Feedback: Dynamic Rankings

[DueWizard70]

I think Bianjie should be considered weak economically instead of underdeveloped. I've done RP around the resort, which is a big boost to the economy, as well as opened up trade and cooperation with foreign countries and companies. I don't think it's an issue, as the rankings are not mandatory, but just my two cents on it.

Thanks for pointing this out, Vesica and I ended up talking about it. We do feel we didn't do justice to Bianjie and its development in this ranking, and similarly to Utembo as well. We're going to edit the rankings accordingly.

Was going to post about this exactly. Great news! Thanks!

[Aquinas]

Economic
Yingdala up to Very Strong

Military & Influence
Deltaria, Liore, Vascania & Yingdala Rising to Great Power

Yingdala's leading international RPer, jrandle8, has been proved to have committed plagiarism in 5 separate recent instances. He has also publicly lied by claiming his CESCU Treaty was "completely different from the UN Charter," when in fact it was a wholesale plagiarism of it.

Despite having found time to upgrade and privilege Yingdala in the economic and military rankings, Vesica does not appear to have taken any action against jrandle8 or indeed any of the recent plagiarisers, and has not even taken any action to remove any of the plagiarism identified several days ago. This includes the plagiarised CESU Treaty.

I feel strongly that this is sending out entirely the wrong signal. Nations should not be upranked in cases where the players involved have so recently been plagiarising.

More broadly, I am concerned that the rankings are encouraging an ethos which focuses more on "playing to win", as in winning wars and making your nation powerful, as opposed to developing interesting, creative and collaborative RP. This attitude was demonstrated by Vesica only a few weeks ago, when he publicly boasted on Discord about how he cannot recall a single instance where his nation came off worse in a military tangle. His response when challenged was telling, revealing he sees his unbeaten record in RP wars as a reflection on his own personal ability:

Frankly Aquinas I think we can be honest with each other and state that you are picking me out specifically for that comment. It should be noted, that if anyone has actually looked at my Role Play, one of the reasons for my successes in military Role Play was the fact I've spent most of my time in PT focusing on military based Role Play, and commanded generally considered some of the most powerful militaries in the game from my dedication to military RP. Further to the point it is no secret that I regularly pull in my real life training, combat experience and tactical know how directly into these Role Plays. I am a fully trained military tactician by trade, I served for a number in the Army for a number of years, including in parts of the world I would rather not discuss anymore, honing my craft, and went to school specifically for tactics and strategy. I can say, without false modesty, I understand war and combat better then most of the players of this game simply from my life experience.

Seemingly it has not entered his head that a military setback could be RPed just as beautifully, and with just as much RP skill, as a military defeat. And here, we see what is a large part of the problem with military and economic RP in this game.

So to conclude, I am not convinced that the military and economic rankings, even in voluntary form, really contribute anything positive to the game any more. At worst, they can be used by Moderators to send out signals which gravely undermine the game's supposed policy against plagiarism. At best, they always inevitably seem to act as an incentive to power-gaming and the proliferation of bland (and in some cases, plagiarised) economic and military RP posts.

[Kubrick]

which suggests that posting more cost more time and is thus of higher quality.

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. Time consuming is not the same as quality. You can spend five years building a house by hand with no experience but I'm pretty sure the experienced builder can do a better quality job in a year. Once again you confuse quantity and quality I'm afraid.

[colonelvesica]

Economic
Yingdala up to Very Strong

Military & Influence
Deltaria, Liore, Vascania & Yingdala Rising to Great Power

Yingdala's leading international RPer, jrandle8, has been proved to have committed plagiarism in 5 separate recent instances. He has also publicly lied by claiming his CESCU Treaty was "completely different from the UN Charter," when in fact it was a wholesale plagiarism of it.

Despite having found time to upgrade and privilege Yingdala in the economic and military rankings, Vesica does not appear to have taken any action against jrandle8 or indeed any of the recent plagiarisers, and has not even taken any action to remove any of the plagiarism identified several days ago. This includes the plagiarised CESU Treaty.

I feel strongly that this is sending out entirely the wrong signal. Nations should not be upranked in cases where the players involved have so recently been plagiarising.

More broadly, I am concerned that the rankings are encouraging an ethos which focuses more on "playing to win", as in winning wars and making your nation powerful, as opposed to developing interesting, creative and collaborative RP. This attitude was demonstrated by Vesica only a few weeks ago, when he publicly boasted on Discord about how he cannot recall a single instance where his nation came off worse in a military tangle. His response when challenged was telling, revealing he sees his unbeaten record in RP wars as a reflection on his own personal ability:

Frankly Aquinas I think we can be honest with each other and state that you are picking me out specifically for that comment. It should be noted, that if anyone has actually looked at my Role Play, one of the reasons for my successes in military Role Play was the fact I've spent most of my time in PT focusing on military based Role Play, and commanded generally considered some of the most powerful militaries in the game from my dedication to military RP. Further to the point it is no secret that I regularly pull in my real life training, combat experience and tactical know how directly into these Role Plays. I am a fully trained military tactician by trade, I served for a number in the Army for a number of years, including in parts of the world I would rather not discuss anymore, honing my craft, and went to school specifically for tactics and strategy. I can say, without false modesty, I understand war and combat better then most of the players of this game simply from my life experience.

Seemingly it has not entered his head that a military setback could be RPed just as beautifully, and with just as much RP skill, as a military defeat. And here, we see what is a large part of the problem with military and economic RP in this game.

So to conclude, I am not convinced that the military and economic rankings, even in voluntary form, really contribute anything positive to the game any more. At worst, they can be used by Moderators to send out signals which gravely undermine the game's supposed policy against plagiarism. At best, they always inevitably seem to act as an incentive to power-gaming and the proliferation of bland (and in some cases, plagiarised) economic and military RP posts.

I am curious as to how my comments were dragged into this but alright.

As I am no longer an active player within the game, and am unlikely to be an active player within the game anytime in the immediate future my Role Play, what I would chose to focus on, is ultimately now irrelevant. Choosing to bring it in, seems like a deliberative choice, however I am sure it is merely used to highlight you see as the issues with the rankings rather then simply bringing up what I said in another thread for the sake of it.

Any complaints you have about plagiarism or Moderation's enforcement of it I would advise you to direct them to the appropriate thread as it has nothing to do with feedback of the Dynamic Rankings themselves, unless you feel that the collective Yingdalan community was all guilty of jrandle's choices to plagiarize the Treaties that he did, and for the cases of plagiarism he was guilty of a month ago, which were taken care of.

You feedback on the use of the rankings is of course appreciated and will be considered along with the rest of the community's feedback in future. As the rankings are voluntary and non-binding you may chose as a player to ignore them and Role Play how you wish, when and if you chose to play within a nation again.

[Aquinas]

Economic
Yingdala up to Very Strong

Military & Influence
Deltaria, Liore, Vascania & Yingdala Rising to Great Power

Yingdala's leading international RPer, jrandle8, has been proved to have committed plagiarism in 5 separate recent instances. He has also publicly lied by claiming his CESCU Treaty was "completely different from the UN Charter," when in fact it was a wholesale plagiarism of it.

Despite having found time to upgrade and privilege Yingdala in the economic and military rankings, Vesica does not appear to have taken any action against jrandle8 or indeed any of the recent plagiarisers, and has not even taken any action to remove any of the plagiarism identified several days ago. This includes the plagiarised CESU Treaty.

I feel strongly that this is sending out entirely the wrong signal. Nations should not be upranked in cases where the players involved have so recently been plagiarising.

More broadly, I am concerned that the rankings are encouraging an ethos which focuses more on "playing to win", as in winning wars and making your nation powerful, as opposed to developing interesting, creative and collaborative RP. This attitude was demonstrated by Vesica only a few weeks ago, when he publicly boasted on Discord about how he cannot recall a single instance where his nation came off worse in a military tangle. His response when challenged was telling, revealing he sees his unbeaten record in RP wars as a reflection on his own personal ability:

Frankly Aquinas I think we can be honest with each other and state that you are picking me out specifically for that comment. It should be noted, that if anyone has actually looked at my Role Play, one of the reasons for my successes in military Role Play was the fact I've spent most of my time in PT focusing on military based Role Play, and commanded generally considered some of the most powerful militaries in the game from my dedication to military RP. Further to the point it is no secret that I regularly pull in my real life training, combat experience and tactical know how directly into these Role Plays. I am a fully trained military tactician by trade, I served for a number in the Army for a number of years, including in parts of the world I would rather not discuss anymore, honing my craft, and went to school specifically for tactics and strategy. I can say, without false modesty, I understand war and combat better then most of the players of this game simply from my life experience.

Seemingly it has not entered his head that a military setback could be RPed just as beautifully, and with just as much RP skill, as a military defeat. And here, we see what is a large part of the problem with military and economic RP in this game.

So to conclude, I am not convinced that the military and economic rankings, even in voluntary form, really contribute anything positive to the game any more. At worst, they can be used by Moderators to send out signals which gravely undermine the game's supposed policy against plagiarism. At best, they always inevitably seem to act as an incentive to power-gaming and the proliferation of bland (and in some cases, plagiarised) economic and military RP posts.

I am curious as to how my comments were dragged into this but alright.

As I am no longer an active player within the game, and am unlikely to be an active player within the game anytime in the immediate future my Role Play, what I would chose to focus on, is ultimately now irrelevant. Choosing to bring it in, seems like a deliberative choice, however I am sure it is merely used to highlight you see as the issues with the rankings rather then simply bringing up what I said in another thread for the sake of it.

Any complaints you have about plagiarism or Moderation's enforcement of it I would advise you to direct them to the appropriate thread as it has nothing to do with feedback of the Dynamic Rankings themselves, unless you feel that the collective Yingdalan community was all guilty of jrandle's choices to plagiarize the Treaties that he did, and for the cases of plagiarism he was guilty of a month ago, which were taken care of.

You feedback on the use of the rankings is of course appreciated and will be considered along with the rest of the community's feedback in future. As the rankings are voluntary and non-binding you may chose as a player to ignore them and Role Play how you wish, when and if you chose to play within a nation again.

With the greatest respect, I feel you are showing a lack of self-awareness and insight in to how, as a Moderator, your words and actions have an impact and an influence on the community which they would not otherwise have. For example, you have very publicly demonstrated your own attitude towards military RP, which is that you see it as about "winning", and that you see "winning" as a reflection on the skill and ability of the player. This, in turn, has an influence on the approach other players take as well. And the particular approach you adhere to, in my personal view (you are free to disagree) is not always healthy for the game, and in my personal view (and again you are free to disagree) the rankings can exacerbate that general problem further.

As you are fully aware, when the plagiarism scandal emerged, most of the actively RPing community came to the conclusion that the rankings had been an exacerbating factor, acting as an incentive to players to plagiarise in order to boost their nation's positions. It was largely or at least partly for this reason that they were made voluntary instead of compulsory. As I explained in my previous post, I feel strongly that it sends out the wrong signal to boost a nation's position in the rankings when the player has been caught out plagiarising so recently, as you have just done in relation to Yingdala. That is my personal view. You do not have to agree with it, of course. However, I am disappointed that here in this discussion about the rankings, you are seeking to prohibit me from bringing in my genuine and I feel legitimate concerns about how the rankings and the management of them impacts upon the plagiarism situation.

You state "As the rankings are voluntary and non-binding you may chose as a player to ignore them and Role Play how you wish". Respectfully, I would suggest this is true in a limited sense only, because whilst I suppose I can "ignore" the rankings in my own personal RP, I can hardly not be entirely affected by them. When you and Chitin, as Moderation, put out a set of rankings, that quite naturally carries a degree of clout with players within the community, especially the newer ones who have probably not thought too much about how accurate/inaccurate or fair/unfair they really are. So the perceptions which you inject in to the community with the rankings will inevitably have some degree of impact on me (and everybody else, for that matter), because it will affect the RP environment I find myself in. Similarly, as a participant in Particracy RP, I feel I will be affected if (as I sincerely fear) the way you handle the rankings has an impact upon the plagiarism situation.

[colonelvesica]

With the greatest respect, I feel you are showing a lack of self-awareness and insight in to how, as a Moderator, your words and actions have an impact and an influence on the community which they would not otherwise have. For example, you have very publicly demonstrated your own attitude towards military RP, which is that you see it as about "winning", and that you see "winning" as a reflection on the skill and ability of the player. This, in turn, has an influence on the approach other players take as well. And the particular approach you adhere to, in my personal view (you are free to disagree) is not always healthy for the game, and in my personal view (and again you are free to disagree) the rankings can exacerbate that general problem further.

As I stated, as I am no longer an active player within the Game and am unlikely to return to being an active player as long as I am a Moderator, whether I agree or disagree with you is now largely irrelevant.

As you are fully aware, when the plagiarism scandal emerged, most of the actively RPing community came to the conclusion that the rankings had been an exacerbating factor, acting as an incentive to players to plagiarise in order to boost their nation's positions. It was largely or at least partly for this reason that they were made voluntary instead of compulsory. As I explained in my previous post, I feel strongly that it sends out the wrong signal to boost a nation's position in the rankings when the player has been caught out plagiarising so recently, as you have just done in relation to Yingdala. That is my personal view. You do not have to agree with it, of course. However, I am disappointed that here in this discussion about the rankings, you are seeking to prohibit me from bringing in my genuine and I feel legitimate concerns about how the rankings and the management of them impacts upon the plagiarism situation.

I am stating if you have an issue with Yingdalas rankings and wish to challenge it solely on the basis of the behavior of a single player within that community, are you asking that the community be held back for this cycle because of his choices? Even with the five cases of plagiarism taken into account, the Role Play Yingdala did as a whole was of supremely high quality which is why Yingdala did rise in thr rankings.

I am firm however that further discussions regarding Moderation enforcement of the plagiarism reports be down in the appropriate thread.

You state "As the rankings are voluntary and non-binding you may chose as a player to ignore them and Role Play how you wish". Respectfully, I would suggest this is true in a limited sense only, because whilst I suppose I can "ignore" the rankings in my own personal RP, I can hardly not be entirely affected by them. When you and Chitin, as Moderation, put out a set of rankings, that quite naturally carries a degree of clout with players within the community, especially the newer ones who have probably not thought too much about how accurate/inaccurate or fair/unfair they really are. So the perceptions which you inject in to the community with the rankings will inevitably have some degree of impact on me (and everybody else, for that matter), because it will affect the RP environment I find myself in. Similarly, as a participant in Particracy RP, I feel I will be affected if (as I sincerely fear) the way you handle the rankings has an impact upon the plagiarism situation.

I repeat, you may chose to ignore these non-binding and voluntary rankings, or you may chose to respect and observe them. That is your choice as a player. As I noted to Kubrick earlier, these are meant as general guidelines and used as a reflection of activity and quality of activity within the confines of Economic and Military based Role Play. How you use them, ans whether you chose to use them at all, is up to individual players.

[Rogue]

Im gonna object to Aquinas his comments since they are completely derailing this feedback thread. The RP that moderation based itself on was likely the many articles in the Yingdala thread that werent plagarized, and i have seen no one object to the Yingdalan situation besides someone no longer actively playing the game.

The question at hand was how do we differentiate between soft and hard power and what does moderation believe needs to be done in order to clarify the difference.
Yingdala doesnt just have one player in it, its thread doesnt consist of solemnly plagarized content and its position is well deserved. If we go by the notion that a nation is somehow "property" of a specific player i think we are taking a wrong turn. Lets get back to actual feedback on the rankings themselves and not specific players.

[colonelvesica]

Im gonna object to Aquinas his comments since they are completely derailing this feedback thread. The RP that moderation based itself on was likely the many articles in the Yingdala thread that werent plagarized, and i have seen no one object to the Yingdalan situation besides someone no longer actively playing the game.

The question at hand was how do we differentiate between soft and hard power and what does moderation believe needs to be done in order to clarify the difference.
Yingdala doesnt just have one player in it, its thread doesnt consist of solemnly plagarized content and its position is well deserved. If we go by the notion that a nation is somehow "property" of a specific player i think we are taking a wrong turn. Lets get back to actual feedback on the rankings themselves and not specific players.

Answering your question about the soft versus hard power question, this has been something I've thought about for some time. There was talk of, at one time, creating a third category in the rankings for soft power or influence (diplomatic, cultural etc.) which would aid in splitting the line between who were military hard powers and who focused on diplomacy/had their culture widely felt internationally. The chief issue with this is, unlike economic and military, this one is extremely subjective and the interpretation of what is "influence".

Chitin and I are considering (in the next ranking cycle) of doing just that split, though first we would be seeking community consultation on whether it should be done, and if we do, what metrics would be kept track of.

[NuclearGandhi69]

Answering your question about the soft versus hard power question, this has been something I've thought about for some time. There was talk of, at one time, creating a third category in the rankings for soft power or influence (diplomatic, cultural etc.) which would aid in splitting the line between who were military hard powers and who focused on diplomacy/had their culture widely felt internationally. The chief issue with this is, unlike economic and military, this one is extremely subjective and the interpretation of what is "influence".

Chitin and I are considering (in the next ranking cycle) of doing just that split, though first we would be seeking community consultation on whether it should be done, and if we do, what metrics would be kept track of.

I would support a move like this

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

Soft power has many different definitions. Political scientists debate how important it is, but most countries do attempt to leverage soft power (and many have various definitions, as well as different rankings of variables).

The Oxford Encyclopedia of International Studies talks about different aspects of what could be soft power: perceived reputation, happiness indexes, culture (music, art, sport, and even food), economy, being able to set the agenda and influence opinions, religion, international aid, norms, trade, healthcare, human rights, and technology.

Here is the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

In a nut shell, it relies greatly on Nye's definition (the man did coin the term): culture, politics, and policies. Effectively, emulation of country A by country B is soft power in action.

There are some pre-existing measurements of soft power: Monocle's (just a survey - Moderation could do a survey of all the players), Portland's (digital/technology - for PT would probably depend on economic ranking; enterprise - against probably depends on economic ranking; education - James made a ranking of universities, but could be based on education spending and quality posts about education; culture - this would be broad; engagement - diplomatic and WC RP; government - not sure what this could be, perhaps emulation?; a survey - see comment for Monocle's), and the Spanish Royal Institute for International and Strategic Studies (see page 61 here: https://www.globalpresence.realinstitut ... 8ede7d.pdf). These could be a basis for measurement.

Based on how rankings are currently done, we are probably going to still see a fairly subjective measurement system. This would then beg the question: will people just churn out content to bump themselves up in the rankings? If so, then have we really solved anything?