Many alliances are clearly elitist. They claim that they only take the best, that "pets don't talk back", that they are "pure PvP" and so on. Many commenters are surprised that I did not join such place, but to TEST who are "noobs". I've always preached against morons and slackers, I should be with the best, not with "n00bs".
To their surprise the TEST lead HBC (and the similarly "n00b" Goons) are winning against the "elite". This is indeed where meritocracy and elitism separate. Meritocracy is valuing the results. If you do better, you deserve rewards, if you fail, you deserve no help. Winning is winning. If TEST is doing better than -A- then TEST is better than -A-.
"But TEST blobs" say the elitists, claiming that an -A- pilot is better than a TEST pilot and would win 1v1 but TEST just has more. This is a non-answer. Nothing stops -A- to recruit more pilots. Even if they are the best of the best, the top 2%, then by accepting the top 5% they could get enough pilots and still remain the elite. Why don't they do that?
Because elitism isn't what its name says. Elitism is not collecting the best performing people. Elitism is collecting a bunch of guys who has some "proof" to be the best without actually performing. For example 60M skillpoints that anyone can have if he AFKs enough. Or "great killboard" that is also grindable: you keep running from opponents who shoot back and keep hunting miners/ratters. Alternatively people who did perform once. I did get 50B in a month. However it doesn't mean that I can repeat it in a changing business environment, as my income fell to 36B/month due to FW. But even more importantly I couldn't get a single ISK without making effort. Having me sitting in a station blabbing about the good old times when I made 50B would create much less income to your alliance than having an active veldspar miner. Times change, what was once great can be lame today. Measurement systems can be inaccurate or trickable (like killboards).
Meritocracy is seeking optimal ways. Elitism is believing that you have the optimal way just because you are great. You are not great, even if you do great things. My income is repeatable by anyone who follows my blog, it's the way that is great, not the guy walking it. Elitism, even if starts from meritocracy, even if it was created by the best performers once upon a time, will unavoidably leads to a bunch of non-performing jerks preaching how awesome they are. When their awesomeness is put to the test, their 2 years obsolete RRBS fleet is obliterated by a drunken-roaming, newbie-friendly fun-alliance.
Since both elitists and performers claim to value performance, it's not trivial how can you tell one from other. Some signs to separate the two:
PS: yes, it's an augmented repost of an old post. The changes deserve it, I believe it's an important topic.
Also, I mentioned NC. in the post as example of elitism. They recently joined a coalition that has non-elitist goals. I wish them luck, but it's a long way from "mate" to "Respect the Alliances in the Coalition". I hope they make it. But I wouldn't bet money on it.
Saturday morning report: 166.6B (8.6 spent on main accounts, 7.1 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.8 on Ragnarok, 5.3 on Rorqual, 3.4 on Nyx, 3.4 on Dread, 37.4+20 sent as gift)
Monday morning report: 169.0B (8.6 spent on main accounts, 7.1 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.8 on Ragnarok, 5.3+0.1 on Rorqual, 3.4 on Nyx, 3.4 on Dread, 37.4+20 sent as gift)
To their surprise the TEST lead HBC (and the similarly "n00b" Goons) are winning against the "elite". This is indeed where meritocracy and elitism separate. Meritocracy is valuing the results. If you do better, you deserve rewards, if you fail, you deserve no help. Winning is winning. If TEST is doing better than -A- then TEST is better than -A-.
"But TEST blobs" say the elitists, claiming that an -A- pilot is better than a TEST pilot and would win 1v1 but TEST just has more. This is a non-answer. Nothing stops -A- to recruit more pilots. Even if they are the best of the best, the top 2%, then by accepting the top 5% they could get enough pilots and still remain the elite. Why don't they do that?
Because elitism isn't what its name says. Elitism is not collecting the best performing people. Elitism is collecting a bunch of guys who has some "proof" to be the best without actually performing. For example 60M skillpoints that anyone can have if he AFKs enough. Or "great killboard" that is also grindable: you keep running from opponents who shoot back and keep hunting miners/ratters. Alternatively people who did perform once. I did get 50B in a month. However it doesn't mean that I can repeat it in a changing business environment, as my income fell to 36B/month due to FW. But even more importantly I couldn't get a single ISK without making effort. Having me sitting in a station blabbing about the good old times when I made 50B would create much less income to your alliance than having an active veldspar miner. Times change, what was once great can be lame today. Measurement systems can be inaccurate or trickable (like killboards).
Meritocracy is seeking optimal ways. Elitism is believing that you have the optimal way just because you are great. You are not great, even if you do great things. My income is repeatable by anyone who follows my blog, it's the way that is great, not the guy walking it. Elitism, even if starts from meritocracy, even if it was created by the best performers once upon a time, will unavoidably leads to a bunch of non-performing jerks preaching how awesome they are. When their awesomeness is put to the test, their 2 years obsolete RRBS fleet is obliterated by a drunken-roaming, newbie-friendly fun-alliance.
Since both elitists and performers claim to value performance, it's not trivial how can you tell one from other. Some signs to separate the two:
- Hard to get in, easy to stay in: typical elitist sign. In a meritocracy everyone must perform, not just newcomers. If you fall behind, you are fired. In an elitist bunch, once you are in, you are in forever and can only be kicked if you make some scandal.
- Open recruitment: a meritocracy is always open to new performers. There is a high bar, but if you pass it, you are in. Elitists can be "full", meaning they don't want more internal competition that might make the old members look bad.
- Objective recruitment: the things you have to do to earn your place in a meritocracy are measured and objective. If you need referals or your performance is judged by people and not numbers, it's an elitist bunch.
- "You don't understand...": objective performance is objective. Faster, larger, cheaper, stronger, whatever. You don't have to be good to see that it's good. I suck in basketball and still can see which team is better: the one that wins. If you need to have "taste" or have to know "internal stuff" to "understand" what is great and what is bad, it's an elitist crap.
- "Experience", seniority: since the performance itself is measurable, it should be measured itself. Any reference to the performer is actually an ad hominem attack. Also, experience and seniority is unmeasurable, so perfect hiding place for elitists.
PS: yes, it's an augmented repost of an old post. The changes deserve it, I believe it's an important topic.
Also, I mentioned NC. in the post as example of elitism. They recently joined a coalition that has non-elitist goals. I wish them luck, but it's a long way from "mate" to "Respect the Alliances in the Coalition". I hope they make it. But I wouldn't bet money on it.
Saturday morning report: 166.6B (8.6 spent on main accounts, 7.1 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.8 on Ragnarok, 5.3 on Rorqual, 3.4 on Nyx, 3.4 on Dread, 37.4+20 sent as gift)
Monday morning report: 169.0B (8.6 spent on main accounts, 7.1 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.8 on Ragnarok, 5.3+0.1 on Rorqual, 3.4 on Nyx, 3.4 on Dread, 37.4+20 sent as gift)
0 comments:
Post a Comment