Consultation on military & economic power rankings

General discussions about the Particracy web game.

Consultation on military & economic power rankings

Postby Aquinas » Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:16 am

As recently explained, the Role-Play Accord has been dropped, but we are going to maintain a voluntary system of guidance on economic and military role-play, based primarily around economic and military power rankings.

As promised, Reddy & I have prepared a draft document for your consideration, which we encourage you all to study carefully and give us your feedback on. We are hoping to hear from as many players as possible. All of the nation message-boards have been messaged, drawing the attention of players to this thread.

Since the update is over-due and we are keen to make progress, this has been prepared in a short space of time, and to some extent borrows from what has been produced previously. We drew up the rankings earnestly and conscientiously, but make no claims for them to have been based on exhaustive research. We do not see everything that goes on in the game and it is more than possible there are things we have missed or got wrong - so we need our experts (that's you guys!) to point these out to us.

If you believe a nation should be ranked higher or lower, please give your reasons and try to provide some evidence to help justify your case. Bear in mind we are placing a premium on forum-based role-play here, so ideally we need to see more than in-game bills and budgets. Similarly, if you wish to argue for a nation to move up or down, please indicate which nation you want it to swap places with, as the number of nations in each rank is fixed (ie. 27 for Very Weak, 20 for Weak, 20 for Average, 13 for Strong and 5 for Very Strong).

We are hoping to conclude the update within the next 2 weeks, although it could be stretched out a little longer if it is felt more time is needed. At any rate, we would definitely like this finalised by the end of the Cultural Era (ie. January 5th 2017).

*

Going forward, we are envisaging there will be periodic reviews of the rankings, possibly 3 times a year, to coincide with the close of Cultural Eras.

Long-term, we are considering the possibility of allowing players in nations to prepare Economic Description and Military Description bills, which might be linked to in the relevant nation names as they appear in the rankings list. Although obviously these would need to broadly comply with the nation's assigned ranking.

We are also considering explicitly designating nuclear powers with an "[N]" marker next to their name in the military rankings. Lastly, we are considering listing a small number of each nation's key natural resources in the economic rankings (eg. "Kafuristan [OIL]" or whatever).

Your feedback and ideas are strongly encouraged, not only on the rankings themselves, but on the document and the guidance system as a whole.

Anyway, without further ado, here is the draft...

Economic & Military Role-Play Guide

This document is designed to provide guidance, on an advisory (ie. non-compulsory) basis, as to the conduct of military and economic role-play in Particracy. It is based around two rankings systems for the nations of Terra, one for economic power and the other for military power.

The primary criteria and purpose for the rankings system is as follows:

- To recognise, assist and encourage high quality role-play, most especially forum role-play.

- To reflect, so far as reasonably practicable, the consensus of informed opinion amongst players who are actively interested in and participating in role-play, most especially forum role-play.


A few further points to bear in mind:

a) In Particracy, technological progress does not move beyond what we have in the real-world of today, since we are not into futurism/science fiction. Military and economic role-play needs to take account of this. Space-based weapons, for example, are not considered permissible.

b) To prevent in-game developments from proceeding at a hyper-speed pace few can keep up with, Particracy role-play needs to take reasonable account of the fact that, for instance, an in-game year is only 2 real-life days and an in-game decade is only 20 real-life days. The expectation is that shifts in a nation's economic and military power take place slowly over a period of time. For example, it would be unreasonable to assert a nation has experienced an "economic miracle" over 20 years and then expect it to be raised from Weak to Very Strong. It will not be conventional for a nation to move up or down more than one rank at a time.

c) The rankings system tries to take a long-term view and places a premium on active forum role-play, which at times will mean not so much weight is attached to game mechanic variables, such as legislative changes, taxation levels and spending allocations. It is not that these are unimportant or not valued, but good quality forum role-play will tend to be given priority. Do not be surprised, for example, if a nation is given a higher military ranking than another even though its military spending seems significantly less. It could be that that nation has been more active in terms of forum role-play, and in particular, has engaged in more military-related forum role-play which helps justify its military ranking.

d) Our advice is that only nations in the Very Strong military category should presume they can have nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers. Nations in the Strong category are urged to at least consider very carefully before assuming they have these things. We appreciate this guidance may sound restrictive, or indeed unrealistic considering that in the real world even poor countries like North Korea can move towards acquiring nuclear weapons. The reason for this guidance is practical: overall, we believe Particracy role-play will be more realistic and more enjoyable if we avoid the situation we have had in the past where too many nations are role-playing themselves as nuclear powers - and indeed as military superpowers generally. Also, just because a nation has been recognised as a nuclear power in the past, do not presume either that it is entitled to that status permanently, or even that its de-nuclearisation would need to be specifically role-played. If a nation is not being actively role-played, it may find itself lowered a rank in the military pecking order - and players are encouraged to respect that in their role-play.

e) Most of the ranked nations have a roughly equal population, of around 100 million, which means the category titles (eg. "Weak", "Very Strong", etc.) both describe the economic position of the average citizen in the nation, as well as the nation's overall economic power. The exceptions are the former colonial territories, as well as Keymon and Vorona. The former colonial territories have not all yet been assigned population sizes, but it would be a reasonable presumption that they are very poor countries whose citizens scrape by on a very poor standard of living. In the case of Keymon and Vorona, which are both smaller nations, descriptions have been added in brackets, to clarify whether their economic character matches the description for their power ranking.

f) At least for the time being, the Very Weak categories are exclusively reserved for the former colonial territories.


ECONOMIC POWER RANKINGS

VERY WEAK (27)

These are the non-player controlled, ex-colonial nations in the grey part of the map. For years, colonial overlords heavily exploited their economies and manipulated social divisions. The legacy of colonialism, and latterly neo-colonialism, lives on. These nations struggle to provide even the most basic healthcare or education to their people, and are desperate for international aid. They depend heavily on primary sector parts of the economy like agriculture and extraction. Much of the output from these sectors is exported cheaply abroad.

Bianjie
Cifutingan
Dalibor
Degalogesa
Hanzen

Istapali
Kimlien
Kurageri
Liore
Medina

Midway
New Alduria
New Englia
New Verham
North Dovani

Noumonde
Ntoto
Ostland
Rapa Pile
Statrica

Suyu Llaqta
Temania
Tropica
Utari Mosir
Utembo

Vanakalam
Xsampa


WEAK (20)

These nations are also typically centred around the agricultural or extraction sectors, although they do it more efficiently than nations in the previous category. Some manufacturing may also exist, although most of it would be internationally owned, with much of the profits siphoned off abroad. Resentment may be further fuelled by many of the higher-paid, higher-skilled jobs in the new industries going to foreign workers, due to a lack of skilled labour at home. The most basic education and healthcare needs are met, but citizens look longingly at the much more advanced systems in more developed nations. The family unit and the community are likely to be key to everyday life, with less of the social alienation that marks more developed nations. Pollution is largely a result of agricultural and extraction byproducts, and these are mainly water pollutants. These nations are very often net exporters, and are more successful at it than nations in the previous category - but they still feel they are being driven to an unfairly harsh bargain when it comes to getting prices for their products on the international market.

Baltusia
Cildania
Davostan
Dolgaria
Egelion

Gaduridos
Hobrazia
Jakania
Jelbania
Kalopia

Kanjor
Keymon (Smaller nation; AVERAGE in economic character)
Kundrati
Likatonia
Malivia

Mordusia
Talmoria
Tukarali
Valruzia
Vorona (Smaller nation; WEAK in economic character)


AVERAGE (20)

These nations have moved from a more basic economic model to becoming manufacturers - with the associated pollution issues - and may even be developing a more significant service sector. Compared to the richer parts of Terra, citizens in these nations have lower life expectancy, less education and less income, although with less automation, they can generally boast higher employment rates. Social alienation will be setting in with industrialisation and population movements towards the towns and cities, but citizens may still be more generally contented - and also politically involved - than in the more developed countries. Although citizens in these nations will be more prosperous than those in less developed nations, they may also find themselves feeling more insecure, since these economies can be vulnerable to sudden negative swings in the global economy.

Aldegar
Alduria
Aloria
Badara
Barmenia

Beiteynu
Beluzia
Darnussia
Deltaria
Dundorf

Endralon
Hulstria
Kirlawa
Lourenne
Pontesi

Rildanor
Saridan
Selucia
Solentia
Telamon


STRONG (13)

Services and high tech industries have come to the forefront of these economies, with manufacturing, extraction and agriculture subsiding into less significance. Not everyone will be a winner as a result of these changes, and there may be resentment against sectors of the economy losing out to cheaper foreign competition, and perhaps also at immigrants from poorer countries arriving to take jobs at cheaper rates. Technological development and economic change may lead to previously valued skills becoming moribund, creating challenges in terms of re-skilling and re-deploying the labour force. Inequality, social alienation, family breakdown, unemployment, stress, mental health and substance abuse risk becoming serious issues. The most obviously visible/intrusive forms of pollution might not be quite the problem they once were, due to the decline of "dirty industries" and the insistence of a more prosperous and better-educated citizenry on tougher pollution regulations. These countries tend to be very active on international markets, but do not always generate trade surpluses, as many products which were once manufactured at home will now likely be being imported from abroad. Although standards of living will be the envy of much of Terra, governments may be struggling to meet the expectations of their own citizens, especially in terms of healthcare and care provision, where an ageing population and an ever-increasing range of health treatment possibilities mean it is becoming expensive to keep up with demand. As the population becomes better educated, more prosperous and enjoys more leisure times, some citizens will be taking a more philosophical approach to understanding their role in society, meaning more challenging questions will be being asked about the ethics and the fairness of the economic system on which the nation's prosperity is built. Some will be asking why, despite their advantages, they feel unfulfilled and even guilty.

Cobura
Dankuk
Dorvik
Hawu Mumenhes
Istalia

Kafuristan
Kazulia
Lodamun
Luthori
New Endralon

Rutania
Sekowo
Zardugal


VERY STRONG (5)

These countries share the same features as those described in the category above, but to a heightened extent. They are at the cutting edge of technological progress and set the trends that others will follow. Changes within the economies of these nations can end up having a marked impact on Terra as a whole.

Hutori
Indrala
Kalistan
Trigunia
Vanuku


MILITARY POWER RANKINGS


VERY WEAK (27)

The former colonial territories face enough challenges keeping order within their own borders, and are hardly suited to projecting any military influence elsewhere.

Bianjie
Cifutingan
Dalibor
Degalogesa
Hanzen

Istapali
Kimlien
Kurageri
Liore
Medina

Midway
New Alduria
New Englia
New Verham
North Dovani

Noumonde
Ntoto
Ostland
Rapa Pile
Statrica

Suyu Llaqta
Temania
Tropica
Utari Mosir
Utembo

Vanakalam
Xsampa


WEAK (20)

Weak nations have a limited ability to defend themselves and tend to try to bolster their security through alliances with, other, usually more powerful, states. Their defence forces are likely limited, outdated, poorly trained and poorly equipped. It is unlikely they will project much military influence abroad.

Beluzia
Davostan
Dolgaria
Egelion
Endralon

Gaduridos
Hobrazia
Jakania
Jelbania
Kanjor

Keymon
Likatonia
Lourenne
Malivia
Mordusia

Talmoria
Telamon
Tukarali
Valruzia
Vorona


AVERAGE (20)

These nations are more than able to stand on their own and have the ability to defend themselves against other nations and their influences. To a limited degree, they can also project military influence on their neighbours, although usually this will be done in alliance with others, rather than on their own.

Aldegar
Aloria
Alduria
Badara
Baltusia

Barmenia
Beiteynu
Cildania
Deltaria
Darnussia

Istalia
Kalopia
Kirlawa
Kundrati
Pontesi

Rutania
Saridan
Selucia
Solentia
Sekowo


STRONG (13)

These are powerful nations that generally stand tall amongst their immediate neighbours. While they have the capability to project globally, this is limited and their power is usually primarily focused within their own region. Most nations in this category will not have acquired nuclear power status or be in possession of aircraft carriers.

Cobura
Dankuk
Dundorf
Hawu Mumenhes
Hulstria

Kafuristan
Kalistan
Kazulia
Lodamun
Luthori

New Endralon
Rildanor
Zardugal


VERY STRONG (5)

These nations have a great deal of influence, with the ability to project their military power globally in a way reminiscent of the great European empires before World War I. They have the capacity to be nuclear powers or possess aircraft carriers if they choose. Domestic opinion may be a factor in pressuring and constraining the decision-making process in terms of military matters. For example, the public may question the wisdom of spending vast sums of taxpayer money on a powerful military, or of putting the lives of the nation's soldiers at risk in distant conflicts.

Dorvik
Hutori
Indrala
Trigunia
Vanuku
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 8783
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Consultation on military & economic power rankings

Postby Adithya » Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:58 pm

As I play in Hutori as well as Rutania I am VERY satisfied regarding Hutori as well as for Rutania . :D

And again,regarding military too I am very much PLEASED with Hutori but Rutania can be made as a strong military because we have increased the military budget in the previous budget.
Adithya
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:56 am

Re: Consultation on military & economic power rankings

Postby jamescfm » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:33 pm

Kalistan's rankings are spot on in my view. Although I would like to clarify that we are able to continue on the presumption that we possess two aircraft carriers, this was pretty thoroughly RP'ed: here, here and here. On top of that, Kalistan's position, particularly given that Ananto is the most notable/developed of its districts, means that a navy is the most crucial of its armed forces and it therefore makes sense that we would invest in this area particularly.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Consultation on military & economic power rankings

Postby TheTsar » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:21 pm

I agree with these ratings. However, soon, a period of reform in Deltaria will begin so the economy will probably become stronger.
Народно-демократическая Партия Социалистов Монархистов/People's Democratic Party of Socialist Monarchists
For Trigunian socialism and monarchism
User avatar
TheTsar
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 12:56 pm
Location: Ascot, U.K.

Re: Consultation on military & economic power rankings

Postby CCP » Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:46 pm

Thanks, Aquinas and Reddy, for putting in the time to produce these rankings. As I told Vesica in the RP Team's ranking thread, even when there's disagreement over the rankings, they are still a significant service to the community that I imagine are not a walk in the park to produce.

This element is pitch perfect:

- To reflect, so far as reasonably practicable, the consensus of informed opinion amongst players who are actively interested in and participating in role-play, most especially forum role-play.


How is this consensus identified/determined though? For instance, your rankings list Istalia as a middling military power and imply that they would be very unlikely to own and maintain an aircraft carrier let alone export carriers. Yet Istalia (with the consent of all or most Istalia players and with very high quality RP) has been very actively developing its naval export industry and has prominently manufactured several carriers in recent game years in particular for a handful of active RPers. The latter suggests there is some consensus that Istalia's naval production capacity and carrier fleet (domestic and export) stories should be accepted as is. One active RPer is Reddy, who since playing in Saridan sought to import naval equipment from Istalia's primary naval construction company, the implication being that Reddy accepts Axxell's assertions that Istalia can and does produce high-tech, high-cost naval equipment. But in the rankings, Reddy (along with Aquinas) says Istalia is only a middling power, implying that Istalia can't maintain or produce carriers and similar ships.

So for me the thing is: how many players do deep RP? If that number is low, what is the utility of ranking every country? If the deep RPers accept eachothers' RP assertions, could these rankings be produced more effectively and be kept more current by allowing those players in some way to produce rankings themselves (perhaps via treaty or similar)? I sense that that was probably some of the thinking that went into the design of the RP Team system -- that is, take the most active writers and ask them to lead and quantify game-wide RPing. But maybe the way to go isn't to junk the RP Team concept, but maybe to expand it to more players . . . ? That's off the top of my head, but in general if we're going to use a system like this, it does have to be successful at its raisons d'etre: rewarding, encouraging, and acknowledging committed RPing. To go back to the Istalia example, the above rankings don't reward or acknowledge Axxell's (recent) stories (maybe they're too recent to count?), though they may serve to encourage him to produce more, since that's the effect the RP Team's ranking of Hawu Mumenhes's economy had on me.
CCP
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: Consultation on military & economic power rankings

Postby jamescfm » Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:53 pm

I agree to some extent with what CCP is saying and I will contrast the work of Axxel (in particular) in developing Istalia to that of Indrala (not to single the Indralan players out but purely for example's sake). Is the justification for Indrala's ranking simply the legacy of the work Liu Che did there? If not, what is the justification?
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Consultation on military & economic power rankings

Postby Govenor12 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:22 pm

First of all thank you for that solid work, however I would like to bring forward a few arguments in favour of a better position of Beiteynu in the military area:

1. In-game:

Beiteynu does have one of the strictest pro-military laws terrawide. Since I am playing Beiteynu there has always been a compulsory service without exception and all other military laws are extremly pro military. Furthermore, Beiteynu also spends around 12% of its GDP on the military and this over a period of 100 years. In comparison to even the Superpowers and taking into account that Beiteynu did not have a budget deficit for a very long time, I wouldf suggest that the spending is even higher over a very long period then some of the superpower countries, e.g. Hutori or Vanuku or many other states in the strong or very strong column which spent much less and have much less restrictive military laws then Beiteynu. Of course currency differences play a role here but since Beiteynu does have a very strict bank secrecy act, it can be assumed that money is actually flowing in.
Countries like Zardugal do not even have a national military but Zardugal is seen stronger then Beiteynu.

Evidence: http://classic.particracy.net/budget.php?nationid=51, http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=474042, http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=472411, http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=470464, http://classic.particracy.net/budget.php?nationid=15, http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=476636


2. RP:
Since I play Beiteynu, which is now over hundred years, I have put a great emphasize on the military. Firstly, by putting the military in a constitutionally unique position terrawide, especially through the many acts and ambendments which do by far exceed the stand the military does have in all very strong military nations. And this unique position was erected around 60 years ago, so it is definitly established.
I also rped together with other players various instances in which the military did intervene and was respected even when it did not. Some left governments even increased funding to keep the military on its side. Also the constant training the military and the intelligence services have and had through constant struggle against the minorities and the various small cross border raids into Pontesi did so much to the stance of the military that even Saridani asked for the help of Beiteynu anti-insurgence expertise. Additionally, Beiteynu also have several military treaties including one with Zardugal which was back then rated even higher in its military stance, aquiring certain weapons from Zardugal.
Again, I cannot reacall such long-term rp and constant training in most of the very strong nations or strong nations. Some of them did not rp at all over the last months.



Evidence:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=470921, http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=493758, http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=482902, http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=478671, http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreat ... atyid=3493, viewtopic.php?f=17&t=52&start=250 onwards
Brace yourself for the Solentian Rebirth
Govenor12
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:20 am

Re: Consultation on military & economic power rankings

Postby Axxell » Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:26 pm

I agree with the economical ranking, its perfectly reasonable and I'm satisfy, but do not agree too much with the military rank.
I must thank CCP and Jamescfm that have anticipated most part of my remarks (and thank for the appreciations about the commitment in the RP).
I'm concern about the long time role play which Istalia are playing about its navy but also about its industry, a role play that dates back almost to 60's of last century.
But in general from the 50's Istalia is playing like a nation which started a process that has leaded to a not bad advanced free market system with some state involvement. (With a significative attention also for the military needs, for exampled: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=477043 and the defense budget since this year remained high and has risen steadily).
And also the privatization of the defense industry http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=479183, part of a general economical tendences started in the 50's, as said, could explain the successive increase in the industrial capacity of Istalia (to which has contributed also a steady lowering of taxes in the second half century of the XXXXI century but also several treaty focused on trade, economical, cultural exchanges).
Then in '66 started the investment in the navy, first of all with this first naval construction program http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=479713, with whom I have not claimed supercarrier, nuclear ships, or entire fleets, but only four vessels, four medium vessels, conscious of the position that Istalia could playing in that period and of the economical and industrial capabilities that could reclaim the Nation (given the first ranking, given a long time low involvement in the Global RP, etc... I made all the efforts to create a credible and gradually improvement and grow of the Istalian economy, industry as well as society, which gradually becomes a modern, secularist, state of law society, today caratterized by problems and threat of this socio-economical situation.
And if needs I can bring many other evidence (in game bill as well as forum RP) - but this night I start to be a little tired.

But probably my greatest concern is for the RP that for almost a century I played for Istalia, RP shared by other players or which have been perfectly accepted and have become part of the back ground in which we are playing.
In fact now, with this rank, what do Istalia do now? We get rid of our aircraft carriers, the RP history and also drastically change the parallel and connected RP about the istalian company (Leonardi Group) and economics?
I sincerely would feel frustrated to blow up all, and also I wouldn't know how to explain all the changement in the Istalian RP history, in the Global RP, World Congress RP, etc...
Istalia do not pretend to be a super power (now ahahah), probably for the moment we can just manage and maintain two carriers and the next few units with will enter in service in the navy (all regurally financed with in-game increase in the budget, datailed clarification in the bills, future provisions, etc...), but at least allow to Istalia to continue to follow this long time RP. In Istalia we have still many things to do but we will continue to proced in the most realistic way.

Thank you

Thank you
Libertà e Progresso (Liberty and Progress) - Istalia (Active)
User avatar
Axxell
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:08 am

Re: Consultation on military & economic power rankings

Postby Aquinas » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:42 pm

Thanks everybody for your contributions; it's great to see a good discussion is getting started.

Firstly, just another reminder that the Economic & Military Role-Play Guide is going to be advisory, not compulsory. Also, it is still in the draft/consultation stage, so if we see areas where it can changed/improved, there is still plenty of opportunity to do that. A few discussion points...

1. Points have been raised about the guidance that only nations ranked Very Strong for military power should comfortably presume they can have nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers, whilst nations ranked Strong are urged to consider very carefully before doing so. Even if you feel some nations should change ranking, in principle is this a good guideline to have? Or ought it to be altered or even removed?

2. It has been noted that some of the nations in the Strong and even Very Strong rankings have not been much actively role-played with recently. This is true. The reason for this is that a lot of Particracy players, especially the longer-serving ones, are understandably averse to things changing too dramatically and too fast, which means some nations are retaining their high rankings on the basis of perceptions which were created through role-play done in the past. With the draft rankings, we tried to strike a balance between not unsettling players too much by making radical changes, and allowing nations to rise to more prominent positions on the basic of much more recent/current role-play. Did we strike the balance right? A question worth reflecting on, perhaps.

3. A case has been presented that Istalia's military ranking should be Strong instead of Average. It is worth pointing out that in the current ranking (ie. the one done at the beginning of the year), Istalia is ranked as a Small military power (the equivalent of Weak in the new ranking). So by ranking it as Average, we did increase it by one rank - but should it have been increased by one rank more to Strong? Please give us your views, and if you think Istalia's military ranking should be promoted, please also make suggestions as to which nation from the Strong category should be downgraded to Average. (As stated at the beginning, we are intending to keep the number of nations in each ranking as fixed)

4. A case has been presented that Beiteynu's military ranking should be Strong instead of Average. Please tell us whether you agree, and again, if so, please make recommendations as to which nation from the Strong category should be downgraded to Average.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 8783
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Consultation on military & economic power rankings

Postby sotearchann » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:45 pm

As someone who has been active in Solentia and Kafuristan, and have roleplayed extensively with Indrala, I support this measure.
sotearchann
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:33 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron