The Meaning of Meritocracy

[Strangedane]

A lot of these arguments about the stellaris version of meritocracy being a utopian form where "merit" is measurable and equally applied to all pops completely falls apart when you realize that you can run a meritocratic necrophage society where one of the merits measured for leadership positions are "Is this pop a necrophage".

I can't see how it couldn't just as well be: "how long are the tentacles" or "How many slaves does this guy own."


Edit: As for the description: The sole basis for advancement in this society is demonstrated ability and talent. Couldn't the demonstrated talent be: "enslaved most blorgs." or even "suppressed the most student rebellions against the crown."
There is so much open space for every sort of horrible discrimination implied in meritocracy that I have a hard time not seeing it in authoritarian states.

 

[Strangedane]

We can also have xenophobic meritocratic societies. In these societies a merit needed for leaders is "Born as founder pop", so birthright is definetely a measurable merit.
This is actual ingame mechanics, not semantics.

 

[Tamwin5]

A lot of these arguments about the stellaris version of meritocracy being a utopian form where "merit" is measurable and equally applied to all pops completely falls apart when you realize that you can run a meritocratic necrophage society where one of the merits measured for leadership positions are "Is this pop a necrophage".

I can't see how it couldn't just as well be: "how long are the tentacles" or "How many slaves does this guy own."


Edit: As for the description: The sole basis for advancement in this society is demonstrated ability and talent. Couldn't the demonstrated talent be: "enslaved most blorgs." or even "suppressed the most student rebellions against the crown."
There is so much open space for every sort of horrible discrimination implied in meritocracy that I have a hard time not seeing it in authoritarian states.

I think it's worth noting the difference between egalitarian and xenophile. Egalitarian says "All people must be treated equally". Xenophile says "Xenos are people". So you could have a society which is firmly meritocratic for people, but still enslaves xenos. Necrophage, in particular, cannot be any degree of xenophile. That's because non-necrophage pops will never be considered full people.

And yes, demonstrated ability could be "enslaved the most blogs". Whoever did that surely moves up the ranks of slavers, quite probably is in charge if distribution and logistics for the entire raiding fleet! And that guy who suppressed all those rebellions, he's the Minister of Security now. meritocracy doesn't care about the type of job you do, only that you do it well.

 

[Strangedane]

Necrophage, in particular, cannot be any degree of xenophile. That's because non-necrophage pops will never be considered full people.

Yeah they can.

They just can't start out as xenophiles, they also cannot start fanatic egalitarian.
It's perfectly possible, however to play as a xenophile, fanatic egalitarian meritocratic xenophage by embracing factions.

Ed: you can also easily give full citizenship to xenos. Xenophages aren't forced to being xenophobes.

 

[HFY]

What I find funny is that there weren't any threads about dictatorships and imperials getting Meritocracy until Meritocracy was buffed with the +10% specialist bonus. Ever since Meritocracy was buffed there have been thread after thread with people complaining about this one civic not being available to fanatical authoritarians.

Shamelessly demanding special access to nice things is 100% in-character for an Authoritarian.

That's just good RP.

We can also have xenophobic meritocratic societies. In these societies a merit needed for leaders is "Born as founder pop", so birthright is definetely a measurable merit.
This is actual ingame mechanics, not semantics.

"Birthright" is the wrong word, since it implies too much positive bias in where you end up.

Xenophobe and slave-empire Meritocracies don't put you in a job because of your "birthright" -- but they might lock you out of jobs because they deny you citizenship.

If you're a citizen, though, you compete with other citizens, and you succeed based on your accomplishments and demonstrated talent.

 

[Strangedane]

If you're a citizen, though, you compete with other citizens, and you succeed based on your accomplishments and demonstrated talent.

Not for leadership positions though, in case of the necrophages.

Ed: I might need to clarify here, that i do not think all government types should have access to meritocracy. The split is fine as is. But claiming that meritocracy in stellaris is always this or that seems foolish.

We can clearly have absolutely draconic rules regulating who can advance and who cannot.
We can also have completely free societies where there is absolutely equal opportunity for all.

Why not accept that sometimes tentacle lenght might be a measurable merit in a society?
It's all rp anyways, and the tooltip is provably half way propaganda/fluff in case of the necrophage meritocrats.

 

[HFY]

Not for leadership positions though, in case of the necrophages.

Sounds like Necrophage might need to be incompatible, like Aristocratic Elite should be.

I haven't played with Necrophage much, so I don't have an opinion on that yet.

Why not accept that sometimes tentacle lenght might be a measurable merit in a society?

Because it's not a demonstrated ability or talent.

Same with all inherent "identity" political metrics, like being the son of the previous king, or being a pureblood wizard from an established family, or being a "true Aryan" (which is funny if you know the origin of that word), or having only Hapsburg blood, or so on.


Stellaris Meritocracy might be vaguely defined, but it's not poorly defined.

 

[Mastikator]

Different societies will make subjective judgements on what they consider to be meritocratic. In a spiritual society ofc God will choose the best candidate. In an authoritarian society ofc The Party will make the best decisions. In a democracy ofc the electorate knows best. In a technocracy ofc the smartest people will rise to the top.

What I am against are people trying to apply an arbitrary definition of what they believe meritocracy to be, then trying to argue that its incompatible to such and such ethics. That argument can be made for any ethic. And none.

Meritocracy is what the society applying it believes it to be.

In ancient Sparta male children were abandoned to starve to death or fend for themselves. Those who survived were considered citizens. Was that also not meritocracy? According to their belief system?

But there IS an arbitrary definition coded into the game? And the definition of what they consider to be meritocratic IS explicitly defined in the game. "Meritocracy" would have to give completely different bonuses if it was just a label you place on your empire.

An example of what I'm talking about is "Idealistic Foundation" which explicitly calls out that the foundation may not be true anymore and that it was vaguely defined as good. That gives all the citizens a +5% feelgood happiness bonus. Honestly this sounds like that kind of bonus, since the empire may not be choosing solely on people's actual performance in their jobs.

What's funny of this game of goalpost moving is that you keep entering the arenas of other civics and stepping on their toes. "But muh superior elected ruler" yeah Philosopher King, "but muh society decides what merit is" yeah Idealistic Foundation, "but muh strong rise to the top" yeah Warrior Culture, Slaver's Guild, Aristocratic Elite.

Every civic is clearly defined, don't blow up meritocracy to encapsulate every society in all of history just so you can get it on a dictatorship.

 

[Strangedane]

Sounds like Necrophage might need to be incompatible, like Aristocratic Elite should be.

I haven't played with Necrophage much, so I don't have an opinion on that yet.




Because it's not a demonstrated ability or talent.

Same with all inherent "identity" political metrics, like being the son of the previous king, or being a pureblood wizard from an established family, or being a "true Aryan" (which is funny if you know the origin of that word), or having only Hapsburg blood, or so on.


Stellaris Meritocracy might be vaguely defined, but it's not poorly defined.

Again, this is mostly semantics.
I'm talking about actual gameplay implications.

For me it all boils down to the fact that you CAN in fact be a necrophage meritocrat.
That is a gameplay fact and as such the claim that meritocracy in stellaris must include equal opportunity is a fallacy.

Ed: Would I be against removing meritocracy from necrophages?
Not really, but until that happens, there can in fact be unequal opportunity in a meritocracy.
Even a fanatic egalitarian xenophile one.

 

[HFY]

Ed: I might need to clarify here, that i do not think all government types should have access to meritocracy. The split is fine as is. But claiming that meritocracy in stellaris is always this or that seems foolish.

I mean, if the thing itself says it's always this or that, is the thing itself being foolish?

Or are you just attacking me for reporting what the thing itself says?

Again, this is mostly semantics.
I'm talking about actual gameplay implications.

When I say Meritocracy should be incompatible with Aristocratic Elite, that's a gameplay implication.

I have also been talking about actual gameplay implications.

 

[Mastikator]

I mean, if the thing itself says it's always this or that, is the thing itself being foolish?

Or are you just attacking me for reporting what the thing itself says?



When I say Meritocracy should be incompatible with Aristocratic Elite, that's a gameplay implication.

I have also been talking about actual gameplay implications.

Agreed. IMO Meritocracy should also be incompatible with xenophobia.
I'd also like to see an equivalent to meritocracy for megacorps. And maybe even hive minds (grants +1 leader level and +5% complex drone maybe), maybe called drone optimatization

 

[HFY]

Agreed. IMO Meritocracy should also be incompatible with xenophobia.

Xenophobia distorts other Ethics and Civics.

It's the only thing that makes Egalitarians love slavery, for example, which to me is just perverse.

Not really sure what can be done about it, though -- it's a core component to a lot of evil empires which IMHO do belong in the game.

I'd also like to see an equivalent to meritocracy for megacorps. And maybe even hive minds (grants +1 leader level and +5% complex drone maybe), maybe called drone optimatization

Not sure about Megacorps myself -- they seem to have ways to maximize Specialists so it might be too good for them -- but they certainly do need more Civic choices.

Your nerfed +5% version seems fine for Hiveminds.

 

[Mastikator]

Xenophobia distorts other Ethics and Civics.

It's the only thing that makes Egalitarians love slavery, for example, which to me is just perverse.

Not really sure what can be done about it, though -- it's a core component to a lot of evil empires which IMHO do belong in the game.

I don't think anything should be done about Egalitarian + Xenophobe = slavery + utopian abundance. Not because I approve (I don't, I condemn) but because I know that nazbols do exist.

Xenophobia discriminates unfairly and requires that the out-group are not recognized, it's fundamentally incompatible with meritocracy

 

[HFY]

I don't think anything should be done about Egalitarian + Xenophobe = slavery + utopian abundance. Not because I approve (I don't, I condemn) but because I know that nazbols do exist.

Xenophobia discriminates unfairly and requires that the out-group are not recognized, it's fundamentally incompatible with meritocracy

IMHO Phobe + Meritocracy is just as perverse as Phobe + Egalitarianism, so I can't justify keeping one while removing the other, because to me neither of them make sense.

I think you're not wrong, it's just that Xenophobia is an thing that I can't grok.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

IMHO Phobe + Meritocracy is just as perverse as Phobe + Egalitarianism, so I can't justify keeping one while removing the other, because to me neither of them make sense.

I think you're not wrong, it's just that Xenophobia is an thing that I can't grok.

I agree with the statement that Phobe + meritocracy is wrong, but not Phone + Ega.

I do think that a society can have egalitarian beliefs that only apply to species. The feeling that some people shouldn't be considered equal is nothing new unfortunately and I can easily see that transition to real alien species.

 

[HFY]

The feeling that some people shouldn't be considered equal is nothing new unfortunately

You're right, it's both not new and it's unfortunate.

The thing is, I can't grok how a person can simultaneously think people should be considered equal (Egalitarian) and also that people shouldn't be consider equal (Xenophobia).

I've seen various rationalization attempts but they just don't jibe with me.

That said, it's just my own issue, and it's not particularly on-topic -- so I'm just going to say that you're probably right about Meritocracy not being compatible with Xenophobia, but IMHO that same justification seems like it could prohibit Xenophobia + Egalitarian, and the game seems very determined to NOT prohibit Egal+Phobe.

So, I think you're probably correct, but the same reasoning seems to apply to a thing that the game will not remove, so my thinking is that the game would continue to allow Merit+Phobe just as it allows Egal+Phobe.

 

[Tamwin5]

I mean, do meritocracy bonuses apply to slaves? I forget exactly how specialist level slaves handle worker bonuses now.

 

[Strangedane]

I mean, if the thing itself says it's always this or that, is the thing itself being foolish?

Or are you just attacking me for reporting what the thing itself says?

When flavour text is describing something that does not correlate with reality it's not foolish, it's wrong.

Not attacking you, I'm sorry you took it like that.
You seem to be wanting to discuss what meritocracy should be, while i'm focusing on what it actually is right now.
I was simply stating that meritocracy in stellaris does not always imply equal opportunity, and I seem to be getting a ton of heat for it.

Necrophage prove it as well as the aristocratic elite which are both compatible with meritocracy.
Wether they should be is up to debate, I'm personally thinking they probably shouldn't, but up to that point meritocracy in stellaris is a pretty ambigous thing that clearly does not demand equal opportunity, despite the flavour text.

 

[oreopirate]

You're right, it's both not new and it's unfortunate.

The thing is, I can't grok how a person can simultaneously think people should be considered equal (Egalitarian) and also that people shouldn't be consider equal (Xenophobia).

I've seen various rationalization attempts but they just don't jibe with me.

That said, it's just my own issue, and it's not particularly on-topic -- so I'm just going to say that you're probably right about Meritocracy not being compatible with Xenophobia, but IMHO that same justification seems like it could prohibit Xenophobia + Egalitarian, and the game seems very determined to NOT prohibit Egal+Phobe.

So, I think you're probably correct, but the same reasoning seems to apply to a thing that the game will not remove, so my thinking is that the game would continue to allow Merit+Phobe just as it allows Egal+Phobe.

I mean, the way I see it, the xxenophile-xenophobe scale dictates who you consider "Human" and who you consider animals.
So you can everyone be equal, because you don't consider aliens to be anything more animals, like chimpanzees at best.

 

[HFY]

I mean, do meritocracy bonuses apply to slaves? I forget exactly how specialist level slaves handle worker bonuses now.

Right now Indentured Serfs and free citizens have identical specialist output under Slaver Guilds + Meritocracy.

Easy enough to check even before you un-pause

I mean, the way I see it, the xxenophile-xenophobe scale dictates who you consider "Human" and who you consider animals.
So you can everyone be equal, because you don't consider aliens to be anything more animals, like chimpanzees at best.

Yeah that's the common justification. But then why can I make these chimpanzees Residents if I want? Why can we declare them our Rival? It seems like my empire knows the xenos are actually just as competent as its own citizens, it just wants to be hostile to the xenos for reasons which the empire itself knows are not valid, since it could choose to treat them differently.

IMHO the game needs Xenophobes as enemies (and as a distinct play style) so I'm not trying to change this, but it's just not something that makes sense to me.