Talk:2553

The Gamma KIA situation

From Last Light:

“They’re also KIA,” Osman said. She craned her neck to look past Veta toward Fred. “I’m afraid it happened on this mission. You can decide how, Lieutenant.”

If it happened during the mission and Fred was able to come up with their cover stories, then it doesn't really follow that they'd have be marked KIA only months later. Catalog also said that "Catalog's answers are correct as of time of [publication], but users should be aware that reconciliation effects and integrity checks may alter specifics at a later time," so the idea always was that later, more definitive material could override the posts if need be. --Jugus (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2016 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure Osman didn't file the paperwork, so to speak, right then and there in the owl. It must have just taken time to go through official channels. There is no need to assume a retcon when it isn't necessary. -Japeth555

Even if she didn't file the paperwork right there, I can't see it taking three months to list someone as KIA. Especially for ONI. To me "it happened on this mission" is fairly conclusive evidence for a retcon in and of itself; how could Fred even have come up with believable cover stories when they'd been removed from his command for months? --Jugus (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2016 (EDT)

The details of the mission probably didn't get published, or what have you, until September either. I disagree about changing this, but if you do then at least add a note, I guess. —This unsigned comment was made by Japeth555 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

If that's the case, I suppose it's possible. My point was that their KIA dates would still read July regardless of when the changes were added to the official record, so it's a question of which is more worthy of note - their KIA date and the decision to list them as KIA (which occurred right after JOVIAN WHISTLE regardless), or the date that change supposedly went into effect (September, according to Catalog). I would prefer mentioning the matter in the July section simply because of its relevance to the preceding events, though I'm not entirely against retaining the claim that their status was not changed until September as long as it's clear they were "KIA" during JOVIAN WHISTLE. --Jugus (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2016 (EDT)

I agree. Mention in July that it was determined they would be listed as KIA, join the ferrets, etc. Then, in September, their status was officially changed to KIA. That doesn't mean that they were listed as having died in September, of course. That just means that's when the information was published or or somewhat declassified or what have you then. Their status would still read "KIA in July". -Japeth555