Success should be measured by a state's economic standing.

Login to vote in this poll.

I think that success should be measured not only by a state's economic standing but also by many other factors such as numbers of citizens and military power, etc. For instance, in one of the popular strategy games--star craft 2, the success of a player will be measured by a combination of his/her economic standing, numbers of citizens, military power and kill counts. Each player's success level will be represented by graphs showing the relationship between total value of your states and the elapsed game time. The higher the curve goes the more successful a player is. In my opinion this is a more scientific and effective way to measure the success level of a player rather than only focus on one single category, such as economic standing, because in a strategy game, maximizing the economic standing, maximizing the units number and military power are equally as important as each other. These are all the key factors to win a game. On the other hand, use a combination to measure the success level can prevent the misuse of "cheat code.' Moreover, the game rule and balanced state of the game can be protected in this way.

Questions concerning issues of success being measured or whether or not the game should be based on a point system all seem like similar questions to me. They are both questions that pertain to how we would go about measuring the level of the subject at hand, forcing us to put either the player, or in the case of this statement, the state on a scale of that ultimately produces hierarchy. Do these tendencies to organize knowledge on scales of relativity indicate that some kind of hierarchal order is in fact innate and a natural occurrence in societies? Is there such thing as equality in a social hierarchy? Measuring the success of a state relative to another state would create inequalities among states, which could possibly lead to greater inequalities due to the decree of freedom of movement among players within the states. Measuring the state by it's economic standing would only spur greater inequalities, implying ideas of greater wealth equals better state. This would also emphasize the importance of wealth, which would affect the individuals because it would lead them to believe that the more wealth acquired, the better. If people naturally associate more wealth with being "better" off, than I could see this leading to greed and inequality. The word "better" itself is relative, therefore pitting individual success against one another rather than having success determined individually. But how would we determine what is classified as success? Should it be classified as Yes-Success and No-Success? Should there be other levels of success?