Why the game fell. 8)

[Ait'al]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegor...he_long_spoons

Same reason the internet and gaming communities fell also. The free internet movement era was nothing but cooperative game/software development epitomizing this beleif(Where copywrite truly went wrong also). Mud development also. Eventually people became incapable of helping each other freely or working together in an affective way(which is a test of ones ability to do this). The same thing applies to strategy in this game. Interesting alegory. Group combat is the same concept. You either run around zerging. Or you see how you can benefit from each other and use what is in essence proper group work(helping each other to accomplish it.). This is why we can't get proper fire concentration helped defense, healing, etc we don't do it with the mindset to help each other. It's the epitome of the opposite of the one man army concept. Jedi VS Sith if I'm not mistaken... The games only true mechanism was he who followed this rule best won. 8) Hence also the origins of sports and other cooperative events. it was a lesson in teamwork and helping each other.

Maybe not be profound to many people but consider the fact no one can pull it off. The real test is in your actions(pudding). When we figure out how to play well together this game will rebuild.

I found it interesting one of the other variations of this was one of my favorite. The golden mean/rule.

People in this game can't even get together for simple reason to do things. I had not seen a single example of a group not streaming along in a line like a bunch of zerglings in a long time. Even when physically together everyone is technically working apart even if they are working together. It's the mindset first. when you truly have it you will consider others and hence yourself in the group and accomplish great things. Until then we continue to fall or live in hell just like the parable. The same environment but one difference. heaven vs hell.

Especially with the coming of the new game(unless they have completely broken it down to individual play, if that is even possible since you can always choose to work together) I think it's pertinent bring this up. The first men/side to figure this out again, will be the truest and literal winners of this game.

[sylphaen]

Thanks for the post.

[Ait'al]

I think this says, if you get my meaning, what is wrong with education today. They have turned to saying in you learn from one style over another you have to compensate. Older teaching was more dynamic and based upon experience from teaching others and work involving the same. So they taught and could teach in ways that could teach any student. The teacher would/could make his own material and should be able to easily. In so doing was experienced to understand and develop understanding of the students needs and thereby get him the information so he could understand. Static vs dynamic class designs. Something in the environment has to be flexible. If it's the student it just puts undo burden on them(You should have a teacher who can deal with multiple student types not force one stupid type to be able to be taught in an efficient way or at all.). And technically steals their money by not having a teacher who can "do his job". The teacher should be the one responsible for being able to teach. You can always teach anyone anything. It's merely filling in the information or premises in an argument. He with the experience is the one who is responsible in life to do so. The elder not the younger, the wise not the simple, etc etc. schools and people today should at least acknowledge that is the current problem. Not try to justify it or rationalize it.