Book 2 – Text Updates 050

[Oberon]

There are no tunnels in Spacerock tho. Only dungeons.

That is interesting, but not relevant. Off turn, tunnels or no tunnels, only two (three if Parson arrives) GK units can leave GK. They are no more or no less "up against the wall" regardless of the presence or absence of Spacerock tunnels.

And Ansom ultimately got croaked in front of all his subordinates and allies, then decrypted to serve the side he used to hate. I think he got punished.

Another interesting but not relevant fact. Being punished for a command failure does not remove the responsibility for that command failure. If that worked the captain of the vessel which ran aground could simply write, Bart Simpson like, "I will not allow my $800 million dollar cruiser to run aground" until the chalkboard was filled, and then he could skateboard away home and carry on with his career as though nothing had ever happened.

[Beeskee]

GK does have their back against the wall, since they can't be attacked from the tunnels which don't exist. When it's not their turn, it's someone else's, and right now it is RCC2's turn.

And, for your analogy, it would be more like a ship captain left a subordinate in charge who crashed the ship and the captain was thrown from his cabin and broke his neck and died, and the analogy is kinda breaking down at that point. My opinion about Ansom is just my opinion anyway. I don't think you're arguing that I've somehow misinterpreted my own opinion.

[Oberon]

I don't think you're arguing that I've somehow misinterpreted my own opinion.

No, I'm simply pointing out that your opinion, while perfectly valid for you perhaps, is not going to be valued by anyone with a military background or any other kind of leadership experience. You can't be wrong for holding an opinion, but you can be a rather marginal case.

May I ask where the buck stops, in your opinion? Is there no amount of accountability for poor performance which cannot be excused away by a reasonably glib person? Or is "the enemy" always the one to blame for winning battles against your troops, taking your hills, slaying your troops, razing your cities, and otherwise putting your people to the sword?

If you refuse to hold failure to account, you encourage failure.

[Beeskee]

Ansom's forces still would have won, if not for the volcano deal. That said, yes, like I've already said half a dozen times, Ansom booped up. Did I piss you off or something? Are you having a bad day? What's wrong? You know I'm not Ansom right?


Everything we know about Ansom says he is second only to Parson in terms of bringing home The Win. He used to be first. He was the one knocking over all the GK cities before Parson was summoned. He led RCC through victory after victory. He's not flawless, and definitely makes mistakes and bad decisions. He is described by his brothers as lacking tactical imagination and relying on siege-heavy infantry, and we don't know exactly who planned the dwagon veiling maneuver so I don't want to give him credit for that, but that was his style before decryption. All in all, a believable, 'human' character, with strengths and weaknesses.

[Oberon]

That said, yes, like I've already said half a dozen times, Ansom booped up.

This I understand. What I'm struggling to understand, with no anger at you at all involved, is your disassociation between screwing up and being held accountable. You say that Ansom "booped up", but then you go on to say that it's not his fault. So I asked a few easy questions, which I hoped you'd answer rather than becoming defensive.

[BLANDCorporatio]

It's rather tangential to the Beeskee/Oberon dialogue, but between someone making a mistake and being "to blame" (in, say, a legal way) there is a difference.

Now, in the specific case of Ansom (or Custer, or whoever your favourite tricked leader happens to be), the thing is reasonably clear-cut. The leader is to blame, and that's that. Consequences of the "I strip you of your powers" kind, or worse, would ensue, if said tricked leader cannot point to, I dunno, lazy or lying scouts or something to explain their mistake, other than (temporary?) incompetence.

And in that last part is why I think there's a difference between failure and (personal) fault- because "fault" tends to be dispersable into the system. This is not weaseling out of facing the music, it's an honest issue. Is a system set up in such a way so as to facilitate error? Does the label on the anaesthetic look similar to the label for lye? Oops. One patient will not be getting the right stuff before an operation, and human as it is to look for someone personally responsible to put in the pillory, it's not (entirely) the fault of the doctor when a confusion happens.

Ultimately it's of more practical value to build a system so that it prevents error even without much conscious thought from the participants, than it is to point fingers and pass verdicts.

But again, for the "Ansom screwed up" discussion that's less relevant, unless in a hypothetical court martial Ansom is able to prove that that btard Vinnie lied to him or something.

[mortissimus]

If you refuse to hold failure to account, you encourage failure.

In a world where the normal result of failure is death, encouraging failure would appear hard to do.

[Raza]

If you refuse to hold failure to account, you encourage failure.

In a world where the normal result of failure is death, encouraging failure would appear hard to do.

Expanding on this, I'd say failure is generally its own consequence. If there was ever something worth mentioning at stake, the risk of losing it should automatically provide proportional incentive to try one's best. The usefulness of accountability is limited to situations where someone other than the actor enjoys or suffers the consequences of an action, and rather overrated even there.

[Beeskee]

That said, yes, like I've already said half a dozen times, Ansom booped up.

This I understand. What I'm struggling to understand, with no anger at you at all involved, is your disassociation between screwing up and being held accountable. You say that Ansom "booped up", but then you go on to say that it's not his fault. So I asked a few easy questions, which I hoped you'd answer rather than becoming defensive.

No. I said that I personally do not blame him for the mistake. That's different than saying it's not his fault. I said it a number of times but you kept asking.

I'm not upset, I'm amused. I don't know how many different ways I can answer the same question. If you keep asking, I guess we'll find out.

[MarbitChow]

So, does this whole discussion boil down to these two sides?
"Ansom screwed up and should be held accountable!" vs. "I can understand why Ansom screwed up, and he did the best he could do under the circumstances?"
If so, it almost sounds like this discussion isn't a debate so much as an empathy test...

[the_tick_rules]

sounds about right.

[Beeskee]

So, does this whole discussion boil down to these two sides?
"Ansom screwed up and should be held accountable!" vs. "I can understand why Ansom screwed up, and he did the best he could do under the circumstances?"
If so, it almost sounds like this discussion isn't a debate so much as an empathy test...

I choose 'b'. There, done.

[BLANDCorporatio]

If so, it almost sounds like this discussion isn't a debate so much as an empathy test...

MarbitChow cutting through the clutter. Whatever's in that chow (it is NOT Marbits!), looks stimulating, I'll buy a can.

[MichaelR138]

High experienced warlord is unhpapy how you're using her elite troops, unhappy enough that she breaks ranks and runs towards you.

Hint:you're doing something very wrong then.

Heh, I don't disagree that it might have been wrong (or right), though I would point out Artemis (who I've already taken a liking to) didn't actually know Trem had ordered them to retrieve Slately and might not even know plan A is "Get our Achilles heel to safety and then counter attack if it seems prudent".

While I will happily take advice/criticism from people I know to be more skilled/experienced on board generally I take it even better when they have all the facts first.

From a strictly military standpoint, I am not at all impressed with Artemis, she is a loose cannon. I can very easily see her going off glory hunting instead of protecting ForTheWin's back and actually being responsible for his demise. Remember, we only have her viewpoint that she wasn't, and with her personality type, I doubt very little in her life has ever been her fault in her mind. Now she has left her archers leaderless up on the walls, just when Slately may need her the most, and she is off chasing personal glory again instead of doing her duty. Not someone you can afford to have on your side in a fight, because you cannot depend on her.

Michael

[Oberon]

No. I said that I personally do not blame him for the mistake. That's different than saying it's not his fault. I said it a number of times but you kept asking.

I'm not upset, I'm amused. I don't know how many different ways I can answer the same question. If you keep asking, I guess we'll find out.

The problem here is that I didn't keep asking the question you're choosing to answer over and over. You're avoiding answering the questions I've asked by hiding behind defensiveness and the evasion of claiming that you're providing the same answer to the same question over and over. But we both know that isn't true.

[MarbitChow]

MarbitChow cutting through the clutter. Whatever's in that chow (it is NOT Marbits!), looks stimulating, I'll buy a can.

Remember, kids! MarbitChow is packed with 80% of a Marbit's daily recommended vitamins and minerals, and is made from finest quality ground gobwin, hobgobwin, and key lime pie!

[Beeskee]

No. I said that I personally do not blame him for the mistake. That's different than saying it's not his fault. I said it a number of times but you kept asking.

I'm not upset, I'm amused. I don't know how many different ways I can answer the same question. If you keep asking, I guess we'll find out.

The problem here is that I didn't keep asking the question you're choosing to answer over and over. You're avoiding answering the questions I've asked by hiding behind defensiveness and the evasion of claiming that you're providing the same answer to the same question over and over. But we both know that isn't true.

Because it feels like I'm being trolled. If you really want me to go through it all, I will, but I don't know what else I can say that would be significantly different from what I have already said. The real question is, "Why do you support Ansom?", and my answer is "Just because."