Virtually all of the articles I have written between now and 2003 are now totally obsolete. Only 7, the 7 Tactical Theory articles so far, reflect what I currently believe. Please ignore all the rest, including the old Specialization of Sidearms, Taking the Initiative, and even the Outnumbered Defense. All three need major updating, especially the Outnumbered Defense, which now has an Outnumbered Offense component. Every review I have written except the Orca is also now obsolete. It is, however, interesting to read back on the old stuff and see how things have evolved. For example, Specialization --> Position-Switching --> Ubiquitous Position. "Specialization" really should have been called "De-Specialization, but regardless of the name, the concept was remarkably ahead of its time. Likewise, Dual Commanders --> Squad Commanders --> Commander Roulette --> Fluid Command/Full Fluid Command. What was a originally a trick tactic to confuse the enemy as to who is in control spawned an entire new command style. The concept of Commander Roulette was once totally bizarre, but now it is essential for veteran teams of high caliber.
In fact, I still don't know why this stuff didn't come out earlier. Why exactly did the community follow the same conventional set of tactical advice for so long? There's virtually no difference between war guides from 2000 and 2004, except maybe author, length, and detail. What scares me is that the concept of Decisive Unconventionality [which is the main source of power behind the Tactical Theory] took this long. It's now 2007, meaning that the community had like 8 years to discover it.
Anyway, the Ubiquitous Position, Fluid Command, and Decisive Unconventionality will definitely be part of this weekend's update. It probably annoys people that I talk about concepts with no documentation whatsoever.
Outdated Articles
Well, I really look forward to seeing the new articles. Looks like you're determined to get everything done for SM and water warfare!
On the other hand, you'll never get anywhere if you keep on trashing the old articles :p . Just a tip, as it's probably more of an annoyance for you than for us. :laugh:
Hmm...even tons of the non-tactical articles, especially at SSC, are outdated.
On the other hand, you'll never get anywhere if you keep on trashing the old articles :p . Just a tip, as it's probably more of an annoyance for you than for us. :laugh:
Hmm...even tons of the non-tactical articles, especially at SSC, are outdated.
I can't help tearing articles down and rewriting them. The Tactical Theory keeps itself current by riding at the cutting edge of the wars frontier. When things change, and they sometimes change on a daily basis, the Theory must also take that into account. One of the core concepts of Decisive Unconventionality is the ability to adapt to constant change. I hate referencing outdated information, as it often does not represent what I and/or the Tactical Theory think any longer.
Unfortunately the Tactical Theory is still a learn-as-you-go experience. Most of the ideas extend into uncharted territory, so I have to work off the top of my head and create new ideas from thin air. The worst thing is when I think of a new concept that is not mentioned anywhere in previous articles, as if it doesn't exist. The final product is going to need a lot of revisions to make the articles account for each other.
Unfortunately the Tactical Theory is still a learn-as-you-go experience. Most of the ideas extend into uncharted territory, so I have to work off the top of my head and create new ideas from thin air. The worst thing is when I think of a new concept that is not mentioned anywhere in previous articles, as if it doesn't exist. The final product is going to need a lot of revisions to make the articles account for each other.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers
Thing is, if you keep cutting down your own articles too much, others will start losing interest in reading them thinking that something new is just-around-the-corner-that-will-change-everything making the last article obsolete.
It's one thing to think on the cutting edge; it's another to write ideas that are right on the edge. If an article is too new, it suggests that its ideas have not been well tested and may or may not make the next cut. IMO, those learning want a little more stability, not wanting to be concerned that the concepts they read are being made obsolete the next day.
Nothing wrong with thinking and coming up with new concepts, sharing them, and revising your work as often as you feel is necessary. Just don't overblast your old artilces as it leaves readers wondering what should be read at all: old stuff that is declared obsolete or new stuff that is changing so often since it is still being worked on.
That's my thoughts on things, anyhow.
It's one thing to think on the cutting edge; it's another to write ideas that are right on the edge. If an article is too new, it suggests that its ideas have not been well tested and may or may not make the next cut. IMO, those learning want a little more stability, not wanting to be concerned that the concepts they read are being made obsolete the next day.
Nothing wrong with thinking and coming up with new concepts, sharing them, and revising your work as often as you feel is necessary. Just don't overblast your old artilces as it leaves readers wondering what should be read at all: old stuff that is declared obsolete or new stuff that is changing so often since it is still being worked on.
That's my thoughts on things, anyhow.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
iSoaker managed to correctly word what I was trying to say. There have been a ton of new theories out there recently, and it can get confusing. But more importantly, you obviously don't want to write an article and then trash it. It's only been months since the superb Taking the Initiative article. 
You might also want to consider laying out the big picture first. Ie, writing an article about what this whole new "Next Revolution" is, before you start writing about what nobody knows about. It'll probably helps you get organized too.
You might also want to consider laying out the big picture first. Ie, writing an article about what this whole new "Next Revolution" is, before you start writing about what nobody knows about. It'll probably helps you get organized too.
It's one thing to think on the cutting edge; it's another to write ideas that are right on the edge. If an article is too new, it suggests that its ideas have not been well tested and may or may not make the next cut. IMO, those learning want a little more stability, not wanting to be concerned that the concepts they read are being made obsolete the next day.
No matter how abstract the concept, I still make sure it has worked in real life before writing it. Even the newest concepts are not really new, just thought of in a new light. For example, relative influence has always been a factor in my wars, I've just never recognized it as a concept worth writing about. The Theory can be interpreted and/or applied in several ways: passively, actively, or unconsciously. In real wars, you can follow the Theory without actually knowing that you are. That is how my team uses it, at least until Waterbridge adopts Decisive Unconventionality. Also, concepts don't really get obsolete, their descriptions just need refining over time.
It's only been months since the superb Taking the Initiative article.
That's a long time for a wars article to remain in its original state. I could leave the current articles up for quite a while unchanged, but it would be better to slip in little changes when necessary. I don't like the concept of writing wars advice and leaving it up for years at a time before going back and revising. The art of fighting water wars is kind of like a science, and science changes constantly. The main difference is that "facts" in fighting water wars are much more flexible. For example, an article about __ tactic won't impose too many limits on what it can be used for. The reader is encouraged to find out using a little creativity. If the tactic becomes a great counter to another, why not edit that in? If it starts to fail often in certain situations, why not edit that in? I think that people should know what works today, as they might get screwed using what worked last year. The concepts themselves tend to remain static though. There will always be a basic ambush; what you use it for will always be subject to change.
You might also want to consider laying out the big picture first.
It is really hard to see the big picture without all of its parts. Figuring out the picture of a puzzle is quite difficult if only 7 pieces are in place. I have the general gist of what I want to accomplish, but the details are still quite sketchy, especially with the Next Revolution. I am currently working on Decisive Unconventionality, which is a huge piece of the puzzle, being the power source of both the Tactical and Technical Theories. All of the ideas were sprung from Decisive Unconventionality, in fact, it is the most important concept I have ever championed. Once you have this, you can derive nearly everything else from it. Without Decisive Unconventionality, concepts like the Initiative really have no teeth.
Also, a big driving factor for disowning certain old articles is that I don't want to be mis-interpreted. That recently happened with the ancient caliber poll. Would you want to be considered a level 1 out of 5 member by someone because they take offense to something you haven't believed in for ages? It simply doesn't make sense to support something you don't support.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers
Hmm... I think this is another case of personal writing style versus general reading-style.
Duxburian tends to write in a more dramatic sense with statements like "Virtually all of the articles I have written between now and 2003 are now totally obsolete." However, to call all previous articles "totally obsolete" was likely meant to suggest that newer articles hold much more value and usefulness over old ones. However, many of us read the phrase "totally obsolete", think that many of those old artilces were still presenting new information to us, and then wonder whether to continue reading articles since we don't want to be made obsolete again when the next new thought comes along.
@Duxburian: I don't think either SilentGuy or I are suggesting that you must hold on to old beliefs; what we are weary about is how you go about presenting the new ones and how you deal with the old ones. Older tactical ideas still have uses in specific situations, but are perhaps not as efficient or as universally applicable as newer concepts. I just don't believe the term "totally obsolete" and the following parts to that were necessarily phrased in the best way to get more interested in reading further. Perhaps you feel that your phrasing should not be taken so literally, but that's just the power of words without hearing the undertones in your voice or in your thoughts.
I like reading and thinking about ideas discussed in your more current articles and definitely am glad you're willing to write more. I just also feel that there remains value in older stuff, too, though some concepts do not fare as well against newer ones.
Duxburian tends to write in a more dramatic sense with statements like "Virtually all of the articles I have written between now and 2003 are now totally obsolete." However, to call all previous articles "totally obsolete" was likely meant to suggest that newer articles hold much more value and usefulness over old ones. However, many of us read the phrase "totally obsolete", think that many of those old artilces were still presenting new information to us, and then wonder whether to continue reading articles since we don't want to be made obsolete again when the next new thought comes along.
@Duxburian: I don't think either SilentGuy or I are suggesting that you must hold on to old beliefs; what we are weary about is how you go about presenting the new ones and how you deal with the old ones. Older tactical ideas still have uses in specific situations, but are perhaps not as efficient or as universally applicable as newer concepts. I just don't believe the term "totally obsolete" and the following parts to that were necessarily phrased in the best way to get more interested in reading further. Perhaps you feel that your phrasing should not be taken so literally, but that's just the power of words without hearing the undertones in your voice or in your thoughts.
I like reading and thinking about ideas discussed in your more current articles and definitely am glad you're willing to write more. I just also feel that there remains value in older stuff, too, though some concepts do not fare as well against newer ones.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
-
wetmonkey442
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: Connecticut
I find myself agreeing with SilentGuy and iSoaker. While I've been truly captivated by the slew of new, or at least newly envisioned conceptual tactics, I am at the same time, a bit confused about the entire concept as a whole. Undermining the value of older articles, while perhaps necessary to the integrity of newer ideas, hurts more than helps, IMO. I can see how you might be tempted to dismiss older ideas as obsolete as soon as you yourself have thought up better, or more streamline concepts to replace them, but it is much harder for us, outside of the tactical "sphere" you seem to have created in Ridgewood, to try and understand many of the concepts you are proposing without some frame of reference to bounce back to.
Join the fight! Support water warfare in your area today!
I see your points. I will be careful with how the old ideas are treated, though it is hard to balance the two points of writing the Theory. One is for people to learn about the ideas, the other is for them to be usable. As you have observed, I have been more concerned with whether the things work and less concerned with what the reader might value for learning. I guess that's just a fault I'll have to work on.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers
I'm just wondering, how can an article be correct at one point but incorrect a couple months later? Was it then incorrect earlier? Has the progression audience changed? That's the most confusing part for me.
Let me put it like this: Why should I bother reading an article knowing its incorrectness will be revealed later? Why should you bother writing it? These aren't meant to be offensive questions, just wondering. The wording isn't quite right... :p
Let me put it like this: Why should I bother reading an article knowing its incorrectness will be revealed later? Why should you bother writing it? These aren't meant to be offensive questions, just wondering. The wording isn't quite right... :p
Pluto used to be a planet. But now they know more about it and decided to strip it of planet status. An article can be correct at one point, but then later, with new information, it may become "incorrect". That's not the right word though, so "less effective".
When I wrote most of my articles, I had no understanding of why they worked, only that they did. Now I know which factors cause which physical actions and why. Basically, the ideas I am reeling off now shouldn't change is dramatically as others have in the past. The Tactical Theory is not exactly a ceiling, but it is as close as I am going to get to one.
When I wrote most of my articles, I had no understanding of why they worked, only that they did. Now I know which factors cause which physical actions and why. Basically, the ideas I am reeling off now shouldn't change is dramatically as others have in the past. The Tactical Theory is not exactly a ceiling, but it is as close as I am going to get to one.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests