Talk:Cole Protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:08, September 4, 2013

Hope someone can answer this but, does the Cole Protocol apply to even the UNSC Prowlers which are never directly observed by the Covenant? Prowlers rarely break cover and in the past would never risk exposure to save even the dying crew of a crippled friendly ship. Prowlers occasionally operate in enemy territory and are never discovered or risk capture so you would think they would be allowed some leeway in this regard; this would be a greater benefit for these ships to not be bound by this restriction .

DARKSTORM99 13:55, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Wagner stated that he, "followed the Cole Protocol to the letter." And that, "ONI was always bending the Cole Protocol." In fact if the security council wanted to bust him for it, "all they had to do was check the time logged on his engines and do the math" (page 102). -- Lord Hyren 14:08, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that's from First Strike. -- Lord Hyren 14:09, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for clearing that up, though it does seem a little excessive for stealth craft, then again I wonder how far ONI bends the cole protocol if it could possibly appy to thisDARKSTORM99 14:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well let's see ... there was the prison ship in The Mona Lisa in Evolutions that had Covenant Sangheili prisoners on a ship with unsecured NAV (not to mention Flood).... -- Lord Hyren 14:27, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

yeah thats right, good story. I'm currently writing a fan fic following the story and eventual demise of a UNSC Prowler and its crew, just needing to iron out the details of what can and cant be done in regards to the cole protocolDARKSTORM99 15:32, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Bungie.net CAA Factbook

It seems that this version of the Protocol is worded pretty much totally differently. Have I missed something here? ---dky 09:57, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Odd. Though worded differently, they give out the same meaning and purpose. The CAA Factbook might have the public-version whereas the one in The Fall of Reach is the official military-version. However, looking back at the way it is structured, the Cole Protocol in The Fall of Reach is laid out like a letter (or announcement) whereas the one in the CAA Factbook is more official-worded.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 10:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Cole Protocol Post-war

Hey, does anybody know if the Cole Protocol was still in effect after the end of the first Human-Covenant War, and during the second human-Covenant war? I mean, the Covenant already knows the location of Earth, so is it still in effect, or not? --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 17:08, 4 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :Odd. Though worded differently, they give out the same meaning and purpose. The CAA Factbook might have the public-version whereas the one in The Fall of Reach is the official military-version. However, looking back at the way it is structured, the Cole Protocol in The Fall of Reach is laid out like a letter (or announcement) whereas the one in the CAA Factbook is more official-worded.- <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Subtank|<font color="gold"><font color="#FF4F00">5</font>əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7</font>aŋk</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Subtank|<font color="#FF4F00">7alk</font>]])</sup></font> 10:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
+==Cole Protocol Post-war==
+Hey, does anybody know if the Cole Protocol was still in effect after the end of the first Human-Covenant War, and during the second human-Covenant war? I mean, the Covenant already knows the location of Earth, so is it still in effect, or not? --'''''[[User:Xamikaze330|<span style="color:Black; font-family: Halo;">Xamikaze330</span>]]''''' <small>['''''[[User talk:Xamikaze330|<font color="Blue">Transmission</font>]]'''''|'''''[[Special:Contributions/Xamikaze330|<font color="Green">Commencing</font>]]''''']</small> 17:08, 4 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330