ON MERITOCRACY
olivermellors
First, credit is due to Lavis and Rainer (and other correspondents) for fertile discussion about the CAF’s Code of Conduct. One comment, in particular, caused me a bit of discomfort. I wondered why.
Well, here it is:
“all the CoC has really done (as lavis has aptly pointed out) is allowed a few people to maintain their grip on power” (Rainer)
This got me itchy, not because it is surprising but precisely because it should not be surprising. In fact it is precisely as it should be. It is necessary for long term viability. A group which does not guarantee orderly and predictable self management, will soon cease to exist, victim of its own short-sightedness.
There is great value in having a “special group” to carry on established tradition, be repositories for organizational knowledge and expertise, and police institutional ethic. This has always been well known. The value of such “special groups” is so pervasively appreciated that they exist in almost all social organizations of which two large scale examples might be “aristocracy” and “meritocracy”. The days of the noble are long ended, replaced by the “able”. Which is what I discuss now.
It is really not much of a complaint that some hold positions for a long time. Especially if they serve with vigour, insight, and effectiveness. It is when a member of the “top group” shows himself slovenly, short-sighted, self-serving and incompetent that things go wrong. In those circumstances, it is best if the levers of power are well known and accessible to others. A good Code of Conduct will accomplish that. It will create concrete standards and expectations against which to measure performance and behaviours. It will provide for an accessible method by which to weigh and appraise. And, it will describe consequences for cases where the standard has not been met. Objectively, the CAF’s Code of Conduct seems to fit the bill.
“Objectively good” is not much of a compliment, however. The better test is whether the practice has been beneficial or not. On this score, there is some dispute and I haven’t an opinion to share. I will say, however, that it is in the CAF’s interest to demonstrate, cogently, that the practice has lived up to the promise. Greater transparency tends to increased understanding. But it carries its own risks as well, and risks which we should face honestly. Chief amongst the risks presented to the forthright, is the closed-minded, result oriented critic animated by the zeal of the converted. Enter, my friend.
Ever had a friend/mate/colleague that you couldn’t talk to openly? How often was this because “no matter what I say, they interpret it as consistent with their own theory?” Players on erepublik have a strong tendency to see everything as confirming their theory, ignore anything which might be disconfirming and, for good measure, continuously attack the messenger who brings something new. The “something new” is really quite frightening, from all appearances, because it MIGHT somehow eventually argue against one’s pet theory/thing/preference.
If I were a member of CAF HC I would be very reluctant to discuss anything at all sophisticated with players who say, up front: “I am making it my personal mission to prove….. Everything they/he/she says is crap and bullshit….. I have no evidence but if it quacks like a duck….. I know it is true….the reality is….I will find a way to make them/him/her admit it… etc” In short: if you want information, show yourself able to use it intelligently and wisely.
The Code of Conduct appears, on the whole to have served eCanada well. We have a well ordered military force which obeys civilian instructions. The president recently advised that the force had responded to every order and that he had no cause for complaint. It has been there when called upon. The way to the top seems pretty clear, based on perseverance and merit. Not all can be chosen, however. And the force appears to have been responsive to the need for change such as record keeping. There may be some legitimate nagging doubts about past incidents: “I’ll just tell Tem he was drunk and approved ” is an example. And there may be much we don’t know about. At present, however, it wouldn’t be crazy to recognize the good in a CoC which “allowed a few people to maintain their grip on power”.
Comments
this article is awesome because it talks about me.
“allowed a few people to maintain their grip on power”.
And come up with LSR, and interfere in Party and Congress elections..etc
Maybe if the fatcats just kept their inflated funds and kept quiet and functioned as they were supposed to then there would be no problem.
It's when they decided not just to get rich off of their positions but then decided they should also be able to determine right from wrong and interfere in Party/Congress elections where they saw fit. What is that word that starts with O again?
The word is "oligarchy" which is what you belong to as a PP. Thank you for your insight.
oliver, first off well written article dude
Second) just wanted to re-iterate for anyone that didn't read our discussion in lavis' article...where we discussed the differences between TCO and CAF which was what generated the comment you quoted;
where you supposed the main difference between the CAF/TCO was the Code of Conduct that the CAF operates,
i pointed out however there has been equal scandal that has come out of the CAF in the form of; 1ronman thievery, Long Sword Rebellion, failure to account expenditure to congress, etc
Resulting in this comment;
"all the CoC has really done (as lavis has aptly pointed out) is allowed a few people to maintain their grip on power."
you mentioned in your previous comments that the CoC acts as a check and balance to the power structure framework within Canada.
So let me ask you...
Do you honestly believe that the CoC can act as a check and balance for the CAF when it is enforced at the discretion of the High Command? , and where often times it must likely be levelled at former or current members of the High Command?
case in point, the Coda exceeding the funding Cap limit. Now my personal belief is that she did nothing wrong, i like her very much as a player, and i firmly believe Tem authorized as Prez...HOWEVER, there has been no official inquiry
we have a set of checks and balances... but does anyone believe they are in good working order at the moment? honestly?
Rainer dear friend, a delight to read you here. Actually, I suggested that there are checks and balances ON the force. Not the other way around. But i agree wholeheartedly we could use a ferocious "tune up". We have scrapped and discarded most of our checks and balances. Actually, congress is right now getting rid of another: it is voting to overturn the ruling that a speaker must be a congress member. The long term risks seem to be ignored in favour of being "nice".
Well, at risk of feeling stuck in repeating events from the past, didn't LSR fall apart before it actually did anything to the congress election. It seemed more a scare tactic than one that was put into effect. If it had been implemented, well...no point speculating the real fall-out.
Many people who are not in the CAF easily agree that it has been the longest serving stable entity in eCanada. It's been pretty much the backbone of the country for the 2 years I have been here. It does its job well and, like any major organization, there are some inefficiencies and minor abuses that pop up now and then, but on the whole it's top notch.
The way we'll know the CoC is not doing its job is when there is a major breach of confidence/behaviour and there is no way to discipline those in the CAF responsible for it. Of course, we still need someone outside the CAF who can rule on what is a breach. I guess the President and Congress can do this to a limited extent even though it is not in the CoC. For now, until the Supreme Court is repaired, we will trust in those like Chucky Norris, Jsboutin, and Coda to be the moral compass. I think I can live with that.
i think alot of the checks/balances got thrown out with the anti-roleplay bathwater... although i haven't been in congress in over a year so i could be kicking my foot into my mouth on that .
but i suppose to be fair alot of the systems that were designed on the forums ended up not working because the people who made them left congress ... leaving new people to show up and say "wtf is this for?"
What Plugson said.
Thanks M. Loiselle. I'm learning to take a much more laissez-faire attitude with the CAF now that I know I how to save 75% on taxes each day.
Holy its been like 18months and long time players still don't know the diffrence between TCO and CAF.
Thats a sign that canada is pathetic.
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that people aren't chasing me.
Olivermellors
someone NEEDS to be out there chasing this stuff around and making it a personal mission to expose corruption...actually it seems to me that this is what Saltydog does on a daily basis no?
Here is the thrust of my concern. Anytime you have an organization that feeds off of public money, and serves as an institution of the government, and yet, has no impetus to be accountable to the government...we have a problem. Also consider, the government has no real way of controlling one of the largest consumers of our tax dollars.
For all intents and purposes, the CAF is the wild west, and the sheriff works for the black hats (CAF).
My opinion is that the CAF should be accountable to congress and HC should be elected to terms of office of say 3 months at a time. Run it the way we run the Justices and the AG. Elect HC members and restrict their term in such a way that complacency does not lead to corruption.
Its a given fact that when one spends too much time in one position, things happen. Why should anyone be in one role for so long.
To their credit the CAF General is switched every 6 months. However, I think the other HC members should also be pulled and replaced to avoid expiration...also consider that this would allow other players an opportunity to expand their personal experiences, grow as CAF leaders, and provide the CAF with a pool of talented and experienced individuals on whom they could draw should someone decide to go bat shit crazy and rage out.
As it stands now we have the same tired people in the same tired roles...change is a good thing. If nothing else it prevents stagnation.
Oh and btw...QUACK QUACK!
The only problem I have with meritocracy, is how we define merit. How does one reaches a position at HC CAF? Of course, I think most of the time the candidate selection is made objectively, based on the services rendered by the person in the organization. But how one defines "services"?
I can tell you that I have seen strange things happen the last night of 25 at the last election to Congress. I was even asked to vote for members of CAF and one of them was in the HC. LOL
I'm sure this officer will be promoted soon to the HC for his good "services" done for the CAF.
The CoC is full of sh*t. The CAF is a political organization and act as the same that the TCO.
Don't ask me now why I quit eCanada.
thank you acacia for your helpful input. Just on a personal note, from which others may draw: the old croatian story of "the boy who cried killer duck" has three morals. Vigilance is good. Screaming "killer duck" too often disheartens the hunters. If you want to tame a "killer duck" don't try to get the hunters to shoot him all the time. 🙂
Your point about term limits for Justices and Attorneys General tends, I think to a conclusion opposite to what you argue and more consistent with the general thrust of my article. A major reason for failure in the justice system was precisely the too frequent rotation of "staff" which squandered an opportunity to build up human capital, expertise, culture etc. Nevertheless, your views have merit and deserve careful consideration.
The LSR was a threat that was given, and then fell apart with out any action taken. As I recall the individuals involved from the CAF were "punished"(I use the term loosely) for their violation of the CoC and life moved on. I also recall that most of the individuals involved expressed that while they thought it was necessary at the time, in hindsight it probably wasn't the best way to go about it.
Also, as a former CAF soldier, and platoon commander I can say that the CAF is most certainly a meritocracy and for the most part the people involved have the best of intentions both for the CAF and eCanada as a whole, which relates directly to how they make their decisions on who gets to move up.
Are they perfect? No. Do they make mistakes? Hell yes, sometimes even big ones(See the tank funding+Coda event).
Do we crucify them every time they misstep? If it makes it to the media we certainly seem to. Should we? No.
I'm not saying that a little deeper scrutiny/transparency wouldn't be a good thing for both the CAF, the Government and the public, but there *must* be balance. IMHO, those that write inflammatory articles against the CAF(I have yet to see an overly dramatic one favoring the CAF, point one out if I'm wrong) are doing so for political reasons and do not have the best interests of eCanada at heart.
I'd love to put some thoughtful comment into the debate, but I just don't have the energy.
^ but you have the energy to become obsessed like girls with backstreet boys over Wes and Rolo.
Your "energy" is mismanaged. But maybe what you really lack is competence. \o/
and competence is what this article is about. Good connection Octavian_F, though it wasn't necessary to make it at the expense of another player.
Actually, though, Salty does demonstrate remarkable resilience, determination, drive and insight which were also highlighted above. For some reason, I more appreciate his concession of low energy with implied promise to contribute, than I do your unhelpful troll. You see, I think that many ecanadians appropriate and use the work of others for their own benefit. I may be uncharitable, but using this article as your vehicle for gratuitous insult seems like the "failure we tolerate" recently described by Jacobi. Competence, true competence and skill, are not achieved by those who abuse others. Nor are the competent unable to distinguish abuse from criticism (of which this is an example). kind regards
^ O_o
😁😁
Perhaps comment on the topic of the article would attract a favorable response, and appreciation. 🙂 It is what opinion leaders do.
I remember a conversation I had with Tantis tonight, it's not an ols story. There isn't a man, woman or child in this country that hasn't made a mistake. The real judge of their merit is did they learn from it?
😁😁😁
bang on.
Time for a new article.
oilvermellors is pretty awesome.
Personally, I think it's rather funny. So often people complain, or even go on a rabid warpath about the smallest things. Without getting into specifics like the LSR, people question the very merits of a document that for better or worse is a delineation of the values expected from each member of the organization. Is it an enforceable document? Yes. But it is rarely applied. Why? Because few people who can't abide by it apply for the CAF, those who do, and later violate it generally leave because social pressure rather than the rule of law, mounts against them until they leave. Occasionally the odd person is formally removed and yet articles aren't written about it, the CAF doesn't draw attention to the times it upholds the CoC. Why you might ask? Why respect for the individual removed. Funny that, Respect is one of the values enshrined in the CoC.
I am opposed to term limits, kicking people out of High Command. First, it would be rather unfair to adopt such a restrictive policy on the leadership of the CAF that we do not apply to Congress, the Court, the Cabinet, or the Presidency. Second, institutional memory is the most precious commodity a social community like this can possess. An Army needs consistent leadership. Placing the power to change that leadership in the hands of Congress, or even the President is a recipe for disaster! We only have to look through past election results (and recent ones at that) to see that putting that power in the hands of fools elected by uninformed voters would periodically rob the army of competent leadership or see the leadership replaced by incompetent lackeys.
While the CoC is enforced by the High Command on the rank and file, the High Command if found in violation of the CoC can be brought before the Supreme Court of Canada for a court-martial. oh wait, Congress is trying to dismantle the Court too...
Former CAF High Command member,
Goran Thrax
"....few people who can't abide by it apply for the CAF... "
This dovetails nicely with the conversation we were having on Lavis' article re: institutional values.
you observe just as keenly about "institutional knowledge and memory".
of course I am the choir.... hmmmmmmmm.. maybe not a good analogy when speaking to the space pope? kind regards (but keep your distance ).