GRC Economic and Military Rankings

General discussions about the Particracy web game.

GRC Economic and Military Rankings (comment period)

Postby Luis1p » Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:13 am

Below are the Economic and Military Rankings compiled for the next roughly 4 month period by the Global Role Play Committee (GRC). These draft rankings are now open to comment from the community and will be finalized once comments are finalized.

If you wish to dispute a ranking, please remember to provide strong evidence that the GRC has overlooked something - links to RP (either on the forum or in game) are very helpful.




Subject: Global Role Play Committee Economic and Military Rankings (1/11/18-1/3/18)

Around every 4 months the Global Role Play Committee (GRC) drafts a set of rankings to determine the military and economic strength of nations in Particracy. (The Global Role Play Committee has decided to make rankings period over 4 months, not 6. Rankings will be released every 4 months from now on.)They are based on a review of RP from each nation over the 4 month period and aim to add an extra dynamic to global RP. These rankings are binding for all nations except those nations which have opted-out of the Global Role Play Accord.


The rankings are predominantly a Role Play device, so if you wish to cite them in game/in character please refer to them as: "the Terran Economic and Military Power Lists produced by the Zardic Institute of International Relations".


***IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING HOW RANKINGS ARE GENERATED***

The GRC is considering adopting a standardized process for generating future Economic and Military Rankings under the Global Role Play Accord. The primary goals of the new process would be

    1. To increase transparency: The standardized process would be made publicly available. Players would be encouraged to test the standardized process for themselves to better understand how to upgrade or downgrade their nation's Ranking.

    2. To reduce bias: All GRC members are active Role Players. As such, they have unavoidable biases, particularly concerning the Ranking of countries where they have Role Played heavily. Up until now, GRC and RP Team members have taken individual approaches to generating Rankings. This has sometimes resulted in bias charges and concerns, some of which have been legitimate. By using the same process across GRC and across the game, Rankings will hopefully become more predictable and less prone to arbitrariness.

    3. To improve efficiency: Generating Rankings is extremely time-consuming. It can also be daunting for new GRC members. With Rankings moving increasing in frequency from 6 months to 4 months, timely generating and release of Rankings will become an increasing concern. By standardizing the Rankings process, the workload and expectations for GRC members will be more manageable and less prohibitive. Players interested in becoming members of GRC will also gain insight in the tasks, skills, and judgement likely to be expected of them.

The goals would be accomplished in 3 main steps:

    1. Quantification
    Each RP is read and reviewed. With dozens of RPs posted per day, this is a high bar for GRC to achieve. But in order for GRC to show respect for players' RPs and ask that players respect GRC judgements in return, the bare minimum GRC must do is to actually read their RPs. This has not always occurred in the past.

    2. Evaluation
    After reading each RP, two "grades" are assigned: Positive or Negative; and Excellent Quality, Good Quality, or Normal Quality. A Ranking is then assigned to all RPs overall using the normal terminology: Weak, Average, Strong, Very Strong for Economy; and Small, Middle, Regional, and Great Power for Military.

    3. Comparison
    This critical step helps test whether assumptions are correct. Each country's rank is placed side-by-side with other countries of equal rank. If the country does not compare favorably, then its rank should be reexamined to ensure fairness and intellectual honesty.

The GRC recognizes that total elimination of bias and subjectivity is impossible, and that is not our goal. We value the judgement of GRC members and the input of players, and we wish to continue taking advantage of both. GRC believes a standardized process for Rankings Generation will simply help ensure that the Particracy community's judgements, differences, and debates take place on a level playing field where everyone knows the rules and speaks the same language.

The standardized process for Rankings Generation was developed with input from past and present GRC members and incorporates feedback given by players during the last Rankings Public Consultation. We would now like to ask all players to share any thoughts, suggestions, or criticisms of the resultant plan.


***IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING NUMBERS USED IN MILITARY ROLE PLAY***

Some players have raised concerns regarding the use of numbers in munitions counts and troop compositions to misstate nations' military strength. It is the official policy of the Global Role Play Committee that numbers of troops, ships, aircraft, land vehicles, and strategic weapons should emerge from story-telling and should be used to enhance Role Play. Numbers should never be used as a substitute for Role Play or as an OOC tactic to discourage potential opponents. Rather than listing the number of soldiers or types of equipment your military has, the GRC encourages you to use RP to show what your military can do. Lists of the entire composition of a military are very difficult to maintain and lead to RP becoming an exercise in math rather than a story-telling. The GRC therefore officially discourages and advises against the creation and maintenance of comprehensive lists in favor of general descriptions. This policy is known as the Show, Don't Tell policy. While players who wish to use such lists when justified by RP as in the case of Orders of Battle during a live war may continue to do so, the GRC wishes to hereby inform players that such lists and numbers will be ignored by the GRC when compiling Military Rankings. Instead, the GRC will only take into account each nation's quality and quantity of Role Play and Objective Standards like relative Defense Spending."In keeping with the Show Don't Tell policy, all countries may (but are not necessarily likely to!) manufacture any real-world military equipment and are not necessarily bound by real-life cultural equivalents.

***IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING USE OF AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND NUCLEAR SUBMARINES IN MILITARY ROLE PLAY***

The subject of aircraft carriers, nuclear weaponry, and nuclear submarines is a hot topic. It is the GRC's view that aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, and nuclear submarines are viable (not necessarily likely!) for all nations of Terra so long as their acquisition, maintenance, and use is very well RP'd. In general, we believe Role Play should realistically reflect the prohibitive cost in time and resources required for such strategic armaments. Therefore our guidance and advice is that Great Military Powers and Very Strong Economies should generally experience protracted difficulty when seeking to acquire and maintain such armaments; Regional Military Powers and Strong Economies should generally experience prohibitive costs and delays when seeking to acquire and maintain such armaments; while lesser powers and smaller economies should experience daunting, near-insurmountable challenges when seeking to acquire and maintain such armaments. Acquisition of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from rogue powers and Black Market sources may reduce acquisition costs if realistically Role Played, but such sources generally should not in any way reduce the prohibitive maintenance costs associated with these armaments.


Economic Ranking

Category Descriptions

Underdeveloped: These countries are the Third World nations of Terra, whose colonial regimes abused them in order to profit in days gone by. They have often been intentionally undeveloped or developed in such a way as to divide the people therein for the benefit of the metropole. They struggle to provide even basic healthcare or education to their people, and they are highly reliant on international aid and charity. These nations do benefit from the continued focus on the extraction economy, and they often can sell their goods at lower prices than most more developed nations on the international market.

Weak: These countries have economies typically centered around the agricultural or extraction sectors. Though some manufacturing might exist, if it exists on any large scale it is likely to be internationally owned and thus unprofitable for the host nation. Locals might have set up subsistence economies that emphasize manufacturing in the household (cottage industries) to compensate for the lack. Generally the people of these countries have poor education and health relative to more developed nations. The family unit and the community in these nations are likely to be very important to every day life, and people are likely to feel much less alienated than in the more automated and high-paced medium and high development nations. Pollution is largely a result of agricultural and extraction byproducts, and these are typically water pollutants. These nations are very often net exporters, but the goods they export may not get them too much in return.

Average: These countries have economies centered most heavily on manufacturing or extraction-based industries, but they might also have some clusters of post-industrial industries along side some agricultural industry. These countries have lower life expectancy, less education, and less income (primarily GDP per capita) than high development nations, but they can also generally boast higher employment than the increasingly automated high development nations, a more citizenry more generally engaged in the political sphere than in the more alienated high development nations, etc. These nations likely are more likely to be heavy polluters than many other nations. Though they are generally less active on international markets than high development nations, their economies often center around export and so trade is relatively important.

Strong and Very Strong: These countries have economies typically centered around services and high tech industries. Culture and political goals can influence what types of industries are most influential, e.g. the agricultural or manufacturing sectors are still important for certain real world high development economies, but these industries should be secondary and perhaps being phased out. More and higher quality education and health opportunities exist. These countries tend to have higher a GDP per capita and median incomes, although inequality may still persist. These countries typically have higher standards of living, but can also experience the consequences of such an economy, such as increased alienation, higher unemployment as automation increases, the decreased importance of the family unit, etc. These countries tend to be active on international markets, but don't necessarily always experience trade surpluses.

Nations in black font are at the same rank they were in the previous rankings.
Nations in red font are moved down in rank from where they were in the previous rankings.
Nations in green font are moved up in rank from where they were in the previous rankings.
Nations in grey font have opted out of the RP Accord and so this ranking is not binding for them, but merely a suggestion and guideline.
Nations in pink font have opted out of the RP Accord but are moved down in rank from where they were in the previous rankings as a suggestion and guideline.
Nations in light green font have opted out of the RP Accord but are moved up in rank from where they were in the previous rankings as a suggestion and guideline.

Economic Ranking

Weak
Alduria
Al'Badara
Aloria
Aldegar
Barmenistan

Davostan

Dolgava
Egelion
Endralon
Gaduridos
Hobrazia

Hulstria
Jakania
Jelbania
Kafuristan
Kanjor
Kirlawa
Kundrati

Likatonia
Mordusia
Pontesi
Rildanor
Saridan
Sekowo

Solentia
Telamon
Tukarali
Vorona

Average
Beiteynu
Beluzia
Cobura
Dranland/Dankuk

Dundorf
Hawu Mumhenes
Kalopia
Kanjor
Keymon
Lodamun
Luthori
Malivia

Narikaton/Darnussia
Rutania
Talmoria
Trigunia
Zardugal


Strong
Baltusia
Cildania
Deltaria
Dorvik


Istalia
Kalistan
Lourenne
New Endralon
Selucia
Valruzia

Very Strong
Hutori
Indrala
Kazulia
Vanuku

Military Ranking

Category Descriptions

No Power: These are nations that are barely able to keep control of their own borders, much less project their influence anywhere else. This is reserved entirely for the Third World nations, unless the GRC decides they are otherwise. No Player nation will EVER have this rating, again, unless the GRC decides to RP a nation like this otherwise.

Small Power: Nations that have limited ability to defend themselves, but often are allied with larger and stronger states to ensure their continued independence or hyper isolationist. Their militaries are traditionally outdated, small, woefully trained, or a combination of all three. Its not uncommon for regional or greater powers to have substantial influences over these nations.

Middle Power: These are nations that are more then able to stand on their own and have the ability to defend themselves against other nations and their influences and can project their own influence to a very limited degree on their neighbors, although they will traditionally ally with greater nations, though more for reasons of cooperation and progress then an inability or worry to defend themselves in the world. Their militaries are usually modern, fairly well sized and trained or a combination of all three.

Regional Power: These are powerful nations that generally stand tall amongst their immediate neighbors, and more times often then not, are able to project their influence on them. While they have the capability to project their influence or power globally, it is limited and their power in primarily centered around home. Their militaries are generally modern, of sufficient size and training and have the ability to project themselves overseas of immediately against their neighbors.

Great Power: These are amongst the most powerful nations in the world, and have a great deal of influence both at home and abroad, with the ability to project their power globally, either politically, economically or militarily. They are generally considered regional hegemons in the absence of any other great powers. Their militaries are usually hyper modern, extremely well trained, usually quite large,and the ability to sufficiently project considerable force overseas, though they are stronger closer to home. (Similar to the European Empires before WWI)

Nations in black font are at the same rank they were in the previous rankings.
Nations in red font are moved down in rank from where they were in the previous rankings.
Nations in green font are moved up in rank from where they were in the previous rankings.
Nations in grey font have opted out of the RP Accord and so this ranking is not binding for them, but merely a suggestion and guideline.
Nations in pink font have opted out of the RP Accord but are moved down in rank from where they were in the previous rankings as a suggestion and guideline.
Nations in light green font have opted out of the RP Accord but are moved up in rank from where they were in the previous rankings as a suggestion and guideline.

Small
Alduria
Aldegar
Aloria
Al'Badara
Beluzia
Davostan
Dolgava
Endralon

Egelion
Gaduridos
Hobrazia
Hulstria
Jelbania
Jakania

Kafuristan
Kalopia
Kanjor
Kirlawa
Kundrati
Likatonia

Mordusia
Pontesi
Rildanor
Saridan
Sekowo
Tukarali
Vorona

Middle
Baltusia
Barmenistan
Beiteynu
Cobura
Cildania

Dranland/Dankuk
Dundorf
Hawu Mumenhes
Keymon
Luthori

Lodamun
Malivia
Narikaton/Darnussia
Rutania
Selucia
Solentia

Talmoria
Telamon
Trigunia

Regional
Dorvik
Istalia
Indrala
Kalistan

Lourenne

New Endralon
Valruzia
Zardugal

Great
Deltaria
Hutori

Kazulia
Vanuku


Former Colonies Economic Ranking

In Need of Development
Bianjie
Cifutingan
Dalibor
Degalogesa

Istapali
Kimlien
Kurageri
Liore

Midway
New Englia
New Verham
North Dovani

Noumonde
Ntoto
Rapa Pile
Statrica

Suyu Llaqta
Temania
Tropica
Utari Mosir
Utembo

Weak
Hanzen
Medina
New Alduria
Ostland
Vascania
Xsampa
Average

Strong

Very Strong



Former Colonies Military Ranking

No Power
Bianjie
Cifutingan
Dalibor
Degalogesa
Hanzen

Istapali
Kimlien
Kurageri
Liore

Midway
New Englia
New Verham
North Dovani

Noumonde
Ntoto
Rapa Pile
Statrica

Suyu Llaqta
Temania
Tropica
Utari Mosir
Utembo
Small Power

Medina
New Alduria

Ostland
Vascania

Xsampa
Middle Power

Regional Power

Great Power
I mean look at us. We're just air conditioners. I mean after after all. We're just walking around on the planet breathing,CONDITIONING THE AIR.

-Ongo Gablogian, The Art Collector
User avatar
Luis1p
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:01 pm

GRC Economic and Military Rankings (comment period)

Postby Aquinas » Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:57 pm

As the controller of Noumonde, I am happy with Noumonde's rankings, and as a Baltusia player, I am happy with Baltusia's rankings.

OOCly I recognise the sense in not including my micronation, Fortland, in the rankings, although ICly you can probably expect Fortland to protest most vociferously about its exclusion over the coming days ;).

I would like to request an explanation of the rationale behind reducing Istalia's rankings. Istalia is one of the few nations which can be relied on to fully participate in the World Congress and the Security Council, and at least from my point of view, from a RP standpoint, this is reason enough to be cautious about reducing its power status.

My other request is for an explanation of how, if at all, the proposed new rankings would affect which nations will be permanent members of the Security Council. At present, the permanent members are Dorvik, Istalia, Kazulia and Vanuku. Looking at the proposed new rankings, one would suppose Dorvik and Istalia are in danger of leaving the permanent members list, whilst Hutori and possibly Deltaria are in with a chance of joining it.

As for the proposal for "adopting a standardized process for generating future Economic and Military Rankings", I am instinctively a little sceptical about this, believing, as I do, that the process of determining the economic and military rankings is almost inevitably more of an art than a science.

Okay, that's all from me (for now, anyway!).

EDIT: A further issue has arisen...as I explained on Discord:

http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6915&start=140#p137701 @Polites removed the permanent members of the Security Council from the voting variables. This means that if any of the current permanent members are removed as permanent members, they will instantly reset to zero votes. Which isn't very fair. To give an example, in August, Istala topped the polls for Seat B with 18 votes (see viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6915&start=130#p137637 ). After Polites removed Istalia from the variables, obviously it goes to zero votes.
ie. As an example, if Istalia loses its permanent status on the Security Council, it will almost certainly fall off the Security Council altogether.
https://discord.gg/cdcmWk8
Terra Nations, an upcoming forum role-playing game set in the world of Particracy Classic's Terra
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9230
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Polites » Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:36 am

Aquinas wrote:EDIT: A further issue has arisen...as I explained on Discord:

http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6915&start=140#p137701 @Polites removed the permanent members of the Security Council from the voting variables. This means that if any of the current permanent members are removed as permanent members, they will instantly reset to zero votes. Which isn't very fair. To give an example, in August, Istala topped the polls for Seat B with 18 votes (see viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6915&start=130#p137637 ). After Polites removed Istalia from the variables, obviously it goes to zero votes.
ie. As an example, if Istalia loses its permanent status on the Security Council, it will almost certainly fall off the Security Council altogether.


An option would be to reset every nation's votes to 0 when this happens. It would be a little time-consuming but it would make SC elections fairer.
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2767
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby TPPDJT » Fri Nov 02, 2018 12:45 pm

Saridan should not be moved down as no significant RP has been done to warrant such a move.
Natsional'naya Partiya Sindikalistov

Solentian Nationalist People's Party (Inactive)

Komitee van die Nasionale Herstel (Inactive)

National Unity Party (Inactive)

Parti Syndicaliste National (Inactive)
User avatar
TPPDJT
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:59 am
Location: USA

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby IntruderEmerald » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:02 pm

I'm a bit disappointed by Aloria being moved down to a weak power. RP has picked up in recent weeks, although I can see that for most of the last 6 months there has been little RP and therefore I can understand why Aloria has been demoted.

I think shortening the ranking period to 4 months is a good move.
IntruderEmerald
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:49 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Luis1p » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:06 pm

TPPDJT wrote:as no significant RP has been done to warrant such a move.


This is exactly why Saridan was moved down.

No significant Role Play in Military or Economy was made to warrant Saridan to stay or even increase. If you have evidence of military and economic role play in Saridan to back up your claims, please state it.
I mean look at us. We're just air conditioners. I mean after after all. We're just walking around on the planet breathing,CONDITIONING THE AIR.

-Ongo Gablogian, The Art Collector
User avatar
Luis1p
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Luis1p » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:13 pm

IntruderEmerald wrote:I'm a bit disappointed by Aloria being moved down to a weak power. RP has picked up in recent weeks, although I can see that for most of the last 6 months there has been little RP and therefore I can understand why Aloria has been demoted.

Aloria has been lacking in Role Play, as many other countires have. There was just not enough Role Play to keep Aloria as a middle power.

IntruderEmerald wrote:I think shortening the ranking period to 4 months is a good move.


Thanks. We thought hard on this and believed it was the best thing to do to keep Role Play flowing and encourage players to Role Play.
I mean look at us. We're just air conditioners. I mean after after all. We're just walking around on the planet breathing,CONDITIONING THE AIR.

-Ongo Gablogian, The Art Collector
User avatar
Luis1p
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby jamescfm » Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:06 pm

I'd like to preface my comments by acknowledging that I haven't been around for most of the period which these rankings cover so I may have missed some of the nuances which contributed to them. Generally, my issues with these rankings are that they don't feel as intuitive to me as others have in the past, I think if I had put together my own rankings on the spot they would have been starkly different to these ones.

Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that Hawu Mumenhes should continue as a strong economic power, it should never have been one in the first place in my opinion and the last meaningful role play in Hawu's newspaper thread was 29th June, even that came from an outside player. It's difficult to perceive how an objective observer could place it there. Cildania, from my point of view has seen little economic role play in the period, and none of it stands out as justifying an improvement in its ranking. I would also raise questions of Malivia's status as a great economy, which seems inflated to me. On the other hand, Istalia's reduction seems pretty harsh.

Militarily, the idea that Keymon can "can project their own influence" is mind-boggling and I would like to hear the explanation behind how the two new great powers were chosen and why it was felt the two demoted ones required replacement.

Speaking more generally, I think the rankings should remain every six months. Nobody who has compiled them has ever enjoyed it so why punish them more frequently than necessary? On the process, I absolutely oppose devising a metric of some form and believe it may be necessary to return the the original objective of the rankings. They should reflect the general opinion of the role-players in the community, not be a standardised numbers game. In my view, it would be much easier if Moderation privately contacted 2-5 players a few weeks before the rankings are due and asked them to compile them. Perhaps then we could eliminate some existing ineffeciency, so to speak
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Kubrick » Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:46 pm

I'm just commenting to say I concur with what James said regarding some demotions/promotions/etc.

Also I fully agree with Polites' idea of resetting all nations to 0, it could help a lot to really shake up the WC.
Crown Party (Kroon Partij / Kronuz Prta) - Vanuku (Active)
National Front (Acies Nationalis) - Selucia (Inactive)
The Radicals (Die Radikalen) - Dorvik (Inactive)
User avatar
Kubrick
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:47 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Luis1p » Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:17 pm

jamescfm wrote:Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that Hawu Mumenhes should continue as a strong economic power, it should never have been one in the first place in my opinion and the last meaningful role play in Hawu's newspaper thread was 29th June, even that came from an outside player. It's difficult to perceive how an objective observer could place it there. Cildania, from my point of view has seen little economic role play in the period, and none of it stands out as justifying an improvement in its ranking. I would also raise questions of Malivia's status as a great economy, which seems inflated to me. On the other hand, Istalia's reduction seems pretty harsh.

Militarily, the idea that Keymon can "can project their own influence" is mind-boggling and I would like to hear the explanation behind how the two new great powers were chosen and why it was felt the two demoted ones required replacement.





Keymon is up due to growing military alliances and economic cooperation with Lourenne, Hutori, and the NC (countries can be rather small but powerful ;) ) . Istalia is down due to purposely RPing an economic downturn and being knocked off its perch as leading Majatran power. Malivia's Regional power status and economic heft is largely residual from its rise two centuries ago during its war with Narikaton
Cildania is up due to its leading role in the formation of the MUN. For Hawu Mumenhes, I will defer to QV73 (Pragma) But I will simply say #1, compare Hawu Mumenhes's RPs to other Strong and Average economies, and #2 there're some players who make this same argument about Hawu Mumenhes at every single rankings.
I mean look at us. We're just air conditioners. I mean after after all. We're just walking around on the planet breathing,CONDITIONING THE AIR.

-Ongo Gablogian, The Art Collector
User avatar
Luis1p
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:01 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron