Dynamic rankings feedback

[ChitinKal]

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, I think it's necessary to have a sort of ranking system in place as it keeps a sort of realism to the game rather than allowing a majority of countries be played as world powers if that's the wish of the player.
2. If we're gonna have it, it definitely can't be optional. I also don't think moderation enforcement should be too strict or too harsh, just present to stop any blatantly unrealistic RP, like Liore claiming to have produced a nuclear plant or air craft carrier on it's own.
3. I think once a month works perfectly fine.
4. Obviously both should be taken into account, but I believe the focus should be primarily on the quality of posts rather than a race to see who can get the most single sentence posts out.
5. Yes.
6. I believe there was discussion about this earlier, but I do believe that military strength and political/cultural influence should be split into two separate categories. I don't think we should go too far with creating new ranking categories though, and should just focus on things that have to do with the nation's overall strength or influence in the world. I think other less relevant rankings should be left to the players to handle through IG organizations and their rankings, sort of like the IRL Freedom House.
7. I don't care who does it, as long as they're trusted, respected, and experienced RPers. It could be moderation or a specially appointed small team, as long as those making the decisions are trustable. One thing though, I think whoever does handle the rankings ought to be a small group of two at the least and four at the most.
8. That's a hard no.

[Augustus Germanus]

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 the rankings should continue to exist, but that the moderation or the one doing the ranking keeps an highly unbiased role in the ranking system.
2. I agree with Chitin, it should not be optional and moderation enforcement should not be too harsh.
3. Once a month is good.
4. Both should be considered when ranking but quality should obviously be the priority.
5. Yes I see no problem with it.
6. I hold the same position as Chitin on this one.
7. Moderation could continue doing it, but I think another small group of players (3 would be good I think) should handle the ranking, possibly that every one or two months the group of players change to another group of players, and possibly selected randomly from the active RPers. Moderation could look at their proposed ranking and make sure its serious and trustworthy.
8. Possibly, I am leaning towards John Cracker's answer on this one:

Yes, but things like veto power and permanent status should have limits.

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

I have changed my mind on this. I actually would support doing away with the rankings...and this is after I painstakingly made a bunch of "rank boosting" posts. I do believe that eliminating the rankings would address other issues that others are addressing. Further, to the talk of ridiculous RP, serious players who do have a mind for realism can simply "shun" other players. Indeed, that is a two way street, but if players want to have fun, who are we to stop them? This is a game after all...