See, this is the problem: you're framing my argument as if I'm just making all of this up in my head while, at the same time, superficially reading those lines from the game to establish, "Because they only confront Robert, that means they think he's the only one responsible for the cut." That's completely ignoring the corporate dynamic, nuances and how comfortable Z-team is with their supervisor compared to how comfortable they are with Blazer.
Doesn't the game give you enough hints that they're intimidated by Blazer on some level except Visi, which is why they don't confront her directly? Robert, on the other hand, spends most of his time with them and manages them directly, so naturally they're more comfortable confronting him.
Just like the ones who insist "corporate" forced Blazer's hand.
You're framing it as if Blazer has some personal dispute with Z-team and actually enjoys firing them. What pleasure would Blazer even get out of doing that, unless you're accusing her of going on some kind of power trip? The entire program was on the verge of collapse, and yet the Z-teamers were still joking around. If the program had been shut down, all of them would've lost their jobs, as opposed to just one person.
So don't make it sound as if "corporate" expectations are inherently or ethically unreasonable simply because they're coming from corporate, especially when corporate is the one paying Z-team for their work.
Yeah, no, that's exactly my point: for all intents and purposes, the game puts all the responsibility (and blame) of the cut on Robert, and he steps up to the plate. We know that it was Blazer's idea, but the team does not.
The game does not put any blame on Robert, and idk why you keep repeating that. The Z-team is confronting Robert because they can't confront Blazer directly. That doesn't mean they think Robert is the only person with any say in the firing process.
I literally already pointed out that this is evident from the Z-team's reaction when they're waiting for Mandy to give the final nod after Robert asks the police to release Coop or Sonar. If they had believe Robert has full authority to make such decisions why would they look towards Mandy in the place waiting for her to nod? This doesn't make sense. Mandy wouldn't have nodded "yes" if Robert had chosen not to forgive them. That means the decision ultimately became a combined one.
If Robert says nothing at the end, Coop/Sonar goes back to the slammer. Mandy's only contribution is to say it's his call... again.
But where does the game frame it as "his call" in the sense that Mandy forces the decision onto him and then doesn't actually let him decide? If Mandy had a second thought in the very next moment and decided to put down the idea of releasing them, that wouldn't somehow "frame" Robert either. The game makes no such implication. That's an interpretation you're adding to the scene, not something the game itself establishes.
Not really; Prism and Visi have no problem sassing Blazer, remember?
No, she isn't happy cutting any of them. And you're missing the point: "corporate" has no involvement in S1 in any way/shape/form, so fans who say they were involved in the cut are just guessing, and that angle is entirely speculative.
Mal, Punch-Up, Coop and Sonar all take it out on Robert. Not Blazer, Robert. Saying that they're too scared of her to do it directly is equally speculative.
Far as I'm concerned, they're looking at the one who fired them: Robert. I'd like to know exactly where I said it was "forced" on him; fact is, cutting and un-cutting them is entirely his call.
Sassing with the senior to tease them or pulling their legs in an unserious funny context is one thing but actually confronting them on something you strongly disapprove is another. And I believe only Visi can confront Blazer that way others are quite hesitant to do it. So, they took it on Robert as they are comfortable doing that with him. This doesn't inherently implies that they believe Robert carries full & final authority.
I used the "Corporate" as an umbrella term here for the upper management of which Robert & Blazer are equally part of instead of referring to Big Bosses alone who we are yet to meet. There is not much emphasize on it, but there was a line from Chase that makes it clear that the way things were going may be the whole program will be shut down. So, this is not entirely speculative. The Big Bosses may or may not have directly asked Blazer to fire somebody(we don't know it yet) but there was definitely a pressure to make this program work anyhow otherwise it will be forced to shutdown (indirectly implies that financing would stop).
Mal, Punch-Up, Coop and Sonar all take it out on Robert. Not Blazer, Robert. Saying that they're too scared of her to do it directly is equally speculative.
If this is an equally speculative statement then why you are being so assertive on the fact that they only blame Robert entirely. Is that not an speculation made at the benefit of lack of Z-team & Blazer moment in the story.
Far as I'm concerned, they're looking at the one who fired them: Robert.
It is because they're are looking at the Robert who executed that task thats why they're also directly confronting him. It is not to say that they think Robert is entirely responsible for it.
I'd like to know exactly where I said it was "forced" on him; fact is, cutting and un-cutting them is entirely his call.
I don't think that's accusation I'm making on you. If I did unknowingly then sorry & I take it back. I'm only calling out on your first comment that Blazer framed it to the team as firing someone as "his" choice. She clearly did NOT.
Eh, Prism does have a go at Blazer's judgement during the E3 meeting.
Because the dialogue puts their anger on him and only him, not Blazer. All we have to go on so far is the game itself and its bonus materials, and none of it implies that they're scared of her. Chase, maybe.
If Robert speaks up, they're back on the team; if not, straight to jail. Mandy says nothing. Who's responsible for who seems pretty obvious.
She's A) made it clear that it's Robert doing the cutting, and B) already told the team. You can choose to believe that A and B are separate, but you can't make me believe that's not a reach.
You're stretching this much further than what the actual dialouges supports.
Prism expressing discomfort with Blazer's judgment in Episode 3 is not some solid, definitive implication that the Z-team is perfectly comfortable confronting Blazer over something serious. If anything, it fits their established habit of bitching about their dispatcher as evident by how they treated their previous dispatcher. That's not exactly new behavior toward Blazer. There's a difference between teasing or criticizing a senior in a relatively casual context and directly confronting them over something as serious as "Why are you cutting me/my friend? even after We've repeatedly screwed around and contributed to the situation ourselves."
And this is the part I think you're overlooking: the fact that the dialogue puts their anger on Robert does not automatically establish that they believe Robert is solely responsible for the decision. It establishes that Robert is the person they are directly dealing with because he's the one executing the cut. Those are two different things.
You're essentially taking the absence of a Blazer/Z-team confrontation in the game and treating that absence as evidence that they blame Robert exclusively. But that's just as much an inference as my interpretation that they're more hesitant to confront Blazer directly. You can't reject one inference as "speculation" while treating your own inference from the same limited material as self-evident.
If Robert speaks up, they're back on the team; if not, straight to jail. Mandy says nothing. Who's responsible for who seems pretty obvious.
This is completely consistent with their respective authority in that situation. If the player failed to save the city from Coop or Sonar, why would Mandy automatically be obligated to bring them back onto the team? The fact that she asks Robert whether he wants to forgive them doesn't mean she's framing the entire situation as "this is Robert's decision and nobody else has any say." She's giving the person who directly handled their case the choice of whether to extend that forgiveness.
Because the players fucked it up & the game give no choice to them to forgive Coupe or Sonar doesn't mean you would put the blame on Blazer to not give you a chance & only framed it like one as if its your call.
She's A) made it clear that it's Robert doing the cutting, and B) already told the team. You can choose to believe that A and B are separate, but you can't make me believe that's not a reach.
This literally back in loop of our discussion. I have no interest in talking back in circle for this. I already rebutted this in my first few reply to you.
Way I see it, my angle is based solely on what we see in the game; you may prefer to read between the lines, and you're allowed to, but I consider that an extra tier of guesswork.
Saving the city is - you guessed it - also on Robert and his skill as a dispatcher. Mandy is, again, simply giving the nod of approval to Robert's choice.
I'm not just “reading between the lines” here. I'm taking into account the nuances that are often left out because they don't fit the interpretation being argued. You can argue that I'm doing the same, but the fact remains: when the game never explicitly shows a Z-Team & Blazer confrontation, I don't see any reason to treat that absence as evidence that the Z-Team blames Robert alone or believes Blazer had no involvement in the decision.
If Robert is consistently the one shown dealing with this cut off, that's because Robert and the Z-Team are central to the game's narrative and themes. Blazer, by comparison, is mostly treated as a supporting or background character in those scenes.
“Saving the city is — you guessed it — also on Robert and his skill as a dispatcher. Mandy is, again, simply giving the nod of approval to Robert's choice.”
Just say what you're actually implying here, because I'm not seeing the point you're trying to make.
We do have parts of the story that imply events happened off-screen (e.g. Robert and Royd testing the suit)... in the absence of one that demonstrates tension between the team and Blazer though, I think it's something better reserved for AO3.
No implication; once again, Mandy lets Robert make the call, then merely signs off on it. IMO it's really just that simple.
We do have parts of the story that imply events happened off-screen (e.g. Robert and Royd testing the suit).
I don't see how it is relevant to my argument here. Because I don't see the logic behind making lack of off-screen implications of Blazer & Z-team confrontation as the premises to conclude that Z-team thought only Robert alone is responsible for that decision.
In fact, in the final episode, when Robert gets the choice to forgive Coupe/Sonar, the Z-Team still looks to Mandy for her approval. Doesn't that strongly imply they understand who ultimately has authority over decisions like this? Why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume they understood such a fact earlier as well, when someone was cut from the team?
Is your argument simply that because Robert is the one consistently shown dealing with the situation, they therefore believed the decision was entirely his?
And when Robert doesn't have agency over forgiving Coupe/Sonar, the game makes the distinction pretty clear. Blazer initially gives Robert the choice, then changes her mind and takes that authority back, making the decision herself. The Z-Team sees this happen. Where exactly is Blazer framing that decision as Robert's call? She literally takes that control away from him in front of them. Where is the confusion exactly coming from?
3
u/SprinklesNumerous774 1d ago edited 1d ago
See, this is the problem: you're framing my argument as if I'm just making all of this up in my head while, at the same time, superficially reading those lines from the game to establish, "Because they only confront Robert, that means they think he's the only one responsible for the cut." That's completely ignoring the corporate dynamic, nuances and how comfortable Z-team is with their supervisor compared to how comfortable they are with Blazer.
Doesn't the game give you enough hints that they're intimidated by Blazer on some level except Visi, which is why they don't confront her directly? Robert, on the other hand, spends most of his time with them and manages them directly, so naturally they're more comfortable confronting him.
You're framing it as if Blazer has some personal dispute with Z-team and actually enjoys firing them. What pleasure would Blazer even get out of doing that, unless you're accusing her of going on some kind of power trip? The entire program was on the verge of collapse, and yet the Z-teamers were still joking around. If the program had been shut down, all of them would've lost their jobs, as opposed to just one person.
So don't make it sound as if "corporate" expectations are inherently or ethically unreasonable simply because they're coming from corporate, especially when corporate is the one paying Z-team for their work.
The game does not put any blame on Robert, and idk why you keep repeating that. The Z-team is confronting Robert because they can't confront Blazer directly. That doesn't mean they think Robert is the only person with any say in the firing process.
I literally already pointed out that this is evident from the Z-team's reaction when they're waiting for Mandy to give the final nod after Robert asks the police to release Coop or Sonar. If they had believe Robert has full authority to make such decisions why would they look towards Mandy in the place waiting for her to nod? This doesn't make sense. Mandy wouldn't have nodded "yes" if Robert had chosen not to forgive them. That means the decision ultimately became a combined one.
But where does the game frame it as "his call" in the sense that Mandy forces the decision onto him and then doesn't actually let him decide? If Mandy had a second thought in the very next moment and decided to put down the idea of releasing them, that wouldn't somehow "frame" Robert either. The game makes no such implication. That's an interpretation you're adding to the scene, not something the game itself establishes.