jamescfm wrote:Since Moderation does not want to hold a consultation, I am opening this thread as a place for players to offer feedback on the current system of dynamic rankings that operates in the game. Please feel free to offer any thoughts you have on the system and how it operates but I have provided a few specific questions that may help you to direct your thoughts.
- Should the rankings continue to exist?
- Should the rankings continue to be enforced by Moderation, or should they be an optional/advisory system?
- Are the rankings updated regularly enough (or perhaps too regularly)?
- Should the rankings focus to a lesser degree on the quantity of role-play and place more emphasis on quality?
- Do the current groups (e.g. great power, regional power) work effectively?
- Are the two rankings systems (i.e. economics; politics and military) enough?
- Should the rankings be controlled by Moderation, or should this decision be delegated to another player/group of players?
- Do you think that great power status in the politics and military rankings should provide countries with a special status in the World Congress?
Look forward to hearing thoughts.
This has nothing to do with us not wanting to hold a consultation, do don't be disingenuous James, as it's totally unwarranted and incorrect. I openly told you that you can lead a discussion on the rankings and we'd be open to reviewing the feedback.
1. Absolutely. I know Vesica and I are firmly supportive of rankings and we'll continue to use them as long as we're here.
2. I'm confident that we tried the optional/advisory system and it caused far more issues than the mandatory rankings.
3. Rankings are updated generally once a month, other Moderation teams had every 4 months, not quite sure that we want to change this as it provides players the chances to be involved in ongoing events without having to wait 4 months.
4. We've always gone on quality, not sure where you believe we solely base it on quantity of posts.
5. Not quite sure what else would be put in place nor do I really understand what this means entirely. We're using real world political terms with some exceptions.
6. This really comes down burden on Moderation and the fact that its one more thing to track that is closely related to projection.
7. We've tried this SEVERAL times and it's failed each and every single time, I know I was apart of it several times. I can openly state that Vesica and I are opposed to any form of RP Team, Global RP Committee, etc. largely due to the very public and open failures that these teams have had over the course of several Moderation teams.
8. I mean I think this discussion comes up every so often and its generally been concluded that the incentive of being a Great Power should hold something in the World Congress.