Attack and defence: Difference between revisions

Attack and defence (view source)

Revision as of 12:10, 10 February 2023

710 bytes added , 10 February 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 ===Extending the metaphor===
-Strikes us that this metaphor colon of defence being judged by by consistent perfection, and attack being judged by momentary inspiration, translates.
+Strikes us that this metaphor: of ''defence'' being judged by by consistent perfection, and ''attack'' being judged by momentary inspiration, translates. We wonder how closely this translates to finite and infinite games.
-A criminal defendant will be severely prejudiced if there are any lapses in her behaviour or story. The prosecutor, however, needs just one moment of inspiration, to breakdown that story, and the prosecutions case can hold.
+A criminal defendant will be severely prejudiced if there are is a ''single'' lapse in her story. The prosecutor, however, needs just one moment of inspiration, to breakdown that story, and find that lapse, and the prosecutions case can hold.
-A regulated financial services institution, likewise, must be flawless in its conduct of its regulatory compliance program. That it may be unfailingly virtuous, altruistic, and motivated towards public good in 99% of its affairs will count for nothing if a [[bad apple]] is laundering money in an unregarded corner. By contrast, its supervising regulator, less so. What regulatory oversights it misses do not, generally form part of the public record: “[[what the eye don’t see, the chef gets away with]]”. It is not so closely monitored, nor held to account, and — to  great extent — it does not matter how ineffectual its regulatory coverage or investigation was in any other regard: if it finds one regulatory breach it can extract a fine and [[knee slide]] to the gallery.
+A regulated financial services institution, likewise, must be ''flawless'' in its conduct of its regulatory compliance program. That it may be unfailingly virtuous, altruistic, and motivated towards public good in 99% of its affairs will count for nothing if a single [[bad apple]] is laundering money for a single in an unregarded branch office in Murmansk. By contrast, its supervising regulator, less so. What regulatory oversights it misses do not, generally form part of the public record: “[[what the eye don’t see, the chef gets away with]]”. It is not so closely monitored, nor held to account, and — to  great extent — it does not matter how ineffectual its regulatory coverage or investigation was in any other regard: if it finds that one regulatory breach it can extract a fine and [[knee slide]] to the gallery.
+But, but, but — this is all true as long as you are in defence mode and not attack mode. For — but for an apex predator — ''everyone'' spends some time on attack — punching down — and some on defence — avoiding ''being'' punched down. Client mode is attack; adviser mode is defence. The [[Securities and Exchange Commission|SEC]], when investigating [[Bernie Madoff|Madoff]], is in attack mode and, sure it didn’t land one but the expectation is a clear round; when explaining its failure to find anything to a Congressional Committee, it is in ''defence'' mode.
 There are notable exceptions, of course but these prove the rule by their relative absence the excoriation hand out to the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] over [[Madoff]], and the public criticism of [[BaFin]] over the [[Wirecard]] affair — but even here the relative punishments are in no way comparable.
@@ Line 47: / Line 49: @@
 ===Those media ratings in full===
-<small>
 {| class="wikitable"
 |+ Professional sports journalists rate a striker and a defender