Dynamic rankings feedback

[jamescfm]

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.

[robmark0000]

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.

1. Yes, of course, one of the coolest things in the game.
2. Yes, it makes sense if it enforced by Moderation.
3. I think it have to updated in every month.
4. I think yes, Valruzia, Istalia, Dorvik etc have very good economic and military RP.
5. I'd welcome a democracy index, too, but I prefer economical, political and military ranking also.
6. I think no, delegated players can be biased.
7. This is an interesting question. If the countries mentioned are achieved this status with great RP on military and economics, then I think yes. If not, then no.

[Auditorii]

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.

[ChengherRares1]

1. Yes, their not that bad of a concept.
2. Be enforced, if not, i do not know what is their purpose.
3. I do not see issue with update, although more frequent updates are welcomed.
4. I think a mixture of both, we should not go full one way or another, to avoid abuses.
5. Maybe more detailed ones? I cannot think of, but maybe more ranks?
6. No, it could help to have more ranks, like stability, democracy (Robmark idea), political influence, cultural influence etc.
7. By an non biased, impartial group of roleplayers who do not own any nation in game, and whose allegiance for fairness is well known as well extended RP knowledge. We had in the past a RP commission or something, we could bring it back but improve it.
8. No, i feel that the Congress should be more based on democracy and equal share than just some powers bossing around.

[jamescfm]

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.

Just to respond quickly to this claim since it is a direct accusation that my comments are disingenuous, unwarranted and incorrect. In direct response to my suggestion that Moderation should hold a consultation on the rankings, you responded in the plagiarism thread:

Not really sure what else needs to be done in terms of the "rankings"? We comb through newspaper RP posts, we generally check budgets/spending, we discuss the actions of each country and if they warrant certain status', etc. There really isn't more to do imho and we're not really prepared to have a "consultation" on rankings when we're happy with where they are.

You told me directly that you were not prepared to have a consultation. Please do not make baseless accusations against me.

[alaskancrabpuffs21]

1. Yes, They provide players with a goal to reach and provide a hierarchy of sorts. This provided interesting rp. If you are against this I am sorry. I support them
2. Who else would run them? The player base as a whole? That would cause a mess. I trust Moderation to do this. They have done a good job.
3. I think the rankings should be changed more often. I think having them updated more often would be good and provide with constant change, like in real life. However I know moderation is already busy, we do not want to mods overloaded...
4. I do think that quantity should be looked at. As we have seen some of the quality rp has been not what it seems. Looking at Quantity is important because it rewards active players. I do not mean however that one or a paragraph article counts for this. If you write one paragraph articles all the time and that is all you do, you should not advance... Like everything don't go too extreme in either direction. Keep quality control, but I would say to pay attention to quantity as well. In my opinion keep an even balance of both
5. Yes, I would like to see more categories or categories that have specific focuses. However that is just me.
6. Again I wish their were more, but that would get complicated to focus on. I get that
7. A delegation would get too complicated. See for example, the GA trying to get anything done is like ripping out a toenail slowly, long a painful. A delegation would not work I believe. Feel free to prove me wrong. In fact I would like to join a said delegation is this is agreed upon, I however think that Moderation is the best judgement.
8. Well look at real life, Russia, the US and Britain are to an extent Great Powers and they hold SC seats. Of course great powers should get rewards, thats the whole goal right?

In conclusion, I think the rankings are important, they need to be tweaked however not overhauled and certainly not gotten rid of. I also think a player delegation would get too complicated. Thats it really...

All this hate against moderation and blatant singling out and shaming is getting old however... First the plagiarism thread and now this one. Come on guys can we not argue...

[Auditorii]

You're right James, we're not and then I said to you here:

And as I've said time and time again, you're welcome to discuss your opinions on how rankings should be done but we'll ultimately determine how we want to use such opinions.

Consultations to Vesica and I have a totally different meaning and we're not prepared to have one. As I stated above, and you have done, we're open for players to discuss this but it isn't a "consultation" and we're certainly not going to be having one. Consultations imply that there has been some feedback already, which we've had none we just had people calling for dismissals of systems that they have an issue with. Once the feedback is done perhaps we'll hold a consultation on the rule changes, so to state again: we're not prepared to hold a consultation because to us, we haven't reached the steps for it yet.

[Luis1p]

Alright here are my two cents:

I think the current raking system is generally ok, but perhaps could use some improvement.

I don't think they should be eliminated. It gives a good sense of where nations lie in terms of economy and military and the things a nation could do. If they were eliminated, I don't think it would decrease the amount of posts in those two subjects. That type of RP will continue, even if the rankings are eliminated. I do think however, it will make it harder to see what a nation can/ and cannot do. How will it affect budgets? Trade deals? International Development? Civil War/Conflict RP?

In terms of quality and quantity, I think its fair to say that the rankings have always been a ,matter of "Quality over Quantity". And that's the way it should be imo.

In terms of the two topics, military and economy. I do think it's not enough. It makes all RP either having to do with the economy and military. Which it does become a little bland. In the past, I introduced an idea that would introduce more "Ranking Topics". These ranking topics would range from Environment, to Sports, to Media. Not just solely on Economy and Military. HOWEVER, it would put more work on moderation, which they probably don't want. So, it would involve a group or team to do the new rankings. and here's the problem, we've had groups like these before and they just dont work. My idea is, if any of my ideas are accepted, which they probably wont, is to have a group of players do the extended rankings. But, the group would need strict rules and the group needs to actually be USEFUL. It cant just be a sitting group of players. It's very complicated, but if done in a good way, it *could* be done.

[Yolo04]

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.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. No, as I’ve stated in the past we should have categories for environmental friendliness and other, lesser talked about, powers
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. Yes

I hope my consultation can assist you James

[jamescfm]

Thanks to those players who have already given feedback. I did not expect such a quick response. A reminder that the questions are not prescriptive and I don't necessarily need a direct answer to all of them, only those that you feel are important. For a little while, I will continue to leave the thread open for any comments at all and then once I feel as though a decent variety of responses have been received, I will consider narrowing the discussion to the issues that consensus suggests is most important.