the freezer we find her in, and if anything, it's likely that her killing of several other inmates is what landed her in that freezer, and caused Kuril to have such a strong reaction when asked about Jack. SpartHawg948 07:33, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can't buy it either. You're assuming that a prision is completely foolproof and nothing can happen. Sorry to burst your bubble, but nothing is perfect and nothing, espeically in a prision, is foolproof. Things are still going to happen, no matter what time period it is. Remember that no matter what, there are always more prisioners than guards, and they can only catch/do so much. even if the Suns had taken extra precautions, and they probably did, becuase Jack was a biotic, they probably didn't know how powerful she was until after this incident. Before they didn't have any reasons to take extra precautions apart from those with biotics.
 * I also can't see any evidence what so ever that this is an oversight. We know that Jack wasn't always in the cryo chamber that we pull her out of, and Kuril's dialogue reflects that if you ask about Jack while he's giving you a tour of the facility. I can see this as character development, and not an oversight as you claim. Lancer1289 13:46, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Again, I find it highly unlikely that the writers could commit this sort of an oversight." Really? You dont watch much TV or play too many videogames, do you, because this kind of thing happens all the time, in all those and countless books, as well. I mean, it's not even that big of an oversight. "You're assuming that a prision is completely foolproof and nothing can happen" Guys, this is not a real prison. This is a space prison where psychics and super strong aliens go. Either they're incredbly incompotent, somehow allowing a biotic to manage to murder several individuals, a BIOTIC, someone who would normally have security out the wazoo, or it was a boo boo by the writers. It's NOT that damn hard to imagine. Yes, have the character development, the oversight is in how that would ever have been possible because of the nature of the universe and prison. Biotics are known and common. In any prison they would be the least likely to ever kill anybody because of the increased security. Standard procedure would likely be, as Spart sai, hand and leg binding with several guards holding rifles. This ISN'T a HUGE oversight. It's rather small. This stuff happens. I honestly think at this point you're disagreeing with me so wholeheartedly simply on principal, now.NickTyrong 15:05, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * First, watch your language. You've been warned several times about that, and you either didn't head them, or don't care.
 * Second, we are not disagreeing with you on principal, now or ever. You, and only you, think this is an oversight, and both Spart and myself have given several reasons, many reasons actually, on how it isn't. Prisons are not foolproof, whether now or in the future. There are many, many examples in scifi of prisons breaking down and things happening, or did you miss all of those. NO prison will ever be perfect, an you are assuming that just because it is the future, they are. Flash news, that isn't the case. Modern prisons, and even other prisons in scifi are not foolproof and things like this still happen. Again, as you never have seem to have read this to being with, the Suns probably didn't know the extent of Jack's biotic abilities until after this incident. They had no additional reasons to take extra precautions, apart from her being a biotic, before this. You are arguing over very shaky ground that has a number of very large holes in it, and it's quicksand. The Suns took all the precautions they could based on the information they had at hand, and you are assuming they didn't, which isn't the case. Prisons can only act on the information they have at hand, not what they know after the fact or an incident like this one.
 * Also you are arguing that there are only two possibilities, well that you can see. There is so far very little evidence to support your theory of an oversight, and you are also flat out refusing to see that there is much more evidence, backed up in real life and in scifi that supports that it isn't an oversight, and akin to what really happens. For the, hopefully final time, the Suns had no additional reasons to take extra precautions until after this incident because they didn't know the extent of Jack's biotic abilities.
 * And yes I watch a lot of TV, read a lot of books, and play a lot of video games, and this just doesn't have the same ring as other oversights. Nor does it have the evidence to support it. Again you are assuming that it is an oversight and refusing to consider any other possibilities when there is so much evidence against you that is backed up in real life and in scifi. Prisons can only act on the information they have at hand. Before the incident: Jack: Murderer, biotic, crazy, etc. After the incident: Jack: Murderer, crazy, extremely potent biotic abilities. Contain. Prisons, like this one, can only act on the info they have at hand, they can't act on information, like Jack's extremely potent biotic abilities, they don't have until after it has shown itself. Which happened after this incident. They aren't psychic like you imply with your statements about them being incompetent or the writer oversight have extremely limited, and flimsy evidence to back it up. While on the other hand, the evidence that they couldn't act on information they didn't have, has much more to back it up. So we aren’t disagreeing with you on principal. We are disagreeing with you because of the lack of evidence to back up your claims, yoru refusal to consider other possibilities, and the overwhelming evidence against you. Lancer1289 15:28, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I didn;t swear. And yes, I saw many of those prisons. And gueess what. The reasons for the breaking down is usually pretty stupid! usually involving some HUGE oversight by the designers of the security system that in reality would have just been an embarasment. Many peopel, upon thinking about it for two seconds, are able to point that out, usualy. Just her being a biotic should have been enough reason for them to ake those addtional measures, adn they knew about those abilities. Powerful or no, those measures would have been enough, likely. Simply put, I DO have the evidence, simply because of that fact! Try to get it, simpy being a bitoic, something they knew, she would have hadincreased security. That security would have, in every way, prevented her from those murders. Restraints and guards would have really been the only option for any biotic. I'm not ignoring anything. Biotics are common, and they know how to deal with them! The oversight is simply in how she would have ever been able to murder someone! No, not al prison systems are foolproof, BUT THIS IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION! This is a major incident, when all the safeguards would have been in place! This is not a random shiving in the prison yard! This is a psychic managing to murder several people! Either those guarding her were incompotent, or the writers made a mistake! I'm not in any quicksand here, dude! Nothing like this would have ever hapened unless it was a "perfect storm" of events!NickTyrong 16:25, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * No you used crude language, which is also against the language policy. If it isn't "G" rated, then it has no place here. Look it up.
 * As to this now overly long argument. You continually claim that it is an oversight by the writers when there is still so much evidence against you. A security system, not is any prison perfect, and you claim that Purgatory is, which couldn't be further from the truth. No prison is perfect, and you claiming that Purgatory is perfect, flies in the face of so much that I won't start listing it. As to security systems breaking down, it usually isn't a huge oversight as you claim. Nothing is perfect, and yet you still claim that Purgatory, and prisons are. The security system for prisons is actually very advanced and the oversights you claim, are nothing more or less than either small holes, things that couldn't be anticipated, or flaws that occur due to lack of something. Whether it be guards, or inmates creating something to interfere with the system. There can only bee so many safeguards and so many things that a security system can do because you can't anticipate everything that can possibly happen. You keep avoiding this issue because you say that all of the safeguards were in place, and they were, and yet Jack was still able to kill people. AGAIN THIS HAPPENS IN PRISONS ANYWHERE NOT MATTER THE SAFEGUARDS TAKEN, NOTHING IS PERFECT AND YOU CAN'T ANTICIPATE EVERYTHING. Also again, they probably didn't have all the information on Jack, which you again keep avoiding, and they only knew the extent of her biotic powers AFTER this. All of the safeguards were in place, but you can't act on information you don't have. Please address that in your response as you have yet to address it at all. And don't say that you have because you haven't.
 * No this wasn't some shanking in the yard, but not all prison incidents happen in the yard. Many of them occur in cell blocks and other places, so thanks for ignoring that, as you have with so much other information that you dance around and never respond to. A prison isn't perfect, so stop claiming that it is. They can only do so much, and they can only take precautions against what information they have. And clearly they didn't have all the information on Jack otherwise additional measures, apart from those already taken because she was a biotic, would have been implemented.
 * Which again brings up the issue of information, which you have even yet to address as you keep avoiding it like the plague. The prison probably knew that Jack was a biotic, and took additional measures because of that. HOWEVER, they didn't know the extent of her biotic abilities until AFTER this incident and then took even more measures to contain her. If they had known about Jack's abilities when she arrived, then she would have not been in the general population, she would have been in the cryo chamber to being with. All of the safeguards were in place with the information that the Blue Suns had on Jack at the time. Again you can't act on information that you don't have, and they didn't know the extent of Jack's biotic abilities until after this incident. The safeguards weren't there because there was no reason that they should have been. The Blue Suns guarded jack and had the safeguards in place for the information they had on her, and clearly it wasn't enough because she still killed people because they can't act on information that they didn't have. If they had the information on Jack that the did after the incident where she killed people, then they would have taken additional measures. However they didn't because they didn't have the information that they should have had. Remember you always have 100% hindsight, not 100% foresight, which is what you claim that the prison did. No one there is psychic, and you imply they are because they should have acted on information that they only had after the fact, not before. Again you can't act on information that you don't have.
 * And again I feel that I have to state this because you are in quicksand because you are ignoring anything and everything that disagrees with you. This is not the way to argue and not the way to make friends. Both Spart and myself have given you many reasons that you have yet to address, the lack of proper information being the biggest one, and you continually argue the same point and not addressing things that are put against you. You are arguing from a very shaky position because you say the same things over and over, and don't address the facts that are presented against you. There can’t be safeguards in place if you don’t have the correct information about someone, especially someone in prison. All of the safeguards that Purgatory officials thought should be in place, were in place, and yet Jack was still able to kill people, BECSUAE THEY DIDN’T HAVE ALL THE INFORMAITON. No one can act on information they don’t have, and since they were going off of the information they had on hand, Jack was in the general population, which shouldn’t have been the case in the first place if they had the correct information, and because she was a biotic, they took additional measures. However this situation is no different than when this happens in an normal prison, all of the safeguards weren’t in place because they didn’t know they had to be. Remember you are also analyzing this after the fact, and you have hindsight on the matter, which wasn’t the case for the officials on Purgatory. You always have 100% hindsight on an issue, but you can never have 100% foresight and anticipate everything, which is what you are implying.
 * With the increased security issue, again, they would have taken additional measures if they had the correct information, which they clearly didn’t before this. There was no reason for them to incur additional expenses, time, and effort on something that they had no knowledge of in the first place. Once they had the correct information, a.k.a. after the incident, they took the additional measures that needed to be taken because they now had the accurate information they needed in the first place. This si when those holes you mentioned earlier and I addressed earlier always come up, AFTER THE FACT, which is also the point from where you are arguing from. Remember that you can’t act on information you don’t have, and until you address that issue, your arguments are from the point of someone arguing that is should have been done before the incident when the information was incomplete. Prisons from anywhere can only take measures based on the information at hand. They can’t act on information that they don’t have in the first place. All of your arguemtns are based from the point of someone arguing after the fact and after the incident, where Spart and myself are arguing from the point of someone before the incident. You need to argue from that perspective, and you currently aren’t, and that is from the point that you need to argue from. Address the things I have asked you to and stop dancing around the issues, which you currently are. Lancer1289 17:56, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Wow... you completely miss my point. I AM arguing from before the incident, because she's a biotic. They know how to deal with them. End of discussion.NickTyrong 18:10, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * No you are not and you are missing our point. You are arguing from someone who has knowledge after the fact, a.k.a. the extent of Jack's biotic abilities. You have yet to address the issue that while Purgatory knew she was a biotic, they didn't take any additional measures they took with any other biotic, because they didn't know the extent of Jack's abilities. You are arguing that because she was such a powerful biotic, which is only known after the incident, that additional measures should have been taken. However additional measures were taken because she was a biotic, but additional measures that could only have happened with the correct information, or after this incident, weren't taken because they weren't deemed necessary. If Purgatory had the correct information, i.e. the extent of Jack's biotic abilities, then she wouldn't have been in the general population, she would have been in solitary/supermax/cryo in the first place. You have yet to address that issue and because you keep using that as an argument, you are arguing from after the fact, in hindsight of the incident, not before. We never contested that Purgatory knew that she was a biotic, they knew, but they didn't know the extent of her powers, so additional measures that should have been taken, couldn't have been taken because they didn't have access to the correct information and it took Jack going nuts to get those measures implemented. SO I'm not missing your point, you are dodging ours. This isn't a mistake from the writers part, but character development, in the fact she is a biotic, and how powerful she was wasn't discovered until AFTER THE FACT. Please address the issue of lack of information because you have yet to address that. Lancer1289 18:22, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * How are you not gettin this? Powerful biotics are moot. I don't care if she was Superman. She needs a focous, and any security system woud have prevented that. It's akin to making a whole prison out of kryptonte, for Superman. Removal of al ability to use the powers. End of discussion.NickTyrong 18:29, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And you successfully dodged the point again. There are different levels of biotic powers, as that is canon information. Some biotics can throw a train, while others can barely lift a cup. All biotics probably get the same treatment, and then additional measures are taken givne now potent they are. You just added another hole to your floor. Murderers and other violent offenders in prisons are given the same treatment, but then additional measures are taken based on how violent/powerful they are. You are dodging the now two points I ask you to address. They wouldn't give the same measures to a very powerful biotic, like Jack, to someone who has very weak biotic abilities, that makes no sense. Jack would get the same measures, but additional ones would be piled on top of those because of her biotic powers. Look it up, modern prisons do the same with violent offenders. Look it up. They all get the same treatment, but those who are more violent get more precautions and security measures. So again thanks for dodging the issue I asked you to address and then give another reason why your argument is flawed, or your reasoning. Lancer1289 18:37, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) But how, short of popping her into a freezer, would they have achieved this mythical "removal of al[l] ability to use the powers"? Even with my "shackle her hands and feet and walk behind her", she could still lash out at those in front of her before the guards (who are behind her for their own safety and can't see what she is doing) can react. You are ascribing mythical omnipotence to the Blue Suns on Purgatory, seemingly just because it's not a real prison, it's a future prison in space. This is ludicrous. No system is foolproof. None. Purgatory is no different. It's why Kuril has to rule through fear, making random examples of prisoners by ejecting them into space. If anything, your last comment only reinforces what Lancer and I have been saying. Because, as we have both been arguing, once they did realize just how powerful Jack was, they did place her in a situation where she was effectively removed of all ability to focus and use her powers, i.e. shackled to a table and then frozen. What Lancer and I are both arguing, and what you have thus far failed to refute, or even to touch on, is that the Blue Suns were not aware of the full extent of Jack's powers until after she killed those guys. Then, once they were aware of how powerful she was, they were able to take adequate precautions by putting her on the deep freeze. It's hard to take precautions against something you aren't aware of. If Clark Kent were thrown into a random jail, we can't expect that this jail would take precautions against Superman until they knew that it was Clark Kent unleashing these powers. It's not oversight, it's causation. Direct cause and effect. Inadequate security due to ignorance of her powers allowed Jack to kill those guys. Jack killing those guys led to her being frozen. Not hard concepts. SpartHawg948 18:48, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just it, though! They WOULD get the same treatment! Unless I'm missing something, biotics need a focous, a foot or hand, to use their powers! Any security system would take this into account. And thier minimal security would be overkill for those weak biotics, because the average is much tougher! And if you think about it, it wouldn;t matter how powerful she is, because the negation of her powers through immobilisation would negate any power. And how, Spart, are the guards not seeing aroud her? Are those hallways so tiny that they walk single file? How do you not see someone, say, bashing another that's standing in front of them in the head with a large metal handcase (That's always how I've been imagining it). Them not being able to see around her is just stupid.NickTyrong 18:53, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not stupid if you're trying not to get killed. Being directly behind her is the one spot where you can see her but she can't see you. I.e. the spot you'd want to be in to avoid getting smeared across a wall should she lash out biotically. We see this in-game, when on the catwalk we look out and see two prisoners fighting. Prior to the fight, one was being marched along by a Blue Suns trooper standing behind him. The lack of ability to see her hands would be compensated for by the overseers on the catwalks, but as we have seen with Jack, she does not need much time to build up a huge attack, certainly less time than many other biotics we've seen and heard of (Just ask the YMIR Mechs), so she would likely be able to do it before the guards on the catwalks could see it, relay the info to her escorts, and have them act on it. As for a metal handbox, now that would be stupid. You'd already be dealing with a biotic blast. Now you want to give Jack shrapnel to hurl at people too? A metal handbox is like giving her a claymore mine with the dangerous side facing out. SpartHawg948 19:00, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Jacqueline Nought
Please note that we only know of ONE instance where Jack used this name alias. As such we have no confirmation that it is her real name, or that she used it often. We have again only one confirmed case. Please note that adding anything about it outside the trivia section, where is specifically mentions this one instance, is speculation and will be reverted or rolled back. Lancer1289 05:52, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Dang... :( well FYI, Nought is another word for Zero. Shadowhawk27 02:42, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is. It could, however, also be a play on words. That's what I thought the first time I saw it. After all, Nought is phonetically identical to (and spelled similarly to, obviously) the word 'not'. In this regard, it'd be spoken 'Jacqueline Not', i.e. "not Jaqueline". That was my first thought anyways. "Jacqueline Not" - clearly an alias. SpartHawg948 03:20, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. It seems obvious to me that 'nought' in this usage is supposed to mean zero. It makes sense that, given her apparent affinity for bad poetry, she'd try to think of some clever pseudonym based off of the only labels she's been given (in-game, anyway) for use on a poetry extranet site. I guess that's me 'violently agreeing' that Jacqueline Nought is just a throwaway alias. :P
 * I'm confused how adding it to the article (outside of the trivia section) could be speculation though. It most definitely is an alias that she's used. It's certainly not her real name though, and there's no reason to suspect she's used the alias anywhere other than that poetry site; maybe that's what Lancer meant by 'speculation?' -- Dammej ( talk ) 05:28, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. Ignoring for a moment that her name is Jack, and not a mystery, what would you define as her 'real' name? Her birth name has obviously disappeared into the ether, and Cerberus called her 'Subject Zero'. She likely either got called 'Jack' and expanded it herself to Jacqueline Nought as a play on Subject Zero, or gave herself the full name Jacqueline Nought, also as a play on SZ, but chooses to go by Jack. Looking for a 'real' or 'legal' name for this character is going to be a waste of time. She probably had a birth name, but that's not exactly her 'real' name if she doesn't even know it.
 * To me it's pretty obvious after breaking out of Cerberus she didn't have a name so took to calling herself Jacqueline Nought or 'Jack'.
 * Also, I don't know anyone who pronounces Nought in a way that sounds close enough to 'not' that that could in any way be considered its intent, and it sure as hell isn't phonetically identical (not vs nort/nawt).
 * JakePT 05:42, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have been more clear. By 'real', I mean (and assumed that Lancer meant) birth and/or legal name. It's an interesting question though. Was 'Jack' something she was called before, or did she give herself the name of Jacqueline (shortened to Jack), only after she broke out of Cerberus. Perhaps that's the sort of speculation Lancer was attempting to keep out of the article. :P I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned along-side the header though (E.g. Jack aka Subject Zero and Jacqueline Nought... or similar). Nothing there is speculation. -- Dammej ( talk ) 05:50, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)
 * Yes, I think anyone would agree that "nought" means "zero", because it does. (nought = naught, nothing, opposite of aught, everything; also, regarding Spart's thought: according to Merriam-Webster anyway, "not" is an old alteration of "nought", i.e., they were once synonymous).
 * It also occurs to me [what Jake said regarding "Jack", her mother, Cerberus (Teltin), "Zero", etc.]. She even has to tell Aresh "My name is Jack". So, "Jack" is either self-given or at least consciously appropriated (after leaving Teltin).  As Dammej said, "Jack" is certainly not her "real" (legal/birth) name.  To assert as much is then speculation. -- But "Jack" as the name she has appropriated, is "real" in that sense, but then it's of the same status of "Jacqueline Nought"; the only difference is of the player's frequency of exposure to the names.  So, in this case, the argument induces me to find Lancer's conclusion somewhat excessive.  --AnotherRho 06:10, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well, to answer JakePT, several dictionaries (among others, Random House) do tend to support a pronunciation of nought that is simliar to not. Likewise, Cambridge University, via its Advanced learner's dictionary, does indeed state that not and nought (in all its forms) are indeed phonetically identical in American usage (nɑːt). It's likely an issue of accent and dialect. I'm sure in Australia the two would be pronounced differently, but in an American Midwestern accent (which is the generally accepted "standard" American accent, at least by major broadcast networks, news agencies, and a majority of opinion polls), 'nought' and 'not' sound pretty much (if not completely) identical. Differing accents and standards would also explain why I, for one, have never seen nor heard a pronunciation, phonetic or otherwise, of nought that looks or sounds anything like 'nort'. SpartHawg948 07:03, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Naught would sound nothing like nort in a US accent, with the whole actually pronouncing the r thing (it does in Australia, exactly the same actually), . Anyway, the dictionary (New Oxford American Dictionary) in my computer says naught = nôt and not = nät, two different pronunciations. Whatever the case, I don't find the idea that the use of naught here can be interpreted as 'not' at all compelling.JakePT 07:25, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I never suggested it be entered into the article. I merely offered my opinion and interpretation, and when challenged, demonstrated that not and nought sure the hell are phonetically identical. It's merely a matter of accent and dialect. We in the States don't pronounce nought as nort, what with the whole not pronouncing letters that aren't there thing, and do pronounce nought and not the same, as the big-wigs at Cambridge demonstrated in the links I provided. SpartHawg948 07:30, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever the bigwigs at Cambridge think, we in the states don't pronounce letters that are there, and in any case nought has at least a longer vowel than not. But no one in the States pronounces "good" correctly, either, so, the point is nought. - But seriously, if I get the important thought, we are suggesting that Jacqueline Nought be permitted into the main article, since it is a fact that Jacqueline Nought literally means J. Nothing/Zero, etc. etc. (see the arguments, above).  --AnotherRho 07:41, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I for one am not suggesting anything of the sort. There are a number of different opinions and interpretations of the alias, and at the end of the day, it's an alias that is used once and only once, and we only learn about it via the dossier the Shadow Broker has on Jack. As such, I see no reason for it to be anywhere other than the trivia section. SpartHawg948 07:44, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously you weren't suggesting that Spart.  I'm referring to the detailed arguments outlined above by the majority of those involved in this discussion.  --AnotherRho 07:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You said "we" are suggesting, without specifying who "we" was, so I just figured I'd make my stance clear. SpartHawg948 07:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair indeed. I assumed that since we were also discussing your first statement (that Jacqueline Nought could be a homophone signifying ultimately "Not Jacqueline," i.e., "that's not her name"), that one could safely include you in the camp which maintains that asserting J. N. to be a name by which Jack voluntarily is known, can only be trivia.  Rarely hurts to be clear, of course.
 * On a side note, the article states, "Cerberus obtained Jack on Eden Prime in 2165". Is this stated anywhere other than the SB Dossier?  --AnotherRho 08:03, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of off the top of my head. SpartHawg948 08:12, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the last version read, "Though her place of birth and origins are unknown,..." which has now been replaced with, "Cerberus obtained Jack on Eden Prime in 2165, although it is unknown whether that was her actual birth place. Her mother was told that she died due to complications caused by the prenatal Element Zero exposure." The sole source for the new info, which states it only once, is the Broker's Dossier.  Why is that information permitted outside of trivia, but the other is not?  --AnotherRho 16:38, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

The source has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that this is an alias she used (as far as we know) once, to submit a poem to a journal. We're not sure when she used it, or why she chose that name (is it her real name? a clever alias?). It therefore has as much bearing on her bio as the fact that Shepard once went by the alias Solomon/Allison Gunn has on the Commander's bio. Less, in fact, as in the case of the Gunn alias, we know the details of when and why. If we knew anything about it other than the fact that at least one time, for some reason, she used the name 'Jacqueline Nought' to refer to herself, it could maybe get moved out of the trivia section. We don't though. SpartHawg948 17:11, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you said "at the end of the day, it's an alias that is used once and only once, and we only learn about it via the dossier [from] the Shadow Broker". The information I quoted is of identical status (strictly speaking, we don't even know that that biotic baby was Jack).  But if you wish to withdraw that argument, nothing prevents it on my part.
 * As for the new case: we are sure when she used it (or if by "when" you mean "what date", I fail to see the relevance; but we at least have a good idea [namely, after Teltin, before or after Purgatory, either way when she was on her own]). As to why she chose it, we don't know why she chose "Jack" either. But we do know that Jacqueline is a feminine counterpart of "Jack", and that "Nought" means "Zero" (both literally, for centuries, and in modern mathematical usage). We also know (insofar as the game and other sources provide us with sources of "knowledge") that it is certainly not her "real" name, just as "Jack" is not (the proofs were given in the earlier discussions).  Also, if we assume (as everyone in this discussion does assume) that "Jack" is her assumed name, then we know that J. N. is a clever alias (not her real name).  Above all, we know that Jack voluntarily chose and used this name, (to our knowledge) once, in submission to a poetry publication which would be available to an indeterminate public audience, presumably across the galaxy ("Galactic Poetry Monthly").  Accordingly, the "Gunn" alias warrants little comparison: the name was invented and given to Shepard by Kasumi, to facilitate Kasumi's heist at the residence of a private criminal (if Shepard him/herself had written the "Bad Ass Weekly" article about Gunn, especially if before being aware of the heist, then it would be more comparable).  In sum, we know much more about it than we do about Eden Prime and 2165.  --AnotherRho 19:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when I said that we didn't know when she had used the alias, I meant that we couldn't narrow it down to any more than years. Sometime between year ___ and the current date. I don't consider something that vague as knowing when. As for "Jack", you are correct that we don't know why she chose it. Relevance? The two are hardly comparable. Jack is what she actually goes by, and what she is generally known as. Jacqueline Nought, on the other hand, is an alias she uses once. Just once. (That we know of, of course) If she had used it even once in-game, or had it maybe come up in conversation with anyone in a reasonable position to know (The Illusive Man, The Shadow Broker, Warden Kuril, etc), it'd be more than trivia-worthy. As this isn't the case, it's just as notable as the alias Legion gives itself for the purpose of online-gaming. (I hope that comparison is more to your liking). Or Miranda's online dating service alias. After all, as you say above, both those aliases were chosen voluntarily, and used (more than once, in both those cases, unlike Jack's) in venues that would be available to an indeterminate public audience, presumably across the galaxy. SpartHawg948 22:35, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Legion example is not more to my "liking", because it's an internet handle. Your "Gunn" example was more to "my liking" because it's actually an appropriate comparison, unlike Legion's (or Jack's or Miranda's) 'net names.  The reason being that S./A. Gunn is an alias published in a publication. I merely said that it doesn't warrant a strong enough comparison.  As for everything else, sufficient answers were given above by the other discussants.  Although it should go without saying, I don't make arguments because they're to my liking, but because I think that they are true, or correct.  --AnotherRho 02:30, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wowee! I think you totally misunderstood a simple turn of phrase I used, as evidenced by the multiple times you quoted it directly. The bit about a comparison being more to your liking meant solely that I hoped you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as the last one, as I honestly do think they are valid. It had nothing to do with you making "arguments because they're to my liking". Like you, I was simply making an argument I think is correct. No offense was intended, as to me it seemed a simple little inoffensive aside. SpartHawg948 04:44, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah misunderstanding, the human companion. Good to clear it up, and no problem.  An interesting discussion all the same. AnotherRho 04:49, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

FemShep/Jack Romance.
Trough editing it is possible, but the point here is that a Female Shepard who has romanced Jack will be asked the same question as a Male Shepard by Liara in LotSB and the reply is fully voiced, not sure if it was recorded before Jack was made a MaleShep only Romance, or if Bioware recorded and included it for those that have edited the romances.

King Asta 22:53, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems as though Bioware are recording the dialogue for many edited romances, I've seen the reunion on Horizon fully voiced for a MShep/Kaidan (original ME) romance as well. Not sure what kinds of conclusions we can draw from any of this. Bronzey 06:35, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * While reading that comment a crazy, super-duper unlikely, but quite satisfying "possibility" came to my mind. How about a ME3 special politically incorrect edition with all previously deleted romance possibilities and such? I sure would replay the game for it. Or are they perhaps bracing themselves if they were ever allowed to apply those romance options and then release a romance-unlocker patch? Probably not any of that. Fun thought though. Shefel 19:46, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny thing even before Mass Effect 2 was release, there was speculation that Jack was Hetrosexual... Shadowhawk27 23:26, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Shefel, a thread on Bioware's official forums is requesting exactly that - an opportunity to unlock/re-romance formerly available ME/ME2 characters, or new options for ME3. It seems though that Bioware are already creating or retaining dialogue for edited romances - whether this is tacit approval is anyone's guess, although it has been noted that there were meant to be same-sex romances in ME/ME2. The thread is here. Bronzey 06:12, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia, or sub trivia
The Broker's dossier on Cerberus mentions that in 2170, Cerberus performed "Nanosurgery" on Jack rendering her immune to omega-enkaphalin (i.e. making her biotic powers more permanent). This is like trivia, but it seems sort of irrelevant to me (who has only played the games). I assume that the existence of this omega drug is completely new in the SB DLC? or does it have any importance in the books or comics? AnotherRho 20:16, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't mentioned anywhere else but the Dossiers, and as such it seems irrelevant and too minor of a reference to warrant trivia in this matter. Better to just keep the information in the Dossiers as it isn't mentioned anywhere else. Lancer1289 20:27, September 23, 2010 (UTC)