GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

General discussions about the Particracy web game.

Re: GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby CCP » Sun May 06, 2018 11:41 am

jamescfm wrote:Apologies again for intervening without concrete evidence, as such, I just want to offer some advice. From the outside it seems like these rankings have lost some of their relevance. I’m not really a long term player, I’ve been here just over eighteen months but when I see New Endralon at the top of the ranking, it’s like seeing a list of the top albums of all time and the number one is Nickelback. It undermines the rest of the information being presented. I don’t say that because I particularly dislike New Endralon but whenever I’ve played there it’s always been a smaller economy, strategically working with other countries and playing them off each other. I think it seems cheap for a single player to be able to churn out forum posts and unilaterally declare that its economy has become among the strongest in Terra. Just my thoughts though, I don’t really have a horse in this race.


In general I agree with what jamescfm has said, and I too did not agree with New Endralon's rapid rise when it first appeared in Draft Rankings circulated within the GRC, and I shared my thoughts with other GRC members at the time (though only briefly).

However, I would like to reiterate what General.M has said earlier in the thread regarding the process we used to develop the Rankings for this 6-month period. Everyone will recall that this is the first Rankings issued by the GRC. All prior Rankings were developed by the RP Team. The structure of the RP Team was fundamentally different from the structure of the GRC, and therefore the working methods of the GRC are also fundamentally different from the RP Team. Specifically, as General.M has revealed, the 5 Continental Role Play Coordinators each prepared Draft Rankings for their own continents. In the RP Team, where one member was responsible for Economics Role Play and another was responsible for Military Role Play, I assume that the Rankings for the entire world economy were developed by one person and the Rankings for the entire world's militaries was developed by another person. The latter arrangement would have allowed a single viewpoint and method to be applied across the entire game. While players might have been unhappy with a specific country's Ranking under the RP Team system, there would have been at least a consistent logic and method applied for all the countries. Under the new GRC system, that has not been possible because the Rankings are developed by five different people and only merged together at the end of the process.

It is also important to keep in mind that the new GRC was only introduced on April 1st, one month ago. While the Moderators asked CRCs to begin work on the Rankings immediately with a deadline of April 18th in mind, the entire GRC has also been kept very busy and preoccupied with other projects assigned to them by Moderators and requested by individual players. This resulted in the Rankings being pushed back to the last two weeks of April and being rushed to completion. This did not provide sufficient time for GRC members to complete our own interrogation of each CRC's Draft Ranking internally before releasing all the Rankings for Public Consultation. As other GRC members have said, we are aware of the problems created by the new structure and the rushed schedule, and we plan to devise solutions for those problems after the conclusion of this Public Consultation with the assistance of Moderation.

Regarding the specific issues with Rankings for New Endralon, Vanuku, Trigunia, and Zardugal, I believe there has been sufficient time for the CRCs who developed Rankings for those countries to respond to criticisms and questions voiced here by players. Therefore, I and other CRCs who did not make the Rankings for those countries will review them and decide whether a change of Rank is appropriate. We will inform everyone of our decision and any changes ASAP.
CCP
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Bachelot » Tue May 08, 2018 11:02 am

1. Average for economy, small for military...as a Mordusia player, I am personally happy with these rankings. Recent events, like the rise of nationalism and the experience with Saridan, are likely to mean our military begins to gear up a bit now, but I'd guess "Small" is still a fair enough snapshop for the state of the military at the moment.

2. Really pleased the ex-colonies are now being allowed to rise up the rankings charts, and I hope this will continue into the future. Thank you.

3. Absolutely sympathise with the guidance on "Show, Don't Tell" and military numbers. Thank you.

4. Also really pleased the document gives more detailed guidance than the previous one, which was rather threadbare. Thanks again.

5. One omission (IMO) is the lack of any guidance on RP related to nuclear weapons. At least some form of guidance is surely need, especially if RPs are going to be actually struck down over nuclear RP issues, as has already occurred at least once. I'm not expecting detailed lists of how many nuclear warheads nations have and how far they can be propelled etc., but I feel some specific RP guidance is probably needed. As an example, would it be helpful to have a guidance that only military powers over a certain rank should consider claiming to have nuclear weapons?

6.Whilst I support having the rankings and I appreciate the work that is going into them, I do also believe players/nations who want to opt-out of them should be free to do so (which they are) and that they should not be unfairly pressured not to do so.

I am concerned that we have a culture where those who disagree with the rankings or want to opt-out of them are being made to feel rather too much like they are some kind of pariahs. We saw a symptom of this earlier on this thread, where a GRC member hounded a player who was in disagreement. There was another slightly disturbing and completely unnecessary drama on Discord, after a Dankuk player drew up a perfectly legal and innocuous bill about withdrawing Dankuk from the GRA. You had a player demanding the Moderators get involved, and the Moderator pretty immediately replied that he would - even though nothing had happened that was illegal and there was no obvious reason for him to get involved. Anyone watching that would have been given the impression that withdrawing from the GRA is, if not a formal offence, then certainly something that's officially frowned on. This impression would have been further compounded when a GRC member on the Discord pronounced that disagreeing with the rankings is not a "legitimate" reason for withdrawing from the GRA.

7. Browsing through the news threads on the forum, I sometimes pick up an impression that the news writing is being unduly skewed by economic & military rankings considerations, and that this is making the stories less diverse and exciting than they would otherwise be. Does anyone else feel this? I don't know whether it's just me. Not sure I have any practical ideas for addressing this at the moment, but I wanted to mention this point so others can think about it.

8. BTW I don't know about others, but I'm experiencing some general confusion about the GRC.

Some of the users with RP Committee status on the forum (meaning red names) are not even mentioned on the official register, so it is hard to know for sure what their role is (if any). One of the red name users has told me he has no idea whether or not he is on the RP Committee. The register itself says the appointments there came to the end of their term of office on 30th April, which presumably means it may now be out-of-date.

Would it be possible to publish an official list of the RP Committee members, along with a proper description of their roles/responsibilities, and maybe also their general areas of interest (Particracy-wise, I mean)?

I confess I'm a little puzzled that even though only a relatively small group of players actively RP on the forum, the RP Committee is so large (10 according to the official register, 13 if you count all of the red names).

Also wondering why there is this slightly complicated 3-tier hierarchy of RP Committee members (CRCs, Deputy CRCs, RP Masters), who are in turn also divided up by continents.
Bachelot
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:06 am

Re: GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby cm9777 » Tue May 08, 2018 12:23 pm

Bachelot wrote:1. Average for economy, small for military...as a Mordusia player, I am personally happy with these rankings. Recent events, like the rise of nationalism and the experience with Saridan, are likely to mean our military begins to gear up a bit now, but I'd guess "Small" is still a fair enough snapshop for the state of the military at the moment.

2. Really pleased the ex-colonies are now being allowed to rise up the rankings charts, and I hope this will continue into the future. Thank you.

3. Absolutely sympathise with the guidance on "Show, Don't Tell" and military numbers. Thank you.

4. Also really pleased the document gives more detailed guidance than the previous one, which was rather threadbare. Thanks again.

5. One omission (IMO) is the lack of any guidance on RP related to nuclear weapons. At least some form of guidance is surely need, especially if RPs are going to be actually struck down over nuclear RP issues, as has already occurred at least once. I'm not expecting detailed lists of how many nuclear warheads nations have and how far they can be propelled etc., but I feel some specific RP guidance is probably needed. As an example, would it be helpful to have a guidance that only military powers over a certain rank should consider claiming to have nuclear weapons?

6.Whilst I support having the rankings and I appreciate the work that is going into them, I do also believe players/nations who want to opt-out of them should be free to do so (which they are) and that they should not be unfairly pressured not to do so.

I am concerned that we have a culture where those who disagree with the rankings or want to opt-out of them are being made to feel rather too much like they are some kind of pariahs. We saw a symptom of this earlier on this thread, where a GRC member hounded a player who was in disagreement. There was another slightly disturbing and completely unnecessary drama on Discord, after a Dankuk player drew up a perfectly legal and innocuous bill about withdrawing Dankuk from the GRA. You had a player demanding the Moderators get involved, and the Moderator pretty immediately replied that he would - even though nothing had happened that was illegal and there was no obvious reason for him to get involved. Anyone watching that would have been given the impression that withdrawing from the GRA is, if not a formal offence, then certainly something that's officially frowned on. This impression would have been further compounded when a GRC member on the Discord pronounced that disagreeing with the rankings is not a "legitimate" reason for withdrawing from the GRA.

7. Browsing through the news threads on the forum, I sometimes pick up an impression that the news writing is being unduly skewed by economic & military rankings considerations, and that this is making the stories less diverse and exciting than they would otherwise be. Does anyone else feel this? I don't know whether it's just me. Not sure I have any practical ideas for addressing this at the moment, but I wanted to mention this point so others can think about it.

8. BTW I don't know about others, but I'm experiencing some general confusion about the GRC.

Some of the users with RP Committee status on the forum (meaning red names) are not even mentioned on the official register, so it is hard to know for sure what their role is (if any). One of the red name users has told me he has no idea whether or not he is on the RP Committee. The register itself says the appointments there came to the end of their term of office on 30th April, which presumably means it may now be out-of-date.

Would it be possible to publish an official list of the RP Committee members, along with a proper description of their roles/responsibilities, and maybe also their general areas of interest (Particracy-wise, I mean)?

I confess I'm a little puzzled that even though only a relatively small group of players actively RP on the forum, the RP Committee is so large (10 according to the official register, 13 if you count all of the red names).

Also wondering why there is this slightly complicated 3-tier hierarchy of RP Committee members (CRCs, Deputy CRCs, RP Masters), who are in turn also divided up by continents.


First things first the names should all be there now. Also there is the option of establishing official descriptions however it does go somewhat against the intended roles. Rp Masters for example have tasks assigned to them mainly by their CRC and Deputy thus maintaining a need for a hierarchical structure. While this Commitee is indeed large Moderation have actually found that this allows for a greater consensus among decisions and plans regarding rp and therefore led to better outcomes overall. For example when some of these rankings were queried there was a productive discussion between members in the GRC subform discussing which queries had some merit and which did not. While the entire 3 structure system with continents may appear confusing on the outside, Moderation have actually observed that by developing such a system it has generally worked better. This is applying the concept of devolution so the Majatra CRC and Deputy focus on the Majatra rankings just as the Artania ones would focus on their own ones. It was quite effective at putting the original rankings together. The positions are very much initiative based and thus fixing prefabricated roles would be counterproductive to this new system. For example a Majatra CRC could also give insight into affairs on Artania of they so wished and indeed this was and is apparent having CRCs look at each other’s work and reviewing it which further builds into the idea of having a large amount of players involved.

Obviously this is not a declaration that the current systems are a perfect equilibrium and indeed improvements could be made and we will consider what was brought up in these rankings as a building block on which to take advantage of this fluid system. Regarding the term until the 30th of April, the changeover was delayed due to the rankings however the membership will be reviewed by moderation in due course. We cannot give an exact date for this review but in all likelihood it will occur around the end of the month of May or perhaps earlier. The old RP Team system for example was in all likelihood too general which is why this new system has been implemented as well as this it was in many ways inflexible as to what members could do which undermines the potential talent of the people involved. The current system involves a devolution but it is not an absolute binding devolution which would stand in the way of rp.

Hope this clears up some of the questions.
Nationale Liberale Partei Inactive

Dundorfische Nationalistisches Allianz Inactive

Federalistische Partei Inactive

Patriot Party Inactive

Modrá Thalleristická Aliancia Active

Moderation
cm9777
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby cm9777 » Tue May 08, 2018 12:38 pm

Also another side not regarding the size of the team which I did not add is that the size of the team is intended for a more democratic approach to the management of rp rather than just a few players being rather disconnected from much of the stuff happening. Essentially it brings players closer to the rp management aspect. This also adds into another point I wanted to make which is that the new system is much more about encouraging players to rp as opposed to just developing rankings which was one of the primary purposes of the old RP Team.

Also regarding the April 30 Term end being changed to a determinate likely around the end of May is that it is a new system which has only been In practice for a short period. We anticipate that the further along the track we are the more fixed this would be. A bit like a factory becoming more efficient at producing a product over time.
Nationale Liberale Partei Inactive

Dundorfische Nationalistisches Allianz Inactive

Federalistische Partei Inactive

Patriot Party Inactive

Modrá Thalleristická Aliancia Active

Moderation
cm9777
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby General.M » Tue May 08, 2018 2:13 pm

Bachelot wrote:5. One omission (IMO) is the lack of any guidance on RP related to nuclear weapons. At least some form of guidance is surely need, especially if RPs are going to be actually struck down over nuclear RP issues, as has already occurred at least once. I'm not expecting detailed lists of how many nuclear warheads nations have and how far they can be propelled etc., but I feel some specific RP guidance is probably needed. As an example, would it be helpful to have a guidance that only military powers over a certain rank should consider claiming to have nuclear weapons?

We all agree with you and we were already working on the text which will guide this. Same with the nuclear weapons are the aircraft carriers. Btw, there is an old list of number of nuclear weapons, but to allow war RP to happen nuclear warheads are way less then in real life.

Bachelot wrote:6.Whilst I support having the rankings and I appreciate the work that is going into them, I do also believe players/nations who want to opt-out of them should be free to do so (which they are) and that they should not be unfairly pressured not to do so.

I am concerned that we have a culture where those who disagree with the rankings or want to opt-out of them are being made to feel rather too much like they are some kind of pariahs. We saw a symptom of this earlier on this thread, where a GRC member hounded a player who was in disagreement. There was another slightly disturbing and completely unnecessary drama on Discord, after a Dankuk player drew up a perfectly legal and innocuous bill about withdrawing Dankuk from the GRA. You had a player demanding the Moderators get involved, and the Moderator pretty immediately replied that he would - even though nothing had happened that was illegal and there was no obvious reason for him to get involved. Anyone watching that would have been given the impression that withdrawing from the GRA is, if not a formal offence, then certainly something that's officially frowned on. This impression would have been further compounded when a GRC member on the Discord pronounced that disagreeing with the rankings is not a "legitimate" reason for withdrawing from the GRA.

Although I wasn't involved, I know the motivation behind it. It wasn't 'get involved', it was more of a monitoring. We have had multiple situations simular to this, where players involved lied about the powers of the GRC. Not that I think it would happen, but it is always good to just look and if something is going wrong, moderation can intervene. Otherwise we can end up with annoying situations where players say they have left the accord, but moderation wasn't aware and in the bill there were some misthruths which changed how people voted. It is better to solve this issues immediatly when they arrive.
Libertären Partei (Dorvik)(inactive)
Republikeinse Partij / Rekvaknsé Prta (Vanuku)(inactive)
Alianța Liberalilor (New Endralon/Kizenia)(inactive)
Natsional'naya Liga Patriotov (Trigunia)(active)

CRC for Keris and Macon
User avatar
General.M
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:42 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby General.M » Tue May 08, 2018 3:27 pm

Found the list, although it is probably outdated. Kazulia has worked and aquired nuclear weapons and the detoriating of especially Trigunia is going even further. viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7319&p=116805&hilit=nuclear+weapons+list#p116805
Libertären Partei (Dorvik)(inactive)
Republikeinse Partij / Rekvaknsé Prta (Vanuku)(inactive)
Alianța Liberalilor (New Endralon/Kizenia)(inactive)
Natsional'naya Liga Patriotov (Trigunia)(active)

CRC for Keris and Macon
User avatar
General.M
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:42 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby lewiselder1 » Tue May 08, 2018 4:18 pm

Bachelot wrote:1. Average for economy, small for military...as a Mordusia player, I am personally happy with these rankings. Recent events, like the rise of nationalism and the experience with Saridan, are likely to mean our military begins to gear up a bit now, but I'd guess "Small" is still a fair enough snapshop for the state of the military at the moment.

2. Really pleased the ex-colonies are now being allowed to rise up the rankings charts, and I hope this will continue into the future. Thank you.

3. Absolutely sympathise with the guidance on "Show, Don't Tell" and military numbers. Thank you.

4. Also really pleased the document gives more detailed guidance than the previous one, which was rather threadbare. Thanks again.

5. One omission (IMO) is the lack of any guidance on RP related to nuclear weapons. At least some form of guidance is surely need, especially if RPs are going to be actually struck down over nuclear RP issues, as has already occurred at least once. I'm not expecting detailed lists of how many nuclear warheads nations have and how far they can be propelled etc., but I feel some specific RP guidance is probably needed. As an example, would it be helpful to have a guidance that only military powers over a certain rank should consider claiming to have nuclear weapons?

6.Whilst I support having the rankings and I appreciate the work that is going into them, I do also believe players/nations who want to opt-out of them should be free to do so (which they are) and that they should not be unfairly pressured not to do so.

I am concerned that we have a culture where those who disagree with the rankings or want to opt-out of them are being made to feel rather too much like they are some kind of pariahs. We saw a symptom of this earlier on this thread, where a GRC member hounded a player who was in disagreement. There was another slightly disturbing and completely unnecessary drama on Discord, after a Dankuk player drew up a perfectly legal and innocuous bill about withdrawing Dankuk from the GRA. You had a player demanding the Moderators get involved, and the Moderator pretty immediately replied that he would - even though nothing had happened that was illegal and there was no obvious reason for him to get involved. Anyone watching that would have been given the impression that withdrawing from the GRA is, if not a formal offence, then certainly something that's officially frowned on. This impression would have been further compounded when a GRC member on the Discord pronounced that disagreeing with the rankings is not a "legitimate" reason for withdrawing from the GRA.

7. Browsing through the news threads on the forum, I sometimes pick up an impression that the news writing is being unduly skewed by economic & military rankings considerations, and that this is making the stories less diverse and exciting than they would otherwise be. Does anyone else feel this? I don't know whether it's just me. Not sure I have any practical ideas for addressing this at the moment, but I wanted to mention this point so others can think about it.

8. BTW I don't know about others, but I'm experiencing some general confusion about the GRC.

Some of the users with RP Committee status on the forum (meaning red names) are not even mentioned on the official register, so it is hard to know for sure what their role is (if any). One of the red name users has told me he has no idea whether or not he is on the RP Committee. The register itself says the appointments there came to the end of their term of office on 30th April, which presumably means it may now be out-of-date.

Would it be possible to publish an official list of the RP Committee members, along with a proper description of their roles/responsibilities, and maybe also their general areas of interest (Particracy-wise, I mean)?

I confess I'm a little puzzled that even though only a relatively small group of players actively RP on the forum, the RP Committee is so large (10 according to the official register, 13 if you count all of the red names).

Also wondering why there is this slightly complicated 3-tier hierarchy of RP Committee members (CRCs, Deputy CRCs, RP Masters), who are in turn also divided up by continents.


I’d like to respond to three distinct points here.

Firstly, thanks for the positive feedback and constructive criticism! This always helps, especially as we’re trying to iron out any issues with the relatively young and new GRC!

Second, as cm said, while it may seem complex and bloated from an outside perspective, I can definitely testify that I think it makes it far more efficient to divide the work up into five teams for each continent than to have more work for a smaller team.

In effect, the GRC has five members overseeing each continent, each with a deputy to help out and full increase when anyone becomes indisposed, and in some cases RP Masters who can be assigned to deal with specific tasks by the CRC. So while it seems bloated at first, the work is actually split up quite a bit and we’ve been quite productive behind the scenes. Not everyone is weighing in on every issue, though our debates can sometimes involve the whole Committee, which I think is ultimately more fair and democratic.

Third, I’d like to respond to the discord issue.

While I am not aware of anyone calling for mods to get involved outside of their regular duties evaluating the bills for withdrawal, this obviously shouldn’t involve mods in any other fashion really.

However, it was me who did say I believe the bill in this case should be rejected. While I’m not able to discuss some reasons I believe this here, I will discuss what I can to try and justify my viewpoint here. I had attempted to respond to you on the discord itself, but fear one of us missed a message somewhere down the line. Would like to discuss this with you in private or elsewhere to avoid confusion in future, and am keen to try and understand your position :)

I should also stress that this is my own personal opinion, and does not therefore necessarily represent the views of the GRC as a whole or any other member of the GRC or moderation. I apologise for not stressing this enough in the discord, or explaining my views as thoroughly. But I feel this is important to make as clear as possible. I also of course play no role in accepting or denying withdrawals, this is just me airing my thoughts and sticking my head into a wider debate, which I think we should definitely encourage in future as the rules on this are a little hazy.

Anyhow. My issues here are twofold:

First, the specifics of the case. At time of withdrawal, the consultation and discussion here had not already been concluded and therefore I believe the withdrawal was made prematurely. (Note that afterwards Dankuk came to ageee with the rankings, for better or worse.)

Without putting forward a proper argument first, this bill seems incredibly reactionary and not one that’s been properly reasoned through, it’s just saying, ‘We don’t like that we’ve been downranked, therefore no GRA.’

Second, I think that saying ‘After putting forward a reasoned argument, discussing it with you and, on the same RP, coming to a different conclusion,’ is entirely different to saying ‘Without putting forward an argument against this properly, and based on RP deemed illegitimate and unrealistic by the rules of the game, we disagree.’ This is not a legitimate reason in my opinion, whereas the first would be.

It essentially relies on a separate area of contention — whether the RP was realistic. The GRC can only consider RP deemed realistic and legitimate, and where there is an ongoing issue with regards to this we must ignore it. If we didn’t, the all you’d have to do is say ‘we have nukes’ and you’d be upranked. And if you disagreed, you would just withdraw. That’s absurd. Note that there has been significant change with regards to this by Dankuk recently, so I think they’re in agreement here. But I can’t speak for them.

Essentially, I believe that the withdrawal bill was made prematurely, relied on another unrelated issue and finally is entirely distinct from disagreewing with the rankings — it is about disagreeing with the RP itself. Drawing a different conclusion based on the same RP would be legitimate, but in this specific circumstance to accept it would I think set a bad precedent and would not be helpful.

If you disagree with our conclusion after discussing it, your reasons are legitimate. This situation is more nuanced and slightly different to that, though, so I disagree with this specific situation. As I said before, there are some other factors bringing me to this conclusion too which I am not able to discuss here.

Though again, it’s not my decision, and this is merely my personal thoughts.

I will be frank and say I do not feel that this has contributed to a potential culture of shame for those wishing to withdraw. This is my personal views on this specific case, and I obviously believe that any nation wishing to withdraw should put forward a bill proposing this. Indeed I explained to a player in Dankuk privately how to withdraw, and while I personally would not choose to do so and fully support the GRA, each nation is free to choose its own position here. I don’t personally see this culture you described present except in a couple of isolated incidents, though it’s something we should discuss in more depth and look into in future and understand why you might think that. I definitely also apologise if my comments made it seem at any point like I would support that culture, I most certainly do not.

I don’t feel that the GRC pressures people to agree to the rankings in general — though there was sadly the incident earlier in this thread which I think the GRC as a whole apologises for. Still, we have changed in accordance to and are reviewing areas where people have put forward arguments against our own rankings. That’s the whole point of the consultation.

Thanks for the feedback, and let me know if you’d like to discuss it further in private. Perhaps you can change my mind haha! Hopefully this clears things up, and thanks again for the feedback. :)
Moderation

aka Lewis

Currently:
Medina (Third-World)
User avatar
lewiselder1
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Maxington » Tue May 08, 2018 8:51 pm

It appears that the functional changes which have been mentioned by everyone were previously implemented, however the incumbent GRC refuses to recognise this fact. I have posting this link for the past two weeks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkr ... sp=sharing

This was the change-log i made when i conducted the rankings and it is funny to see that when i utilised it to guide players during my tenure as Military RP Coordinator under the old RP Team system. It is also funny because it could have resolved so many issues in the past that occurred when the RP Team after me did not bring it back for some unknown reason.
"The future of the Nation is in the children's school bags" ~ Dr. Eric Williams
President of the Trond Henrichsen Institute for International Affairs.
User avatar
Maxington
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: Look Behind you.

Re: GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby lewiselder1 » Tue May 08, 2018 9:35 pm

Maxington wrote:It appears that the functional changes which have been mentioned by everyone were previously implemented, however the incumbent GRC refuses to recognise this fact. I have posting this link for the past two weeks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkr ... sp=sharing

This was the change-log i made when i conducted the rankings and it is funny to see that when i utilised it to guide players during my tenure as Military RP Coordinator under the old RP Team system. It is also funny because it could have resolved so many issues in the past that occurred when the RP Team after me did not bring it back for some unknown reason.


We’re currently rewriting some of these to be more concise and claear, and intend to add them soon. I’m sure you appreciate that we’ve had our hands full with other issues, both in game and in real life, and want to make them as clear as possible. At the latest the change-log should be added at the final, reassessed drafts publication. Apologies for the delay.
Moderation

aka Lewis

Currently:
Medina (Third-World)
User avatar
lewiselder1
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Rankings (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Kubrick » Wed May 09, 2018 12:44 am

When will the conclusion on the objections to several rankings be made public?
Crown Party (Kroon Partij / Kronuz Prta) - Vanuku (Active)
National Front (Acies Nationalis) - Selucia (Inactive)
The Radicals (Die Radikalen) - Dorvik (Inactive)
User avatar
Kubrick
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest