de la Rey Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 In the light of the recent turmoil regarding the Caretakers Alliance, having read here and there about what happened (to my dismay, the whole story ended before I had the chance to jump in with a personal opinion), and about what people believe it happened, seeing the suggestions others made and the outcome of the event, I felt compelled to propose a debate. I thought of this before, but only now did I find the perfect opportunity to bring such matter in the public eye. As the title goes, the subject of the debate regards strategy, subterfuge and propaganda, all pictured in a (not so) philosophical manner. My final and at the moment so faraway goal is to form up a handbook with different opinions that circulate in the MD universe. And why not - if I`ll be capable of pulling this through - establishing a set of guidelines (not rules) to be used whenever conflicts burst out in the otherwise peaceful lands of Magic Duel. Why?.. I`ve seen a lot of characters with military background and I know some of them are keen on sharing their military expertise. Even though in some isolated cases the ''military page'' speaks only one thing: ''go out there and kill the enemy''. Well, that`s one way to have things done, but not the only way. I want you to take the stand and share your vision and theories on warfare - tactics, the employment, deployment and use of cavalry, infantry, logistics and auxiliaries (scouts, spies, diplomats) I want you to take the stand and share your experiences (not tales) with war: lost battles, won battles, the cause and effect. I want this debate to take place at the Clash of Ages, sometime at the end of this week. For now, a rough and simple rundown of the debate would look like this: - Opening - Introduction to warfare - Set one - Head on - conventional warfare; how are we doing it - theory - Set two - In the shadows - the use of ''agents'' or <How can one man win the war>; deceit and treason. - Set three - A mouthful of words - they can`t fight as good as we can speak. - Set four - All still standing go to a pub and drink their minds out while sharing experiences, like the true warriors they are. This might sound awfully complicated, but if you people are interested in it, then we can continue the debate at some later time. If not, then there`s no need to worry. So, what do you think about this? Asterdai and (Zl-eye-f)-nea 2
dst Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 I think I can help you on "Set two - In the shadows - the use of ''agents'' or <How can one man win the war>; deceit and treason."
de la Rey Posted November 23, 2009 Author Report Posted November 23, 2009 Well then, dst, does this mean I can sign you up with a speech and a q&a session regarding the art of spying, mislead and deceit? I won`t put you up with treason, because the word itself means the agent has been discovered, and that is translated through ''failure''.
dst Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 I can help you by writing something but I don't know if I will be able to attend the meeting. I have no clue what my scheduled is for this week or the next one and I don't want to say I will be there and not come.
Shadowseeker Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Just a question: Why would those actually versed in these want to share it, potentially raising more enemies? S
Liberty4life Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 hmm interesting event, maybe md university will get up running again if i manage i will come to see it Czez and Observer 2
de la Rey Posted November 23, 2009 Author Report Posted November 23, 2009 [quote]I can help you by writing something but I don't know if I will be able to attend the meeting. I have no clue what my scheduled is for this week or the next one and I don't want to say I will be there and not come. [/quote] dst, in this case it will be my pleasure to receive your written ideas on the matter, and I`ll be honoured to read them (or a shorter version) at the debate. [quote]Just a question: Why would those actually versed in these want to share it, potentially raising more enemies?[/quote] My dear Shadowseeker, if one is afraid his enemies might discover his secrets, then that one isn`t quite ''versed'', is he? True leaders are able to conceal their most precious secrets. And this debate is mostly philosophical, therefore theoretical. That means participants can share ideas, yet those ideas might or might not represent their true beliefs.
Shadowseeker Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Hm..Well, perhaps I'll come by to see what exactly will be said. Or read the chatlog, if that will be provided. Still, you seem to be mistaken in one thing...basically everything a person can do can also be mimicked. It will not matter who copied who, in the end it's about who still stands last. And if that debate were to be taken seriously, then wouldn't that mean revealing some interesting things? Of course, if you mean to say it's just a meeting where people will brag a bit but share little real, useful knowledge, then I am sure this would work. Watcher 1
de la Rey Posted November 23, 2009 Author Report Posted November 23, 2009 [quote name='Shadowseeker' date='23 November 2009 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1259008545' post='48264']Still, you seem to be mistaken in one thing...basically everything a person can do can also be mimicked. [/quote] Perhaps I should explain to you what I meant by ''debate'', with a practical example. Let`s take, for example, set three of the rundown, propaganda. Some guy steps in front of the others and explains to them what propaganda is. He gives examples, he talks of a couple of ways to ensure the success of propaganda, eventually tells about the ways propaganda can be used within MD, and after that, the others ask questions or argue on the veridicity or utility of the information provided by the speaker. It`s as simple as that. There`s no mimicking, just sharing information. Those who are willing.
Asterdai Posted November 24, 2009 Report Posted November 24, 2009 Hello. I remember khalazhadadydahdhahdhdhddlalzlalahd had an article regarding desert warfare. how one should be swift and changing like the sands of the desert. It was a very interesting article, i think you could ask Peace or Kittiness whether they have any information regarding this. i wrote my own essay on this topic combined with Rhajadharma or the Kings Laws, but i dont think i can speak about it as it is only theory based on Khalalazadhahhsslald "findings" I would like to attend and listen to such an event but with Asterdai's lack of military training i doubt he will be of much use, he would just like to listen.
Kafuuka Posted November 24, 2009 Report Posted November 24, 2009 [quote name='de la Rey' date='23 November 2009 - 08:03 AM' timestamp='1258959804' post='48155'] As the title goes, the subject of the debate regards strategy, subterfuge and propaganda, all pictured in a (not so) philosophical manner. My final and at the moment so faraway goal is to form up a handbook with different opinions that circulate in the MD universe. And why not - if I`ll be capable of pulling this through - establishing a set of guidelines (not rules) to be used whenever conflicts burst out in the otherwise peaceful lands of Magic Duel. <snip> I want you to take the stand and share your vision and theories on warfare - tactics, the employment, deployment and use of cavalry, infantry, logistics and auxiliaries (scouts, spies, diplomats) [/quote] Do we have cavalry in MD or is that part of the philosophical aspect? I think there are people interested in both the non MD and the MD aspects of conflict and the link between them is also interesting, yet the scope becomes large enough to split the debate in multiple parts. [quote] For now, a rough and simple rundown of the debate would look like this: - Opening - Introduction to warfare - Set one - Head on - conventional warfare; how are we doing it - theory - Set two - In the shadows - the use of ''agents'' or <How can one man win the war>; deceit and treason. - Set three - A mouthful of words - they can`t fight as good as we can speak. - Set four - All still standing go to a pub and drink their minds out while sharing experiences, like the true warriors they are. [/quote] I propose an additional topic: - The origin of conflict (you can see a small article on this in my MW&B papers: on information)
I am Bored Posted November 24, 2009 Report Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) wonder how many spies are still active in md..... as i know of one, who has managed to take down an alliance before...... before being bribed to step down..... but then again all is fair in love and war! Edited November 24, 2009 by I am Bored
de la Rey Posted November 24, 2009 Author Report Posted November 24, 2009 [quote name='Kafuuka' date='24 November 2009 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1259072814' post='48359'] Do we have cavalry in MD or is that part of the philosophical aspect? I think there are people interested in both the non MD and the MD aspects of conflict and the link between them is also interesting.[/quote] Kafuuka, think of ''cavalry'' or ''infantry'' as concepts and principles, not regular units as we see in movies, men on horses and guys with shields and spears. When I speak of cavalry, I`m referring at the concept of cavalry: speed, mobility, force. You ask about cavalry in MD. Nope, we don`t have it, but the ideas that form up the concept of ''cavalry'' can be used within MD without problem. And there aren`t two different aspects of conflict: in my Way, there`s only one. And that can be applied everywhere, be it a real conflict or a football match. The principles are always the same. [quote name='Kafuuka' date='24 November 2009 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1259072814' post='48359'] I propose an additional topic: - The origin of conflict [/quote] I agree with you, but this won`t be an additional topic, it`s going to be inserted in the introduction. Being a vast subject, if I have with whom to debate (), then we can surely break the debate into pieces, episodes.
Kafuuka Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 [quote name='de la Rey' date='25 November 2009 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1259103871' post='48407'] Kafuuka, think of ''cavalry'' or ''infantry'' as concepts and principles, not regular units as we see in movies, men on horses and guys with shields and spears. When I speak of cavalry, I`m referring at the concept of cavalry: speed, mobility, force. You ask about cavalry in MD. Nope, we don`t have it, but the ideas that form up the concept of ''cavalry'' can be used within MD without problem. And there aren`t two different aspects of conflict: in my Way, there`s only one. And that can be applied everywhere, be it a real conflict or a football match. The principles are always the same. [/quote] They are not entirely separate things, but abstract conflict and MD specific conflict might interest different people. The question is on which you want to focus: MD specific conflict and referring to the more abstract when necessary, or explaining theories and occasionally using MD as an example?
de la Rey Posted November 25, 2009 Author Report Posted November 25, 2009 What I want: to explain theories AND find ways to implement them in MD.
Recommended Posts