Posts from Forum Auto-translated

In reality, it is simply a division into "us" and "them." This concept is applied in our state (and not only in ours), and has also been applied throughout the millennia of human history, but in reality, it is just kindergarten. A wise ruler (and there have been very few truly wise rulers in human history) does not react to the conditioned 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 noobs" was not recognized as a conditioned 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 in order 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.

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 groups:

1) The support group. People whose goals coincide with the boss's goals, both strategically and tactically.

There are few conflicts within this group, discussions are constructive and closed, and from the outside, this group looks like a single entity.

2) Systemic opposition. People whose goals coincide with the boss's goals at the level of general principles (where are we going), but may differ tactically (how and at what speed are we going).

Conflicts do occur, but discussions are usually constructive and open, reduced to finding a consensus, and if this is not possible, then at least to 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 unconstructive, consensus is impossible in principle, although in some cases a tactical compromise is possible (a temporary truce).

4) Anti-elite. Revolutionaries and conspirators of all kinds.

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 it perceives 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 immediately agree (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 also end up on the list of non-systemic people.

If the systemic opposition cannot independently draw a line between itself and the non-systemic opposition, then the boss must draw this line on his own initiative. The task of the non-systemic opposition is, accordingly, the opposite - to attach itself to the systemic opposition as much as possible, to impose its own agenda on it.

Phew... I think I managed... I'll read it again later and maybe correct it where I formulated it poorly.

You know what your mistake is.

The thing is, all your examples with the boss, power, and various "oppositions" imply that all participants in this structure want to take the boss's place.

I know. Marcus Aurelius hit the nail on the head with one of his quotes, which is slightly above. I won't say which one.

But you missed the mark...

In the scheme described above, there is no power struggle (except for point 4, which is rare); it is purely a battle of ideas. Which can be pursued equally successfully from any of the positions described.

Let me reveal a small secret to you: in healthy teams, the power struggle is not conducted at all most of the time. Often, the person at the top of the formal hierarchy is there by chance, and everyone is okay with it.

But the battle of ideas in a living, developing team is almost always ongoing.

I'm too lazy to even comment on these ideas in a purely theoretical context. In the power structures described in your "scheme," there is always a struggle for power and a higher position. And "healthy" groups where money and power are involved are more of an exception or exist in small groups. And even such exceptions will quickly fall apart or lose a significant number of their members if the person who "happened to take the top spot in the formal hierarchy" starts making decisions based solely on their own understanding, disregarding the opinions of the other participants during the execution of, for example, a contract. Or do you think that everyone will accept what they signed up for, such as a specific salary and a certain number of hours per week for that salary, and then the boss decides to cut the salary in half and double the number of hours? And all those who disagree are "non-systemic opposition," and their opinions should never be taken into account, because otherwise, they might hinder further abuse and prevent you from enjoying yourself, right?
You are behaving in a similar way, changing the rules to suit your desires in the middle of the tournament.

One must be vigilant and sufficiently detached to understand what people truly 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.

Consider this: I've been running tournaments for 10 years, but the conflict only arose now. How does your theory explain this fact? :)

This is easily explained by the fact that people are mostly ungrateful. You can do everything perfectly for 100 years, but after a few controversial decisions, from the people's point of view, you suddenly become the main enemy, and old merits are somehow quickly forgotten. I have experienced this many times. And I don't even need to look far; you yourself have often tried to throw mud at me when you had the chance. :smile19:

Come on, you yourself have often tried to throw mud at me when you had the chance. :smile19:

I really like the idea of a "Game of Thrones" tournament! Wicc, please organize it for the third game, not for a "game-containing product"!
In return, I promise to forgive all ego trips, all rule changes during the tournament, and even "breaks with reality," and I'll even bark at all the dissatisfied! :-)