 |
| |
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
I'm looking for answers.
The Gaians thought I wasn't a valuable player, and the statements of others on this board seem to echo that opinion.
Why?
I have my own theories, but I'll see it from your perspective before drawing judgement.
I still have motive to be in this game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ouro_827
|
 |
Alaska
Feb 2004
time: 20:35
|
|
I have [blatent lie] nothing against anyone on these boards [/blatent lie] nor against you, Enigma, but you remind me of myself when I'm mad... you are individualistic, and controlling, and you admit such. That tends to clash with the whole 'team' mentality of a democratic faction...
Last edited by Ouro_827 on 23-04-2004 at 22:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003
time: 14:35
|
|
quote:
I'm looking for answers.
The Gaians thought I wasn't a valuable player, and the statements of others on this board seem to echo that opinion.
Why?
I have my own theories, but I'll see it from your perspective before drawing judgement.
I still have motive to be in this game.
|
Many of the people here wish for team play. They want to be involved, and some of them want to learn. Also people although many won't admit it are sensitive about what other people think of them, they don't like getting discourged from participating.
Also team play if done correctly can be inheriently stronger than any single person. It can be a check and balance against stupidity and lack of knowledage. One of the lecturers I know told a story of himself and a friend going to start a company. They visited some business analyst and were asked why they were working together. When they replied that they thought the same way, they were told it was a bad idea since having people that think differently is important for the success of a company.
If you want a real example of team play being stronger than being stronger than single play. I would like to thank Voltaire for helping make many of the difficult decisions ethicial decisions that would have frozen me up with worry if I was by myself. Honghu, for acting as an anchor that would pull back when things got too far offcourse, she also provided morale support for me when I was feeling down, and I used her to bounce ideas off. Rokossovky was helping me with war tactics early in the game. Talking with Micha helped remind me that playing the game isn't a life and death situation, and he also picked up various mistakes when he checked over one or two preturns. Jamski helped keep the game interesting, if it wasn't for many of his funny spam posts I probably would have quit the ACDG far earlier in frustration.
There's other people that contributed, like OctavianX and Vander handling much of the roleplay, although I know you don't think that's really that important. There's certainly other people I've missed.
Anyway to sum up different people have different skills and prespectives. When you don't allow them to contribute, even if you do feel that they can't contribute, then you won't have your own weaknesses offset by their strengths. My strengths in the game were the ability to trawl through strategy posts, patience with micromanagement, the willingness to put alot of time into the game and coming up with new ideas. Just those weren't enough to run the team alone, I also needed actual experience about the game, people that made difficult decisions, checks and balances to ensure ideas didn't go too far off track, and a team to provide morale support.
In my mind you are a valuable player, you provide different skills and prespectives from the majority of the players. You have a certain amount of boldness, truthfulness, patience with details, and a good focus on your goals. If people don't recongise that those very differences that they find distastful, are part of the strengths that would make their faction stronger then they don't understand all the concepts of team play.
Last edited by Kody on 24-04-2004 at 03:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
Maniac:
quote:
...inferior morons who don't recognize your true talents.  |
I erroneously scapegoat misjudgement,
but note a flaw in democracy.
There are different goals, and different paths to each goal.
Democracy is ill-informed and selfish.
It's better to talk to your team, understanding their goals and methods in the issue.
You can determine who needs to have influence and who can tolerate a disagreeable decision.
I have nothing against compromise, but Democracy isn't compromise; it's tyranny by majority.
Instead of everyone following their hearts, 49% of people have their dreams crushed by the other 51%
I don't think I'm above and beyond Teammates,
I think that I'm above and beyond Democracy.
Teamwork isn't about forcing people to work together, it's about giving people the opportunity to boost each-others' efforts.
Democracy puts everyone behind one goal.
Instead, we should all be behind each-other (or failing that, work away from those we cannot support)
HongHu:
quote:
My understanding is that you want to (or appear to want to) be a solo fighter |
What I want is the ability to follow my own heart without being blocked by the whims of men around me.
I typically move solo because a team tends to resist me more than assist me - though if a team were to assist me then teamwork would be desirable.
Individualism is no longer on my agenda.
I still, however, want my judgements to have effect - and to be appreciated for either.
In Democracy, the underlying assumption is that the Judgement of Enigma_Nova is just as valuable as anyone else's judgement, and that if I judge against the majority my judgement has no value.
I love my judgement (and so need to be loved for my judgement) much more than average,
therefore I dislike a system where every man is seen as equal.
It ignores a man's unique talents and desires - and for a person as different as I, that's a big truncation.
GeoModder:
quote:
sharing your game skills and opinions instead of forcing them through another ones throat. |
Yeah, I do that.
It's with intent to use my judgements to further my goals.
A corollary of my goals is to make a system where people are best able to follow their judgements (desires) and also are put to efficient use for the system.
So ATM I'm forceful, because I intend to use my judgements to break down the barricade that democracy represents to getting what we want.
Surely you notice the catch-22...
Because I, in my judgement, think a system should be more conducive to everyone's judgement...
But you, in your democracy, all vote that "If it's not broke, don't fix it".
But would you rather:
1. A system conducive to everyone's desires. or
2. A veteran system that you are used to?
You have to be the majority to support democracy,
and by supporting a system that ignores the desires of others, you are being selfish.
What gives me the opinion that I'm worthy of desigining a new system?
My personality is both creative and judgemental.
I am naturally evolved to be that way - and I trust the well-honed Evolution over narrow-minded Values.
I metacognate for fun - I make it my point to be highly skilled in creating abstract concepts.
I desire to do this, I'm talented about this, It's natural for me to do this.
That is my justification for my opinion.
In General:
Changing the team structure (exercising judgements) is vital to my desire to join a team.
It's the way a personality supports itself - you can support the liberal Enigma, or the conservative Democracy.
Personally, I think being held back by presumptions and orders is foolish - but that's self-supporting, too.
In the end, I'm aiming to support my personality.
But you already have a system that supports your personality.
So you could be your normal selves and stay put, or be open to other personalities and allow a system that is open to other personalities.
That was my theory for why I'm not supported.
To understand and accept me is part of my personality,
To ignore and order is part of your personality.
And I'm getting naturally annoyed for having my personality attacked.
After all, isn't a team about people of all personalities?
You're just pursuing yourself... whatever you do, it will be justified.
Though I do wish you'd love who I am a bit (lot) more. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vander
|
 |
Privateering in Idaho
May 2003
time: 22:35
|
|
I think that you're overlooking an important bit that is inherent in Democracy: We are all rational actors. We will follow logic and sound reasoning to the best goal, then agree on it as our course of action. Our numbers are small enough that we do not get a "masses" effect where there is a clear, constant majority (usually). We all act on our logic and reason to come to a conclusion about an issue as opposed to following the crowd.
A positive ramification of this is that if you, Enigma_Nova, have a good idea that your team agrees to, that they see as the best course of action, then they will rally behind it and use it as their course of action. So what democracy comes out to be on our little forum is a two fold entity: Deciding the proper course of action and then convicing others that it is the best course of action for the team.
You have good skills (l33t 5k177s, w00t!!) and they would be good for any faction. All this is necessary for you to do is to let your teammates know that your plans and strategies are the best. I think that you may not like to have to tell others that your ideas are the best, but it is something that all of us have to do. It is a necessary part of the teams, and of life.
The true leaders are not necessarily those who have the best ideas, but those who can best get other people onto their sides. having the best idea is more of a good addition than anything. I know it looks like a (pardon me) shitty system, and it is. But that is the way man has got along for a long time. Changing it would be like trying to make water flow uphill: It seems possible in theory, but not very practical in real life terms.
Vander
Novice Sociologist and Politiker extronannare
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
Even MY superior threadjacking skills cannot subvert the almighty wave of spam! :cry:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
So I take it nobody wants someone who's interested in Micromanagement, and having his place on the world stage?
I'm honest when it comes to diplomacy. Deal with it. :/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
Jamski - this was not worth the risk.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-04-2004 21:17
"Honesty" and "Truth" of which Enigma_Nova and others speak are concepts only used by misguided people who don't understand this universe only revolves around power.
I thought I had you shot, BOY! 
Who knows, at the end of this ACDG I'll look like this:
Maniac, had no idea you're a royalist... 
|