The title says it all.

I am making here notes about possible future md concepts, but for now they are useful as they are, pure information. Who sais md is "so much different" than RL, its "so blind"

 

When i say fights, I am talking about "personal" fights, fights that use ideas as weapons. Fights that use weapons as weapons, lower or raise your reputation and respect others have for you.

 

If you pick an inferior target:

- you have high chances to win, this adds up to your stregth and reputation

- if you lose, the damage you take is a lot bigger and risk for fatality increased

 

If you pick on a superior target:

- you have low chances to win, making a potential win a great booster

- if you lose, the act itself can be seen as disrespectful.

- regardless if you win or lose the fight, attacking someone from a different standing/level/reputation category than you, will increase fluctuations and instability in how people see you, This might be of good strategic use if you need to get out of a stuck situation (like preconceptions)...but can be deadly.

 

 

Note: Reply only if you understand why a reply might be needed here, this is not a discussion, feel free to complete/correct the above ideas.

 

 

(a25)

 

 

 

Many times both think they are superior.

And many times it goes way further than reputation. You stop caring about any reputation whatever and are just consumed with hatred.

Many times both think they are superior.

And many times it goes way further than reputation. You stop caring about any reputation whatever and are just consumed with hatred.

 

Those are basically the moments when your "chosen" fights become unwise. Not because you stop caring about your reputation, but because you're driven by an influence capable of clouding any sense of educated predictions.

Lol. So basically you are saying "kill your ego. Its easier that way." I absolutely disagree. :p i will never be that way.

I think it's okay to have an ego so long as you remain humble as well. If that makes any kind of sense. 

 

Personally, I feel that knowing and understanding the consequences of your actions and if your actions are worth said consequences should be the defining decision of what we do.  

My questions is: Who will decide who is superior and who is inferior and what influences such a "tag"? Is it being known about? Being liked? Having power?

 

I could say I was superior than someone in many ways, but I could be equally inferior in others. So what will make me stand as inferior or superior?

 

From what I've seen in other's reactions on the forums (to other subjects) I, personally, believe this could cause quite a bit of contention; telling someone they are worth less than someone else - it's never a nice thing to be told...

 

But anyway, I look forward to seeing this in action!...I think? :)

Exactly. Fights happen when both sides think they are superior over the other.

Would I be alone if I was to say I could or might pick "fights" without the whole reputation stuff to go with it? Perhaps it would be irrelevant to me who wins/has a bigger influence or reputation and I'm just demonstrating to myself or a friend a concept.

 

Sure one could try and say "then you just think you're better or that you won" and I'd disagree. One or many could think less of you but in the end, that's all it is, their thoughts. So this was just my thought. Would it have bad repercussions? You tell me, it depends how you see it all.

[spoiler]

The title says it all.

I am making here notes about possible future md concepts, but for now they are useful as they are, pure information. Who sais md is "so much different" than RL, its "so blind"

 

When i say fights, I am talking about "personal" fights, fights that use ideas as weapons. Fights that use weapons as weapons, lower or raise your reputation and respect others have for you.

 

If you pick an inferior target:

- you have high chances to win, this adds up to your stregth and reputation

- if you lose, the damage you take is a lot bigger and risk for fatality increased

 

If you pick on a superior target:

- you have low chances to win, making a potential win a great booster

- if you lose, the act itself can be seen as disrespectful.

- regardless if you win or lose the fight, attacking someone from a different standing/level/reputation category than you, will increase fluctuations and instability in how people see you, This might be of good strategic use if you need to get out of a stuck situation (like preconceptions)...but can be deadly.

 

 

Note: Reply only if you understand why a reply might be needed here, this is not a discussion, feel free to complete/correct the above ideas.

 

 

(a25)

[/spoiler]

Maybe, maybe not, depends, on the kind of fight.

There is a saying in Romanian maybe you've forgot: "Nu te certa niciodata cu un prost! Te va aduce la nivelul lui si te va bate cu experienta!"

In translation it is like : "Don't argue with the dumb! He will bring you down to his level and beat you with his experience."

 

 

Anyway, Mur, what I wanted to remind you, as of a concept, is that the fights in MD as mostly fakes. Ppl will let themselves lose. Even if you stated/started this honor & fighting concept based on the above (way far in the past) it just got where it is now. And there are many reasons on why it got here and all very predictable.

If you don't understand ... ask around why ppl the difference between their won and lost fights is close to 1k. Oh, and those that answer that they can't get to balance ... you can ignore, it is just lame excuse for smth else.

 

And for (a25) ... you'd better ask serious counseling (MD wise) before implementing such thing.

Edited May 9, 201511 yr by No one

Nice post No one, but I highly doubt Mur is talking about combat. This just got confusing...

Within a given field, whenever conflict between two parties arises, their sway is given by their respective influence within the field. The spoils and losses are both likewise reaped in that influence, and inversely proportional to the party's influence in relation to its opponent.

 

That, I believe, reflects what Mur has stated, though I may be mistaken. That, I assume, in the context of other recent posts.

 

---

 

That, however, is only entirely true in a white room scenario, where only that field and those two parties exist, such that the field cannot expand or lose ground, nor can the parties, other than to one another.

 

In other words, while I do think it accurately describes a tendency in social relations , it would be an oversimplification to assume it accurately describes them in their entirety.

 

---

 

There are many layers we can add to that statement. For instance:

 

A. the conflict for influence requires, itself, the investment of influence. As two parties are engaged in a conflict, they and their dominant field may be at their most vulnerable.

 

B. influence from outside a field can be used to accrue influence in another field. The gain of influence within a field may translate to the loss of influence within another field.

 

C. when a party uses a field's influence within another field successfully, it devalues the destination field's influence and increases the relative worth of the origin field's influence.

 

D. parties never seek influence in a single field, to the exclusion of all else. Fields, though they may have their unique characteristics, are never entirely unique.

 

E. a field is at its most influential when other fields fights over the right too interpret its symbolic capital according to their own internal paradigms, without, however, questioning its symbolic capital.

 

And even then, those are only broad descriptions which, though they accurately represent behaviorist tendencies in social conflicts, come short of accurately describing individual cases; good models, albeit  models nevertheless.

 

---

 

The individual - anyone here, for instance - is already the individual case of the individual case in one such a model. One may reduce fields to institutions, those to individuals, and yet these to other categories of perception, and the more removed one from another, all the more insurmountable the task.

 

Accurately describing the individual through sociology, as opposed to institutions, or accurately describing institutions through psychology, as opposed to the individual, are things we are very distant from; and that is without getting into the meta-analysis of those categories.

Edited May 13, 201511 yr by Azthor