Posts from Forum

There's a concept called balance between chaos and order. When there's too much chaos and not enough order on a forum, it's just as bad as when there's too much order and not enough chaos. It seems to me that the balance has been slightly lost on all the Heroes-related resources – both in the HotA group and here. Too much order also becomes unbearable sooner or later. More chaos, gentlemen! :)

I've thought about it deeply... I'll consider this idea...

by the way, has anyone thought about automating tournaments in Heroes 100%?
You enter certain parameters, and it all starts.

by the way, has anyone thought that tournaments in Heroes could be 100% automated?
You enter certain parameters, and it all starts.

I think sooner or later, such functionality will appear in the Baratorcha lobby...

As promised, I finally gathered my thoughts and put into words what has always seemed so obvious to me that it didn't need to be verbalized... So, let's say there's a boss – a king/president/foreman on a construction site (it doesn't depend on the form of power) – and he has a certain number of people under his command. In the boss's eyes, this group is divided into several categories: 1) The support group. People whose goals align with the boss's goals, both strategically and tactically. There are few conflicts within this group; discussions are constructive and private; from the outside, this group appears as a single entity. 2) Systemic opposition. People whose goals align with the boss's goals at the level of general principles (where we are going), but may differ tactically (how we get there and at what speed). Conflicts do occur, but discussions are usually constructive and open, aimed at finding consensus, and if that is not possible, at least at finding a compromise. That is, a normal public political process. 3) Non-systemic opposition. People whose goals diverge from the boss's goals. Conflicts are chronic; discussions are unproductive; consensus is impossible in principle, although in some cases a tactical compromise (a temporary truce) is possible. 4) Anti-elite. Revolutionaries and all sorts of conspirators. 5) Neutrals. Those who do not fall into the above groups. One of the basic management principles is not to make concessions to the non-systemic opposition. Because they perceive these concessions not as a reason to seek consensus/compromise, but as a reason to continue the pressure, to try to get the next portion of concessions. Therefore, when a claim arises from this group, you either have to agree immediately (if the claim is reasonable) or stand your ground. For this reason, it is extremely unproductive for the systemic opposition to cooperate with the non-systemic opposition – the effect will be at the lower limit, and you can even end up on the list of non-systemic actors yourself. If the systemic opposition cannot independently draw a line between itself and the non-systemic opposition, then the boss must initiate this separation. The task of the non-systemic opposition is, accordingly, the opposite – to attach itself to the systemic opposition as much as possible and impose its agenda on it. Whew... I think I managed to get through that... I'll reread it later and maybe correct it where I formulated it poorly.

But, as usual, the mistake is made at the very core. First, there's an explanation of why the goals are formulated the way they are. And only then comes "all this," all this fuss with factions, which, in fact, one could perfectly well do without.
This entire text doesn't answer a single truly important question.
For example, why is Boomerang chosen instead of Spider for the "Game of Thrones - 2" map, based on what ideological principles, and why are these principles correct?

But the mistake, as always, is made at the very foundation. First, we need to consider the reasons why goals are formulated in the way they are. And only then comes "all this," all this petty squabbling between factions, which is actually unnecessary.

I considered a scenario where the goals already exist, and all players act within their framework. Where they came from is a separate question. How these goals change is also a separate question.

So, "in this life," I've been on the forum for just under two years. And during that time, Vikk, all the tension surrounding you arises from the fact that you consider the goals you've announced to be immutable axioms, while again and again, people look at them and sincerely wonder – what part of their body did they need to use to think in order to come up with such nonsense?

And they ask you (well, the further it goes, the less they ask, because...).
Instead of answering, you start thinking that this is a non-systemic opposition that cannot be compromised with. At the same time, you don't even notice the meaning of the questions.
And that meaning, the meaning of those questions, has nothing to do with this mouse-like fuss about one-two-three-four-five, which you have described.

This is what is meant by "goals diverge." I have explained my goals and why they are what they are many times. The further we go, the less I explain – those who don't understand after three attempts probably won't understand at all. Refer to the algorithm above.

This is what is called a global fear of the world due to the inability to think and see meaning. And from this comes the "closedness of a group of like-minded people" (the first point in the list), thinking instead of using the language of meaning, using the language of "us vs. them," which you described, and turning all discussions from a search for truth into power struggles.

You're steering the discussion in the wrong direction. I described a standard mechanism that works everywhere – from a department within a company to international relations between states. Complaining about it is like fighting windmills. It simply exists as an inevitable fact, based on the deep-seated characteristics of human psychology. Therefore, it's more reasonable not to dwell on the fleeting nature of existence, but rather to understand how this existence is structured in order to develop an effective strategy for achieving one's goals.

The point is that Vik's tournaments are not just a competition with an organizer/judge/rules and conditions controller, but a process with a somewhat expanded status – a relationship between a superior and a subordinate. This is precisely why the protesters disagree, and conflicts arise.

The point is that Vik's tournaments are not just a competition with an organizer/judge/rules controller; it's a process with a somewhat expanded status – a relationship between a superior and a subordinate. This is precisely why the protesting, disputes, and conflicts arise because some disagree with this.

A judge can be purely a rules controller only if these rules have been established for a long time and were not created by them.

However, if the judge is also the author of the rules and changes them from time to time, then the processes described above inevitably begin.

A judge can only be a strict enforcer of the rules if those rules have been established for a long time and were not created by him.

However, if the judge is also the author of the rules and changes them from time to time, then the processes described above inevitably begin.

You are a bit confused about the norms of changes. Changes that carefully and not drastically affect the overall game, but rather fine-tune the balance (which is necessary), and Wicc's suggestions during a tournament to wipe everyone out instead of using toilet paper with sandpaper (to get rid of all the dissatisfied) is a very questionable topic, and justifications for it can always be found... just like various government agencies in our government do. I think it's time for you to go to Roskomnadzor.

In reality, it's a simple division into "us" and "them." This concept is applied in our society (and not only in ours), and has been applied throughout the millennia of human history, but in reality, it's just childish. A wise ruler (and there have been very few truly wise rulers in human history) does not react to the conditioned nature of the human mind and proceeds from common sense, rather than from systems and established concepts. Sooner or later, one has to leave all systems behind and discover something greater than any "foundations." Non-reaction does not mean saying, "I am above all this" and ignoring the needs of the people; it simply means separating human madness from real needs. For example, a large number of people participated in the M-200 Tournaments, and these tournaments truly brought life and joy to the forum, but the opinion of people that "M-200 is for newbies" was not recognized as a conditioned aspect of the human mind and became a generally accepted truth. People need these tournaments, despite any opinions to the contrary. As Lao Tzu said (whose teachings were used by many wise rulers): "A wise ruler looks at the people as he looks at his children." One must be vigilant and sufficiently detached to understand what people really need and to distinguish this from the temporary turmoil on the surface, from all these concepts and ideas that only obscure the truth instead of revealing it.

Regarding the discussions about templates and rules, much has already been said: if you fundamentally dislike something that the organizers have proposed, then don't sign up. A tournament is designed to put players in uncomfortable situations. Strength is revealed where it is difficult, stressful, and unpleasant, not in a familiar comfort zone. You can play exactly what you want and according to the rules you want at any time with a suitable opponent outside of any tournaments.