Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Your conversation is interesting not in terms of achieving mutual understanding between you (I don't think there's much chance of that, just like there is for me with Vik), but so that others can learn about each of your thought processes and decide what resonates with them.
It's become completely uninteresting. Who even reads these long texts? Long texts are not well-received, and what's the point of them anyway? Everyone will figure things out on their own.
Vik, the example with the "drunken Jebus" is very bad, and you won't find an example that is adequate to the situation that caused all the fuss. Fast paths on X3DM1 are just a joke and nothing more. Introducing a rule about unearthing main heroes is also, to put it mildly, not about the presence or absence of dead units on the respawn point. Honestly, I have never seen Dirty say that "The host has the right, if necessary, to make any changes to the regulations and rules during the tournament." But if that's the case, then I strongly disagree with the word "any" in this postulate, because you can take it to the extreme. In theory, the actions of the tournament host should also be somehow regulated and limited by someone. After all, we are playing a game that takes a lot of time, and you can understand a person who has already played 3-4 games in a tournament, and then they introduce a rule that he strongly disagrees with.
Vik, the example with the "drunk Jebus" is very bad, and you won't find an example that adequately reflects the situation that caused all the fuss.
It's possible to come up with a more appropriate example. I just didn't feel like it, so I came up with a similar one. The principle itself is important here – how to handle such situations.
The clash of desires and opinions of different people is a perfectly normal situation. Therefore, humanity has developed a large arsenal of tools for dealing with such situations – subordination, negotiation, democratic procedures, and much more. And the more socially developed a group is, the more effectively it applies this toolkit to achieve consensus/compromise.
I used to think that speaking about oneself in the third person is something only women do... :D
Коротко о себе: спесивый сноб Чуть длиннее: Фонд Дендроидов ------------------------------------------------------------- На ощупь пьют эльфийские стрелки! Нам это идеально подходит (c) Это вам не шутки - нажрался Дуст в маршрутке! (с) Пишите на udd@otso.city Твиттер СНГ
To effectively use the tools you keep mentioning, mere imagination isn't enough; you're no longer a practitioner and are creating a lot of nonsense, viewing everything from your own narrow perspective. P.S. The posts have become so long that probably only Alfain and the guy with the horse avatar are reading them.
The argument is certainly very engaging, but I couldn't get through it all; I stopped on page 3, there's too much fluff.... Essentially, everyone "does their own thing," and if someone can't come to an agreement with someone else, that's their personal problem (this is just my perspective on the situation). So, let's all be friends! Don't argue about this; talk about chess instead; your discussions are much more interesting to read.
p.s. the posts have become so long that probably only Alfain and the guy with the horse avatar read them.
To be honest, I also lost interest somewhere in the middle :smile43:, but I haven't completely given up yet and I'm thinking of gathering my strength and finishing reading it :rolleyes: (I already know which side I'll be on in the end).
I must admit, I read all of this, and it's a better way to start the day than reading the news over coffee. I definitely side with Lucky, but Vic has a completely unique ability to weasel his way out of situations, so sometimes it even seems like he's right (but he isn't). Right now, I'm watching a fantastic series called "Billions" (Toganash recommended it), and there's a clear line from one of the top lawyers: "It doesn't matter whose side the truth is on. What matters is what you can prove."
I used to think that speaking about oneself in the third person is something only women do... :D
Julius Caesar wrote his "Commentaries on the Gallic War" and "Commentaries on the Civil War" in this way. This style of writing gives the narrative an appearance of objectivity.
"There's no need to execute me,sir Davos . I'll be dead before dawn." ICQ 716748479
The desire to be right and make others wrong is a common form of madness; I myself used to suffer from it. Truth doesn't need proof; both sides are only defending a false sense of self (ego). But there's nothing wrong with it, and it can even be interesting to watch.
a rather clumsy worker can't keep up with the team's deadlines, and the next item on the agenda is a discussion about urgently increasing the deadlines for everyone!
I didn't say this was the final decision. In the discussion about, for example, a chess timer, I acknowledged that it has a future, and that top-level play will become more dynamic, but at the cost of worsening the performance of less skilled players. The question here is not whether it's more important for the Heroes community to prioritize the convenience of the best players, but also the appeal and the opportunity to improve for the less skilled players, and these not-so-insignificant points are consistently overlooked. Regarding the fact that time is a resource, there's no point in arguing, but money is also a resource, yet almost no one plays at 200% speed, why? How much more important is the awareness that the opponent isn't slacking off during their turn compared to the stress of time pressure? I'm not saying that the timer is unfair; it shouldn't allow players to relax, but for beginners (and/or clumsy players), it really ruins the game. And with Overlord mode and similar features, there's much less time for analysis. All that's left is to stall and delay making a move. Wicc, if you don't mind, my opinion is that Lucky is a rather blunt conversationalist in these particular posts, but whether to perceive this as an insult is a personal choice; I don't see any direct insults, just a certain manner of speaking. Moreover, authoritarianism, even if justified, causes people to feel hurt. For example, today, the global value is democracy, even if rotten and flawed, and the enemy of the people is dictatorship, even if just and prosperous. As a form of spam: the book "Über Alles" reflects this well.
For example, currently, the global value is democracy, even if it's flawed and imperfect, and the enemy of the people is dictatorship.
This is rhetoric from the 1990s. The events of the last 15 years have clearly shown that democracy has a tendency to turn into a situation where "the swan, the crab, and the pike are pulling in different directions."
Almost all states that have made significant progress in recent years have adhered to authoritarian models of governance. And countries with democratic models have significantly deteriorated.
Not that this will always be the case; history moves in a spiral, so when choosing the optimal model, one must look at specific external and internal conditions. That is, what tasks the collective faces and what resources the collective has at its disposal, primarily human resources.
I confess, I read all this, and it's better than news in the morning with coffee. I'm definitely on Lucky's side, but Vic has a completely unique ability to wriggle out of situations, so sometimes it even seems like he's right (no). Right now, I'm watching a great series called "Billions" (Toganash recommended it), and there was a clear phrase from one of the top lawyers: "It doesn't matter whose side the truth is on. What matters is what you can prove."
But how can there be any absolute truth here...
These are two different political positions, and the conversation above is a typical political debate. Anyone who wants can read it and choose the position that is closest to them.
Although, my goal was not to have a debate, but to explain in detail my vision of the organizational process in Heroes, so that similar stories do not happen again.
Therefore, those who think that Lucky is right – go ahead, just don't repeat his mistakes, and everything will be fine :).
The desire to be right and to make others wrong is a common form of madness; I myself used to suffer from it. Truth does not need proof; both sides are only defending a false sense of self (ego). But there is nothing wrong with this; it can even be interesting to observe.
Is this a quote or something you came up with? (The first sentence seems correct. In the second, you apparently don't know what a false ego is, although you seem to have read Gurdjieff/Ouspensky, where this term appears in almost every sentence. In the third, it's like a little child came to his father and asked, "What is good or bad?" – it seems you don't know that either?)
Piterius
