These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[RETRACTED]Denouncement of the Wiyrkomi Honor Guard
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-09-20 08:25:02 UTC
Malcolm Khross wrote:
Diana Kim wrote:

I don't understand why should I provide such example, since majority of situations you have to solve are someone's orchestration. But well, if you insist, quite general example would be bad planning and lacking some resource beyond critical point by ~10%. Like fuel, oxygen or food in spaceship to land everyone safely and alive.


Oh, you mean like the entire Caldari history in which we learned to work together for the common good and those that refused were instead put aside.

You again misinterpret what I meant?
Just... dont. Stop it already. I never said this. What's the problem? Delusion? Hallucinations? Unability to read? to memorize? to understand? to comprehend? Well, I really don't want to know. Just stop it.

Malcolm Khross wrote:

The point I'm making is that your rhetorical situation leaves only two options: kill 100 to save 900 or let all 1000 die when any real situation involves many, many more options than this. Given your situation, however, I would never put the blood of 100 innocents on my hands to save 900 for it is better for all 1000 to perish at the hands of murderers and brigands while those whom are morally upright try and save those they can without becoming murderers themselves.

That's why you should never be allowed to take decision-making positions. Probably you might have a career as a gallentean politician (most of them have same symptoms). Or better stay as low level worker, the State needs more hands.

Other options to solve this problem there may be, but while looking for them you can lose time and lose lives. Proper Caldari commander must make decisions fast and with minimal losses, disregarding morality.

Malcolm Khross wrote:
In the end, the blood is on the hands of the killer, regardless of their intentions.

Only those, who are ready to be killed, can kill others. Being a leader implies taking responsibility and consequences. There is no place for weaklings.

Scherezad wrote:

I like this question, it is a good one to ask. I would ask for volunteers.

These volunteers might turn to be most skilled and strong peoples, that are required, for example, to build a colony and ensure its survival, or just they might be crucial to fulfill the task that the whole group of peoples was gathered for. Most probable less useful people won't volunteer for this. Besides, are you sure you can get a hundred peoples of a thousand who will just give their life away?

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Braitai
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2012-09-20 11:08:04 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
[quote=Malcolm Khross][quote=Diana Kim]Other options to solve this problem there may be, but while looking for them you can lose time and lose lives. Proper Caldari commander must make decisions fast and with minimal losses, disregarding morality.


No action will be taken if you "disregard" morality. All conscious actions have their roots in moral values. Logic can only form connections between values and action, it cannot form the basis of any action. Morality does that, morality formed from emotional and instinctive responses to stimuli.

Your sense of morality, gained through emotional and instinctive responses, is obviously quite different from others. It is that which forms the basis for your political views, not a superior grasp of logic, which given your justifications for what you describe as a "civilised society" is quite flawed.
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#43 - 2012-09-20 11:21:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcolm Khross
Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:

With all due respect Khross-haan, every General, War Leader, and Military Commander must be able to make decisions that determine the life or death of those that they are responsible for leading. At times it will also require judging who, in all likelihood, will find their deaths and sacrifice their lives in order to ensure the success of an operation. A military is not a democracy, decisions are not to be held to a vote for they are the sole prerogative of those entrusted with the responsibilities of leadership. A General who balks at the prospect of sacrificing the few to guarantee the survival of the many is a poor leader. Success is not found in hesitation.


Indeed. There is a difference between leading those willing to serve and die and killing them yourself, however. My expression was that I would not kill them myself. It is also different to knowingly place individuals at risk of death in service and to kill them yourself. This is again an instance where logical extremes are used to try and make a point when the situation at hand almost always contains far more nuance.

Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:
This does not mean a lack of compassion, rather that duty comes before all other considerations and the duty of a leader is the ability to make hard and difficult decisions with clarity, without the obfuscations of doubt and self-questioning. Admiral Tovil-Toba made the choice for his crew when he sacrificed their lives and his own in order to ensure that the many on the Homeworld would survive. He did not ask his crew to pay the ultimate sacrifice for they knew their duty and he knew his own, and that any Commander that asks for sacrifices to be made is only seeking to absolve themselves of the guilt and burdens in blood that they must always carry in the prosecution of their tasks.


Again, you're referring to a leader and those serving willingly. I was not. In this instance, we would agree.

Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:
I also question the wisdom behind the initial announcement. A retraction still does not regain the loss in face or the gross lack in discretion displayed in questioning the decisions of current leadership by a former Executive and thus forcing an organization into the unenviable position of having to defend their actions in public.

Or was that the intent?


There was no wisdom behind it. I reacted rashly to a situation that felt like a personal betrayal and in so doing betrayed a family. The retraction was not meant to save face, it was done because I realized the error of my action.

~Malcolm Khross
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#44 - 2012-09-20 11:28:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcolm Khross
Kim,

I perhaps intentionally "misinterpret" your meaning because I suspect you are baiting a trap and I am unwilling to walk into it blindly. If I have done you a dishonor in so suspecting, then you have my heartfelt apology. Ultimately I suspect you are aiming at a hypothetical situation in which absolutely no other choices are available. In such a case, a leader would sacrifice the one hundred to save the nine, yes.

Diana Kim wrote:
That's why you should never be allowed to take decision-making positions. Probably you might have a career as a gallentean politician (most of them have same symptoms). Or better stay as low level worker, the State needs more hands.

Other options to solve this problem there may be, but while looking for them you can lose time and lose lives. Proper Caldari commander must make decisions fast and with minimal losses, disregarding morality.


A proper commander, regardless of race, makes decisions as best as they are able when they are able to make them. Morality plays a hand in all decisions made and any commander that foregoes ethics and morality fails to lead with the best interests of his subordinates in mind. I would consider this a poor leader.

Your opinion has been noted, however.

Diana Kim wrote:

Only those, who are ready to be killed, can kill others. Being a leader implies taking responsibility and consequences. There is no place for weaklings.


Wrong on the first point. Anyone can kill others, that's the tragedy of it. You are correct on both the second and third points however. I imagine we disagree on what defines a weakling, however.

~Malcolm Khross
Violca Kari
Doomheim
#45 - 2012-09-20 11:31:36 UTC
I am so happy I discovered the IGS. I have already learned that only psychopaths make good leaders!
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#46 - 2012-09-20 11:53:30 UTC
Scherezad wrote:

I like this question, it is a good one to ask. I would ask for volunteers.


A good leader is a person willing and able to make unpleasant decisions.
Indecisiveness is far more deadlier than a decision that is proven wrong in the aftermath.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Ava Starfire
Khushakor Clan
#47 - 2012-09-20 12:09:27 UTC
Desiderya wrote:
Scherezad wrote:

I like this question, it is a good one to ask. I would ask for volunteers.


A good leader is a person willing and able to make unpleasant decisions.
Indecisiveness is far more deadlier than a decision that is proven wrong in the aftermath.


You mean, like Shakor, right?

"There is no strength in numbers; have no such misconception." -Jayka Vofur, "Warfare in the North"
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#48 - 2012-09-20 12:20:38 UTC
This is for your people to judge.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-09-20 13:00:42 UTC
Malcolm Khross wrote:
A proper commander, regardless of race, makes decisions as best as they are able when they are able to make them.

True that. However, Caldari commander should make better and faster decisions than other commanders. Caldari commander must uphold standards of Caldari superiority and maintain higher efficiency than other commanders.

Malcolm Khross wrote:
Morality plays a hand in all decisions made and any commander that foregoes ethics and morality fails to lead with the best interests of his subordinates in mind. I would consider this a poor leader.

The leader of a group, of course, should lead with best interests of the whole group. Even if it does mean sacrificing part of the group. Sometimes, you can't please everyone. Sometimes, you can't save everyone.
As for Caldari commander, he should keep interests of the State in the first place. Even if it means sacrificing himself with all of his subordinates in order to fulfill a given task. And, of course, excuses for not completing a mission, when some civilians blocked your way, can't be accepted.

Malcolm Khross wrote:
Diana Kim wrote:

Only those, who are ready to be killed, can kill others. Being a leader implies taking responsibility and consequences. There is no place for weaklings.

Wrong on the first point. Anyone can kill others, that's the tragedy of it. You are correct on both the second and third points however. I imagine we disagree on what defines a weakling, however.

This is just my view as it should be. You know, there still can be places like Federation and presidents like Foiritan.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#50 - 2012-09-20 13:17:55 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:

True that. However, Caldari commander should make better and faster decisions than other commanders. Caldari commander must uphold standards of Caldari superiority and maintain higher efficiency than other commanders.


We should strive to make better and faster decisions, no doubt. However, it is important to recognize the merits of your adversaries. The principle of honoring even your enemies is also a Caldari concept, Kim.

Diana Kim wrote:
The leader of a group, of course, should lead with best interests of the whole group. Even if it does mean sacrificing part of the group. Sometimes, you can't please everyone. Sometimes, you can't save everyone.
As for Caldari commander, he should keep interests of the State in the first place. Even if it means sacrificing himself with all of his subordinates in order to fulfill a given task. And, of course, excuses for not completing a mission, when some civilians blocked your way, can't be accepted.


Yes, sometimes being an effective and good leader requires that sacrifices be made and no it is not always possible to save everyone. Yet a leader must always strive to save everyone until all other options are exhausted, then she must strive to save as many as possible. In the end, no decision is simple; duty demands sacrifice and has cost, a leader must recognize this and seek to minimize cost and sacrifice as often as possible. That was the only point I sought to make.

~Malcolm Khross
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#51 - 2012-09-20 14:22:25 UTC
Desiderya wrote:
A good leader is a person willing and able to make unpleasant decisions.
Indecisiveness is far more deadlier than a decision that is proven wrong in the aftermath.


Urgency was not implied in the scenario. Indecisiveness is only deadly in those cases where one is under a strict and pressing timetable. You are operating under a military heuristic, Desiderya-haani. When one is not under time pressure, it is better to take as much time as needed to come to the best solution.

Of course, were there a pressing need for an immediate decision, asking for volunteers would not be possible, and another route would have to be taken to determine the unfortunate hundred.
Jev North
Doomheim
#52 - 2012-09-20 15:09:01 UTC
It all seems rather more simple when you only think about ship types, target priorities, and engage/disengage decisions, doesn't it?

Even though our love is cruel; even though our stars are crossed.
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#53 - 2012-09-20 15:10:27 UTC
Jev North wrote:
It all seems rather more simple when you only think about ship types, target priorities, and engage/disengage decisions, doesn't it?


Simplicity is seldom a leader's luxury.

~Malcolm Khross
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#54 - 2012-09-20 15:16:53 UTC
Scherezad wrote:
Desiderya wrote:
A good leader is a person willing and able to make unpleasant decisions.
Indecisiveness is far more deadlier than a decision that is proven wrong in the aftermath.


Urgency was not implied in the scenario. Indecisiveness is only deadly in those cases where one is under a strict and pressing timetable. You are operating under a military heuristic, Desiderya-haani. When one is not under time pressure, it is better to take as much time as needed to come to the best solution.

Of course, were there a pressing need for an immediate decision, asking for volunteers would not be possible, and another route would have to be taken to determine the unfortunate hundred.


The scenario implies that there is no alternative that can save everyone or more than the stated 10% - else the whole question would be pointless.
The importance of time is highlighted by the inherent need to sacrifice lives. Waiting longer will lead to higher casualties than a quick decision, as unpleasant as this might be.

The question how to determine the unlucky one hundred is an entirely different one, and does indeed depend vastly on the nature of the present personnel.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#55 - 2012-09-20 15:37:38 UTC
I am finding this whole conversation hilarious because the problem is a Gordian Knot.
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#56 - 2012-09-20 15:40:35 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
I am finding this whole conversation hilarious because the problem is a Gordian Knot.


Hence my earlier statement that the situation at hand almost always contains more nuance.

However, the issue raised is hypothetical and originally I tried to avoid answering it because I doubted the intentions of the one posing it. I have, however, answered it above.

Sacrifice is sometimes necessary and a leader must be willing to make that sacrifice, expending all other options.

~Malcolm Khross
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-09-20 15:57:00 UTC
Well, nuances are not significant, when you have options at hand.
Time, indeed, is implied, since otherwise they should what, die because of aging while you deciding to take an action or not? You don't take an action in given time, then 1000 dies. This time window can be very small, or large enough to ponder or write a small essay, amount of time wasted can affect number of survivors or not, it doesn't really matter.
But wasting time for looking for black cat in dark room, when there is no cat, is hesitation and may lead to leaving given time window and automatically taking wrong choice because of indecisiveness.

And I really don't know what's worse: to hesitate to kill a hundred to save a thousand, or to refuse to kill them. These two... erghm... "actions" are definitely fatal weaknesses and peoples who possess them shouldn't be allowed to command.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#58 - 2012-09-20 15:58:58 UTC
Malcolm Khross wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
I am finding this whole conversation hilarious because the problem is a Gordian Knot.


Hence my earlier statement that the situation at hand almost always contains more nuance.

However, the issue raised is hypothetical and originally I tried to avoid answering it because I doubted the intentions of the one posing it. I have, however, answered it above.

Sacrifice is sometimes necessary and a leader must be willing to make that sacrifice, expending all other options.


I bet you 10,000 ISK you aren't willing to expend all other options before leaping to sacrifice.
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#59 - 2012-09-20 16:49:34 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
I bet you 10,000 ISK you aren't willing to expend all other options before leaping to sacrifice.


No doubt. There are things that you would consider options that I likely would not.

~Malcolm Khross
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-09-20 16:55:41 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
Well, nuances are not significant, when you have options at hand.


Nuance implies option in most cases, Kim.

Diana Kim wrote:
Time, indeed, is implied, since otherwise they should what, die because of aging while you deciding to take an action or not? You don't take an action in given time, then 1000 dies. This time window can be very small, or large enough to ponder or write a small essay, amount of time wasted can affect number of survivors or not, it doesn't really matter.
But wasting time for looking for black cat in dark room, when there is no cat, is hesitation and may lead to leaving given time window and automatically taking wrong choice because of indecisiveness.


This is true in its simplest form. In a hypothetical situation like the one you've posed, in which there remains only two options: sacrifice the few to save the many or let them all perish; then the wise and proper course of action is to sacrifice the few to save the many. How a leader determines the "few" that will be sacrificed will vary depending on the leader, the situation and other factors but the basic principle remains the same.

Diana Kim wrote:
And I really don't know what's worse: to hesitate to kill a hundred to save a thousand, or to refuse to kill them. These two... erghm... "actions" are definitely fatal weaknesses and peoples who possess them shouldn't be allowed to command.


Again, your opinion is noted. I would disagree with you on the fundamental level. There is more to leadership than simple cold calculation and logic just as there are many types of leaders.

~Malcolm Khross