Dynamic rankings feedback

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

Disregard original. I am now against rankings.

[Rogue]

Should the rankings continue to exist?
Yes. I believe the rankings are good for the game, especially in regards to keeping unrealistic RP in check. I think the rankings provide a tool for both players that play minor nations as well as "Great Powers" to play the RP they wanna play.

Should the rankings continue to be enforced by Moderation, or should they be an optional/advisory system?
It should continue to be enforced. Making it optional would cause for a large array of problems. And a lot of resentment from both sides.

Are the rankings updated regularly enough (or perhaps too regularly)?
I like the updates as they are. Although i do think that after a major event (A large war, a regional war that shifted the power dynamic or a economic crisis of sorts) they should be changed faster.

Should the rankings focus to a lesser degree on the quantity of role-play and place more emphasis on quality?
I think quality is important. But with quality many interpret it differently. I like good quality but that doesnt necessarily mean long and dragged out posts talking about every detail. Short two paragraph posts (like ive mostly been doing) explaining the general stuff in detail is good.

Do the current groups (e.g. great power, regional power) work effectively?
Im not sure about this one. I feel like some great powers and regional powers dont act like their rank (Deltaria pretends to much like its a GP already, which is my own fauly by admission, but nations like Istalia feel like they barely have influence as GP) i believe if you have a certain rank in the rankings you should act like it.

Are the two rankings systems (i.e. economics; politics and military) enough?
No. There needs to be AT LEAST a cultural rank added to it. And preferably more. A rank on currency (low value, medium value, high value) could also be extremely interesting for example.

Should the rankings be controlled by Moderation, or should this decision be delegated to another player/group of players?
It should be controlled by moderation. But the playerbase should be able to provide feedback without scrutiny or harassment (not saying thats currently the case, but just putting it there)

Do you think that great power status in the politics and military rankings should provide countries with a special status in the World Congress?
Yes. You have done the RP and effort so should be rewarded with a position to exert that influence and power.

[Lucipher]

Should the rankings continue to exist?
Absolutely. I think they're a great way to have a more realistic environment, dislike how the game originally was (100m population each, everyone is free to do anything with no limits).

Should the rankings continue to be enforced by Moderation, or should they be an optional/advisory system?
Again, absolutely. If it was optional, then some more serious players would limit themselves while others just would go crazy and ruin the experience for the serious players.

Are the rankings updated regularly enough (or perhaps too regularly)?
I personally feel like they should be a little more often if anything, but as it's a big job for the mods I'm fine where it is.

Should the rankings focus to a lesser degree on the quantity of role-play and place more emphasis on quality?
Obviously quantity has to be taken into consideration, if you make one massive post with no backup info or reasoning, it's pretty pointless no matter how in depth it is. Regular or semi-regular posts of decent quality should be the norm and the ideal as well.

Do the current groups (e.g. great power, regional power) work effectively?
I think so, but not to their full potential. Great powers having spheres of influence would be nice, and regional powers having smaller but not negligible influence over neighbors in their region (as they're regional powers would be nice.

Are the two rankings systems (i.e. economics; politics and military) enough?
I think more would be nice, such as a democracy index/political freedom, environment, maybe even interventionism/warmongering type deal or more. But as it would be a lot of work for the mods (especially democracy and environment as you have to go through in game bills as well as rp), it being player-led would be nice as well.

Should the rankings be controlled by Moderation, or should this decision be delegated to another player/group of players?
The mods. Don't really trust anyone else to do that long term, and from what I've heard, previous attempts failed.

Do you think that great power status in the politics and military rankings should provide countries with a special status in the World Congress?
Sure. But honestly I think it should be a World Congress issue, where the nature of who's in the WC and for how long is decided by the WC itself.

I also would like to emphasize that the rankings can be appealed after the fact and changed whenever, just ask a mod and either question their decision and ask for reasoning or explain why you think a certain ranking should be different. Just my two cents.

[Wu Han]

1. Should the rankings continue to exist?
I believe so, yes.

2. Should the rankings continue to be enforced by Moderation, or should they be an optional/advisory system?
Depends what "enforcement" means in this context. The ways by which they've been enforced in the past seems acceptable to me.

3. Are the rankings updated regularly enough (or perhaps too regularly)?
I think they are updated enough; ideally, in my mind, they'd be even more frequent and flexible, but I'm not sure that's feasible.

4. Should the rankings focus to a lesser degree on the quantity of role-play and place more emphasis on quality?
There needs to be a shift toward quality, and at least an attempt to verify the integrity of posts (specifically, excluding plagiarized posts from consideration). A plagiarized post should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the ranking of a country. It is completely unfair to those who spend time writing their posts, when one can just ctrl-c, ctrl-v their way up the list.

5. Do the current groups (e.g. great power, regional power) work effectively?
Broadly, I think they're functional. However if the rankings system were to be overhauled, of course the definitions of these terms would need to be explored.

6. Are the two rankings systems (i.e. economics; politics and military) enough?
As with the questions I raised with the last ratings update some further specificity is required. I think the answers provided by Moderation to my questions were fair and justified, but the underlying issue of ranking countries strictly by economic power and military power seems to lack nuance. This is in no way a complete proposal, but perhaps there could be a third "diplomatic/cultural power" option, or some sort of category which takes into account the soft power of a country?

7. Should the rankings be controlled by Moderation, or should this decision be delegated to another player/group of players?
I don't want to appear unmindful of all the hard work our moderators have put into the game, and I also think the old global roleplay committee was fraught with challenges. However, I do believe there is some value in having a group of players play a consultative role with regard to global roleplay, which would include rankings. In collaboration with moderation, players could work to create more cohesive international RP events (recessions, wars, etc.) rather than have these events arise sporadically, anachronistically and in the isolating confines of the nation state in which they occur.

8. Do you think that great power status in the politics and military rankings should provide countries with a special status in the World Congress?
I remain divided on this as I believe that the veto option can contribute to more confrontational (and thus, interesting) diplomatic RP. However, I think the system is unfairly tilted when the vast number of "Great Powers" are aligned with each other economically and militarily. This isn't to say that those players get an unfair or unearned advantage, per se, but that it stymies RP conflict by enforcing a sort of unipolar world. If changes were to occur, I would also want to ensure that the number of seats remains around the number that currently exists, rather than revert to the four elected-member SC. The more voices and contributions, the better.

[Kubrick]

Should the rankings continue to exist?

Yes.

Should the rankings continue to be enforced by Moderation, or should they be an optional/advisory system?

I think the two parties should collaborate, I do sense a conflict of interest when two moderators consistently put their own nations in the top tiers warranted or not.

Are the rankings updated regularly enough (or perhaps too regularly)?

Too regularly at least for an older player like me with a busy life, all effort seems futile to build up (especially with so many people spamming content).

Should the rankings focus to a lesser degree on the quantity of role-play and place more emphasis on quality?

Absolutely. Anyone disagreeing to this is unworthy of actually participating in RP.

Do the current groups (e.g. great power, regional power) work effectively?

Reasonably enough, can only make it worse at this point.

Are the two rankings systems (i.e. economics; politics and military) enough?

No but I am unsure what to add to diversify.

Should the rankings be controlled by Moderation, or should this decision be delegated to another player/group of players?

Another group of players in consultation with moderation.

Do you think that great power status in the politics and military rankings should provide countries with a special status in the World Congress?

The World Congress is a lion without claws or teeth at this point and all the big boys in it hardly provoke each other. It's bland, boring and useless really. Special status should be selected on tensions (like picking guests for Big Brother, pick the ones that will get into fights) so you get a little more action in there.

[Reddy]

Should the rankings continue to exist?


No. They have never had much credibility nor added RP of any quality despite the best intentions and four years of hard work. Much of this garbage RP, plagiarism or otherwise we see nowadays can almost certainly be blamed on the rankings system. I do think that Moderation should continue regulating certain aspects of RP.

Should the rankings continue to be enforced by Moderation, or should they be an optional/advisory system?


Advisory. Let those who like them, choose to observe them. I believe that no more than a third of countries ever approved of them in the early days.

Are the rankings updated regularly enough (or perhaps too regularly)?


Too regularly I think. I don't really follow them anymore so I rarely notice the updates.


Should the rankings focus to a lesser degree on the quantity of role-play and place more emphasis on quality?


Mostly quality. I suppose quantity matters to a point.

Do the current groups (e.g. great power, regional power) work effectively?


Not really. Power is too complex to be accurately categorised in any manner. A strong personality can drive a weak country with few resources to unimaginable heights.

Are the two rankings systems (i.e. economics; politics and military) enough?


If we have to have them, yes. God forbid that some as complex as soft/cultural power be added

Should the rankings be controlled by Moderation, or should this decision be delegated to another player/group of players?


Moderation. Most RP Teams have typically been very lethargic and corrupt drama factories.
Surely any honest person who has played this game for at least two years would agree with this opinion

Do you think that great power status in the politics and military rankings should provide countries...


Yes but we could restrict or abolish the veto for the sake of gameplay. I know the veto is "realistic" but this is a game and we need action. We should also consider some kind of GA resolution system even something as simple and unreliable as good old forum polls.

[Aquinas]

Should the rankings continue to exist?

Before the plagiarism scandal, my position was that imperfect rankings were generally better than no rankings at all. At least they set down guidance. There have always been disputes about how nations should be ranked and suggestions of bias on the part of individuals making those decisions. Perhaps that is simply inevitable. However, it is worth bearing in mind that overwhelmingly, differences of opinion about how a nation should be ranked have been incremental. Usually the controversy has been over whether a nation should be at one rank or the rank one step above or below. Rarely, if ever, has the argument been over whether a nation should be rated two or more ranks higher or two or more ranks lower. That, I would tentatively suggest, indicates there has been at least a measure of objectiveness and general consensus involved in the process.

In the light of what we now know about players plagiarising in order to boost their rankings, should the rankings continue to exist? Well, I'm not going to answer a firm "No" like Reddy did, because I feel that would be too easy answer...but in all honesty, I am undecided. The plagiarism scandal has seriously shaken my confidence that the rankings contribute to the game in a positive way. To briefly run through a few highlights of the affair:

- Moderation has openly admitted it was aware plagiarism was going on but did nothing to stop it and treated it as though it was legal. Presumably they were aware of the plagiarism either through personal observation/investigation, through it being reported to them privately or a mixture of the two.

- Moderation has not revealed to us the full extent of their awareness of the plagiarism problem. This should have been done and still needs to be done. We need to know the scale on which this has been going on. Furthermore, efforts need to be made to ensure plagiarised content on the forum is removed.

- Four plagiarisers have so far emerged. Two of them are former Moderators, and three of them have in the past been tasked with formulating the rankings. This does not inspire confidence.

- Since the scandal emerged, Moderation has begun moving in the right direction, but painfully slowly and not in a way that has altogether inspired my full confidence. Incredibly, the initial proposal was to authorise plagiarism so long as more than half of the post was original content (!!!). There was also an initial reluctance to even consider the possibility that the rankings needed to be reviewed as a result of players shamelessly boosting their rankings by churning out plagiarised articles.

In the light of these revelations, it is not so easy to have confidence that the rankings system will influence role-play in a positive way if it is continued. There is a serious credibility problem.

Should the rankings continue to be enforced by Moderation, or should they be an optional/advisory system?

If the rankings are to continue, I would argue they should be advisory or they should be compulsory, but there should under no circumstances be an opt-out system (sorry Liu!). From previous experience, I am not convinced opt-out systems work well on this.

My preference is they should remain advisory for now, until the system has earned more credibility. In order to restore confidence, it would also be desirable if the players guilty of plagiarism were prohibited from RPing nations in the top two economic and military ranks.

Are the rankings updated regularly enough (or perhaps too regularly)?

No strong opinion, but if they are done once a month, it needs to be borne in mind that a nation's inactivity over a 4 week period should probably not automatically mean it should be downgraded, especially if its closest rivals in the rankings have been inactive too. Obviously, though, the longer the inactivity continues, the more difficult it becomes to argue against a down-ranking.

Should the rankings focus to a lesser degree on the quantity of role-play and place more emphasis on quality?

Both quality and quantity are important. For me, more than anything, good RP needs to be authentic, believable. People should feel encouraged to acknowledge their nation's weaknesses in their RP, as much as its strengths. If a nation's RP does not realistically acknowledge the nation's challenges and setbacks, then there should be caution about using that RP as a basis to raise the nation in the rankings.

Do the current groups (e.g. great power, regional power) work effectively?

There needs to be more guidance about what is expected of players in terms of the economic and military rankings their nations are assigned. The descriptions for the current set of economic rankings, based on level of economic development, are hopeless now, because we are no longer in a Terra where almost every nation has 100 million people. For economic rankings, we need to know (a) the size of the population, (b) the living standards/GDP per capita and (c) the GDP/"economic power" (ie. population multiplied by GDP per capita).

The current two Moderators are both military RP enthusiasts, which in many ways, of course, is great - but I will confess there have been moments when I have wondered whether they expect a degree of military knowledge/insight from players which is not altogether realistic. To give one, example, I would cite the Moderation response to a military exercise undertaken by Likatonia. Reading through that, I was a little taken aback that the player seemed to be expected to know about such details as what radar systems controlled by over countries are doing, how fast ships move, how far aircraft can fly before they need to refuel, whether or not their nation can possess refuelling ships and how other nations would immediately react to the exercise being carried out. Particracy, it is worth remembering, is essentially a political role-playing game rather than a game of technical military strategy. This is not to say military RP should not be regulated, but the guidelines do need to be communicated in a way we can all understand.


Are the two rankings systems (i.e. economics; politics and military) enough?

The Moderation Team has already been overstretched in recent months, and I am reluctant to recommending adding more to their workload. The initiative for alternative rankings systems should come from players. Let players create and manage their own schemes, on a non-official basis. If they become popular and respected enough, Moderation can consider the benefits of giving them the official stamp of approval.

As a general point: we need more creative and authentic RP far more than we need more official league tables and all of the extended controversies that inevitably surround them.


Should the rankings be controlled by Moderation, or should this decision be delegated to another player/group of players?

I am less concerned about whether Moderation or designated players do them, and more concerned that they are done competently, with integrity and on time. We know from past experience that designating permanent responsibility to an individual for the rankings often goes awry, if the person becomes busy in real life. It therefore seems preferable to me that the rankings should be done on an ad hoc basis. If the Moderators want to do a rankings review, that is fine. Similarly, if the Moderators are busy, I am fine with them assigning responsibility to a designated player or group of players.

Previous RP Teams/GRCs have apparently had great difficulty trying to agree on the rankings. Perhaps this is an argument against doing the task "by committee" and an argument instead for having a single person present rankings proposals for consultation. Some say the past difficulties with RP Teams/GRCs means only Moderators should do the rankings. I am not sure how fair that is, since presumably a team of Moderators has the same potential to disagree as a team of non-Moderators. Or maybe that tends not to happen, because Moderators have more of a working relationship with each other? Who knows?


Do you think that great power status in the politics and military rankings should provide countries with a special status in the World Congress?

There is an argument for that, but they should not, in my view, be entitled to vetoes.

[jamescfm]

Thank you to everybody who offered their feedback. In the end it seems that most players structured their remarks around the eight questions that I posed in my original post (if I had known this would happen, I would've thought them through a little better!). For this reason it seems sensible to take each of these in turn and consider the response, to figure out where the consensus lies.

Should the rankings continue to exist?

Almost everybody answered a firm "yes" to this question, with the exception of Reddy and Aquinas. In both of these cases, it seems that the basis for concern was in the manner that the rankings have operated rather than a fundamental opposition to the concept. On this front it seems generally to be the case that players are supportive of the concept of the rankings at the very least.

Should the rankings continue to be enforced by Moderation, or should they be an optional/advisory system?

Although there was a majority expressing support for Moderation-enforced rankings, a few players did raise concerns with the current system. Liu Che suggested an "opt-out system", Kubrick suggested a role for players given the potential conflict of interest for Moderators, and Reddy and Aquinas both suggested adopting an fully advisory system. A couple of other players didn't really express an opinion either way on this question. Not wanting to dismiss the concerns of those players who would prefer an advisory system, it does seem to be the general view that Moderation should continue to enforce the rankings with some reforms to the precise manner of doing so (particularly with regard to the position of countries controlled by Moderators).

Are the rankings updated regularly enough (or perhaps too regularly)?

Probably among the questions with the most clear difference of opinion. A substantial number of players expressed a desire for rankings to be updated more regularly, although most noted that this would place additional strain on Moderation. An additional group of players said that the current timescale (about once a month) is appropriate. Kubrick and Reddy both suggested that rankings are currently updated too regularly and Aquinas sympathised with these concerns. In my assessment of the feedback it would seem fair to say that keeping the current timescale is suitable for most players but that we should endeavour to take into consideration the long-term position of a country, rather than simply its activity since the last time the rankings were updated.

Should the rankings focus to a lesser degree on the quantity of role-play and place more emphasis on quality?

In response to this question, most players suggested that a greater focus should be placed on the quality of role-play. Although most noted that consistent or regular posts should be part of evaluating a country's position, there was a general feeling that quantity is being prioritised at the expense of quality. No doubt the revelation that plagiarism played a significant role in the position of certain countries influenced many people's answers to this question. The rules that specifically prohibit plagiarism may do some work to alleviate player concerns but it is fair to question how the plagiarised nature of these posts was able to be overlooked for such a period of time.

Do the current groups (e.g. great power, regional power) work effectively?

Broadly people seem to be happy with the current groupings. A few players suggested that there could be more clarity about the groups and what should be expected from countries that fall within and a couple of others expressed a desire for more detailed or additional groups. In general it seems that maintaining the current structure is supported by most players, though we may need to offer some further guidance about how it operates.

Are the two rankings systems (i.e. economics; politics and military) enough?

A mixed response in some respects to this one. Almost every player expressed at least some desire for additional systems of rankings (particularly cultural, soft power and environmental standards) with the exception of Reddy. However most players also expressed a concern about the additional burden imposed on Moderation by maintaining an additional ranking system. Aquinas' suggestion of a player-led initiative might be one way to balance these two concerns. Moderation is currently asking for player feedback on an additional rankings system, please offer your thoughts if you have a particular interest in the subject.

Should the rankings be controlled by Moderation, or should this decision be delegated to another player/group of players?

Seems like we were pretty much split down the middle here too. I think most players recognise the problems that previous role-play committees and teams have had, making them cautious of approving of such bodies in future. The general view it seems is that the ultimate authority should lie with Moderation but that they should make decisions in collaboration with the player base, either through consultation or feedback, and that they should endeavour to make impartial decisions in the process.

Do you think that great power status in the politics and military rankings should provide countries with a special status in the World Congress?

On this point it seems that there is broad consensus that "great powers" should be rewarded to some degree but several players expressed a concern that this system is not being utilised in the most effective manner. In contrast to the real world on which the principle is based, there has been a degree of common interest among "great powers". I think it is fair to say most would like the permanent member status and veto power retained but better utilised.

If you still have feedback to offer about the dynamic rankings or if you feel like my summary of the feedback above has been unfair, then please continue to express your views in this thread. As I have already mentioned if you have specific thoughts about the creation of a third system based on "soft power" or "political influence" then they would be best served in the feedback thread for that proposal.

In the coming days, I will talk to my co-Moderators about how we can utilise the feedback we have received to improve the rankings system and ensure that it is a robust process that enhances the player experience. If and when we have actual changes to make to the process, we will let you all know. At the very least we will consider the feedback provided when it comes time to update the rankings next time.

[Zanz]

Late to the party.

Should the rankings continue to exist?

No, or they should be optional.

Should the rankings continue to be enforced by Moderation, or should they be an optional/advisory system?

They should be optional, but again, my preference is that they're done away with. "Advisory" means they still have the same reductionist effect on RP - RP centers around economic and military RP (largely RP that makes a country look better and better infinitely over time, only rarely RP that makes a country look worse) and little more than that.

Are the rankings updated regularly enough (or perhaps too regularly)?

No opinion.

Should the rankings focus to a lesser degree on the quantity of role-play and place more emphasis on quality?

Yes, I feel this is so obvious as to be a ridiculous question. But I guess not, with recent issues with plagiarism.

Do the current groups (e.g. great power, regional power) work effectively?

See above. No strong opinion - if it were made optional, I'd opt out, and you all can use whatever groupings you want.

Are the two rankings systems (i.e. economics; politics and military) enough?

No, because as I said this incentivizes RP largely of one or the other type, but there's no "enough" number, IMO. RP should be incentivized by the interest in writing it and in the response of the community - not by any typology, even if it's 100 types.

Should the rankings be controlled by Moderation, or should this decision be delegated to another player/group of players?

If the rankings were optional, I don't care (though I find it very suspect that the current set of mods [with the exception of James, now] happen to play in the world's great powers, so I guess I'd ask "why don't more people care that the system that has been created to run the game seems to benefit the people who choose the way that system works?") - but I would certainly not need some sort of replacement in the opt-out world... I'd just RP with those I find interesting, and work with players as needed to figure out what kinds of RP we want to do, what kind of tech we want to use, etc.

Do you think that great power status in the politics and military rankings should provide countries with a special status in the World Congress?

No.

[John Cracker]

Q: Should the rankings continue to exist?
A: Yes.

Q: Should the rankings continue to be enforced by Moderation, or should they be an optional/advisory system?
A: To an extent.

Q: Are the rankings updated regularly enough (or perhaps too regularly)?
A: I would like to see them updated more often

Q: Should the rankings focus to a lesser degree on the quantity of role-play and place more emphasis on quality?
A: Yes, quality should be the defining factor, but quantity should be an important factor.

Q: Do the current groups (e.g. great power, regional power) work effectively?
A: Yes.

Q: Are the two rankings systems (i.e. economics; politics and military) enough?
A: I would like to see economics broken down into different sectors and military into different branches.

Q: Should the rankings be controlled by Moderation, or should this decision be delegated to another player/group of players?
A: Yes the moderators should do it but I have no problem in a joint team of both moderators and experienced players.

Q: Do you think that great power status in the politics and military rankings should provide countries with a special status in the World Congress?
A: Yes, but things like veto power and permanent status should have limits.