Talk:Algolis Invasion

Cole Protocol is less important then the laws of robotics?
even if UNSC AI did follow the three laws of robotics(which i dont belive they do, not as "laws" anyway) wouldn't Cole Protocol override them?VanFlyhight 20:34, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would assume so as this will be a major flaw within the Cole Protocol if the Covenant ever exploit it (From the beginning, we know the end!) and knowing Cole's personality based from the novel, he would most likely include some directives which allows the AI to override the Laws of Robotics. Seeing that readers were only shown a fraction of the Cole Protocol, the author (Fred Van Lente) decided to exploit this gap/hole.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 20:54, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankie wrote MitHOM, not Van Lente :P. As for the Cole Protocol being more important than the laws, it was stated that Mo Ye would've been able to override the laws had she been able to function normally, but the Covenant had cut off access to most of her functions and thus, preventing her from doing it.--Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 12:18, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Authors... people remember the story but not the ones who wrote them.. :P
 * I was referring as the Covenant boarded the ship. Why didn't Mo Ye refer to the Protocol when she realised the Covenant was about to disconnect her? Faulty AI perhaps? :O -  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 14:36, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the story in a while, but didn't Mo Ye state that Heart of Midlothian lost power or something tantamount to that? If so, then she could have gone off-line before the Covenant started to dissect her. But you're right Subtank, if not it is a major plot hole. >_< -- Lord Hyren 19:48, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * If she had gone offline, she wouldn't be able to be active and inform Baird of the situation. Even if the ship rebooted its power, one needs to ask: why didn't Mo Ye followed her directives to perform the Cole Protocol microseconds/milliseconds after becoming online again? Again, faulty AI perhaps?-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 20:10, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * If Mo Ye was a smart AI, it's possible she's near rampancy, but that seems to me too simple an explanation. - Lord Hyren 04:29, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is explained when she first wakes Baird up. She was observing the surgery, and when the power got cut to her core she was divided. Main processes in the core, minor runtimes in the med bay. ProphetofTruth 16:52, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Post 2530 or 2535?
I know we can confidently state that the Cole Protocol was taken into effect after Cole invented it, but as late as 2535 in this instance? I'm not so sure, since it appears that the protocol was accepted uniformly throughout the UNSC Navy in 2531 (as Cole wrote the protocol in December, 2530). And since the appearances of the Battle of Algolis focus on UNSC military instillations/vessels I think we can still assume that the battle could have taken place between 2531-2534 (i.e. post-2530). I didn't want to just change in case the previous editor had a more in depth case for keeping the battle post-2535. -- Lord Hyren 06:24, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Halo: The Cole Protocol, set in 2535, revolves around the enforcement of the protocol, which has just come into effect. The protocol that Cole wrote in 2530 was the first draft to be sent to Margaret O. Parangosky for approval. -  Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  00:06, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

True, but we we know the Protocol had been enacted for some time prior to the novel's beginning. What we don't know is how much time. -- Lord Hyren 16:03, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Rename
Is "Battle of Algolis" ever actually used anywhere? RoA uses "Algolis Invasion"TheEld (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (EDT)TheEld


 * I'll move it when I get on my PC. We tend to have general names of stuff if no official name is given.-CIA391 (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Just want to confirm, does RoA capitalize "Invasion"?-- 14:58, 19 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Hard to say. The entire font is all in capitals so its rendered as "ALGOLIS INVASION". -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 15:23, 19 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Where does it mention it? AlertFiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 16:40, 19 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Page 2 in the intro. Mentioned in the objective, 6th line. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 18:48, 19 October 2017 (EDT)