RP Team & RP Accord rankings feedback

[Zanz]

Also bear in mind that since your nation has not ratified the RP Accord, you and the other players are not bound by it. ie. There is nothing in terms of the Game Rules or the RP Accord to stop you role-playing Hawu Mumenhes as as an economically and/or militarily advanced power.

An interesting thought, though, is that Cobura has ratified the RP Accord, and Cobura's participation in the Esinsundu Empire means that it must (of course) interact often with HM. If HM sees Esinsundu as powerful due to HM's own perception of itself as powerful, but Cobura must necessarily accept that Esinsundu is comprised of 1 low development and 2 medium development nations (so far as I know it's Talmoria, Cobura, and HM), how do players in both nations reconcile?

[Aquinas]

Also bear in mind that since your nation has not ratified the RP Accord, you and the other players are not bound by it. ie. There is nothing in terms of the Game Rules or the RP Accord to stop you role-playing Hawu Mumenhes as as an economically and/or militarily advanced power.

An interesting thought, though, is that Cobura has ratified the RP Accord, and Cobura's participation in the Esinsundu Empire means that it must (of course) interact often with HM. If HM sees Esinsundu as powerful due to HM's own perception of itself as powerful, but Cobura must necessarily accept that Esinsundu is comprised of 1 low development and 2 medium development nations (so far as I know it's Talmoria, Cobura, and HM), how do players in both nations reconcile?

Since Cobura has ratified the RP Accord, its players would be expected to respect the RP Team's guidance in terms of how Cobura's economic and military character is defined. If they did not follow the guidance, then theoretically the RP Team could approach Moderation and ask for a ruling (although so far this is not something that has ever happened). However, at least as the rules are framed at the moment, there is not really anything to explicitly stop Cobura's players from role-playing in a way that might seem to contradict the rankings the RP Team has assigned to other nations outside the RP Accord like Hawu Mumenhes.

As you might imagine, one can make arguments for and against reforming this (and many other things related to the RP Accord/rankings too). In practice, although the RP Accord has been around for a while, I would say it is still relatively untested in the sense that (a) until right now, we have not had an update to the rankings and (b) we have not yet had a case where the RP Team has brought Moderation in to rule on a RP Accord compliance issue.

[CCP]

Also bear in mind that since your nation has not ratified the RP Accord, you and the other players are not bound by it. ie. There is nothing in terms of the Game Rules or the RP Accord to stop you role-playing Hawu Mumenhes as as an economically and/or militarily advanced power.

True enough, but Zanz's point is the crux of the matter. The issue is how HM is viewed by other countries/players. And while the RP rankings don't get much prominent mention by players, folks are noticing the rankings and some are acting on their guidance.

It's fine though: ICly, the HM government is going to interpret this as a ratings agency that dropped the ball and will spend the next couple months educating the ratings agency about the HM economy. Like you Aquinas, HM gov is going to specifically note that HM isn't party to the rating agency's services as part of its push to undermine the ranking report's credibility, and it's going to note that HM won't join until the ratings agency gets it's act together.

So the ranking is too low, but the outcome is going to be as originally intended when you designed the RP Accords: more roleplay. I'm also fairly confident that the RP Team will reverse course on this at the next rankings both in response to HM's economy reporting over the next couple months and my bringing it to their attention because I've seen them make similar (warranted) adjustments in the cases of Kalistan and Hutori.

[CCP]

Oh, and RP Team, please DO NOT under-rank HM in your upcoming military rankings.

viewtopic.php?p=102162#p102162
viewtopic.php?p=102201#p102201
viewtopic.php?p=103137#p103137
viewtopic.php?p=102368#p102368
viewtopic.php?p=103616#p103616
viewtopic.php?p=104696#p104696
Forward bases on three continents (Artania, Majatra, and Dovani; bases were built in Talmoria under terms of the Treaty of Personal Union; the treaty was cancelled in Talmoria due to a technicality but the bases remain and Talmoria will re-ratify the treaty soon) : http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreat ... atyid=3424, http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreat ... atyid=3436
viewtopic.php?p=105923#p105923
viewtopic.php?p=106320#p106320
http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreat ... atyid=3462
viewtopic.php?p=106264#p106264

[colonelvesica]

Quick Question CCP; do you have links to the Bills that physically created that military? Order for construction of ships? Increase of Defence budgets or Science & Technology Budgets?

[Zanz]

Since Cobura has ratified the RP Accord, its players would be expected to respect the RP Team's guidance in terms of how Cobura's economic and military character is defined. If they did not follow the guidance, then theoretically the RP Team could approach Moderation and ask for a ruling (although so far this is not something that has ever happened). However, at least as the rules are framed at the moment, there is not really anything to explicitly stop Cobura's players from role-playing in a way that might seem to contradict the rankings the RP Team has assigned to other nations outside the RP Accord like Hawu Mumenhes.

This is an interesting interpretation of the RP Accord that flies contrary to my own understanding of how it should work. If this thread isn't the right place for this discussion please feel free to split it off

My understanding was not that ratification of the RP Accord by Cobura meant merely that Cobura must follow its own ranking as per the RP Team, or else face potential RP Team/Moderation intervention. My understanding was that ratification of the Accord meant enforced recognition of the rankings for all nations, whether or not they had ratified the Accord. If this interpretation is starkly incorrect, I do have concerns that my own wording in drafting the economic rankings in the OP of this thread (which has been copy pasted to the RP Accord Index) is perhaps misleading:

•For nations which have ratified the RP Accord, these rankings are canon and will be enforced by Moderation under section 20 of the Game Rules beginning on Feb. 22, 2016 at 12:00 AM CST. At that time these rankings will supersede any contradictory information on the wiki, the forum, legislative bills, the national debate page, etc. Utilize these rankings to inform your roleplay, your wiki writing, your history writing, etc.

This to me is relatively explicit in that "these rankings" (plural) are "canon." Your suggested interpretation would better be written "each nation's ranking is canon for purposes of the players therein." This would lend itself to a confusing scenario where Cobura could be high development to every RP Accord ratifier except to players in Cobura, who are forced to RP it as medium development, despite a world of opinion to the contrary.

I think the much less confusing interpretation is to expect that if Cobura ratifies, it must subscribe to its own ranking. But even if Cobura does not ratify, all ratifiers must subscribe to Cobura's medium ranking. Does that make sense?

[Zanz]

As an addenda - Vesica, you guys should be sure to update the definitions of what, exactly, is a "Very high development" nation? The OP here does not explain, your post announcing the new rankings does not explain, and the Index thread does not explain.

[CCP]

Quick Question CCP; do you have links to the Bills that physically created that military? Order for construction of ships? Increase of Defence budgets or Science & Technology Budgets?

You can read Hawu budget bills to see how the defense and science and technology budgets have shifted over time. As to creating military hardware, no I do not have links to posts saying "HM built . . ." and "HM ordered . . ." because your own RP Team guidance says to avoid such posts and focus instead on demonstrating military capabilities:

In regards to military composition and equipment, it is the official advice of the RP Team that nations avoid comprehensive lists / equipment equivalents in favor of general descriptions. Lists of the entire composition of a military are very difficult to maintain, and lead to RP becoming an exercise in math rather than a story-telling, and very few players in Particracy (including the full RP Team) have the military expertise necessary to determine if the S-400 missile defense system is capable of destroying 95 or 97% of all incoming ballistic missiles, for instance. In short, rather than listing out what your nation has, use RP to show us what your military can do.

That is what HM has done since its creation. If you are changing that standard, you need to inform players of the change and then make sure to apply the same standard equally to all countries and then be prepared to reduce most countries' ratings to Small Power accordingly when they fail to link to bills constructing or procuring every piece of military hardware in possession since almost no one in particracy does that.

Speaking generally (not to Vesica in particular), the last few posts in this thread are demonstrating that players do not have a clear and common understanding of the RP Accords and RP Team system, including players responsible for administering it.

[jamescfm]

Speaking generally (not to Vesica in particular), the last few posts in this thread are demonstrating that players do not have a clear and common understanding of the RP Accords and RP Team system, including players responsible for administering it.

It's a relatively new and untested system and I think this is to be expected. I've been following this thread and I thought I would just make a couple of observations from my point of view (unwelcome though they might be). Firstly, I agree with the decision to bump Kalistan up. While I don't think we are a nailed on for the 'high development' group, I do beleive we should be in it at this point in time. Our budgets have always been balanced in-game and we (read Doc) have developed a range of different government firms and the like which provide a certain depth to the nation's economic character. We have also seen extended periods of peacetime, with only a few domestic terrorism incidents to take note of. The continuity of government (i.e. lengthy periods of Labour/Socialist dominated government) would serve the nation well, too. I can't really speak on any other nation in the same detail but for Kalistan, I think the assessment is fair and considered.

On a more general note, the latest rankings seem to suggest that there is still room for improvement. One of the issues I think is that the RP Accord only binds those who are a part of it, so just as a thought exercise. Imagine I were to pull Kalistan out (obviously in coordination with other player's cooperation) and start RPing Kalistan as a war-torn nation in masses of debt and with a terrible standard of living. What happens if we then rejoin, do Moderation enforce the ruling that Kalistan is high development or not? A discussion about how we work around nations which haven't ratified is worth having, so long as it is being had in good faith of course.

Lastly, I do think there needs to be clearer explanations of the Accord and rankings. I don't want to sound overly critical because I know it has been mentioned but it is worth reiterating. Somebody should take the lead and make clear the rules, if indeed they are different from Zanz's OP. Overall, great job, keep it up and keep perfecting the system!

[colonelvesica]

Quick Question CCP; do you have links to the Bills that physically created that military? Order for construction of ships? Increase of Defence budgets or Science & Technology Budgets?

You can read Hawu budget bills to see how the defense and science and technology budgets have shifted over time. As to creating military hardware, no I do not have links to posts saying "HM built . . ." and "HM ordered . . ." because your own RP Team guidance says to avoid such posts and focus instead on demonstrating military capabilities:

In regards to military composition and equipment, it is the official advice of the RP Team that nations avoid comprehensive lists / equipment equivalents in favor of general descriptions. Lists of the entire composition of a military are very difficult to maintain, and lead to RP becoming an exercise in math rather than a story-telling, and very few players in Particracy (including the full RP Team) have the military expertise necessary to determine if the S-400 missile defense system is capable of destroying 95 or 97% of all incoming ballistic missiles, for instance. In short, rather than listing out what your nation has, use RP to show us what your military can do.

That is what HM has done since its creation. If you are changing that standard, you need to inform players of the change and then make sure to apply the same standard equally to all countries and then be prepared to reduce most countries' ratings to Small Power accordingly when they fail to link to bills constructing or procuring every piece of military hardware in possession since almost no one in particracy does that.

Speaking generally (not to Vesica in particular), the last few posts in this thread are demonstrating that players do not have a clear and common understanding of the RP Accords and RP Team system, including players responsible for administering it.

i should have been more succinct; I was curious as to whether or not you had made Bills that did do that; if you though I meant they were required they are not; you are indeed correct we are more interested in what your military can do rather then how many Destroyers you've procured or how many tanks one of your Armored brigades have.

For portions of this ranking for military Affairs I take everything into account, Active Role Playing (which you've done) announcements of joint military bases, Alliance's, exercises and the like (which you've also done) but also I do see whether or not your Defence, Science and Tech and other budgets have increased, whether a Bill has gone through announcing a modernization effort of the military, expansion etc (which is technically also RP) which is why one of the reason we wish to see dedicated and detailed RP when your creating nuclear weapons and aircraft Carriers because they are such big influences in conflicts imagined and otherwise.

I'll state that you didn't create a Bill that announced you were going through a period of military expansion and procurement does not mean a penalty to you, just another thing I can look at to help judge justification for rank ups.

I apologize if I wasn't clear on that.

I'll be doing a quick write up for the Economic Rankings and the Military Rankings and their meanings and definitions when I have quick second; probably by tomorrow