The Walking Dead Season 6 Discussion

[hux]

Of course there's "a cost". No shit. But to inflate it to the point that it would be the end of everyone is ludicrous.

Well I'm glad we have at least reached a point of admitting... there was something to be lost in keeping him alive and it isn't a simple win/win situation.

The "cost" is manageable, it's one person's time to watch the guy for an hour and a bullet to get rid of him after. The information gained has to be weighed against that and nothing more. It would have been worth taking.

Based on the assumption that he's coherent and not going to lie to you (people who live in the woods and carving W's on their head being well-known for their honesty).

Also based on the assumption that he's got some kind of access to the brilliant strategists of his group. The risk is high specifically because you've got to deal with him and because you're very unlikely to get any worthwhile information.

Here's a question for you: What will your reaction be if it turns out the last guy Morgan dealt with is alive and a prisoner? We will be in the exact same situation as if Carol didn't kill the other guy. It'll be interesting to see if it would play out anything like you keep proclaiming.

I'm hoping that he was captured so that the information he provides is highlighted as worthless and then the dilemma of killing him is played out. Will Morgan allow it, I wonder? Will he step aside and it will be a quick and non-noteworthy death that doesn't cause a rift or have any consequences as some people claim?

 

[sojourner]

Of course there's "a cost". No shit. But to inflate it to the point that it would be the end of everyone is ludicrous.

Well I'm glad we have at least reached a point of admitting... there was something to be lost in keeping him alive and it isn't a simple win/win situation.

The "cost" is manageable, it's one person's time to watch the guy for an hour and a bullet to get rid of him after. The information gained has to be weighed against that and nothing more. It would have been worth taking.

Based on the assumption that he's coherent and not going to lie to you (people who live in the woods and carving W's on their head being well-known for their honesty).

Also based on the assumption that he's got some kind of access to the brilliant strategists of his group. The risk is high specifically because you've got to deal with him and because you're very unlikely to get any worthwhile information.

Here's the key thing. without questioning, you won't know. Period. The information gained has to be weighed separately from whether its a good decision to at least try. You keep advocating burying your head in the sand.

You can't address an issue without attempts to learn about the issue.

Can you at least admit that information is useful? At all?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Regardless of the situation and of what you should or should not be doing, information is always useful. It's better to know what you're up against, what to expect and what/when to expect it than to just "expect something" and then be blindsided on what it is and when it comes.

You insist on ignoring how much they have learned:

• The Wolves' manner of invading / attacks on ASZ and Noah's neighborhood.
• The Wolves' zombie /truck trap.
• Their explanation / motives as explained to Morgan in season 5
• the location of the zombie / truck trap, which let's the heroes know that the Wolves must be a larger group to have overrun one town, and also know how to lure / trap unsuspecting victims.

With that amount of experience, the sereis writers would be contradicting this information to have them resort of a state of ignorance--then send valuable people out on some mission they are ill-prepared to handle in territory they do not know.

Yes, the Alexandrians should already be fortifying their walls, having more competent look outs and people with more competency with fire-arms; because there's always threats out there whether it be walkers or people. But in this instance they *know* there's a specific group of people out there doing harm that happened to raid their town when all of the more experienced people and men were away and for all they know this could be a regular occurrence, the opening salvo before a much larger attack, and on top of being prepared for anything they should now be prepared for anything AND for what the motives behind this group is. Was this just dumb luck? They happened across the info on the town and happened to arrive just when all of the men and capable and competent able-bodied adults where away? This was a fluke not likely to repeat?

What are you missing? They have history of / with the nature of Wolf attacks from Noah's town, and the ASZ attack. Again, the zombie truck trap--which they are aware of--also shows that they are more than some small, rag-tag gang like Joe's Claimers. You cannot continue to ignore this information, all to argue against Carol's correct action with the bound Wolf. ...and on that note....

And they can't know because Carol killed the bound, unconscious -or easily made so- person who could potentially provide them the answers.

Where is your evidence to continue thinking that rambling wolf would provide anything--other than more insane gibberish?

Once again, if the sane powerless and/or captive (Terminus Mary & Martin) refused to volunteer information, what makes you think someone who only spewed gibberish and was wild--would be an interrogation success story?

It's hard for a truly, madly, insane person to act sane. Like the Wolf who plead with Carl before Carl had to put him down, or the brief interaction we saw between in-disguise Carol and one of the other Wolves. So, I'd say there's a bit more evidence the "insanity" is mostly an act and they're more organized and competent than generally let-on at first glance.

I suggested it might be a mask of sorts days ago, but that does not mean they are still not psychologically unhinged, given their conscious adoption of utter barbarity. That's not like being trained for a retail job. Murder, mutilating human bodies, and dismemberment has no connection to being clinically sane.

You over-prepare for an attack that never comes ontop of making your general preparations to make the area more secure.

There's no such things as over-preparation in a world where lawless humans and zombies are always roaming around.

 

[sojourner]

Ever heard the expression "preparing for the last war"? That's what you advocate by not seeking information.

 

[hux]

Can you at least admit that information is useful? At all?

Of course it is.

But Carol is assessing the situation (and presumably thinking back to prior experiences) and has come to the conclusion that...

A - These people are feral and unlikely to provide much worthwhile information.
B - Even if they weren't, they would probably lie.
C - Even if they weren't and they told the truth... why would we believe them (we wouldn't).
D - Keeping anyone alive will present a risk (even if small).
E - Keeping anyone alive will result in a dilemma of killing them or letting them walk (which would present a big risk and a rift in the group).

I totally agree with her.

I really hope the kid at the end is alive because it will inevitably lead to a problem for the group. Morgan has made it clear that he doesn't want to kill (he even let one of them go earlier) so the idea that they get some information from him (useful or not) then just kill him (without any negative consequences) is not in keeping with what we've seen. We know Morgan will be against that. We know it will become an issue.

I think the Wolf kid probably is alive so we should get answers to both those questions.

 

[sojourner]

The problem with Carol's assessments is that by killing the guy, you'll never know if she was right.

 

[theenglish]

Does anybody actually know an outline of the plan for the first half of the season? Are we going to basically get the comic story line or will that be resolved quickly and we move on?

 

[hux]

The problem with Carol's assessments is that by killing the guy, you'll never know if she was right.

She might turn out to be wrong but I'm totally in her corner and think it was the right move given the circumstances.

Morgan might have made a big mistake by letting that guy go.

And let's not forget Rick. He didn't exactly plan ahead in case they were attacked while so many of them were busy herding zombies.

Come to think of it, why didn't anyone hear the shots? There were quite a few of them before the tuck horn started.

 

[sojourner]

Come to think of it, why didn't anyone hear the shots? There were quite a few of them before the tuck horn started.

Probably an oversight by the continuity person.

 

[Trekker4747]

Can you at least admit that information is useful? At all?

Of course it is.

But Carol is assessing the situation (and presumably thinking back to prior experiences) and has come to the conclusion that...

A - These people are feral and unlikely to provide much worthwhile information.
B - Even if they weren't, they would probably lie.
C - Even if they weren't and they told the truth... why would we believe them (we wouldn't).
D - Keeping anyone alive will present a risk (even if small).
E - Keeping anyone alive will result in a dilemma of killing them or letting them walk (which would present a big risk and a rift in the group).

I totally agree with her.

I doubt Carol's thinking was nearly that deep. It was more "these people are a threat no matter what and must be killed."

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Sorry, but you're the one not getting it. Yes, in an ideal world they SHOULD have already done all those things. They didn't.

Now, they know an attack is imminent and they likely have a limited amount of time to prepare for it. That means PRIORITIZING preparations if at all possible (IE, if you have decent information about what's coming right now). If you can't get that information, then you can't get it. Tough luck, oh well. But to not even try to get that information when the opportunity is presented on a silver platter is dumb.

You're still not getting it. Attack is ALWAYS imminent. That's what Rick has been telling them. It's coming. The Wolves being the ones to attack on this occasion is utterly irrelevant. Again, nothing that they learn about the Wolves will compel them to do anything that they shouldn't already be doing. Nothing.

Let's make it simple. Assuming the captured Wolf wasn't spouting gibberish or... you know... just lying, let's say he tells you the (coherent) truth. There are 78 more of them in the woods and they intend to attack next week coming from the south. What does this information compel you to do that you shouldn't already be doing? Learning to shoot? learning to fight? Fortifying the wall? Better lookouts? More vigilance? What?

That's. The. Point.

I'll make this my last word on the subject, since I hate to kill anyone's thread and the conversation will presumably move on anyway with the new episode:

"Attack is ALWAYS imminent" is a completely meaningless statement.

No matter how many times you try to imply that the universal imminence of danger makes specific preparations useless, it remains a ridiculous claim. I always have to pay my bills every month, but it is still highly useful to me to know WHICH bills have to be paid in WHICH order on WHICH dates. And - in a time where I've allowed myself to get into a bad situation of possibly not being able to do what I need to do, as the Alexandrians have, that information is 1000 times more important, and most definitely can make the difference between squeaking by and going under.

When you have a big town to defend against an unknown attack that will come in an unknown amount of time, you do your best to make every preparation possible. But you will almost certainly not have the time to make every preparation possible. That is why prioritizing on the basis of information can save your life.

It's not even remotely a question of whether attack is always imminent or of the fact that the Alexandrians should never have allowed themselves to get to this point in the first place (Of course they shouldn't have, but it is quite literally far too late to change that). It is a question of whether they're better off reinforcing the wall first and leaving the roadblocks for later, or whether doing the opposite might save lives if the wolves come back with trucks before the preparations finish. (Obviously on a much more complex scale)

Information matters. Period.

 

[hux]

"Attack is ALWAYS imminent" is a completely meaningless statement.

In a zombie apocalypse? No, it really isn't.

No matter how many times you try to imply that the universal imminence of danger makes specific preparations useless, it remains a ridiculous claim.

When danger is constant and the defence against it is not in a position to cater for specifics then no, universal preparation is as good as it's gonna get. Aside from assuming that the information is worthwhile (and why would you make such an assumption?), your reaction to it is still dependent upon what you can do; not what you should do.

If building a giant lookout station with a flame thrower attached is your best defence against what's coming, not having a giant lookout station or a flame thrower becomes a huge factor in your decision making. You can only prepare for something.

That is why prioritizing on the basis of information can save your life.

You're prioritising based on the word of an enemy (why would you do that?). If the total opposite of what you expect happens then your prioritising has suddenly cost you lives. You don't prioritise based on the enemy's Intel. You prioritise based on yours.

At this point, the only Intel they have is that the Wolves are willing to attack gun carrying people with knives. They're not exactly what you'd call civilised. They're not nearly as organised as they should/could be and if they really wanted Alexandria, they would have sent far more people than what they did.

Information matters. Period.

No, "useful" information matters.

 

[Scout101]

And if you fail to even gather the information, how do you know whether it's useful or not? Kinda where the argument falls apart, no?

 

[hux]

Whatever information you gather is only useful if you use it. E.g you intend to go on the offensive. If you intend to defend then it's not useful no matter what it is. Knowing that there's 50 coming from the west on Tueaday or 500 coming from the north on Wednesday doesn't affect what you are defensively capable of doing.

 

[sojourner]

^Well, you know on tuesday to concentrate your forces on the west wall and on wednesday to concentrate your forces on the north wall. for one thing.

But what if you find out the ones coming on tuesday are going to use trucks to ram the gates and the ones coming on wednesday are going to try to dig under the wall quietly before the attack? Still going to use the exact same defensive tactics against them? Which is what exactly? Beyond the mantra of "be prepared for everything", which is an impossibility.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Information can often be important. But the simple fact is that it comes down to a really basic cost-benefit analysis.

Do you take prisoners in the heat of battle? The answer is no. Yes, he was already tied up, but as has been mentioned several times already, taking any time to watch him is time better spent elsewhere. Several lives may have been saved by Morgan.

Do you take prisoners when you may be outnumbered? The answer there is also no. You really only do this when you have a clear upper hand, and that was not yet established.

If those two circumstances are different, then by all means, take a prisoner. But even then, this group has had some bad experiences with prisoners. There are a plethora of issues with taking them, especially those that we will see on a TV show with TV show logic. TV shows don't take prisoners unless they're meant to escape or cause issues. It's just how it goes. We said a couple weeks ago that the writers are going to dictate that these situations will cause danger, and so most of us know that taking a prisoner in this case is a bad idea. It doesn't matter how restrained he is or that basically anyone can watch him, it being TV would necessitate that he cause some sort of problem, whether it's escaping and killing someone, or causing conflict between the green Alexandrians and Rick's group.

So if you're willing to ignore all of the above, then yeah, information could prove to be beneficial to some degree. But personally, I doubt it would be any degree sufficient to warrant risking other lives in the heat of battle. I think that's where it comes down to opinion. How many more people would've been killed if Morgan had stayed with the prisoner? How many lives could potentially be saved provided they got any reasonable intel?

I agree that there are different types of defense for different situations, but they pretty much know the situation, don't they? They know that these people don't have guns, they know that they're nearby, and they know that they have trucks that they can crash into the wall. Knowing all of that is good, but they really can't change their defenses on short notice. This isn't long-term full-scale war, it's a skirmish. For whatever information they've gained, their tactics in this matter are not likely to vary that much. They are going to shoot from the tower and gate, and hole up in the houses. They don't really have many resources currently to do much else, particularly anything specific, unless it was a prolonged war situation.

And further, I'm not sure if the wolves have a plan. It would be nice to know if they did (both as a viewer and as a character), but I think this was it. The plan was to attack and slaughter, perhaps even while the others were away. I don't think they were planning on losing as they had done this type of attack several times before successfully. Maybe they will regroup and attack, but I get the feeling now that the horde may keep them from doing so. It might even prevent them from escaping. I don't think they were counting on that, and I don't think they had contingency plans. Of course, it's unlikely for Carol or the others to know any of that, but it's just one of many reasons that at this point interrogation could be futile.

My own personal opinion is that it would've been better if Carol or someone knocked the prisoner out (being restrained is not enough). Yes, it could lead to the aforementioned prisoner issues, but it's the decision I would gravitate towards. It might be the wrong decision though, and I fully understand Carol's actions. I don't think they were wrong per se, but it's not what I would've chosen.

And I think it's silly to boil the situation down to being a Carol lover if you believe that. I disagree with several things that Carol has done, especially the execution of the sick. I don't think that she can do no wrong, and I think her actions here are purposely ambiguous so as to create debate, and that's something I love about this show. I wish people here (on both sides of the issue) would just discuss more in good faith though rather than being so hostile. Such is the internet I guess. I understand the arguments for getting information, I just think they're perhaps coming from the point of view that we're rational human beings living in a relatively comfortable society. The world they live in, they are forced to make such decisions. However, I think that only a handful of characters would've made the same decision as Carol. Rick, for sure. Probably Abraham and Sasha. Some others may be questionable, but there are certainly more that would not, even just considering Rick's group.

I am curious to see what actually happened with the wolf at the end, whether Morgan killed him or not. Unfortunately, I doubt we're going to see any of that this episode. By the previews, it seems like this one is going to focus solely on those outside in the first episode. We'll probably get a snippet of Alexandria, but probably no Carol or Morgan. I think I heard that the 4th episode was potentially going to focus on some flashbacks for Morgan. That's probably when we're going to get some resolution to that matter. It would make sense if we see what led him down the path to not killing people before whatever decision he's made.

If he indeed didn't kill him and only knocked him out, I'm not entirely opposed to them trying to get some information out of them, but that's purely from a viewer curiosity standpoint. I don't care much for unexplained crazy, and would like to delve more into how such a large group of nutters could exist. I don't think we're going to get that though.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

"Attack is ALWAYS imminent" is a completely meaningless statement.

It is a valid statement as it supports the importance of the ASZ doing as Rick, Carol, et al., have believed from the start. If the ASZ natives had "Attack is always imminent" as their motto, instead of the political country club as encountered, the Wolves' attack would have been reduced to less than half--or perhaps no causalities at all.

When you have a big town to defend against an unknown attack that will come in an unknown amount of time, you do your best to make every preparation possible. But you will almost certainly not have the time to make every preparation possible. That is why prioritizing on the basis of information can save your life.

They have information from real experience before arriving at ASZ, more since that time. It is a patently false augment to for anyone to fight against one, gibberish-spewing killer being executed (and there's no evidence he would provide any information at all), but conveniently ignore the wealth of experiences--information gathered by the heroes.

Information matters. Period.

They have information...but somehow a gigantic leap about the executed wolf's value mean more than all the heroes have learned.

 

[Trekker4747]

If those two circumstances are different, then by all means, take a prisoner. But even then, this group has had some bad experiences with prisoners. There are a plethora of issues with taking them, especially those that we will see on a TV show with TV show logic. TV shows don't take prisoners unless they're meant to escape or cause issues. It's just how it goes. We said a couple weeks ago that the writers are going to dictate that these situations will cause danger, and so most of us know that taking a prisoner in this case is a bad idea. It doesn't matter how restrained he is or that basically anyone can watch him, it being TV would necessitate that he cause some sort of problem, whether it's escaping and killing someone, or causing conflict between the green Alexandrians and Rick's group.

So... they shouldn't have captured him because they should know they're in TV show and TV show logic applies; so capturing him would mean inevitable arguments and the risk of him escaping and being an even bigger problem?!

That's..... That's some bizarre logic, not even sure what to make of it. The characters made the right decision because they're in a TV show and making the other decision means they're beholden to TV show conventions.... I..... I..... Don't even know how to process this I need a few minutes.......

 

[Ryan8bit]

If those two circumstances are different, then by all means, take a prisoner. But even then, this group has had some bad experiences with prisoners. There are a plethora of issues with taking them, especially those that we will see on a TV show with TV show logic. TV shows don't take prisoners unless they're meant to escape or cause issues. It's just how it goes. We said a couple weeks ago that the writers are going to dictate that these situations will cause danger, and so most of us know that taking a prisoner in this case is a bad idea. It doesn't matter how restrained he is or that basically anyone can watch him, it being TV would necessitate that he cause some sort of problem, whether it's escaping and killing someone, or causing conflict between the green Alexandrians and Rick's group.

So... they shouldn't have captured him because they should know they're in TV show and TV show logic applies; so capturing him would mean inevitable arguments and the risk of him escaping and being an even bigger problem?!

That's..... That's some bizarre logic, not even sure what to make of it. The characters made the right decision because they're in a TV show and making the other decision means they're beholden to TV show conventions.... I..... I..... Don't even know how to process this I need a few minutes.......

That's not what I said, even remotely. I said that we debate situations from our own framework of knowing how these shows go (see bolded parts above). It happened after the first episode where we said that there could have been better ways to divert the herd. It doesn't matter if there was a better way because no matter what, the writers are going to make problems happen. Nothing good will come of anything. Them not taking a prisoner? They maybe didn't learn something that could've helped. Taking a prisoner? There are many ways this could and would go wrong. What I said there doesn't specifically have to do with character decisions and motivations, or what's the reasonable thing to do. It just means that there is no wrong or right in this debate. People keep insisting that, but it's not true because of that. Don't read into more than is actually there.

 

[Trekker4747]

Then you miss the point of these types of discussions. Because OF COURSE NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO THE STORY IS GOING TO MAKE WHATEVER NEEDS TO HAPPEN HAPPEN FOR THE SAKE OF DRAMA!!!!

You are guilty of Meta-posting. That's posting about a topic and trying to use real-world logic to explain it rather than using in-universe logic. "Why didn't the Enterprise use the same technique they did in episode to avoid the threat?" "Well, because the writers didn't remember it or ignored it for the sake of telling a good story."

You've now crashed your end of this discussion, once you explain things by using real-world logic you lose.