thefarshore | text;

Who are the ones being led? Humans? Machines? Non-sentient beings?

I was considering people, mostly.

[Though dang, she's curious what his answers would be for the other ones now.]

[ Angels are just old-fashioned robots, after all. ]

Adherence to logic. Wisdom and empathy are valuable, but a leader must always place reason over emotion, to ameliorate the fragility of a human mind.

The greatest weakness of humanity is their inability to learn from what has come before. A leader should not fall prey to that.

[...]

Do you believe there is any room for emotion at all if one hopes to lead well? Rationality in the face of a crisis is to be expected, but, in your view, should emotion be considered at all, even if to a lesser extent than reason?

Emotion is an indispensable part of humanity. A leader of humans must consider their emotional responses to actions and factor that logically into planning.

To fully lead without emotion is impossible if the leader is of the same type of being. In an ideal world, humanity would be guided by an entity that is not subjected to the failings of emotion at all. But we rarely find ideal worlds in this sort of plane.

You do not believe mortals are truly fit to rule themselves?

How much margin of error will you give for their mistakes? When do they become unfit to rule?

I can think of a few.

Standing at the front of a battle, with your men behind you.

Being able to see your men's strengths and assigning them tasks appropriately. Willingness to mentor them into a skilled role that serves the leader's cause.

Rejecting a loyal subject's requests to do something that directly benefits the leader, but costs the life of the subject. Misplaced loyalty to the leader and not their cause, there.

Being able to distinguish the people who want to take advantage of you for your power, your men, your land, or your position... from your true allies. And seeing the need for circumstantial allies too.

Your words sound as though they come from experience.

[Whether that experience was good or bad... well, she's in no play to pry while under the veil of anonymity.]

Courage, selflessness, and wisdom seem to be the underlying thread in your examples. But do you believe that discerning eye can be learned, or is it something that one simply does or does not have?

Not from my own experience - from observation of my prince. That's not a shameful thing either; I'm quite proud of him and to serve him, even while I'm here - as best I can. He's the best example of a good leader I can think of.

[When you're a shinki in form only and may challenge the entire power structure here...

But hell... he threw up the kool-aid a long time ago. He's wondering too. Because... surviving seems to demand leading.]

I'd say that recognizing that leadership and being in charge are not necessarily the same things for starters. And to understand when you can't lead and must step back.

A question I often wonder about myself.

Edited (better phrasing) 2019-03-24 15:10 (UTC)

Could I ask you to elaborate on your meaning a bit more? What are the differences that you deem to be important?

I'd say it ultimately comes down to awareness and the willingness to act on it. You can be in charge and not have it and trying to lead will fail.

Awareness of the impact of our choices. You don't have to be in charge to affect everyone. You don't have to be in charge to hold lives in your hands. Once you get an order or once you get advice to make a decision - ball's in your court and you get the choice to follow through. You must assess the situation, make a call on the judgement of the other person, evaluate the fallout, evaluate where your responsibility and duty really lies and if by going or not going along with something actually violates that in the larger scope.

Awareness as to why we're making the choices and taking the positions we are. Why our loyalties lie as they are.

Awareness of the true nature of our responsibilities. Awareness of how much responsibility in each situation is really on our shoulders. [THIS ONE'S HARD, ZELDA. SO HARD.] Awareness and willingness to bear the consequences no matter the choice made.

... and being aware of when we're going wrong and being willing and able to change for the better of others and ourselves.

There are subordinates with all of this. There are people in power with none of this.

Some are leaders. Others are in charge.

[ This is a subject Caster had a chance to dwell upon way too much for his comfort. Those are issues his girlfriend deals with- hell, those are issues he himself deals with, being put in this position of godhood.

So many months later he still doesn't feel like he has an answer for that ]

Courage and determination to act and make a decision. Even the hard ones. Especially the hardest one. Not every decision will end in success, but people need their leader to be able to make them. A leader, scared to make a decision is no leader. Act with wisdom, but act.

Knowing the people, making use of their strengths, and compensating their weaknesses. No one is made perfect, but that's how we make up for our flaws, right? In doing what we're best in, trusting that others do the same. Leaders are the ones that oversee that in a way.

An honest and valiant heart that understands and cares for the people that follow--- this I know is optional. There have been successful leaders who enforced the loyalty with pure force and display of power. So you could say, it's personal preference rather than necessity.

[Unseen, Zelda smiles a little at the name that is attached to this message. It feels a little decietful, being under the mask of anonymity, but she has the feeling the tone of the conversation would be a bit different if her name was connected to it.]

I suppose if one lacks the power to retain loyalty through force, the only option left to them is to garner loyalty through love. Though I imagine there are difficulties in keeping everyone satisfied to that point; you have stressed the importance of taking action, but not everyone will agree on which actions should be taken.

Would you prefer a leader that could be considered "weak" yet still has this "honest and valiant heart", or is it a preference only to be considered if the leader's strength is not in question?

Edited 2019-03-24 19:49 (UTC)

In the circumstances of my life, I wouldn't have a choice. But in a scenario where I do- hell yeah! I'd rather take that "honest and valiant heart" if I do have a choice.

[ The Master of Chaldea couldn't be even called a mage but most definitions, but they were able to challenge the impossible- he'd rather take that over a scheming and most powerful mage ever. ]

No one having it is truly weak, and opinions of opposition don't matter. We'll prove them wrong!

I think to realize that in the long run, you can't truly satisfy every one person ever- you can only do what's best for the majority, in the long run, is also part of that leadership we speak of.

[ Minako would probably have to think about this a lot harder if she actually had all of her memories. But without them, she just goes by her gut, the answer that comes to her first. Helping out anonymous people is kind of fun anyway. ]

Isn't the most important thing to be someone that others can rely on? Without that, you're either incompetent or just a rude tyrant who doesn't consider the feelings of the people being led.

[Another answer that makes Zelda smile a little at her phone. Oh, Minako...]

I don't disagree, but in that case, what makes a person into someone others can rely on, in your opinion?

Someone who's strong, but kind? That sort of combination.

[ Sure, it's maybe not as philosophical as other people's replies, but Minako has always been the kind of person to go with her feelings over logic. ]

There's probably a lot of leaders who get by without the second part, but I think it's way better to have both. Having an emotional connection with a leader makes it easier to know you can rely on them.

A good leader should listen to others.

Having a good set of eyes and ears is the first step. It's best to think with a clear mind.

Having clear and informed judgement definitely is important, but sometimes the ideal clarity of mind is not always possible. What do you believe should be done then?

Find a place to calm down and sort your thoughts.

Do you find it better to do that alone or with a friend?

i fink that a good leader is someone who listens to others

bad leaders get people to do what they say because they are scared that they might hit them or shout at them and they make the people they are boss of feel small but real leaders make their friends feel big.

good leaders are brave and strong and they make all those around them feel brave and strong too

[OH NO BABY...]

A lot of people seem to think the same way. It is just no good if the people who follow you do it because they are afraid of you.

So, what do you think makes a person brave and strong enough to be a good leader?

Well. I fink a brave person is someone that isn't afraid and will fite bad people and protect others and strong people help others and are kind to them. they don't do bad things like hurt others but make sure that their friends are alright.

I fink strong people don't do selfish things or have self preservation and leave their friends when things get scary and bad but they stay and make sure everyone is safe

Someone who cares for those beneath them, even if "beneath" may only be relative to certain situations. A leader must be powerful, but most their power comes from the strength of those who support them.

Often, it's easy to lose sight of that.

I have seen those who have lost sight of it, and can agree that it is not ideal.

How, then, would you have a good leader properly wield the power granted to them by their supporters?

I believe that the leader should fight for a cause that their supporters are also fighting for.

A leader who uses their power while deceiving their followers is one who I would not choose to follow.

The ability to do what is necessary depending on the circumstances. To be able to lead by example but also be willing to admit to your mistakes. To know when to be soft and when to be hard, but never cruel. Cruelty is the sign of a weak character; it's easy to kill and torture and far harder to accept that sometimes there is no way to force your ideals on another.

To know when to let go, and when to forgive.

To know how to be human.

Such things seem so simple in writing, and yet are so difficult in practice.

It could be argued that "doing what is necessary" may demand forfeiting in part one's ability to be "human". Which side should a good leader fall on, if they cannot tread that thin line?

I know. That's one of the problems with being a leader.

Humans are both cruel and kind. They can show the greatest of mercies in one moment, and in the next revile in the vilest of actions. To say that they are just one thing would be demeaning the complexities of that race.

To be a leader would mean that there are times that you must cross over that line. There are times when you cannot save everyone and cannot please everyone, and times where you have to strike fast and hard. I think... I've found that the best thing is to never hesitate over a hard decisions and to accept the burdens on myself instead of fostering it off on someone else. I rather be considered a hard but just leader instead of an indecisive one.

not being stupid is probably vital

[Chikusa....]

"Probably."

[CHIKUSA...]

Edited (i can remember formatting) 2019-03-25 19:04 (UTC)

well there are people who are said to be good leaders
but they aren't smart
they just have a way in from lineage
or are puppets
or have nothing but baseless charisma that doesn't actually do anything

you only have to look at heaven and its leadership to understand that

[My name is Chikusa Kakimoto and I'm gonna talk shit about Heaven on a public channel. YOLO.]

but for me
a smart leader is one that i would prefer
there are other qualities that make it as important i guess
but that's an important one when it comes to trusting someone with your life

Kindness and compassion. If the leader doesn't care about who they're leading, they're not capable of making the best decisions for them.

Patience and focus. Running headfirst into a complicated or volatile situation is guaranteed to make it worse. And if a leader gets hurt, they can't perform to the best of their abilities.

Intuition. Knowing how to analyze a situation, and being perceptive enough to do so is an important part of making decisions.

Being someone to rely on is invaluable, too. If your comrades or people can't look to you and place their faith in you, they won't trust you enough to follow you.

It seems as though wisdom is something many consider to be vital in leading well. I do not disagree - a foolish, impatient leader has no hope of keeping those under their protection safe, no matter how much they may care for them - but such things do not often come to people innately.

Do you believe it is possible to learn these things, and if so, what would you consider the best way to do it?

It is.

When I was younger, I wasn't exactly the wisest or the least impulsive. My experiences, even as... negative, as they are, have helped shape me into the person I am. They've made me a better leader, but more than that... a better person.

I like to think I've grown a lot, and that I've become a lot more wise. But honestly, I still have a lot to learn. I don't think you can ever stop learning, and being able to keep an open mind helps with learning wisdom and how to be the best leader you can.

There are several.
First, a good leader must have a vision. A clear objective what he or she wants to achieve. You’re planning to lead people somewhere it’s good to know where and why. You should probably start with why.

Second, a good leader needs to know his people. This is actually connected to the first trait of having a vision because if your goal as a leader does not align with their goals they would resist your rule.
All people are different and it’s foolish to ignore this fact but there’s always something in common and if you’re able to find it and show them that achieving your goals will help them in achieving theirs, they will follow you.

Thirdly, a good leader sets an example. If you expect your people to fight you must go and fight yourself. Otherwise your words are just that: words. Your actions would always speak louder than any words can. If you show excellence people would want to emulate you, to raise themselves to your level. Which is how it should be.

But this also must work in the other direction. People need to know you understand and share their experience. That you’re not some distant, unreachable ideal. If they go hungry, you go hungry. Their toil is your toil.
I will go even further and make sure their needs are fulfilled before my own because they entrusted themselves to my care and I believe that’s a right and virtuous thing to do.
But well, that’s me. I saw people succeed without such extra effort.

That is not, by all means, everything on the subject but I hope, as little as it is, that it helps. I can elaborate on any of this if you wish.

[You know... all this is striking chords, and Waver has pounced on this like a starving lion presented with meat...

Until.

But this also must work in the other direction. People need to know you understand and share their experience. That you’re not some distant, unreachable ideal. If they go hungry, you go hungry. Their toil is your toil.

...

... Christ, this is part of the damn problem that caused the melt that morning, isn't it? Shinkihood and Godhood are two entirely separate existences. How isolated is Iskandar feeling right now? ... is he feeling Godhood is turning him some distant, unreachable ideal?

Fuck, just fuck. Now how does he confirm this and deal with it without tipping over the proverbial apple cart in regards to certain things...

How much of the experience does he really understand?]

[Iskandar can discuss philosophy all day and night so he's extremely pleased that this time he didn't ignore a network post as he always does. He would have deprived himself of such an excellent occasion to have a meaningful talk on a subject that matters a lot to him. Some of the answers were really interesting. Some he simply doesn't agree with. Some are absolutely baffling. Iskandar couldn't help but smile reading the one Chikusa gave.
Quite on point, boy. Quite on point. And bold to a fault. The kid has guts. Let none say he doesn't.

But something else creeps into his awareness...

Distress.

Not the steady, familiar frustration that sometimes - like right now - Satya unintentionally broadcasts when some poor souls succeed in begging her to take them on a dungeon run and it inevitably turns into a disaster. Iskandar knows this so well he could do a voice-over of some of the more scathing comments. Starting with headless chickens with one common brain cell. That's his favourite.

So that's not Satya. That means only one option remains. He's got to leave his room and go look for Waver.

Because now he's worried.]

[Distress is rapidly turning into grinding frustration which is being smoothed away as Waver traces the rim of a cup. Around. Around. Back to the emotional center.

What does he d--- oh. Well. Footsteps. He'd like to have more thinking time for this.

Time to close anon.

Iskandar will find Waver staring pensively at the screen.]

... hope Chikusa doesn't get in shit for that remark.

[THOUGH POINT TAKEN. VERY GOOD POINT.

Sorry, man, using you as an ice breaker. Interrogating cultists in the back of a pizza van is a bonding experience... or something.]

What "little" you have provided suggests you have some amount of experience regarding the matter.

[Which... she is aware of, but hey, we're anon here.]

However, it seems like a contradictory existence. At what point does "excellence" become an "unreachable ideal"? How much fallibility is one allowed before they are considered weak? How thin do you consider that line?

Indeed I do.

I don't see any contradiction in what I'm proposing. Excellence and unreachable ideal are not even on the same scale. Excellence is greatness in the execution of anything one does. It would be foolish to assume anyone can keep an untarnished record of succeeding to achieve excellence without any failure. Quite the contrary. One must start with failure and only then they can reach true excellence. Only when one knows failure can one ever learn what must be done to succeed. So I don't quite follow the reason you're equating the fallibility with weakness.

What I do mean by unreachable ideal is when one would put themselves so high above others that it might look as if they have no vices. But then none would see them as human anymore. More of a saint. And if they don't see them as human they wouldn't believe they could be like them. Many would admire them but none envies the saint's thorny path. So they wouldn't even try to emulate them.
Thus one would fail in the greatest purpose which is the betterment of others. All the sacrifices, all the burdens and the loneliness of that place on top. All that will be for naught. And worse, it would be a seed of one's own demise. Because one would lose any connection one had with their people. Would know not of their joys and their sorrows. By doing so one would lose the ability to lead them.

I guess I have to wonder why you're asking the question. I'd rather have a friend than a leader, for example. Even when I was living in the big temple with two gods and lots of shinki, I don't think we ever felt like there was a leader - we were all just a family, a team.

I was supposed to be excited about the idea of becoming an Exemplar for a temple, according to the older shinki. An Exemplar is a leader among the shinki. And yet, it seems like you can't actually aspire to be one. You either are or you aren't; whichever shinki has been with the temple the longest, that's the Exemplar apparently - for the new gods, anyway.

And if that's how things are, then I don't think it's a fair way to pick leaders at all.

text;

text, hades

anon text;

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Video; from Ksitigarbha

anon text;

text; from Ksitigarbha

text; Anon right back

anon text forever;

no subject

text/ from Cú Chulainn

anon text;

text/ from Cú Chulainn

text; not anon whatsoever

anon text;

no subject

no subject

anon text;

no subject

text and not anon at all

anon text;

no subject

text, anon

anon text forever;

no subject

text; Xuanwun

anon text;

no subject

text; chikusa kakimoto

anon text;

no subject

text, serapis

anon text;

anon text;

Text; from Iskandar

Not here, buddy... but totally here

[action, totally somewhere else, like his Temple for example]

no subject

anon text;

text; totally non-anon Iskandar

Text; from Kairi