Nobody Is Qualified For Anything

HEM

HEM

former
Jorts Connoisseur
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Pronouns
he / him / his
​
"Nobody Is Qualified For Anything"
HEM Tiberius
Managing Editor

In the summer of 2007, Europeia was having some trouble staffing the government.

Speaker Verteger and Vice President PRA had both recently left the region. Verteger became busy in real life, while PRA grew impatient at Europeia's resistance toward his proposals for a direct democracy.

Serving as our first President, I had to find a Vice President. Most members were already double booked between the Cabinet and the Senate, and there was no obvious successor. So, when a new member by the name of NasalivesII joined the forum and started hanging out in Europeian MSN Messenger chats, we suddenly had a nominee.

Welcome to "Getting Into Europeian Government Circa 2007."

Things have changed a lot since then, and mostly for the good. It's a very good thing indeed that we are no longer picking our Vice Presidents randomly out of a crop of names. However, what does the path of getting into government look like these days?

The easiest path to getting into government is being an old member. The path is easier still if you are a recently returned old member. The region loves returning old hands to positions of prominence. At the conclusion of the last Senate election, 50% of the body was made up of recently returned old members. As of today, all of those members have since resigned or are being removed by public referendum.

A generous interpretation of the "new member" category might suggest that two of the Senators were new—Senator Punchwood and Senator Leo Mountbatten. While perhaps not star-spangled perfect Senators, both are set to conclude their terms looking relatively good compared to the rest of the body.

For new members, the path into government is fairly treacherous. And typically, you are either fast-tracked into government by older patrons, or sidelined—maybe permanently.

Part of this is politics, but another part of it is an insane bout of "experience inflation" that Europeia has endured for the past few years. Essentially, Europeia has come to expect increasingly unrealistic amounts of experience from their governing officials.

Some of this might have to do with the age of the region. Because the community has lasted over a decade, there is an accumulation of members who have been here for years and will always seem to be more qualified than newer alternatives.

Another part of the experience inflation problem might actually be training programs. Designed to help newcomers become more prepared for offices, these well-intentioned institutions might actually be encumbering new members from taking higher level positions. The easiest shortcut for people to decide if someone is qualified has been asking themselves if the relevant training program has been completed. Veteran Senator Aexnidaral Seymour was skewered by many for being nominated to a judicial position without going through the law clerk program. This might be prolonging the distance between joining the region and being able to participate in the (arguably more fun) upper level positions.

Deputy Minister Le Libertia has been questioned by many for being nominated to a Cabinet-level position with "only" a month and a half of experience. For new members, or members seeking to try new areas of government out, the bar to be able to participate is intimidatingly high.

Earlier this term, new members Coherbia was nominated for a Cabinet position and questioned intensely by the Senate. During his confirmation hearing, he made a very interesting point:

A common theme I've noticed in the region recently, that was mentioned during the EBC Discussion of Cabinet Nominations, is that there are a core of qualified older players who for one reason or another, cannot take up their old niches or positions. This presents a problem and an obvious skills gap, you have your core disappearing with a small population of people who could replace them.
Click to expand...

But maybe it isn't necessarily a "skills gap" maybe it is just an experience gap? And maybe our expectations on how much experience someone has are just unrealistic?

Whether by a product of the region's age, or the region's numerous (maybe too many? maybe not good enough?) training programs, the amount of experience expected for any given position keeps going up, and up. An ENN survey from March suggested that 50% of members who were interested in the Senate, but hadn't ever run, felt like they didn't have enough experience.

Many older members in the region—myself included—have bemoaned how many new members seem more interested in social activities than being in government. But recent events should lead us to ask, can they even get in government? And is a system where players of a game have to wait 4, 5, 6 months before they can enter government ultimately sustainable?

Meanwhile, the same old faces rotate in and out of government with nothing except a, "You'll be active this time, right?" while newer members sit on the sidelines, wearily waiting for a turn that might not come.
 
This is a very interesting article, showing great oversight of many different Europeians or 'groups' of Europeians. I know that I personally agree with much of what is said here. But HEM said it way better than I ever could and probably better than a vast majority of us could, a great read!
 
The problem we face is most definitely about expectations. In that broad sense, I agree with HEM.

In many ways, the human memory acts as though it is finite. The more memories you have, the less important each one might seem. The more birthdays you've had, the less remarkable and, more importantly, the faster it seems to arrive. This is true in all things. I've been a member of this community for eight months. I'm so old, it feels like a blink. To some people, it would feel like a minor eternity. In NationStates time, it's a sizable chunk of time: regions have risen and fallen in the 'couple of months' I've been participating in this political simulation game. HEM believes that the core of the Europeian 'experience gap' lies in that more experienced members expect candidates with a 'seniority of experience' similar to their own. One need only point to my most recent Presidential bid to see some of it. But I also think that a contributing factor is that many of these more experienced citizens are also physically older.

To anyone who managed to make it to primary school prior to the new millennium, Le Libertia's six weeks in the Executive feel like a blink. Six weeks is not a meaningful amount of time in their lives. "What? This guy has barely been here longer than a Presidential term, and we all know those things are a dime a dozen! Put in your time! Pay your dues!" Are these unrealistic expectations?

To the others, six weeks feels like a meaningful chunk of their lives... well, because it has been. "A month and a half! Six weeks! I've had elective classes that were shorter than that! If I could learn to sew a shirt in six weeks, Le Libertia can learn to run a Ministry!" Are these unrealistic expectations?

Personally, I think the 'right' answer lies somewhere in between. Those of us who are older need to remember that sometimes our citizens will only have access to NationStates for three months a year. This is particularly important during the summer months. If we expect them to burn their entire summer just 'getting to know you', they're not going to waste their (admittedly, very precious) time. Those of us who are younger need to remember that the larger any group is, the slower it will move, and Europeia is no exception to that rule. With over 1200 regions game-side, or more importantly, over 90 votes in the last Presidential election, it doesn't make sense that four weeks of recruiting is enough for your name to be remembered and thought of as a leader in Interior.

 
Darcness said:
The problem we face is most definitely about expectations. In that broad sense, I agree with HEM.

In many ways, the human memory acts as though it is finite. The more memories you have, the less important each one might seem. The more birthdays you've had, the less remarkable and, more importantly, the faster it seems to arrive. This is true in all things. I've been a member of this community for eight months. I'm so old, it feels like a blink. To some people, it would feel like a minor eternity. In NationStates time, it's a sizable chunk of time: regions have risen and fallen in the 'couple of months' I've been participating in this political simulation game. HEM believes that the core of the Europeian 'experience gap' lies in that more experienced members expect candidates with a 'seniority of experience' similar to their own. One need only point to my most recent Presidential bid to see some of it. But I also think that a contributing factor is that many of these more experienced citizens are also physically older.

To anyone who managed to make it to primary school prior to the new millennium, Le Libertia's six weeks in the Executive feel like a blink. Six weeks is not a meaningful amount of time in their lives. "What? This guy has barely been here longer than a Presidential term, and we all know those things are a dime a dozen! Put in your time! Pay your dues!" Are these unrealistic expectations?

To the others, six weeks feels like a meaningful chunk of their lives... well, because it has been. "A month and a half! Six weeks! I've had elective classes that were shorter than that! If I could learn to sew a shirt in six weeks, Le Libertia can learn to run a Ministry!" Are these unrealistic expectations?

Personally, I think the 'right' answer lies somewhere in between. Those of us who are older need to remember that sometimes our citizens will only have access to NationStates for three months a year. This is particularly important during the summer months. If we expect them to burn their entire summer just 'getting to know you', they're not going to waste their (admittedly, very precious) time. Those of us who are younger need to remember that the larger any group is, the slower it will move, and Europeia is no exception to that rule. With over 1200 regions game-side, or more importantly, over 90 votes in the last Presidential election, it doesn't make sense that four weeks of recruiting is enough for your name to be remembered and thought of as a leader in Interior.
Click to expand...
Totally different side of the same argument, Darc. Very keen points here worth considering.
 
I wouldn't describe XIV as a "recently returned older member." We've had trouble with old hands and new alike this term. (Edit: not picking on XIV, whose absence is understandable.)

I would argue that over time, we've been a bit too hesitant to give relatively new members prominent roles in the Cabinet, and too willing to throw them in the Senate. Maybe you don't want a noob as Grand Admiral, but a post where he/she serves at the pleasure of the President and has others vested in his/her success seems like a better opportunity for development than expecting them to revise rules that, in most cases, they know little about, with no formal supervision.
 
There is no substitute for experience, in many things, but also in some areas of NS. To become truly competent at anything one has to have experience, that is a key component. But what is experience? It is empirical in its nature. It is knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. It is the mastery of a subject gained through involvement in or exposure to it. It is gained from practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

In other words, you have to actually do the thing in question. Training by very definition does not constitute real experience in all but the most intense simulations, and even then, if one knows it isn't "real" - one could react differently. Furthermore, poorly designed or inadequate training can be both a waste of time and counter productive. It can actually be a block to real progress because completing it is often odious and unattractive to potentially talented people. I'm not sure I would have bothered to complete any training as a new NS member. In fact I'm confident I wouldn't have bothered going through any formal training programs in this game, that would have been of no interest to me. Many types of formal training by their very nature simply don't embody the nonconformist spirit that is an essential ingredient in many successful NS players, indeed it could both stifle it and cause for them to lose all interest in the subject matter.

In addition, no one will ever become fully competent at undertaking anything simply through theoretical training programs. They need to have a few things to become competent. Training can provide them with some theoretical knowledge. But they also need the drive and enthusiasm to learn and practise new skills. They need the capability to do the task. And they need to be given a chance to learn by undertaking the tasks in question.

In practise, in NS, as in some areas of RL, the most productive form of training is one that takes the form of sensible exposure to real experience, ie. a suitable degree of one-to-one mentoring whilst serving in a junior position. Once one becomes competent in that position one can progress, and that can be at the judgement of the senior official that has mentored the individual, or someone above them can see the work of the individual for themselves and make a judgement to progress them. It could be extremely rapid, someone could be ready to serve in Cabinet in a few weeks, or it may take months. It depends on the individual.

We need to give new members a chance to hold junior ministerial positions, and its up to Ministers to delegate appropriate tasks to them to ensure they learn. That's the only way we will develop future Ministers. Clearly we aren't doing enough of it, or we wouldn't have the experience gap HEM is talking about. I think the obsession with theoretical training is one of the problems, but there is also a pervasive fear of failure that is a symptom of the current political culture. Ministers know damn well that they will get better ratings in Polls if they develop pointless and totally superficial training programs - than if they take a risk by developing a new member. That's the root of the problem.
 
I have small nitpicks with the article, but overall this was a great read. Not sure how to phrase my thoughts and flesh them out.
 
Interesting article. I think new blood in government is always something to strive for, but you have to balance that with competence and experience. Everything in life is about balance.
 
I agree with Darcness that physical age is a bigger factor than many people realize. Most of us who have been around for awhile are also adults now, have completed our education, and simply have more life experience. You just can't really expect the same things of a 15 year old that you can of a 25 year old, and that's not the fault of the younger person. It doesn't mean they're not intelligent or not competent, just that they're not "on the same level." With most of our members being college-aged or older but with many new members being younger, the expectations can feel impossible to meet. For some people, that can be a motivator to be better. For others, it can be so discouraging that they give up.

Like NES, I think we need a greater focus on mentoring. And that doesn't mean fabricated mentoring programs, it means us older members making ourselves available to newcomers and reaching out to them.

I have a full-time job. I don't have time to be the president or to invest multiple hours in this game every day. I do, of course, find the time to make snide comments and bitch upon things on the forums and on Discord, time that would be better spent helping along the people who actually have the time to invest in a real position here. Rather than continuing to take on positions only to have to resign, those of us who want to help but recognize that our time is more limited than it once was should help people like Coherbia develop a system that will connect new members to old ones without some of the overbearing bureaucracy we've had in the past. Maybe he's already done that, I don't know, but either way... that's where I should be putting the time I do have for this game.

Edit: Replace Coherbia with La Libertia. :p
 
find the time to make snide comments and bitch upon things on the forums and on Discord, time that would be better spent helping along the people who actually have the time to invest in a real position here
Click to expand...
I think some people really need to recognize this.
 
North East Somerset said:
There is no substitute for experience, in many things, but also in some areas of NS. To become truly competent at anything one has to have experience, that is a key component. But what is experience? It is empirical in its nature. It is knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. It is the mastery of a subject gained through involvement in or exposure to it. It is gained from practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

In other words, you have to actually do the thing in question. Training by very definition does not constitute real experience in all but the most intense simulations, and even then, if one knows it isn't "real" - one could react differently. Furthermore, poorly designed or inadequate training can be both a waste of time and counter productive. It can actually be a block to real progress because completing it is often odious and unattractive to potentially talented people. I'm not sure I would have bothered to complete any training as a new NS member. In fact I'm confident I wouldn't have bothered going through any formal training programs in this game, that would have been of no interest to me. Many types of formal training by their very nature simply don't embody the nonconformist spirit that is an essential ingredient in many successful NS players, indeed it could both stifle it and cause for them to lose all interest in the subject matter.

In addition, no one will ever become fully competent at undertaking anything simply through theoretical training programs. They need to have a few things to become competent. Training can provide them with some theoretical knowledge. But they also need the drive and enthusiasm to learn and practise new skills. They need the capability to do the task. And they need to be given a chance to learn by undertaking the tasks in question.

In practise, in NS, as in some areas of RL, the most productive form of training is one that takes the form of sensible exposure to real experience, ie. a suitable degree of one-to-one mentoring whilst serving in a junior position. Once one becomes competent in that position one can progress, and that can be at the judgement of the senior official that has mentored the individual, or someone above them can see the work of the individual for themselves and make a judgement to progress them. It could be extremely rapid, someone could be ready to serve in Cabinet in a few weeks, or it may take months. It depends on the individual.

We need to give new members a chance to hold junior ministerial positions, and its up to Ministers to delegate appropriate tasks to them to ensure they learn. That's the only way we will develop future Ministers. Clearly we aren't doing enough of it, or we wouldn't have the experience gap HEM is talking about. I think the obsession with theoretical training is one of the problems, but there is also a pervasive fear of failure that is a symptom of the current political culture. Ministers know damn well that they will get better ratings in Polls if they develop pointless and totally superficial training programs - than if they take a risk by developing a new member. That's the root of the problem.
Click to expand...
This is a great post.

Your criticism of "theoretical training programs" makes me think of these programs in a new light. I always thought these programs were a waste of time, but I thought they were harmless -- they gave Ministers a way to look busy, and they created a path for newer citizens into substantive jobs. I was wrong.

Ministers should be setting more ambitious agendas, using their energies to do strategically important work, and delegating detail-oriented work to JMs, who will learn by doing. Useless training programs draw energy away from this, resulting in weak agendas and no real work for JMs.
 
In my opinion, we've started to confuse merit and experience. We've worked our way into this place where we ask "How many positions has this person held?" rather than "What has this person done?" Rather than see them as separate, we sometimes improperly conflate the two and it leads to a system where having had a position is viewed with the same respect as accomplishing something with that position. We judge terms in comparison to one another as good or bad but for whatever reason, we see two people with "1x Foreign Minister" in their signature and judge them as equal.

I don't think a bad term as a Minister makes you qualified to be a Minister just because you have prior experience and I think somewhere along the way we've lost sight of that. I believe we should try to focus on merit in selecting people for our position; That is people who show initiative, a willingness to learn, and some level of understanding. That combination should always be more valuable than any number of crappy terms of "experience."
 
I have been trying to think of how to word this idea in my head since first reading this thread, but Brun swept in, read my mind, and posted something that is much more clear and well-thought out than what I could spit out. I definitely agree whether we're talking about CA Chair, Senator, or President.
 
Brunhilde said:
In my opinion, we've started to confuse merit and experience. We've worked our way into this place where we ask "How many positions has this person held?" rather than "What has this person done?" Rather than see them as separate, we sometimes improperly conflate the two and it leads to a system where having had a position is viewed with the same respect as accomplishing something with that position. We judge terms in comparison to one another as good or bad but for whatever reason, we see two people with "1x Foreign Minister" in their signature and judge them as equal.

I don't think a bad term as a Minister makes you qualified to be a Minister just because you have prior experience and I think somewhere along the way we've lost sight of that. I believe we should try to focus on merit in selecting people for our position; That is people who show initiative, a willingness to learn, and some level of understanding. That combination should always be more valuable than any number of crappy terms of "experience."
Click to expand...
Amen. Very well said (as usual).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top