cousin_it comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 2 - Less Wrong

13 Post author: dclayh 01 August 2010 10:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (696)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: cousin_it 07 August 2010 12:57:51PM *  1 point [-]

Chapters 33-34: why didn't Draco and Hermione institute a policy of "traitors don't get to fight in the next battle" after the first battle with traitors? Why didn't Quirrell or Harry notice that all Muggle armies use top-down dictatorial control and this isn't something special or scary? Why did Hat-and-Cloak bother talking to Zabini before Obliviating him?

Comment author: gwern 07 August 2010 06:54:21PM 2 points [-]

why didn't Draco and Hermione

Can they do that? If I were a student in a class, I have about as much authority to stop a fellow student from taking a test as I do to command the tide to retreat.

notice that all Muggle armies use top-down dictatorial control and this isn't something special or scary?

Armies are scary. When do humans die in such numbers and such horrifying ways as when armies come visiting?

Why did Hat-and-Cloak bother talking

Entertainment, information, possible reactions.

Comment author: cousin_it 07 August 2010 07:01:15PM *  3 points [-]

Can they do that?

Sure they can. As a last resort, they could execute traitors from the last battle at the beginning of the next one.

Armies are scary.

So? Quirrell is talking about how to organize resistance to the next Dark Lord. Duh, obviously it should be organized as an army. Harry's protests about fascists and such are stupid, instead he should be proposing smart things that modern Muggle armies do. And Quirrell even calls his teams "armies"! What?

Comment author: wedrifid 08 August 2010 02:14:46PM *  0 points [-]

Sure they can. As a last resort, they could execute traitors from the last battle at the beginning of the next one.

This is both a significant cost to the general and a motivation for traitors to continue defecting and recruit further traitors. As a general I would allow for the loss of two soldiers to friendly fire (-2 points, 2 less combatants) for each traitor (that doesn't submit willingly to execution). The victims do get to defend themselves. In addition the 'execution' civil-unrest at the start of the battle could constitute a non-trivial distraction in the battle.

It makes a difference that the soldiers have little to lose but pride but the generals quite a lot more.