ENWorld - A Meritocracy?

[AntiStateQuixote]

From here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=133518&page=3#post2289029

Gentlemen,

I'd suggest that such serious discussion has little or no place in Off-Topic, and I'd suggest that Meta might be a better place for it. The response you evoke has as much to do with your environment as it does with your content.

-- N

I agree.

I think you are universalizing the idea of elitism to the point where it becomes meaningless.

I am, in fact, universalizing elitism . . . but I don't think it's meaningless, and I don't think elitism is necessarilly a bad thing. I consider myself superior to many people in many ways . . . not in all things, but I am certainly elitist with respsect to certain aspects of my life. That's not bad; it's simple recognition of the fact that I excel at certain things.

You are in danger of arguing that any system that distinguishes amongst people on any basis is essentially elitist. Now, I will agree that all systems are, by their nature, hierarchical. As Kenneth Burke opined, "if order, then hierarchy." All communities are ordered. All communities are hierarchical. But I wouldn't characterize all communities as elitist.

That's mostly what I am arguing. I'm not arguing that distinguishing on any basis is elitist. I'm arguing that distinguishing among people on some measurable quality is elitist. I think you are hung up on the use of word elitist and it's negative connotation among Americans in particular and people living in liberal democracies in general. Hierarchy implies superiority of some over others in some way. Those at the top are the elites.

[Totally-Off-Topic]
I would not agree that order implies hierarchy. I would agree that order generally leads to hierarchy and that hierarchy means elitism. That's another topic for a different discussion, probably, that I would likely enjoy.
[/Totally-Off-Topic]

My idea of how ENWorld should work is merit-based. If you show yourself to be a reliable or interesting poster, you will get responses. The fact that it takes time and effort to demonstrate those things about oneself is characteristic of all merit-based systems. And I really object to the idea that all merit-based systems are elitist in character.

I agree mostly with your idea of how ENWorld should work. I like the idea of merit-based systems in all things. Those who achieve at a high level are the elites of the system. If they are aware of this level of achievement and they act on it, they are elitists. Again, this is not a bad thing in and of itself. My only objection is the time thing . . . if my very first post is interesting it should generate replies based on the fact that it is interesting. If it's not then it shouldn't. You have said that post count is a secondary factor in determining if you will reply to someone. I just think post count should not figure at all into one's decision to reply, but that's just me.

I have about two dozen posts on this board. The vast majority of my posts have been quoted or directly replied to by at least one person. If people chose, generally, to ignore members with low post counts this would not be the case. So, the merit-basis of ENWorld (did you post something interesting?) seems to hold . . . I think; I must be posting something interesting. Are there some people out there that have read one of my posts, thought it was interesting and didn't reply simply because I was a n00b? I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't suprise me if that is true.

If one wants a message board of quality, where most of the posts are worth reading and people are around to answer questions about things they post, the culture of the board should be meritocratic. And that's what we have, to a greater or lesser extent, here on ENWorld.

Agreed. Although it is difficult to enforce this meritocracy without resorting to ostracism of those who post boring, inflamatory or otherwise inappropriate material. Once that happens the members have established a hierarchy in which the elites police the n00bs and/or losers on the board by not replying to them. Because the goal of most people who post to a message board is to generate a response they will stop posting if no one ever responds. Your meritocracy works!

In my view, it's not necessarily a good idea for new people to the board to feel that merely by showing up they will be treated the same as established posters.

While I can understand this view, I cannot agree with it entirely. Again, if someone posts something interesting with their very first post that post should generate a response. It is a fact that it will not generate as much response as the exact same post by someone with hundreds or thousands of posts. Part of this greater response is because the people who reply know the person with the high post count. Part of this response is simply an assumption that someone with only one post is a n00b (which is true) and that the n00b likely doesn't know what s/he's talking about or will not stick around (which is certainly not always true).

But it is a good idea for them to have the sense that if they contribute reliably and constructively, they will be.

My concern throughout this conversation is the fact that n00bs will not be treated equally. Again, an interesting post by a n00b vs. the exact same post by an established member of the community will evoke less responses because the elites (long-timers, whatever) do not know the n00b and some will ignore the post (or are less likely to respond) because s/he is a n00b.

I think you're right that there is a problem if they feel that such treatment is beyond their reach; so perhaps we need to find ways to let people know that there is, if not equality, equality of opportunity.

Equality of opportunity . . . what a lovely phrase. I absolutely agree that everyone should be given the opportunity to prove himself/herself and thereby become a member of the elites of ENWorld.

That's not always deterioration. Often people do their best and most creative thinking when forced to defend their ideas in an adversarial context. That's actually one of the things I like about ENWorld; people like Umbran and shilsen often force me to think things through very carefully that I would never reason-out were it not for the adversarial nature of clip and quote conversations.

Hmm . . . deterioration was a bad turn of phrase on my part. But I see you got what I was saying.

You see, I see this as evidence the system/culture of ENWorld works.

Excellent! It's working!

 

[DaveStebbins]

My concern throughout this conversation is the fact that n00bs will not be treated equally. Again, an interesting post by a n00b vs. the exact same post by an established member of the community will evoke less responses because the elites (long-timers, whatever) do not know the n00b and some will ignore the post (or are less likely to respond) because s/he is a n00b.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization.

There may be some people who choose not to respond because the original post was made by someone with a low postcount. However, there could be just as many people, perhaps even more people, who are more likely to respond to such a post. I've noticed that EN World is pretty full of people who try to helpful and encouraging. I also know that there are some high-postcount people who just never seem to say anything new. On the other hand, someone with a low postcount is an undiscovered country and probably gets my full attention more often then some people in the top 100 posters.

So, I guess I disagree with your conclusion, above.

-Dave

 

[Nifft]

Personally, I tend to cut people a bit more slack when they're visibly n00b. At least I hope I do.

But the fact is, until you've been around for a while, it's likely you DO NOT have anything interesting to say. I can't count the number of broken Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Cat Race, etc. variants I've seen begging for attention, and they're just not worth it. Being ignored when you're boring or repeating stuff is a good lesson for people (old and new).

[off-topic]
There are studies in spontaneous non-heirarchical pattern formation. Look up "spontaneous organizatin". As to elite-ism, I think it's a good thing, at least in combination with a meritocracy.

In fact, I'd like to see you design a meritocracy with NO recognizeable elite. (Everyone hears the pretty "merit", but forgets the cold iron "ocracy"...)
[/off-topic]

-- N

 

[HellHound]

Great example of a n00b getting fair treatment (this was n00b's first post ever, btw):

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=133932

 

[Umbran]

Corellation does nto imply a particular causation. Specifically, if a new poster gets fewer replies, it is not necessarily because someone has looked at their postcount and says, "That's a n00b, I won't reply." The causation can be much more subtle.

Presentation matters. No matter how interesting the basic idea and content may be, if it is presented poorly, it will get fewer replies. Any "n00b" who comes around here and posts using the lax grammar often found on the internet won't get many replies, because folks here have a decided preference for more properly structured English. We probably also have preference for other subtleties of structure that could well impact reception until the new poster catches on. It takes time and practice to learn these things. And that will bias against lower postcounts even if nobody is making any conscious effort to exclude new posters.

Heck, aroudn ehre, all you need to do to be ignored is to post when things are very busy, or during the slow weekend. Thus, the new poster needs to learn certain very practical realities of how this place operates in order to get reception. This isn't a matter of merit or elitism, any more than knowing the local bus schedule in a new town is a matter of merit.

As an aside - it is possible to imagine an order without any heirarchy, such is not the standard modus operandi for humans, especially as group size increases. Nor does it seem to be the standard pattern for any primates. So it'd take a lot of work to make it fucntion, and I'm not sure you'd gain enough from the effort to justify it.