mandatory rank up?

Only a new player that is here only for a short time, or one that doesn't use the chat or read the forums will be deceived for any length of time going forward. It won't take much more than a few weeks for them to realise how the ranking system works and that people can hide their rank so I dont see any long term benefits from it apart from stopping the rank attacks. But then again, any serious player who intends to be on this site for some time will realise they need to concentrate on setting themselves up for a win rather than stopping someone who is a much higher rank from winning so that too will only be done by players who aren't around for long.
So there are benefits to hiding it but not for long. My motivation has always been to reach and show the highest rank I can.

Lately there have been quite a few 6-8 player cap games being played amongst 20 or so different players regularly and in one Dferguson decided to play and one or two hadn't played with him before but it didnt take long for us to let them know just how good he is.

 It won't take much more than a few weeks for them to realize how the ranking system works and that people can hide their rank so I don't see any long term benefits from it apart from stopping the rank attacks.

If this is the case then why are the players who use this so hellbent on preventing the mandatory ranking up from being introduced?

Lately there have been quite a few 6-8 player cap games being played amongst 20 or so different players regularly and in one Dferguson decided to play and one or two hadn't played with him before but it didnt take long for us to let them know just how good he is.

The fact that you clearly felt the need to explain to others about Dferguson's artificially low ranking shows that you where concerned that he would gain an unfair advantage.
Why else would you have felt the need to address this?
Why should we have to explain to other players that the rankings can be used as a ruse?
There should at the very least be a chapter in the FAQ and a disclaimer on the upgrades page explaining the rules regarding voluntary ranks ( and the consequences of the fact that they are voluntary = some players hide their real ranking ).

1. I vote for automated ranking
2. Tokens are important to have it es especially for officer ranks. Example, like in chess, for international master and Grand master you need norms , beside simple condition of ELO rating points. That means that you cannot be major or general if you do not have enough tokens or number of games played.
3. Hiding of points generally do not have any sense without any reasons. every game exists first for playing and enjoying , but second and the most important is winning. What is the meaning of the game if there is not an obvious ranking.
4. Same time and consecutive are pretty much different type of games and I vote to separate those games with different ranking. Especially that same time is not natural recognized RISK game. How you can play same time on old fashioned risk table. So this must be separated especially that this type of game uses a lot of glitch and not documented rules.

If it can be done without causing the programmers to have a nervous breakdown I would be in favor of separate rankings or an overal ranking with sub-rankings for all mayor categories ( fog, domination, no cards, capped, capitals, 1 on 1 etc).
This would give an added tactical element namely: scouting.
In sport this is often used to determine strong and weak points in opponents.
It's surprising how few players take the time to look at their opponents profile but the good players most certainly do.
Having a more detailed ranking would expand this element.
To take a page from Matty's book: know your enemy.
Well I agree (on that count) so why not try and expand what we can know about the other players, this can only ad more depth to the game.

I am staying to my previous statement to separate only SAME TIME with Consecutive type of game, because they are so different in rules. Probably capital and deathmatch are good candidates but these all categories use same rules in nature. For start separation on 2 type of games will be good example if this separation is good idea. Im making again comparation with chess. Playing chess on 3 minutes so called Blitz games is rated differently ( separatly) from playing chess on standard time ( 2h per player)

No bird, one of them asked how he could have enough points to play. We simply informed him how good a player he is. End of story

OK, that would work too

I wonder if we can sell our ranks back so when I start gaining points again I can hide it like all the others lol

Ah, thanx for that Syg, I had not thought about that.
Well at least you should be given the option, if the others can hide their ranking than why not everybody?

Eliminate the ranks. I want to have no badge next to any names.

It's all for good fun guys!!

thx for your input bluebird you make many valid points and i hope its enough for the admins to revisit this issue
when i enter a game i first look to see if its worth it as i would rather play with good players than ones that dont know how to play a great game
so i havnt invited or entered a game with players that may be good but ya just cant tell
i dont want to spend half my time here lookin at profiles to see who is any good i would much rather be buisy killing them
so be prowd of your rank and show it off get yourself in my crosshairs join the i wanna be a killrick target gang

i still like the "too cowardly for the rank of" thing beside there name

i think is tricky if you have rank and don't upgrade him

I would prefer "spineless" next to their name but I understand the sentiment killrick

Guys, I think you can ask the staff of the site to make us rank up, fair enough. But now, I got tired of some comments and I even find some of them a little bit offensive.

To me, it's also funny how people are more concern about points and ranks than about the proper game, and you can easily see it in the attitude of some players when they think they have no chances: they get frustrated and accuse somebody of cheating, or they may think that somebody caused their defeat and their revenge is “choosing a winner”, they try an almost impossible last shot and ruin the game, etc And really, I cannot understand this; this is a site risk which sometimes looks like a site about points were points are got through risk games, but I never made fun of anybody because I don't understand their attitude, and if I started a debate this, it was always trying to improve things. I would like to feel that I am respected as much as I respect others' decisions

I think I understand what you are trying to say Muzuane but from where I'm sitting there is 1 glaring inconsistency in your comment.
If you find players who are concerned about points and rank a little bit silly as your remark implies why then go to the trouble to hide your real rank?
To put it even more bluntly, if you are so unconcerned about your rank why try and hide it?
Perhaps you don't, but are you going to imply that most of the players who hide their real rank are unconcerned about points and rankings?
I think it's the other way around, if you want to test this it would be very simple.
Make it so that the only way to enter the D12 game is based on how high you are on the ranking ( in other words even if you have more points than another player, if he has a higher rank he qualifies for the D12 instead of you ).
For example if Dferguson really has no interest in rankings and points he won't object to not qualifying for the D12 ( seeing as the D12 are determined by points ).
But as far as I can see this is more a situation of "having your cake and eat it too" when it comes to rank-dodgers.
They want the points to qualify for the D12 but they don't want other players to know they qualify, they are concerned with the rankings but don't want other players to know their real ranking so it's easier to fool them into believing they are sub-par amateur newbies.
To put it bluntly, they want the perks of having enough points to enter the D12 and they want the perks of appearing to be a novice while in fact they are a veteran.
And that would be OK but then do away with the ranking all together because what's point of having a top 50 when half the players in the top 50 are really not in the top 50 but a lot lower on the ranking because half the top players hide their rank?
Imagine the billboard top 100 singles chart where a substantial number of charting songs is not listed, what would be the point?