Talk:Raloi

This was recently posted on the Cerberus Network News. I only caught a glimpse of the post, so if anyone knows more, please update this article. Ech0six 06:19, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see this scrolling on my Cerberus Network News right now, but I'm guessing that isn't the case for everyone; probably because I live on the East Coast. Hopefully it'll hit the West in a few hours. Ech0six 07:03, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the candidacy for deletion was removed, I assume that this is viewable to everyone now? If so, can we discuss whether or not the raloi should be added to the Race article? Ech0six 08:12, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The candidacy for deletion was removed by an anon user with no good reason. A source would be nice. SpartHawg948 08:17, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, well I can't post a link because I don't think it is online yet. But if you have access to the Cerberus Network and turn on your game, you'll see the article scrolling right now. Ech0six 08:19, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 360 is fired up on Dragon Age right now, so can't really look. How about you at least transcribe the story onto the Cerberus Daily News page? That'd be a hell of a lot better than just saying it's there. At least then it'll be on the site. SpartHawg948 08:20, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Right-o. One moment. Ech0six 08:20, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason that they can't be added to the Races page under non-Citadel races. SpartHawg948 08:26, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gah. I should have left it alone... Ech0six 08:49, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

They're a sentient race? So they're machines? Interesting...--Joshtopher27 09:09, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do what now? Last I checked, sentient meant "having the power of perception by the senses; conscious" or "characterized by sensation and consciousness." If they were machines, they'd be synthetic. SpartHawg948 09:34, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong but I think he was being sarcastic, and implying that it should be "sapient" and not "sentient". Ech0six 09:36, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even then though, it still doesn't make sense. Sentient works just fine in the context it's used in here. In fact, it's always been my belief that sentient works better than sapient. After all, sentient means conscious, or characterized by consciousness. Seems like a pretty good definition. Sapience, on the other hand, means "having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment." And it is, of course, possible to be self-aware without showing great wisdom or sound judgment. SpartHawg948 09:38, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sapient to me fits better because sapients are self-aware and have the ability to make judgements based on emotions. Sentient life on the other hand is conscious, but it doesn't act on emotions. Some people think animals are sentient because they can feel happiness or pain, but they're not self-aware. basically sapient is what makes us human, and along with the other races in the ME universe, makes them krogan, asari, etc. And sentient is usually related to A.I. in science fiction. Not always, but it usually is. Take the Reapers for example; they are a sentient race. They don't do what they do (annihilate all life in the galaxy) because they are emotionally driven or because they choose to. They do it because, well, they just do. It's like they're programmed to do it, just like a lioness is programmed, so to speak, to hunt. I know comparing lions to Reapers is a stretch but it does relate. Humans are called Homo Sapiens......notice the sapien? There ya go.--Joshtopher27 10:38, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno about all that... again, sapient means "showing great wisdom or sound judgment". Any other definition is just incorrect. As is any attempt to define sentient as anything other than "self-conscious". Attempting to define it as simply "being capable to feel happiness or pain" is ludicrous (and yes, I understand that isn't necessarily your take on it, I'm just saying). And I've seen plenty of sci-fi where sentient is used as opposed to sapient to refer to a being or race as self-aware (including, as it turns out, Mass Effect!). Also, I think stating that Reapers aren't emotionally driven to do what they do is a bit of a leap. I've seen no indication that this is true, and in fact, their extreme interest in Shepard would seem to indicate there is some emotion involved in their thought processes. Regardless, the raloi are called sentient by BioWare, but not synthetic, so it's safe to say they are a self-aware, non-machine race. There ya go. (Also, thanks for helping me make my point by pointing out that humans are homo sapiens! This of course means "Wise Man", which is used to differentiate modern man from the sentient but much less sapient earlier members of the genus, such as homo neanderthalensis.) SpartHawg948 11:35, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * In the interest of being completely honest and objective though I should point out that different dictionaries differ on the definitions of sentience and sapience. The Oxford English tends to define sentience as having sensory perception and sapience as higher thought, whereas the Merriam Webster defines sentient as self-aware and sapient as possessing great wisdom. From what I've been able to learn of the etymology, it seems to be based on which time period the dictionary draws it's definition from. Sentient was taken to mean simply feeling starting in approx. 1632, while it gained the added meaning of self-aware or conscious in 1815. Although again, most sci-fi does (rightly or wrongly) use sentient, especially the big boys (ie Star Wars and Star Trek), and it seems that BioWare is also of this opinion. Isn't the English language fun? :) SpartHawg948 12:09, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't they be a Citadel race? It says they are being welcomed into the galatic community by council reps.164.58.208.245 15:06, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's possible for Council reps to greet a new race (that was discovered by a Council species, after all) into the galactic community without them automatically becoming a Citadel race. And as the news article says absolutely nothing about them joining the Citadel, we can't assume they're joining the Citadel. SpartHawg948 22:50, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder what the catch is? I tguess we will find out in the addendum to the news report. As for sapient vs. sentience, the codexes identified a machine (the 'Eliza') as having sapience, and husks as lacking sapience.Throwback 15:12, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think they'd be a Citadel-race, not yet anyway. They still have to prove they will be an economic benefit to the galactic community before they'll be offered an embassy. Ech0six 19:47, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the humans, no other race has been granted an embassy until a hundred years pass. It's not important that they provide an economic benefit. This matters more if a race wishes a position on the Council where they will be expected to provide both economic and military benefits to the Citadel. I think that much is not being mentioned here. It's surprising that Council races are so eager to meet the raloi by sending shuttles, yet they are sending messages of greeting from comm buoys. What gave them such confidence and such hesitation?Throwback 20:10, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The comm buoy thing is because the Council is cautious with disease. The shuttles aren't even landing within raloi cities; they're landing outside of them. People who are meeting the raloi face-to-face are likely doing so from the other side of a resperator. Ech0six 20:22, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Intergalactic vs Interstellar
Just pointing this out to end this pointless debate. The source states that the raloi went to the Citadel to learn (among other things) intergalactic law, not interstellar law. The source says intergalactic, so it's intergalactic. And no, you can't claim "then the source is wrong", because the source is the game. And the game is canon. Canon is, of course, never wrong. Pretty simple, eh? SpartHawg948 21:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Huzzah, discussion before changing! Not who I meant to do it, but I didn't have high hopes of that happening. Vund223 21:26, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to think the citadel species use the term intergalactic law because they like to think ahead. Makes about as much sense as anything :) ralok 11:20, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons enumerated above, a [sic] after the word intergalactic is not warranted. Just pointing out that this has come up before and been discussed. See? It was already discussed on the talk page! SpartHawg948 03:56, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Just because it was already discussed doesn't mean the previous verdict is the right verdict. All this does it side with your point, which I am against. Why did you delete the part that was added in the trivia section though? 64.222.97.201 05:30, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * If BioWare had ment intersteller, then I'm sure they would have used it. However they used intergalactic, and until that changes, we leave as intergalactic. Also correct in your opinion. BioWare's opinion is what matters here, and they used the galactic one, not the steller one. So the way it is worded now, is in line with canon. Lancer1289 05:32, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)Because it was pure opinion. As I said in the edit comment, the term used is incorrect in whose opinion? Not BioWare's. And this thread does more than just confirm my position, it provides a forum for public comment. And as of now, even just in this thread, not counting other users who have spoken elsewhere, it's 3-1 in favor of keeping the article the way it is, with you being the sole dissenter. SpartHawg948 05:33, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I do agree that removing it altogether is better. Lancer1289 05:35, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

In the south there was like a 100-1 opinion for slavery, discounting the slaves of course. but anyways, the way that I put it before the lancer reverted it had nothing wrong
 * And it was like 75-1 against slavery in the North. And which side won? Your point? Additionally, as has been enumerated above, there was something wrong with the way it was. it was too subjective! 'Strangley[sic]'? Strangely to whom? SpartHawg948 05:36, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think thta this small disrepancy is worth noting in the trivia, but i think it should remain unbiased and neutral sounding. Nut i am not going to make a big deal about it ralok 05:38, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * you completely misunderstood what i meant. and not really. but, there should be reference to the intergalactic should being galactic in the article. Why do you have issue with that? In modern language, which this wiki uses, intergalactic refers to between two galaxies. galactic refers to one. your unsubstantiated claims that language changed don't matter, because the readers here read in modern English, not assumed Mass Effect 2 English. And fine, remove strangely from the sentence.64.222.97.201 05:40, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

(conflict) At the risk of burning to death in a flame war, I feel that adding that trivia about the apparently mis-used word improves the article. I didn't even notice it before. So there's some support for the guy. Dammej 05:43, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't misunderstand. Your point was that weight of popular opinion does not make an issue right. Well, this isn't slavery we're talking about, and we do tend to go with the majority around here. SpartHawg948 05:44, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * My point doesn't really matter anymore. I was just trying to connect it to something we can relate to. That is what my English teacher tells me to do, anyway. heh
 * Regardless, I wanted to make clear that your unfounded claim that I completely misunderstood your point was just that... completely unfounded. SpartHawg948 05:47, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that sometimes the underdog is the right one. You misunderstood that, apparently.
 * No, once again (and I really hate repeating myself) your point was that the majority is not always right. Let's see my exact words... "Your point was that weight of popular opinion does not make an issue right." This does, of course, mean that the underdog is sometimes right. Fancy that. I didn't misunderstand you, but you most certianly did misunderstand me. SpartHawg948 05:53, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Christ, I was responding to my earlier claims that you misunderstood. Just forget about this issue and actually talk about what matters, the article, instead of picking at my or your human tendency towards error 64.222.97.201 05:56, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * (conflict) Sorry guy, as pretty much anyone here can tell you, nothing pisses me off more than being misrepresented by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Don't try to put words in my mouth or presume to state that I didn't understand your point (which you did, even though I clearly understood you), and we'll get along fine. Side effect of serving in the military. You tend to take all that 'integrity' stuff seriously, and want to be represented accordingly. SpartHawg948 06:00, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn I don't care about that anymore. Drop it please, and maybe we can continue what matters hear, the issue about the article not the flaws in character.... 64.222.97.201 06:04, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * And as far as I know, you are human too, so do you think that you could be wrong, or just everyone else? Lancer1289 05:58, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * listen to what I wrote below, and read first.....` 64.222.97.201 05:59, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Now it is 3-3. Hell yes. And I want to say, canon can be in error. it ain't set in stone that canon is always right. Canon and Right aint synonyms. 64.222.97.201 05:44, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes they are, they are synonuyms. That iswhat the word canon means. it cannot be in error because that is what was used, either the error was in the usage of the word by a canonical element, orthe usage of the word is not what you think. ralok 05:47, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Canon refers to it being official or real, ie not fan made. This is canon. Canon, however, like plenty of other things, can be wrong. This is an instance where it, in all likelyhood, is wrong.
 * However it is official, this is directly from the game's developer. I don't know how much more canon you can get? Oh wait, you can't. Lancer1289 05:51, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow............. DID you even READ what I just WROTE!...... I said clearly, that this is canon, but that does not denote that it is without error. it is the truth, but sometimes the truth is wrong. if that makes sense. Think of it as passive misinformation and disinformation, if you know the terms. They are telling what they believe to be the truth (ie canon) but have unwittingly made an error.
 * Didi you ever think that maybe, just maybe, they used intergalactic for a reason. I'm sure BioWare knows the difference between intergalactic and intersteller. We just don't know what they ment, and until we do, intergalactic was said/written for a reason. Lancer1289 05:56, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * And more likely, just more likely, it was an error, and even if it wasn't it should still be noted that to this audience, the people of modern the English speaking world, there is an error? 64.222.97.201 05:58, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * GAAAAAAH ralok 05:54, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * WE DONT KNOW, we just simply do not know if it was an error or intentional, so shut up seriously how can you not see what the deal is bro, honest to god just shut up, we have no way of telling if it was a mistake or itnentional, the only way you could know is if you were a developer or god, just shut up or go away. ralok 06:04, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * What is more likely, that they wanted to change the meaning of a word just for the hell of it or that some tired writer misused a word and the editors didn't notice when it went out? the LATTER. 64.222.97.201 06:05, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion, yes. However, you present a false dilemma. There is another option, independent of the other two. Intergalactic could be the word they wanted to use! That would explain why it was used! SpartHawg948 06:06, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * However I don't think he will ever accept that because he likes to argue over something that we don't know. Lancer1289 06:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * And didn't I say that eariler. Oh yea, I did. Lancer1289 06:09, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what you and SpartHawg are doing as well. So don't snap at me for doing it 64.222.97.201 06:10, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Why would they want to use a word that in modern English, does not mean what they intended for it to mean? This doesn't make any sense. Unless they invented a Mass Effect English, and decided to alter one word, then it is pretty clear that the word is misused. 64.222.97.201 06:09, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) You are now arguing form the point that you know EXACTLY what the developers ment. Which you don't. We don't know what they ment and you still insist on arguing that you do know what they ment. Or that they made an error that we don't know that they did. Lancer1289 06:12, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * And subjectivity rears its ugly head again. SpartHawg948 06:10, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

My head is less ugly than yours. 64.222.97.201 06:11, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * ANd that is insulting other users. Lancer1289 06:12, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * You have got to be kidding me. Right????64.222.97.201 06:14, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Subjectivity yet again. I doubt you have as awesome a beard as mine! :P Additionally, when have I ever posed a false dilemma to you? When did I ever say 'it has to be one of these two choices or nothing else'? SpartHawg948 06:12, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are saying that what I am saying is wrong. That is just as subjective as me saying that what I am saying is right. There is no neutral side 64.222.97.201 06:14, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's me offering an opinion. Nothing like you posing a false dilemma, which is a logical fallacy. SpartHawg948 06:16, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * An opinion is subjective. You are picking a side, and no matter how you put it, you are being just as subjective as me 64.222.97.201 06:17, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * It sure is! Which is why I never presented it as fact! Unlike a false dilemma, in which someone attempts to pass off as fact a scenario in which they have artificially limited the outcomes to a set number of choices, such as your 'it has to be either this or that' scenario. You accused Lancer and I of doing the same thing, I asked for examples, and you can't seem to find one, so you point to opinions I expressed on another matter. That is, of course a red herring, which is yet another logical fallacy. SpartHawg948 06:21, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * (conflict)you answered your own question, because it is not modern english! it is over a hundred years in the future english, probably not english at all probably the asari language ran through a filter ralok 06:13, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

no you fool you being right is just one of the hundreds of possibilities, there are dozens of reasons that i could think of right now on the spot as to why the word intergalatci was used, your possibility is only one of them and is negated somewhat by teh facts present, so please shut up and accept defeat. ralok 06:17, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he seems to thing that his explanation is the only reason, and everyone else is wrong. Lancer1289 06:19, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

If I may... He's not being subjective when he says "intergalactic" probably isn't the right word. The prefix "inter" means between, and galactic means, of course "having to do with galaxies" so intergalactic means "between galaxies." This is a fact. Now suppose that, so far as we know, the Mass Effect Universe deals entirely in one galaxy. This would make the usage of "intergalactic" in error, since, so far as we know, there's only one galaxy that's under Citadel rule.

Now suppose that the writers did indeed choose "intergalactic" purposely. In this case, they're implying that there are indeed multiple galaxies that fall under citadel rule.

Either interpretation leads us to some interesting trivia. Either the trivia is "hey, they made an error here, that's funny" or "hey, this thing just said that there were multiple galaxies under citadel rule"

Which is more likely? I'm inclined to believe that the usage is in error. Dammej 06:20, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

(first part directed towars ralok) please tell me your kidding around. As SpartHawg said, there are many possiblities, to damn near everything in the universe. We go with the most likely one. That is always a matter of opinion. The opinion picked is the one that makes the most sense and fits in the with the situation best. Mine is the best opinion. The most logical. 64.222.97.201 06:20, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * in your own opinion, one not shared by all. I can say mine is the best and most logical opinion too! They used the word they wanted to use! How's that for logical? SpartHawg948 06:22, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because it is what they wanted to use doesn't mean it isn't in error. I could say that you are blind and stubborn and don't want to see the truth, but that doesn't mean it is true. But it may be what I want to say. And this is purely hypothetical. 64.222.97.201 06:23, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, did you ever consider that option. Clearly you didn't because you keep saying that your is the most logical when you haven't considered any other options. Lancer1289 06:24, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And I could say you like to play it fast and loose with the facts, and are willing to distort or disregard the situation to your end if need be. And given the two logical fallacies I've caught so far from you, that'd be decidedly more than an opinion. Just throwing that out there... SpartHawg948 06:26, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at your idea. No worky. My idea makes sense and is logical. You are so caught up in the argument you can't realize that I am doing this because this needs to be put in. What do I gain out of this? Vindication I guess. But I also want to make a point, that this will help the article. I say that the logical point is the one that should be supported, and that point is the one I support. 64.222.97.201 06:29, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dammej. You are making sense here.


 * EXCEPT You arent one of the peoPle who makes that decision you idiot, and neither are any of this, do i have to give the scripe speach again, we are not the builders of roads only those who write down what the builders have built.. ralok 06:23, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * the whole point of a wiki is that everyone contributes. 64.222.97.201 06:25, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole point is the people contribute civily, you just keep arguing. Lancer1289 06:26, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

The people do contribute. And right now, there isn't a consensus, it's tied up. SpartHawg948 06:27, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

ALRIGHT!
Awesome a new species, its good to see that the universe is growing. I hope to see these guys in dlc in the near future, but there is something that i want to bring to the communities attention, please dont be quiet about this species. IF necessary give them a chuck norris type fandom (I hope it doesnt to that) make sure the developers dont forget about them when mass effect 3 comes around, there is already one species that has been forgotten because they are only a footnote (lystheni) so please if you are a true fan, make sure you point out these guys's exsistence whenever possible. ralok 11:25, March 2, 2010 (UTC)