[DEFEATED] Commend Altino

by **Altino** » Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:38 pm

Kuriko wrote:Also, meritocracy is not an ideology that needs to be espoused so hard. The idea behind meritocracy is that democracy is an inferior form of government, basically saying that at least 4 of the 9 GCRs are inferior to the rest.

Hello, awkward, but Kuri, girl, do not even get me started. I am so meritocracy strong at this point I'm practically my own sect of the idea. I've written essays. I've established it as a guiding principle in several regions. I'm for real about meritocracy. :p And what I would like to point out foremost is that a meritocracy is NOT a system of government. Meritocracy is a guiding social principle in a region, and while it is easiest to establish in an autocratic system because any autocrat any old day can just decide "we're meritocrats now" and that will be that, ease of establishment does not mean meritocracy is more successful in these kinds of regions. It only means that it is easy to change the culture of an Autocratic region from leader to leader. It is more difficult to change the culture of a democracy because more hands are involved, but establishing meritocracy always needs to heavily involve the community. The purpose of a Meritocracy is not to enforce a particular form of government, but to encourage the kind of community that purposefully and strategically invests in the success of its members. A meritocracy does not use its players to advance their region, it uses the region's resources to support its players. There's no reason at all that democratic regions could not build up their own population using the idea of meritocracy. To quote myself from another medium (which you can read here if you're really inclined to hear me out about Meritocracy rather than just going on assuming whatever you feel it's convenient for me to think):

...there is a misconception that democratically leaning governments cannot be meritocratic because elections mean that competency isn’t always guaranteed to win. Sometimes the popularity contest beats know-how. However, the ability to garner that kind of support is realistically it’s own brand of competence, and there is no reason that a group of people could not consistently elect meritable people. A community does what they think that they are “supposed” to and if it felt to them like they would be failing if they didn’t vote on merit, they would be more apt to think about these things. Is the idea of democracy to elect whoever has the most friends in a region? Of course not. Democracy ideally elects those who will do the best job and who have the best plan. That is meritocratic.

Meritocracy is not an endorsement for strictly autocratic forms of government. It's a ground up project to uplift your players, help them see their own visions come to life, and give them the skills they need to be successful in the game.

I'm not gonna like, jump in the middle of the fray here about any of this other stuff, but I do want to make it clear what I mean when I say meritocracy and that it is in no way meant to disenfranchise democratic governments. I believe all successful regions are at their heart meritocratic, because I don't believe they could be successful without investing in their players.

by **Devi** » Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:14 pm

Altino claims to espouse meritocracy, but continually supports a clearly inferior bot, putting it into places of authority on her discord servers. Clearly a case of nepotism at work u.u

In all seriousness, I'm all for this commend, with some polishing

by **Aumeltopia** » Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:43 pm

We tend to forget that a qualitative commendation text can be just as good as a quantitative one when writing, and I think this draft suffers for it. One substantial paragraph-clause descriptively explaining what makes Altino's community-building so special is worth more than several short clauses reeling off minor achievements like "achieved a showcase of over 100 embassies in Doll Guldur as trophies of The West Pacific’s military success". Writing a commendation should not be about finding material achievements to list if the effect the target has had is not primarily material. Commendations are not résumés.

Altino is a prime candidate for a more qualitative commendation. The important thing that you want readers (voters) to learn about her should not be that the TWPAF under her lead did some tag raids. It should be an explanation of the social philosophy she has promoted (rather than just mentioning the name "meritocracy" over and over) and how it has made her a special figure in region-building.

I would advise you to cut down the length and replace the bits about other people's work -- which, to be honest, read as filler coming from you trying to focus on material achievements -- with some thoughtful, well-written explanations.

Also, I concur that TWPAF should be cut and Karma should be greatly expanded from just a set of numbers.

by **Bormiar** » Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:37 pm

I second what other's have said. This isn't a commendation for meritocracy, so don't act like it is.

In NationStates politics, meritocracy is a euphemism for autocracy, likely because autocracy doesn't have a great connotation. Words are (surprise!) based on usage. If "silly" used to mean "blessed with worthiness", it certainly doesn't now. Likewise, if "endotart" used to be complete jargon, it's not now. The West Pacific, Osiris, Karma, etc: the common thread behind "meritocracies" is autocracy. If you need more evidence, democracies don't call themselves meritocracies. Surely, democracies can still choose based on merit? They can choose on merit, as Altino admits, but NationStates' nomenclature doesn't label them as meritocracies. You don't have a right to call others wrong when they associate the words; the world associated the words. You have no right to revise NationStates' nomenclature.

The "enlightened nations" here might say "Well NationStates got it wrong for all those years and the word actually means this". I thought this was obvious, but that's not how words work. The people who write dictionaries don't sit down and make up their own words with their own definitions. They look at the usage of the word throughout history and craft their definitions around that.

She uses a lot of words to say this, but under Altino's idea of "meritocracy", the culture encourages choices to be made by merit.¹ By definition, that means "citizens are encouraged to make the right decisions". What a profound theory! I had been choosing the worst option all this time until Altino enlightened me! In truth, as Altino admits in the title of a recent article, everyone is a meritocrat. I can't help but laugh when Altino admits this. Why bother trying to convince us of meritocracy if we're already meritocrats? Altino is preaching to the choir.²

By all means, I would love to revise the word. I would love it if meritocracy meant the same thing in NationStates as it did in the real world. In this aspiration for NationStates, autocracies can start calling themselves autocracies because "meritocracy" is such a meaningless word.

As I said earlier, everyone is Altino's version of a meritocrat. I'm a meritocrat. Kuriko is a meritocrat. Therefore, communities don't actually gain anything from subscribing to Altino's theories, because to gain anything something has to change. My conclusion is that Altino's primary intent is not reform, rather to defend the word "meritocracy". This becomes evident solely through reading "Surprise! You're a Meritocrat!". Altino wouldn't feel the need to defend the word if the general usage of the word meant what she says "meritocracy" is. Therefore, she is revising the word.

¹ "Meritocracy is, very simply, a system where regions specifically seek to invest in the success of competent people." "Meritocracy places power in the hands of those who are active, smart, and willing to put the work in." "nepotistic leanings... is strongly adverse to the ideals of meritocracy." "[meritocracy] only concerns itself with whether you currently deserve the station or if someone else deserves it more."
² Example of Altino admitting that she's talking to no one: "Democracy ideally elects those who will do the best job and who have the best plan. That is meritocratic."

Ghad wrote:To finalize on this rambling part, I have to question why we still live in a NS world where one side of R/D is forever mighty and holy, and its achievements can be commended, and the other is forever terrible and evil and can never have its achievements praised, but that's mostly just unwinding and not a dicussion I actually want to feed into, especially since I feel like the stuff about TWPAF raiding achievements can be taken out without hurting the porposal, so watevs I guess.

I don't mean this as an insult, but this reflects very little understanding of the Security Council. Both commendations and condemnations are forms of praise. But a decade -- yes, a decade -- of precedent has said that defending belongs to commendations and raiding belongs to condemnations. This is because raiding is bad in character, and defending is good in character. There are exceptions, but that's a general rule.

It's one thing to say that raids are fine IC. In my opinion, they sometimes are. But people have gone so far as to say that raiding is good IC, because "it drives activity". I'm yet to see someone in the SC who actually takes that claim seriously (because it's silly).

This does not mean that raiders can't be commended. It means that they can't be commended for raiding.

By the way, I also think the TWPAF thing should be taken out now that I realize they're raider.

by **Ghad** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:25 am

Bormiar wrote:In NationStates politics, meritocracy is a euphemism for autocracy, likely because autocracy doesn't have a great connotation. Words are (surprise!) based on usage. If "silly" used to mean "blessed with worthiness", it certainly doesn't now. Likewise, if "endotart" used to be complete jargon, it's not now. The West Pacific, Osiris, Karma, etc: the common thread behind "meritocracies" is autocracy. If you need more evidence, democracies don't call themselves meritocracies. Surely, democracies can still choose based on merit? They can choose on merit, as Altino admits, but NationStates' nomenclature doesn't label them as meritocracies. You don't have a right to call others wrong when they associate the words; the world associated the words. You have no right to revise NationStates' nomenclature.

The "enlightened nations" here might say "Well NationStates got it wrong for all those years and the word actually means this". I thought this was obvious, but that's not how words work. The people who write dictionaries don't sit down and make up their own words with their own definitions. They look at the usage of the word throughout history and craft their definitions around that.

...But you somehow have been granted the individual right to revise them? o.o
In a very broad term, we all have the right to revise NS nomenclature... Because, as we both recognize, that's how language works, the meaning changes based on usage and, since last time I checked everyone in here is a part of Nationstates, that means we are all defining and redefining (thus revising) NS nomenclature, just not on an individual level sure, tho that goes both ways...
And within the many regions that follow meritocracy, I don't think I've really seen this term used as a euphemism for autocracy or non-democratic governance... I have never seriously seen that being done so the notion that that's the meaning it has sounds like... revision in itself, at best.
If an autocracy is in fact involved, it is always by virtue of something else and not directly from meritocracy... Picking the two GCRs: Osiris' autocracy comes from being a "monarchy", TWP's meritocracy comes from being... I guess we can just call it an autocracy for the sake of simplicity, as there is not really a WAD equivalent in terms of the real world. Anyway, both of those had these systems in place before they started rallying behing the idea of meritocracy alongside it, and implementing changes to represent this, so clearly the autocracy was not a product of the meritocracy... And since I haven't seen those regions drop what they had about Pharaoh and Delegate sovereignty respectively, when they started adopting the term meritocracy, I fail to see where the idea that this is just a mask for autocracy has come from?
And to add, if we can't really revise words then we can't still say meritocracy is suddenly equaling autocracy (which from what I've gathered at this point can only be attributed to the people who don't adhere to it calling it that, which is not really how things work but that's another point)... Karma is a meritocracy, no one has called it anything else, no one has challenged this notion and if they did we'd look at them very weirdly questioning why they were saying something so clearly wrong... And it's not an autocracy, it's an oligarchy, and there are differences between those. So if we're not to revise words... Anyway that's kinda just nitpicking really.

Bormiar wrote:She uses a lot of words to say this, but under Altino's idea of "meritocracy", the culture encourages choices to be made by merit.¹ By definition, that means "citizens are encouraged to make the right decisions". What a profound theory! I had been choosing the worst option all this time until Altino enlightened me! In truth, as Altino admits in the title of a recent article, everyone is a meritocrat. I can't help but laugh when Altino admits this. Why bother trying to convince us of meritocracy if we're already meritocrats? Altino is preaching to the choir.²

-snip for later-

As I said earlier, everyone is Altino's version of a meritocrat. I'm a meritocrat. Kuriko is a meritocrat. Therefore, communities don't actually gain anything from subscribing to Altino's theories, because to gain anything something has to change. My conclusion is that Altino's primary intent is not reform, rather to defend the word "meritocracy". This becomes evident solely through reading "Surprise! You're a Meritocrat!". Altino wouldn't feel the need to defend the word if the general usage of the word meant what she says "meritocracy" is. Therefore, she is revising the word.

That's easier to answer than even I expected it to be... The article itself approaches that question of why its defending the spread of meritocracy while also stating that everyone is a meritocrat, fro example under the section titled "Meritocracy Socially Applied"... But it also states multiple times that the title isn't as simple as it seems (it's a title, it's meant to grab your attention, good old clickbait), and that there are cases of people who are not meritocrats. I know it's not a short article, but it's good practice to actually read and make an effort to understand what we criticize before doing so, especially if we're gonna quote it as part of our arguments

Bormiar wrote:By all means, I would love to revise the word. I would love it if meritocracy meant the same thing in NationStates as it did in the real world. In this aspiration for NationStates, autocracies can start calling themselves autocracies because "meritocracy" is such a meaningless word.

Well you seem to be living your best life then, congrats :lol:

Once again, it seems that only the side opposing meritocracy is attempting to revise the word, while its usage everywhere else seems to correspond to reality but oh well.

Bormiar wrote:¹ "Meritocracy is, very simply, a system where regions specifically seek to invest in the success of competent people." "Meritocracy places power in the hands of those who are active, smart, and willing to put the work in." "nepotistic leanings... is strongly adverse to the ideals of meritocracy." "[meritocracy] only concerns itself with whether you currently deserve the station or if someone else deserves it more."
² Example of Altino admitting that she's talking to no one: "Democracy ideally elects those who will do the best job and who have the best plan. That is meritocratic."

Oh... So you did read it! Or maybe skimmed through it, not sure really because it's clear from reading the whole article that it argues that there are differences in actively gunning for meritocracy instead of simply passively expecting it to happen. Maybe if she's preaching to the choir that only means you yourself are part of the people under the umbrella of the title, but maybe, once again, the article isn't just the title.
And also that last point does not at all prove Altino is talking to no one? Besides what I just said, it clearly also says ideally there?... I don't think I need to point out that saying something is "ideally" like x, means that in practice it's not always like x, right? Which, means that it's recognizing that there are occasions when that does not happen?...
Anyway we're also not commending Alti's article (it doesn't even make it as part of the commendation) or even meritocracy itself, so that's more than enough of focusing this heavily on either of those from my side.

Bormiar wrote:I don't mean this as an insult, but this reflects very little understanding of the Security Council. Both commendations and condemnations are forms of praise. But a decade -- yes, a decade -- of precedent has said that defending belongs to commendations and raiding belongs to condemnations. This is because raiding is bad in character, and defending is good in character. There are exceptions, but that's a general rule.

Yes... Right... So are we gonna pretend everything else included in this commendation would fit into a condemnation? Because I'm pretty sure that's not the case... But what would I know I have a very little understanding of the SC... Or maybe I don't, and I just like things in context. And in this case the context was that adding feats done in raiding would be a deal breaker in this, or in fact any other, commendation.

And maybe I know, just as well as everyone else, that condemnations are not in their essence a form of praise, and are in fact not always attributed for this reason, but are instead merely adopted as such by the side receiving them, because of course they would, what else can they do if they can't show the same type of praise for their peers that the other side can by commendations because they automatically get shut down for even mentioning raiding?... Oh but that would be revising the meaning of things and we don't do that around here, right, my bad!

Bormiar wrote: It's one thing to say that raids are fine IC. In my opinion, they sometimes are. But people have gone so far as to say that raiding is good IC, because "it drives activity". I'm yet to see someone in the SC who actually takes that claim seriously (because it's silly).

This does not mean that raiders can't be commended. It means that they can't be commended for raiding.

When people are pushed against a wall and have no other options they tend to fight back with whatever they can... So of course some sillier arguments are gonna come from that

But again I'm not actually here to push for raiding in itself being commended. I don't think that's a battle this proposal needs, so it ain't the hill I'm dying on...

Bormiar wrote:By the way, I also think the TWPAF thing should be taken out now that I realize they're raider.

But on the other hand this is kinda exactly why I have a problem with the attitude/approach I talked about above. I think that the part specifically about raiding should be removed. The part about TWPAF in itself however should not. One can recognize that there was a lot of work and effort put into an organization without needing to defend what that organization does, especially since again it's a commendation of Altino, not TWPAF, so I think the parts about how Altino helped build up TWPAF can and should stay as they point towards her work and achievements, they just don't need to be accompanied by "achieved a showcase of over 100 embassies in Doll Guldur as trophies of The West Pacific’s military success;" since again that's more about TWPAF itself firstly, and also about raiding which as we all know is not helpful for a commendation, be that approach right or wrong, doesn't really matter.
But in the end, building the organization is not the same as raiding. Unless we are to go and call everything around raiding evil and raiders evil people by nature.

...and I've walled again.

by **Pallaith** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:07 am

I would like some clarification as to what agreement Altino forged between Osiris and TNP as Pharaoh of Osiris. It’s possible we are not thinking of the same one, because the only one I remember is the non-aggression pact that was done during my second term as delegate of TNP, and I worked with her predessecor Syberis on that one. If she was involved in that it was not as pharaoh so that should be cleared up in the draft.

by **Bormiar** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:22 pm

Ghad wrote:...But you somehow have been granted the individual right to revise them? o.o
In a very broad term, we all have the right to revise NS nomenclature... Because, as we both recognize, that's how language works, the meaning changes based on usage and, since last time I checked everyone in here is a part of Nationstates, that means we are all defining and redefining (thus revising) NS nomenclature, just not on an individual level sure, tho that goes both ways...

50 words in, and you've admitted to changing NS nomenclature. In your words, you're "redefining" "meritocracy". No, you're not redefining meritocracy. You are tacking a second definition onto the current one in order to avoid the connotation behind the word. But the fact of the matter is that it's just you, Altino, and a couple others who are doing it. Additionally, you're doing in with intention. That's not how this works. A couple people don't get to wipe years of a words usage in order to make the term more pleasing. That ranges from stupid to Orwellian. So people aren't going to smile and follow the Pied Piper to start redefining words as governments see fit.

As for me revising words, I have the backing of years of usage of the word.

Ghad wrote:And within the many regions that follow meritocracy, I don't think I've really seen this term used as a euphemism for autocracy or non-democratic governance... I have never seriously seen that being done so the notion that that's the meaning it has sounds like... revision in itself, at best.

"I, who has never even stepped foot in gameplay prior to this moment, have never seen this gameplay term being used this way, so therefore it has never been used this way."

chuckles

This comment (and the quote) below also goes against your argument that it's fine to revise words. You're now backpedaling to say that you never revised the word at all. I would suggest that you step back and really consider your argument.

Anyways: search.php?keywords=meritocracy&terms=all&author=&fid%5B%5D=12&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

Just start reading. First thing I see is Altino herself on a podcast on "Meritocracy vs Democracy", which definitely implies meritocracy means autocracy. Next example I see is TWP linking their Manners of Governance for more information on their meritocracy. I thought meritocracy wasn't a system of government? You can read their Manners of Governance; it says nothing about meritocratic values, thereby implying that meritocracy is the laws. It must hurt for you to see that. Let's continue. A 3 time pharaoh of Osiris implying meritocracy as a replacement for democracy. An NPO senator describing how meritocracy can be "a veneer for blatant oligarchy with no real hope for advancement" (if it didn't have basis in fact, they wouldn't have said it!). "Meritocracy with the next delegate being selected by their predecessor". Etc. I could go on.

True, there are some scenarios in which "meritocracy" is a word used to mean "selected by merit", but in the political nomenclature treats it synonymously with "autocracy".

Ghad wrote:If an autocracy is in fact involved, it is always by virtue of something else and not directly from meritocracy... Picking the two GCRs: Osiris' autocracy comes from being a "monarchy", TWP's meritocracy comes from being... I guess we can just call it an autocracy for the sake of simplicity, as there is not really a WAD equivalent in terms of the real world. Anyway, both of those had these systems in place before they started rallying behing the idea of meritocracy alongside it, and implementing changes to represent this, so clearly the autocracy was not a product of the meritocracy... And since I haven't seen those regions drop what they had about Pharaoh and Delegate sovereignty respectively, when they started adopting the term meritocracy, I fail to see where the idea that this is just a mask for autocracy has come from?

Even if that vague historical suggestion that "both of those had these systems in place before they started rallying behing the idea of meritocracy" is true, I never claimed that "autocracy was... a product of the meritocracy". In fact, I claimed that meritocracy was a euphemism for autocracy; i.e. a product of autocracy. Therefore, you're supporting my point with historical evidence

.

As for meritocracy being a "mask for autocracy", I did not say that. Autocracies don't hide that their autocracies. But "meritocracy" helps to validate autocracy to those who are against the idea; i.e. a euphemism.

Delegate sovereignty: You bring it up. I thought the word was "delegate supremacy". If it were "delegate sovereignty", that would also be a euphemism. It says "the delegate can't be controlled by external influences", which sounds good but could also mean "the delegate doesn't have to listen to the region".

Ghad wrote:And to add, if we can't really revise words then we can't still say meritocracy is suddenly equaling autocracy (which from what I've gathered at this point can only be attributed to the people who don't adhere to it calling it that, which is not really how things work but that's another point)... Karma is a meritocracy, no one has called it anything else, no one has challenged this notion and if they did we'd look at them very weirdly questioning why they were saying something so clearly wrong... And it's not an autocracy, it's an oligarchy, and there are differences between those. So if we're not to revise words... Anyway that's kinda just nitpicking really.

Ok so we went to "I'm not revising English" and now we're back to "It's fine that I'm revising English" and then redirecting blame with "you're revising the word". Ok.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to tell me that these regions are oligarchies instead of autocracies? If so, ok.

As for "which from what I've gathered at this point can only be attributed to the people who don't adhere to it calling it that", I've linked some posts above of meritocrats describing meritocracy as inherently conflicted with democracy.

Ghad wrote:That's easier to answer than even I expected it to be... The article itself approaches that question of why its defending the spread of meritocracy while also stating that everyone is a meritocrat, fro example under the section titled "Meritocracy Socially Applied"... But it also states multiple times that the title isn't as simple as it seems (it's a title, it's meant to grab your attention, good old clickbait), and that there are cases of people who are not meritocrats. I know it's not a short article, but it's good practice to actually read and make an effort to understand what we criticize before doing so, especially if we're gonna quote it as part of our arguments

It's somewhat condescending to say I didn't read the article when I'm the only one who supported my point with quotes. Also, I'm an admin in NSGE. I sure as hell read the article.

Your citation, "Meritocracy Socially Applied", actually supports my point.

If everyone is a Meritocrat and Meritocracy fits into every government system, why do we push so hard to make it a “thing”? The social application of Meritocracy - the very fact that it is a “thing” - is what makes it so special and effective.

To translate that, the very use of the word encourages people to aspire to its values. I mean, that's an idea worth trying. But she shouldn't have chosen the word meritocracy. You have to create a new definition entirely separate from the word's historical usage.

Ghad wrote:Once again, it seems that only the side opposing meritocracy is attempting to revise the word, while its usage everywhere else seems to correspond to reality but oh well.

Once again, you haven't brought in evidence to support your idea of the word, whereas I've brought in plenty of examples from authoritative sources above. I get it: you're in Karma. You've been exposed to a different usage of the word. In Karma the word means something different. But this isn't Karma.

Ghad wrote:Oh... So you did read it! Or maybe skimmed through it, not sure really because it's clear from reading the whole article that it argues that there are differences in actively gunning for meritocracy instead of simply passively expecting it to happen. Maybe if she's preaching to the choir that only means you yourself are part of the people under the umbrella of the title, but maybe, once again, the article isn't just the title.

See above for an actual response to the actual content in the article.

Also, this is rather ironic, because you realized that I definitely read the article after you posted that I didn't. You're commenting on my post without having actually completed it. And you say I don't read what I criticize.

Ghad wrote:And also that last point does not at all prove Altino is talking to no one? Besides what I just said, it clearly also says ideally there?... I don't think I need to point out that saying something is "ideally" like x, means that in practice it's not always like x, right? Which, means that it's recognizing that there are occasions when that does not happen?...

It's not an ideal for people to intend to make the right choices.

Ghad wrote:Yes... Right... So are we gonna pretend everything else included in this commendation would fit into a condemnation? Because I'm pretty sure that's not the case...

sighs

Some of the evidence in the commendation belongs in a commendation. Some of it does not. The TWP raiding does not. Founding Karma does. Etc.

Ghad wrote:And in this case the context was that adding feats done in raiding would be a deal breaker in this, or in fact any other, commendation.

You have no idea what the context is. So I'll give you some context:

The context is an experienced serial SC author who's voting for and another who's probably voting against making an easy correction based on years of precedent. Do you remember Commend Crushing Our Enemies? Commending for raiding can very likely wreck this proposal. If the proposal were submitted in its current state, it would be battered by unapproval telegrams and tag:wa telegrams to vote against. Wymondham does not want that.

Ghad wrote:And maybe I know, just as well as everyone else, that condemnations are not in their essence a form of praise, and are in fact not always attributed for this reason, but are instead merely adopted as such by the side receiving them, because of course they would, what else can they do if they can't show the same type of praise for their peers that the other side can by commendations because they automatically get shut down for even mentioning raiding?... Oh but that would be revising the meaning of things and we don't do that around here, right, my bad!

No, it's not revising the meaning of things. Most condemnations throughout SC history have been intended as compliments. A few, and just a few, like Condemn the Pacific, are intended to be scathing. But most of the time, it says "hey you're a pretty good raider" or "you're a good roleplayer". The meaning was crafted to be a compliment.

Ghad wrote:But on the other hand this is kinda exactly why I have a problem with the attitude/approach I talked about above. I think that the part specifically about raiding should be removed. The part about TWPAF in itself however should not. One can recognize that there was a lot of work and effort put into an organization without needing to defend what that organization does, especially since again it's a commendation of Altino, not TWPAF, so I think the parts about how Altino helped build up TWPAF can and should stay as they point towards her work and achievements, they just don't need to be accompanied by "achieved a showcase of over 100 embassies in Doll Guldur as trophies of The West Pacific’s military success;" since again that's more about TWPAF itself firstly, and also about raiding which as we all know is not helpful for a commendation, be that approach right or wrong, doesn't really matter.
But in the end, building the organization is not the same as raiding. Unless we are to go and call everything around raiding evil and raiders evil people by nature.

I take it that TWPAF is entirely raider. So if you work in TWPAF, you're probably working on raiding. In this case, all of the citations in the clause directly lead to raiding. Training officers and future commanders means training raiders.

I suppose the exception is developing the pirate theme. That's fine.

by **Ultimate Q** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:08 pm

Bormiar wrote:By the way, I also think the TWPAF thing should be taken out now that I realize they're raider.

I didn’t realize them having different political views meant that their success isn’t worth mentioning, do please go on

by **Makdon** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:20 pm

Ultimate Q wrote:I didn’t realize them having different political views meant that their success isn’t worth mentioning, do please go on

Uhh. Do you really need to hear why raiding isn't commendable? Commendations are for IC good actions, raiding is IC bad. It's that simple. It doesn't mean that raiding isn't impressive, it just means it's not fit for a commendation. Any attempt to frame the exclusion of raiding from a commendation as some sort of political grudge is absurd and shows a lack of knowledge and experience with the SC.

by **Goobergunchia** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:04 pm

This thread was a fascinating read for somebody that's been mostly inactive for the last eight years.

Amusingly, the first time I ever heard the phrase "Meritocracy" in connection with NationStates was with respect to The New Meritocracy, which featured a Senate that voted democratically on most everything of consequence. Where the "merit" came in was in deciding whether or not to admit regional applicants. While there were always some nations that were primarily (if not solely) identified with The New Meritocracy, in its heyday the region featured a Who's Who of prominent nations from throughout NationStates. It's interesting to see how the term has drifted from its traditional association with that region.

That all being said, as somebody looking on this draft resolution without reference to whatever's happened in Osiris or TWP the last several years, the reference to "implemented the system of meritocracy which led to the emergence of a new generation of leaders" reads to me like it's a euphemism for something. It's too vague to mean anything unless you know what actually happened. And I'd straight up strike ", as a result of the system of meritocracy Altino built Karma upon"; the region-building achievement speaks for itself and doesn't need philosophical throat-clearing.

by **Bormiar** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 5:35 pm

Ultimate Q wrote:
Bormiar wrote:By the way, I also think the TWPAF thing should be taken out now that I realize they're raider.

I didn’t realize them having different political views meant that their success isn’t worth mentioning, do please go on

"Different political views" pshhh. The last op I went on was a raid.

Their successes (though 100 embassies is hardly a success) are worth mentioning, though only in condemnations (unless they're things like fash bashes or the theme that Altino made). This is because raids are IC bad-- at least the SC has overwhelming supported that idea. I can't even believe that I have to explain this.

The same goes for when TBH, the NPA, the EPSA, the Sekmet Legion, Lily, the Lazarene guard, ERN, the Jomsvikings, LKE, Legio Pacifica (assuming they do more than just fash bashes), Karma's military, CS' military (do they have a military), etc raid. This has nothing to do with TWP or any political views. Many of those regions have political views in staunch opposition to others.

Oh, and the same goes if you want to condemn someone for defending. You can't do that. Defenders have to try extra hard to be the bad guys.

Goobergunchia wrote:Amusingly, the first time I ever heard the phrase "Meritocracy" in connection with NationStates was with respect to The New Meritocracy, which featured a Senate that voted democratically on most everything of consequence. Where the "merit" came in was in deciding whether or not to admit regional applicants. While there were always some nations that were primarily (if not solely) identified with The New Meritocracy, in its heyday the region featured a Who's Who of prominent nations from throughout NationStates. It's interesting to see how the term has drifted from its traditional association with that region.

I was actually considering finding out what the New Meritocracy's government was for this, but I decided that that would be rather unfair considering it hasn't been active for all these years.

by **Jar Wattinree** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 5:37 pm

Bormiar wrote:An NPO senator describing how meritocracy can be a veneer for blatant oligarchy with no real hope for advancement (if it didn't have basis in fact, they wouldn't have said it!).

The NPO Senator was a Governor at the time.

by **Bormiar** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:40 pm

Jar Wattinree wrote:
Bormiar wrote:An NPO senator describing how meritocracy can be a veneer for blatant oligarchy with no real hope for advancement (if it didn't have basis in fact, they wouldn't have said it!).

The NPO Senator was a Governor at the time.

To make up for that, here are some NSGP server quotes:

Jeez... that's some damning evidence against their argument. In fact, I couldn't find a single example which supported Altino/Ghad's idea of what meritocracy meant. They have access to that server if they want to check themselves.

Here's a goodie (along with the other one from Altino above):

https://discordapp.com/channels/5362378 ... 1959022592

Altini04/20/2019
>Democracy, you develop good people to run and hope that you have enough secret backroom control that they win
>Meritocracy, the good people win by default bc they earned it and no one can stop you.

Suggests not only that democracy and meritocracy are incompatible by dichotomizing them, but also that democracy needs oligarchical control to be a meritocracy. In other words, meritocracy is impossible without oligarchy. When did Altino's opinion change?

by **Sancta Romana Ecclesia** » Sat Aug 15, 2020 1:02 am

sigh This linguistic debate is still going? I remember, when this started that we were discussing meritocracy, the ideology - not meritocracy, the word and its connotations. (The emphasis is mine in the following quote)

Kuriko wrote:Also, meritocracy is not an ideology that needs to be espoused so hard. The idea behind meritocracy is that democracy is an inferior form of government, basically saying that at least 4 of the 9 GCRs are inferior to the rest.

I explained what this ideology means to me, I didn't pull out Merriam-Webster dictionary's rl definition of the word as if it proved my point. And from the looks of it neither did Ghad, nor Altino. Names (words) are just tools we use to designate ideas. Words are based on usage yes, but I have another oh so surprising fact about them - they also can have multiple meanings, i.e. one tool can be used to designate multiple ideas, based on context.

All in all, discussing what meaning of the word is "correct" is quite bad use of our time, especially since the author can come back and just choose to reword it. I would want to move the conversation along some more productive track. If "meritocracy" = "not a democracy", well, where's exactly that hostility and feeling of superiority to democracies? You can be an oligarchy and still have democratic elements. You can be an autocracy and have positive relations with a democracy, TRR itself hosts an example of such relation in The Lost and Found Accords with Osiris. Your region also has an embassy with the region of Hell, that one is notable because it was actually commended by the SC#197. Hell is many things, but a democracy it is not. You actually have to prove your worth in various trials to even gain entry to this region, this fact is applauded in the resolution.

I think that even if Wym used "in which they implemented a functional non-democratic system which led to the emergence of a new generation of leaders", this should still be something commendable. This is no way would engender a hostility to democracy as a whole. If democracy works best for you, more power to you. I don't believe it would work well in Osi or Karma though.

I believe that's all that needs to be said, really. Now, if we want to continue this debate, I suggest one of us just makes an NSGP thread on the topic. This is a drafting thread and although we are discussing issues posed by the draft, the author is not getting any further input by our back and forth, and after all this is why he came here, eh?

* I use the term "non-democratic", because not everything that is "not a democracy" is automatically an autocracy, i.e. one where primary decisions are made by one person. Some are oligarchies for example, see: irl Roman Republic or my own home region.

by **Honeydewistania** » Sat Aug 15, 2020 1:18 am

When you praise meritocracy in a proposal, I don't see why it's unreasonable to see that people are discussing the merits for it

by **Sancta Romana Ecclesia** » Sat Aug 15, 2020 1:29 am

Honeydewistania wrote:When you praise meritocracy in a proposal, I don't see why it's unreasonable to see that people are discussing the merits for it

Well no, no it isn't. But if this discussion takes over most of the thread, it will be that much harder to find new feedback between all these walls.

by **Bormiar** » Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:40 am

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:sigh This linguistic debate is still going? I remember, when this started that we were discussing meritocracy, the ideology - not meritocracy, the word and its connotations. (The emphasis is mine in the following quote)

"Meritocracy, the ideology"

Hmmm... Altino's meritocracy or the rest of the world (including Altino)'s meritocracy?

Note: This discussion pertains to Wymondham's language when using "meritocracy" within the proposal, and some may consider Altino's words and practices to pertain to the commendability of the candidate. Therefore, this discussion pertains to the thread.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:
Kuriko wrote:Also, meritocracy is not an ideology that needs to be espoused so hard. The idea behind meritocracy is that democracy is an inferior form of government, basically saying that at least 4 of the 9 GCRs are inferior to the rest.

I explained what this ideology means to me, I didn't pull out Merriam-Webster dictionary's rl definition of the word as if it proved my point. And from the looks of it neither did Ghad, nor Altino. Names (words) are just tools we use to designate ideas. Words are based on usage yes, but I have another oh so surprising fact about them - they also can have multiple meanings, i.e. one tool can be used to designate multiple ideas, based on context.

In this way, the word "meritocracy" can mean 1. a system, where people are chosen based on merit, 2. an entity that chooses to pursue that system, 3. a non-democratic* region (what you call "autocracy"), that uses its non-democratic nature to set up meritocracy (or claims to do that). Now, I would never use the word in the 3rd meaning to describe a region that isn't actually going in the direction of meritocracy in the 1st meaning. But if you want to do that, be my guest - I am not in charge of your vocabulary and what it means to you.

Sure, they can have multiple meanings. That's what I told Ghad when he said he was redefining the word-- he was actually making a new definition. But the same word having multiple similar-enough definitions is very confusing. Do you really want a world where people have to ask what you mean whenever you say semi-common words? It would be very difficult to detect one ideology from another purely on context.

Furthermore, the words become conflated. When people hear meritocracy in one place, they associate it with Altino's meritocracy. An example of this is the word "democracy". I'm an American (i.e. USA). I can tell you Americans like democracy. When Americans hear that Athens was a democracy, they think "hey that's pretty cool". But Athens was a direct democracy (often referred to as just '"democracy"), which is more like tyranny by majority, and not the same thing as America's system. The connotations, and often the meaning, are still conflated. In the case of meritocracy, this becomes even worse when every region which adopts Altino's meritocracy is also an autocracy.

So assigning words new meanings is not ideal, at all. It's actually detrimental. I don't have a problem with Altino's meritocracy, but I do have a problem with the language.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:All in all, discussing what meaning of the word is "correct" is quite bad use of our time, especially since the author can come back and just choose to reword it.

Yes, Wym, do do this.

Altino should also rename her philosophy to avoid the aforementioned confusion and conflation. Altino's meritocracy isn't a government structure, so "meritocracy" may be a misnomer (Maybe not; I don't know). "Meritology" sounds good. "Worthocracy" is worse but still good. "Ratocracy"(rate).

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:I would want to move the conversation along some more productive track. If "meritocracy" = "not a democracy", well, where's exactly that hostility and feeling of superiority to democracies? You can be an oligarchy and still have democratic elements. You can be an autocracy and have positive relations with a democracy, TRR itself hosts an example of such relation in The Lost and Found Accords with Osiris. Your region also has an embassy with the region of Hell, that one is notable because it was actually commended by the SC#197. Hell is many things, but a democracy it is not. You actually have to prove your worth in various trials to even gain entry to this region, this fact is applauded in the resolution.

They can be against our ideology without being against us. You can look at some of the quotes here and see how meritocrats criticize democracy. Examples, including some new quotes:

I could go on, but I think I've proven the point. Democracy is an obvious choice to anyone who's lived in the RL modern world. To accept oligarchy/autocracy, most people first have to reject democracy. Or, in the very least, say "democracy doesn't work for us". Osiris rejected democracy. As did TWP. As did the NPO, technically. As did Balder I guess. That doesn't mean treaties are going to collapse. They don't try and stop us from being democracies, and vice versa, so it's alright.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:
Bormiar wrote:The "enlightened nations" here might say

Is this a dig at my signature? Anyway, since we are on this topic, Karma actually has a system that is similar to that one - players have to complete a task before gaining admittance into the legislature (Sangha). Members of the Sangha are called "the Enlightened", this is the background for the title I've put. The Sangha is actually one of the democratic elements mentioned by Ghad. With around 30 members in total, it has the power to pass laws and only needs the ruling Council's approval for changing our constitution. if this was a Commend Karma resolution I would talk more about this (though I would not support a commendation of our region written by one of our citizens).

It was not a jab at your signature. I was referring to the Karma legislature.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:I think that even if Wym used "in which they implemented a functional non-democratic system which led to the emergence of a new generation of leaders", this should still be something commendable. This is no way would engender a hostility to democracy as a whole. If democracy works best for you, more power to you. I don't believe it would work well in Osi or Karma though.

As others have said, this is not a commendation for meritocracy, and Altino didn't even invent it. "Meritocracy" is not an extremely-common term. It's only been used in a passed or defeated proposal once. And Wymondham uses it 3 times in this draft, in ways that make it seem very pushed in. In regards to the first one, Altino did not bring meritocracy to Osiris. In regards to the second, Karma did not grow large because of meritocracy. What a silly suggestion. Regions grow because of heavy recruitment and word of mouth. That's why we have so many large scummy UCRs. In regards to the third, which says "the Violet Jewel of Atum, Osiris’ highest honor, awarded for their work to 'cultivate meritocracy' and status as a 'beloved pillar' of the region’s community", awarding for receiving awards is redundant and absurd (I've said that before). In every case, this reads as a commendation for meritocracy. For god sakes Wym said meritocracy made UCRs large.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:When you praise meritocracy in a proposal, I don't see why it's unreasonable to see that people are discussing the merits for it

Well no, no it isn't. But if this discussion takes over most of the thread, it will be that much harder to find new feedback between all these walls.

I don't know a successful SC author who doesn't read every post in their drafting threads. And lots have been burdened by far longer and far stupider arguments than this. I had to argue for pages and pages in favor of my most recent resolution, Commend Kindjal.

If Wym wants suggestions:

Don't commend for receiving awards. When we commend, we commend for actions. We don't commend for being commended. It's your job to find out why they were awarded and commend for that. Awards are just used as filler for people who can't properly do that.
Keep the pirate theme for TWPAF. Drop the rest. Sorry, but it's the only way you can avoid countercampaigns.
If Altino's MO is finding talent, don't talk about just one player for a paragraph. List a bunch of them. Then, and only then, it will be impressive.
Don't credit regional growth to meritocracy. That's just crap. I would say to place something on meritocracy somewhere (not its own clause-- fit it into Karma or Osiris stuff), but the current ones aren't good.
Don't skip over Karma. Your clause on it is very lackluster and raises questions on it. All I've gotten is that it's big and meritocratic.
Take the suggestions regarding treaties.

by **Wymondham** » Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:46 pm

Draft 2 is up

by **Praeceps** » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:07 pm

Wymondham wrote:The Security Council,

Recognizing that the nation of Altino was founded in June 2016 and has made many exceptional contributions worthy of commendation by this council, through their work to develop regional communities, build inter-regional camaraderie and develop regional leaders;

I would capitalize Council and remove the following comma.

Observing Altino’s work in connecting regional leaders and founders by hosting and inviting them to join “NationStates Leaders”, where nations can discuss and debate the principles of regional leadership, share best practice, learn from experienced nation’s wisdom and access resources to learn how to build regional communities, recruit new nations and protect their community, facilitating the development of strong and successful regional communities;

I believe it should be best practices and nations'. The sentence flow is a bit of a mess for me here.

Lauding Altino’s efforts to foster inter-regional camaraderie helping, in various roles, to forge treaties between Karma and Caer Sidi, Anteria, and The West Pacific,, all of which cultivated strong relationships and broadened Karma’s diplomatic reach;

Extraneous comma after TWP. Not sure how creating treaties is commendable.

Honouring Altino’s service to The West Pacific as Commander of The West Pacific Armed Forces from October 2017 to February 2018, which under their leadership:
developed innovative recruitment methods which drove membership and activity to unprecedented levels in a short space of time;
adopted the iconic West Pacific Pirate theme, allowing for purveyors of cutlasses and swillers of rum to be put into the spotlight;
Expanded the officer corps fivefold, improving training standards along the way
Integrated the Armed Forces with the wider regional community, enabling several recruits to transfer their skills to the government of the West Pacific
Authored articles for The West Pacifican, the regional newspaper, on the Armed Forces’ work, helping to improve regional understanding of the Armed Forces’ efforts
trained several talented officers and future Commanders, such as Overthinkers - the current commander of The West Pacific Armed Forces;

Missing punctuation at the end of a number of clauses here. I think the first clause would benefit with some numerical support.

Appreciating the significance of Altino’s continuing community presence in The West Pacific and Osiris as recognized by the awards granted to them, such as the first ever award of The West Pacific Medal of Honor and a Regional Commendation, for services to The West Pacific Armed Forces, and the honorary title of “Soul Sista” as granted by Delegate Bran Astor, alongside the Violet Jewel of Atum, Osiris’ highest honor, awarded for their work to “cultivate meritocracy” and status as a “beloved pillar” of the region’s community;

Receiving an award or awards is not commendable.

Praising Altino’s work in Osiris, as both its longest serving Pharaoh and as Chief Vizier, where they ushered in a new philosophy of government, which lead to the emergence of a new generation of Osiran leaders and continues to be the region’s guiding philosophy to this day, alongside transforming the region’s sense of camaraderie, as well as increasing activity and governmental participation to a level that, due to their stellar leadership, became both unparalleled and sustainable;

How is serving for a long time commendable? What is this new philosophy? What is it that they did specifically that lead to an increase in activity?

Also, not sure how I feel about commending someone for a position that they hold in a region that they founded.

by **DiRito-Opolis** » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:10 pm

Altino is not already commended? I feel duped, bamboozled, and schmeckledorfed.

by **Wymondham** » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:16 pm

Praeceps wrote:
Honouring Altino’s service to The West Pacific as Commander of The West Pacific Armed Forces from October 2017 to February 2018, which under their leadership:
developed innovative recruitment methods which drove membership and activity to unprecedented levels in a short space of time;
adopted the iconic West Pacific Pirate theme, allowing for purveyors of cutlasses and swillers of rum to be put into the spotlight;
Expanded the officer corps fivefold, improving training standards along the way
Integrated the Armed Forces with the wider regional community, enabling several recruits to transfer their skills to the government of the West Pacific
Authored articles for The West Pacifican, the regional newspaper, on the Armed Forces’ work, helping to improve regional understanding of the Armed Forces’ efforts
trained several talented officers and future Commanders, such as Overthinkers - the current commander of The West Pacific Armed Forces;
Receiving an award or awards is not commendable.

That clause is not commending them for receiving awards, their being commended for their community efforts in TWP and Osiris, the awards show that their community efforts have been recognised in both regions.

Praeceps wrote:How is serving for a long time commendable? What is this new philosophy? What is it that they did specifically that lead to an increase in activity?
Also, not sure how I feel about commending someone for a position that they hold in a region that they founded.

I've amended the bit about longest serving Pharaoh, the new philosophy was meritocracy, they did everything, they promoted new leaders, cleared out deadwood, changing how each department operated, fundamentally changed how all of the government operated and changed the very idea of what Osiris' government should be like. Ask anyone else in Osiris who was there for that, for example Syb, Koth, Mike, etc. they will tell you how Altino overhauled the very premise of Osiran government and made it what it is today

by **Praeceps** » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:23 pm

Wymondham wrote:That clause is not commending them for receiving awards, their being commended for their community efforts in TWP and Osiris, the awards show that their community efforts have been recognised in both regions.

Being recognized in a region is not commendable either.

I've amended the bit about longest serving Pharaoh, the new philosophy was meritocracy, they did everything, they promoted new leaders, cleared out deadwood, changing how each department operated, fundamentally changed how all of the government operated and changed the very idea of what Osiris' government should be like. Ask anyone else in Osiris who was there for that, for example Syb, Koth, Mike, etc. they will tell you how Altino overhauled the very premise of Osiran government and made it what it is today

It's not my job to do research—it's yours.

How is meritocracy a new philosophy?

by **Wymondham** » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:27 pm

Praeceps wrote:
Wymondham wrote:

It's not my job to do research—it's yours.

How is meritocracy a new philosophy?

I've done the research, I'm pointing out to you people who can cross-reference what I said. Meritocracy was a new philosophy for Osiris when Alti introduced it

by **Ikania** » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:35 pm

Wymondham wrote:which lead to the emergence of a new generation of Osiran leaders

Gotcha! It's spelled "led".

by **Wymondham** » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:37 pm

Fixed

[DEFEATED] Commend Altino

Who is online