Feedback: Dynamic Rankings

[Lucipher]

I'm curious how the planned Davostag x Telamon war will affect the two nation's rankings here. As both of us (me and Augustus) have done some military recently, and I've done economic stuff, would you judge either of them likely to change? Or would it be something that we'd determine after the war and update the rankings after? As I'm planning on doing lots of military and especially economic rp going forward before the war. Thanks.

[Doc]

God damn, Kalistan sucks. Now we're like most of the other countries which have been neglected and abused by people with ridiculous ideas about free markets...

I think it is time for some nationalization...

[Auditorii]

I'm curious how the planned Davostag x Telamon war will affect the two nation's rankings here. As both of us (me and Augustus) have done some military recently, and I've done economic stuff, would you judge either of them likely to change? Or would it be something that we'd determine after the war and update the rankings after? As I'm planning on doing lots of military and especially economic rp going forward before the war. Thanks.

We definitely noted that you're on the upswing but didn't feel that the RP met the criteria for a jump quite yet. While we tend to and try to do rankings as a whole, there is no real reason we can't move individual countries up if we feel that specific ones have met the criteria prior to the once a month general review.

[jamescfm]

Linked to what Wu already said about Seko, I can see the reasoning behind upgrading the country based on the political component of the ranking but he's right that we've not done any military role-play. Is there perhaps an argument that we should have three rankings, one for economics, one for military and one for political power/influence? The latter two are obviously related but they're similarly related to economics and that's separate at the moment. Perhaps something to consider for the future?

[Auditorii]

Linked to what Wu already said about Seko, I can see the reasoning behind upgrading the country based on the political component of the ranking but he's right that we've not done any military role-play. Is there perhaps an argument that we should have three rankings, one for economics, one for military and one for political power/influence? The latter two are obviously related but they're similarly related to economics and that's separate at the moment. Perhaps something to consider for the future?

It's a discussion that I can say we've (Vesica and I) had and right now we're comfortable with keeping military power and political influence together. I'm not saying a conversation can't or shouldn't be had but right now we're comfortable with keeping them linked.

[Lucipher]

I'm curious how the planned Davostag x Telamon war will affect the two nation's rankings here. As both of us (me and Augustus) have done some military recently, and I've done economic stuff, would you judge either of them likely to change? Or would it be something that we'd determine after the war and update the rankings after? As I'm planning on doing lots of military and especially economic rp going forward before the war. Thanks.

We definitely noted that you're on the upswing but didn't feel that the RP met the criteria for a jump quite yet. While we tend to and try to do rankings as a whole, there is no real reason we can't move individual countries up if we feel that specific ones have met the criteria prior to the once a month general review.

Sounds good. I'll keep it going and hopefully move up in the world.

[Harsh Thakur]

Baltusia has launched major reforms with complete market freedom and Privatization and Capitalism

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

I just want to first say that I am perfectly content with the way the Rankings have been updated and how Moderation is going above and beyond by being so willing to listen to players who have thoughts on this matter. I would like to see if we could get some clarification on a few things. This is primarily due to my feeling that some of my posts are a bit of a chore - I am sure you all can see that I largely alternate between business and military development. I also get the sense that others may feel this pressure, but I cannot and do not speak for them.

1. How to states move down in the rankings, especially from the higher ranks? Is the quality/quantity of posts held to the same standard (I assume it is)? In the case of Great Powers, historically (at least in the modern era), Great Powers only lost their position due to losing a devastating war or having undergone a massive civil war (WWI, WWII, Russian Civil War, and Chinese Civil War). Is this the standard that applies to them? More interested in this given debates going on throughout the world on the nature of the rise and fall of great powers and want to see where you all fall in the debate.

2. Regarding "development" posts, which I personally define as economic/business and non-war military RP, are we allowed to plagiarize from real life articles? I personally think this is not desirable, as it reduces RP and posts to simply meeting quotas. For example, if I saw an article in DefenseOne on the J-20 that discussed its capabilities and analyzed it in other ways, could I take that article and just swap out the names? Same goes for economic/business RP. Could I go to Forbes and pick out articles and use them, so long as I swapped out names? This would technically seem like an easy way to make the quality/quantity of posts necessary to keep moving up or remaining in the position in the rankings.

3. I know it could be more of a pain, but I was wondering if you all were considering reintroducing budgets into the mix? Not the actual amount spent, but focus of spending. For example, some nations might focus more of their spending on defense than other areas. I know this was used when rankings were first developed years ago.

4. Population changes were introduced relatively recently. Will these ever be a factor in the rankings? I believe this has been discussed on the Discord, but real-life power rankings (at least in terms of potential power) typically factor in population is one of the variables. I realize that this may not be desirable as it could effectively handicap some nations, but just wanted to get some clarity.

Thank you all!

[Auditorii]

1. We're largely supportive of removing Great Powers due to events within the country, voluntary down-ranking, and other factors such as economic collapse leading to loss of political/military power and a few other things that we'd take into account if we saw them (i.e. extension of power without realistic basis for it, etc.)

2. I mean, I'm not a fan of copy-pasting real life articles, I know players who do it and I know who have done it there is nothing in the rules against it. Personally I think that it cheapens the RP because you're literally copy-pasting, swapping out names and using other peoples work but that's a personal preference.

3. Reintroducing budgets? We consider spending when it comes to defense and economic rankings to a degree, we understand that the economic section of the game is not entirely functional nor should it really be heavily considered but we use it as a measurement. For instance we've seen some countries spend 10, 15 and 20 percent GDP on defense without the supporting background to justify such a short term boost (war, civil war, etc.) or support of a Very Strong/Strong economy and consider that a negative economic factor. I know that came up in discussions for the last ranking, I can't say for previous discussions we had many nations that had specific issues with too high spending in some areas.

4. Population is a factor but it's not very high on the list, as you mentioned we've got no official policy on what nations can and cannot become Great Powers. I think personally that there are some that should be limited due to mitigating factors but that's something that Vesica and I discuss when it happens, we've been fortunate enough to not really have to cross that bridge yet.

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

1. We're largely supportive of removing Great Powers due to events within the country, voluntary down-ranking, and other factors such as economic collapse leading to loss of political/military power and a few other things that we'd take into account if we saw them (i.e. extension of power without realistic basis for it, etc.)

2. I mean, I'm not a fan of copy-pasting real life articles, I know players who do it and I know who have done it there is nothing in the rules against it. Personally I think that it cheapens the RP because you're literally copy-pasting, swapping out names and using other peoples work but that's a personal preference.

3. Reintroducing budgets? We consider spending when it comes to defense and economic rankings to a degree, we understand that the economic section of the game is not entirely functional nor should it really be heavily considered but we use it as a measurement. For instance we've seen some countries spend 10, 15 and 20 percent GDP on defense without the supporting background to justify such a short term boost (war, civil war, etc.) or support of a Very Strong/Strong economy and consider that a negative economic factor. I know that came up in discussions for the last ranking, I can't say for previous discussions we had many nations that had specific issues with too high spending in some areas.

4. Population is a factor but it's not very high on the list, as you mentioned we've got no official policy on what nations can and cannot become Great Powers. I think personally that there are some that should be limited due to mitigating factors but that's something that Vesica and I discuss when it happens, we've been fortunate enough to not really have to cross that bridge yet.

Thanks, Farsun, for the extremely quick reply. I was honestly not expecting that. Really appreciate it.