Is Yes Man the best thing for NCR and Legion as well?

[adman85]

Quote;

"The kings did not want to give up their power and got destroyed because of it. They were a simple street gang who thought they should stay in complete power over freeside despite in being in worse conditions then the strip. You are aware that the NCR also wipes out the kings if you side with them right?"

 

Isn't that the kings home? Where does House expect them to go from the ghetto if they did just move out?

 

Or the other option is they roll over and allow house to fill the power vacuum created, and then, do what, work at the casinos? As hired thugs? That looks like about their only job prospects in the strips climate. And how is that better than their current position?

 

If you were born a member of the kings in freeside, why don't you have the right to defend your home and friends and family?

 

Quote;

"Mr. House saved Vegas and all of the surrounding areas. He already had a lot of ownership before the nukes. Are you suggesting that Mr. House is not the rightful owner of Vegas when he not only saved it from complete destruction, but he already owned part of it beforehand?"

 

Yes that is what I am saying, he has no more ownership (in my opinion) over it than any of the residents that are stuck living there. Mr House is saying;

 

Quote;

"this is mine, you shouldn't be trying to live here unless you understand that this is mine and 50% of what you earn is going to go to me (and be "me" I mean him as a government system), if you don't like it, theres the door to the wasteland.. Though you probably wont make it too far past the ants, let alone the deathclaws.."

 

That's some basic tyranny there, sure it's not as bad as NCR or Legion, but its still there (also I never stuck up for them either)

 

Quote;

"The problem you have with the courier argument is that Mr. House already knew he was being betrayed. If another courier was shot he would have had another plan."

 

So he took advantage of six individuals in desperate need of money, that it seems he was fully aware would all be murdered by someone living next door to him? (I seriously doubt he was that all knowing, that seems a bit mean)

 

Quote;

"Are you saying that Mr. House is doing everything he does for personal gain? Please look at his death. It should be obvious he does not care about personal gain."

 

No, i'm not saying that, I know there are good aspects to his system, but there are "good" aspects to almost all systems. Surely you can see some of the flaws in his.

 

Quote;

"Why do you keep saying he found the chip? Did you even glance at Mr. Houses story? He CREATED the chip. He knows exactly where it is."

 

To be honest I forgot about the origins of the chip.. It should really have been obvious though.. Woops, (we all make mistakes). I should replace the words find or obtain with the word create in my above arguments.

 

Quote;

"Once again, you can not compare a immortal robotic man who does not care about personal gain to previous dictators.

Mr. House will use money in his government. He won't allow corruption with money, which is what you mentioned. There is a huge difference between having something of a capitalist system and allowing money to corrupt within your system."

 

Well I can, if he has personally selected humans under him running portions of things as well, like the Chairmen, White Glove Society and the Omertas, I know they were tribes, that he "united" but they weren't the only tribes around.. So he did select them.

 

Who by the way operate within "his domain" but outside of his direct influence. A situation that would be repeated if he increased in power. (taking advantage of loopholes in the power system at the cost of others)

 

EDIT; (Sorry about all the "quote" things, it just breaks it up a bit more, it was had to tell where the quotes ended the way I was doing it)

 

I'd also like to add that while this is a heated discussion, I would prefer discussion over ignoring.

 

I think the back and forth has filed down our arguments to both have a noticeable truth to them.

 

We should remember that any discussion about politics is bound to swing a lot of ways, and try not to get personal about our arguments.

Edited December 15, 2011 by adman85

[adman85]

Quote;

"As soon as I saw the offensive comment I stopped reading. Thats not the kind of joke you should be making.

 

Youre an Anarchist there is not arguing that and you have many anti-social attributes such the amount of personal information youve given away and the fact that your public post and your private message have 2 different tones shows that you behave differently in public and in private out of pride. However, you also show many signs(Strong devotion to science, atheist yet superstitious, being an anarchist, unrealistic faith in humanity ) that show your a victim of a very long running propaganda campaign thats been going on far longer then youve been alive. The brainwashing also generates artificial anti-social attributes. Your questioning the validity of such a statement, going on the same lines as the questions Doc mitchel asks you look at these statements and see how much they seem like something youd say:

 

1. Woman should not be in the army and belong at home cooking and cleaning and pleasing their husband like God made it.

 

2. Homosexual marriage is an abomination.

 

3. The government has your best interests at heart.

 

 

And dont get mad at me for the text in the test until youve seen my answers.

 

I accept your apology and will continue this debate on some conditions: Dont joke like that again, maintain a level of civility, and dont talk about things you no nothing about(Such as Mr. House's quest line that you havent played.). This is all I ask. Anyway I accept your apology now back to the topic at hand:"

 

Response;

Well I only just noticed this post....

 

Okaaaay then.

 

I barely even know how to respond to such an out of line and personally attacking statement.

 

Is that the smear campaign you run on everybody who has a different view of the world than you?

 

"I've been brainwashed by a long running campaign to believe;

1. Woman should not be in the army and belong at home cooking and cleaning and pleasing their husband like God made it.

2. Homosexual marriage is an abomination.

3. The government has your best interests at heart.???????????????????????"

 

That sounds more like Catholicism than Democracy. Which is my current political standpoint; a democratic system where no one person rules over all, instead all look out for, educate debate and LIVE together.

 

I am a believer in Multiculturalism, and I am a believer in real Democracy.

 

The path I choose to make a character take in a video game does not reflect my current world beliefs and values. (thats the point of a game right? to do things that you wouldn't or couldn't usually do?)

 

Here's my "totally different personal post" that I sent because I thought I genuinely offended you through a misinterpretation of my post;

 

Quote;

"I think we got off on the wrong foot.

 

I sincerely apologise for any comments that I made that seemed naive, arrogant or short sighted.

 

I am currently taking a communications course at university, and my head has been filled social and cultural studies mixed with some heavy politics, so my world view is in a continuous flux.

 

Please don't take my comments out of context, as I am unsure of my own standings, let alone am I not in a position to judge others for their action or beliefs.

 

I was attempting to open discourse, and it seems I had the opposite effect. That was not my intention."

 

 

I would have posted it twice, but I didn't want to make it seem like i was repeating myself for some kind of self gratification. That was my reaction to your attempting to wrongfully accuse me of something and then turn your back on the situation.

 

I would like to stress that my personal beliefs are my own, as are yours.. And I would appreciate if you stopped trying to tell me what I am. As all of your personal assumptions have been wrong (aside from my lack of faith in the current monetary and ownership systems, which I am entitled to have a view on).. You assume I am an anarchist because of this original comment;

 

"P.S. You'll probably have a hard time convincing me that anarchy is not the way.. I'm far too chaotic neutral for that. 8)"

 

A comment made about the attitude of my character in the game.. Not some deep insight into my personal life..

 

I shouldn't be even arguing with you about this, but when you personally attack me then wipe your hands with a, "lets be civil about this comment" It's hard not to respond.

 

Have I ever accused you of being any one way?

 

The only thing I knew about you until you mentioned I had slandered your race (which by the way I didn't.. You misinterpreted a comment i made in jest, I slandered "my own" race for their actions in the past in a joking way, if you think that makes it any better) was that your name is ModelV and that you consider yourself a craftsman.

 

I haven't judged you personally in any way shape or form, just countered some of your views with some of my own.

 

Did I ever tell you what you are or how you think?

 

Did I ever insult your belief system?

 

No, but you just managed all of that in one fell swoop.

 

Your comments reveal some strange things about yourself..

 

Lets just leave personal attacks out of the equation shall we?

Edited December 15, 2011 by adman85

[ModelV]

"Once again, you can not compare a immortal robotic man who does not care about personal gain to previous dictators.

Mr. House will use money in his government. He won't allow corruption with money, which is what you mentioned. There is a huge difference between having something of a capitalist system and allowing money to corrupt within your system."

 

Well I can, if he has personally selected humans under him running portions of things as well, like the Chairmen, White Glove Society and the Omertas, I know they were tribes, that he "united" but they weren't the only tribes around.. So he did select them.

 

Who by the way operate within "his domain" but outside of his direct influence. A situation that would be repeated if he increased in power. (taking advantage of loopholes in the power system at the cost of others)

 

"There will be no board of directors..."

 

Its an Autocracy the only one who controls New Vegas is Mr. House he restored the casinos then let the 3 families run there own businesses out of them. Again the 3 Families are a perfect example of the Freedom allowed under Mr. House when you look at how independent they are. You also havent pointed out any flaw in his system that isnt completely fictional(ehhh..................................................................)

 

Quote;

"this is mine, you shouldn't be trying to live here unless you understand that this is mine and 50% of what you earn is going to go to me (and be "me" I mean him as a government system), if you don't like it, theres the door to the wasteland.. Though you probably wont make it too far past the ants, let alone the deathclaws.."

 

That's some basic tyranny there, sure it's not as bad as NCR or Legion, but its still there (also I never stuck up for them either)

 

:facepalm:

"Im giving you a choice. You can join me and be given medical care, assisted security, and your own working casino or you can leave the strip. I dont care if you move right outside the gate as long as you move."

 

More accurate quote. With everything hes giving them its only fair that he gets 50% of the profits of the casinos he restored.

 

 

"Mr. House saved Vegas and all of the surrounding areas. He already had a lot of ownership before the nukes. Are you suggesting that Mr. House is not the rightful owner of Vegas when he not only saved it from complete destruction, but he already owned part of it beforehand?"

 

Yes that is what I am saying, he has no more ownership (in my opinion) over it than any of the residents that are stuck living there. Mr House is saying;

 

And thus you have no right to kill them since you arent from the Mojave.

 

 

"The kings did not want to give up their power and got destroyed because of it. They were a simple street gang who thought they should stay in complete power over freeside despite in being in worse conditions then the strip. You are aware that the NCR also wipes out the kings if you side with them right?"

 

Isn't that the kings home? Where does House expect them to go from the ghetto if they did just move out?

 

Or the other option is they roll over and allow house to fill the power vacuum created, and then, do what, work at the casinos? As hired thugs? That looks like about their only job prospects in the strips climate. And how is that better than their current position?

 

If you were born a member of the kings in freeside, why don't you have the right to defend your home and friends and family?

 

He made them move several blocks down the street! Oh god the Horror!!! Damn him for reserving 4 blocks down 1 road even if its the only way to save us from all becoming slaves!!!

 

EDIT:

Its very hard to not personally comment about you when you give so much personal information. And you also later defended the concept of Anarchy in other posts...

 

In other words, If you dont want me to dissect you dont put yourself on the slab but I will attempt to reframe from making more comments about you.

Edited December 15, 2011 by ModelV

[minngarm]

House does care about personal gain, everything he does he profits from. This doesnt make him good or bad, but acting like hes some martyr sacrificing everything fro the greater good of the people is just a romantics dream. House plans to live forever and control everything.

 

Now the fact that hes practical about it to benefit the majority is a good thing yes, but hes still a bigot about those who have nothing.

[adman85]

"Im giving you a choice. You can join me and be given medical care, assisted security, and your own working casino or you can leave the strip. I dont care if you move right outside the gate as long as you move.

More accurate quote. With everything hes giving them its only fair that he gets 50% of the profits of the casinos he restored."

 

Surely he has plans to expand "his" city?.

 

The strip sure didn't remind ME of medical care.. I saw more of that in freeside and just further out past the caravan company. And I doubt very much that he's going to be handing out casino's like Christmas turkeys, I would assume for people like, say, Mick and Frank? (sorry if i got that wrong), who had not necessarily been born in freeside, but who had set up shop there, with the approval (or at least non disapproval, except for maybe the generic "thugs") of the "occupants", Mr House would make the "generous" offer of; "give me 50% of your earnings or pack up shop and leave, or my security bots will take care of you and someone else more desperate will take your place." (not in those exact words of course).

 

Freeside is living in the protection of man made walls. Not Mr Houses robots, that is, until he gets the chip. Then apparently his borders expand exponentially. Soon, everyone who didn't cave to his way would be living in Rauls shack, or have some sweet new gang tattoos, or be dead.

 

But that's not a concern of Mr House because he considers them "squatters".

 

Why can't they live where they've been living their whole lives without being subject to his particular whims?

 

Do you at least admit that without the "courier" (or more accurately, the platinum chip) Mr House actually seems incredibly ineffectual. If that bullet had killed the courier, Benny would be giving the chip to yes man, to, once again, I assume, install this "skynet" style program.

 

So in a way, the courier saves Vegas too (if that path is taken). If you believe that gives him some sort of ownership over the land, then that is a point we majorly disagree on. I'm fine with Mr House living within his towers and buildings, that he built (if he really needs that much space, sure whatever, go nuts you crazy old businessman, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt) and I'm fine with him developing a political strategy that others may follow. But when he starts openly claiming land and as his if it's his birthright with an army of robots, giving the occupants an ultimatum, which could prove fatal if they act "out of line".. It gets a little concerning.

 

Why can't he just build around these "squatters" and convince them to join him with an obvious display of better living conditions, if that's what it really is? He would have better access to resources at that stage, whereas the poor folk would not have such an easy time starting from scratch in the desert.

 

If anyone attacks that community (Mr House's) for no reason, once again Mr House, and the people under him, would understandably be able to defend themselves (through his robot army I would say, which would function more as a "security force" in this scenario), but he isn't forcibly trying to take over the world. And anyone who "joined" him could happily give up their living space for his ends (whether it's to build a hospital or another casino, and it really looks like it'd be another casino), if they believed he would provide them with better living conditions (and I really hope he would, but he's still asking for a lot of trust in the process).

 

Doesn't that sound a little less invasive and arrogant?

 

If what he promised was becoming true around me, I would be more inclined to follow him. But I shouldn't be forced to just because of my place of residence. (and by this I don't just mean because you were born there you own it, if there's a refugee from the waste and there is space, (and it's not some psychotic loon) then there's a new "resident" born (whether temporary or permanent).. One who might be eager to repay the kindness of their new neighbors by doing something constructive) ( Don't get me wrong, I also don't mean that you could freely walk around Mr House's residence, eating his snowglobes and hacking his monitors for the porn channel either)

Edited December 15, 2011 by adman85

[ModelV]

Mr. House got rid of the raider tribes that occupied the strip because they were raider tribes occupying the strip. Pay attention to the ending(which you havent seen.) and youll also note that Mr. House ignores towns that do no want or need his protection like Primm and Novac(depending on what happens ingame he make take these towns(if unprotected) or leave them(if well protected.)).

 

Also Mr. House never says the word squatter thats a word used by Freeside locals and the NCR.

Edited December 15, 2011 by ModelV

[adman85]

So he's within his right to pick and choose who he kills (or "gets rid of")because the "raider" tribes (from his perspective, maybe not all of these tribes were brutal maniacs, maybe some of them held some legion style beliefs, or had a strongest survive mentality) who lived above him only exist because of his actions? And because he didn't like the way they ran things. If that is the case then I assume he took out some of the strongest tribes to establish dominance over the other weaker tribes, who are apparently good enough to go into business with, but not good enough to call an ally.

 

It sounds like he has a sharp case of god complex.

 

And how do you mean

 

"he make take these towns(if unprotected) or leave them(if well protected.))."

 

Take the town as in, literally takeover the town because they lack the defenses to stop him, and then charge the occupants 50% of their belongings to continue living there?

 

I hope you mean as in he approaches the town and if they reject his offer he leaves them be, but if they choose to accept it then his conditions should be met as stipulated.

[ModelV]

Omertas loured travelers into there camp then killed them with poison.

 

The white gloves were a bunch of savage cannibals.

 

The Chariman(bootriders I think) were a bunch of raiding nomads.

 

 

There are many other people who will tell you the same thing New Vegas was a lot worse before Mr. House came along.

 

 

Now as for the towns take Primm for example: If the NCR takes over the town they will abandon them. Seeing the plight they are in he sends securitrons to defend the town. Leave the town with there own sheriff and he leaves them be because they arent going to accept his flag as they dont need the protection. And just me if he wanted to take the towns by force 1 securitron is more then enough to take down a protection sheriff.

[marharth]

By the way Mr. House didn't really want to force the kings to move, he wanted them to give up their power. I don't think he would have had a problem with the kings if they just gave up their complete control, Mr. House might of even let them own a casino.

[adman85]

"By the way Mr. House didn't really want to force the kings to move, he wanted them to give up their power."

 

Yeah, I guess, but that's still an ultimatum, and the power was going straight to House and his robots.. Something that I would probably be concerned about if I were born a member of the Kings in freeside.

 

 

"And just me if he wanted to take the towns by force 1 securitron is more then enough to take down a protection sheriff."

 

A sadly true fact.. I wish these towns were more concerned with independence.. But seriously most of them do end up guarded only a couple of by primm slimm types.

The snipers in novac are the same deal.. There's even a nightkin murdering brahmin (and who knows what else next) right under their noses and they are unable to do anything about it.

1 of those upgraded securitrons could run rampant through most of the small towns.

 

Which in itself is concerning. What if someone like benny were to manipulate some of these robot's systems? To use to his own ends. This is why I'm against armies of killbots.. Whether controlled by a lovable leader or a horrible skynet program. At the end of the day they are machines, without the emotional capacity of human soldiers, even if House was corrupt (which i'm beginning to admit he's not) the robots would never question, never falter and never truly understand what they had done. This does mean that they are also incapable of some of the more evil human aspects, but in a way they are still prone to a level of corruption, even if it's just someone hacking a securitron to make it go berserk

 

It seems all the robots in fallout are built to break that ever so important law of robotics.

Edited December 16, 2011 by adman85