Luis1p wrote: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.
Wu Han wrote:Just want to quickly preface by saying that as a Deputy CRC of the GRC (I don't know what this role was/is either) I did not contribute to the rankings whatsoever.
Wu Han wrote:There has been lots of talk about introducing objective rankings: I believe this would alleviate practically all of these open questions I have raised above as CRC's would have to substantiate their rankings under a clear and open criteria, at least under how I would understand "objective rankings" to be conducted.
Aquinas wrote:I want to put on record I feel the GRC has failed to respond to (or in some cases even acknowledge) several legitimate points which I have raised over the course of this thread.Wu Han wrote:Just want to quickly preface by saying that as a Deputy CRC of the GRC (I don't know what this role was/is either) I did not contribute to the rankings whatsoever.
I appreciate your candour in admitting you were confused about what your role was in the GRC. I have to say, though, that from an outside perspective, this seems to further confirm an impression that has already been building up...by which I mean, an impression that the GRC lacks organisation and drive, and suffers from a lack of clarity and transparency in terms of its role and functions.Wu Han wrote:There has been lots of talk about introducing objective rankings: I believe this would alleviate practically all of these open questions I have raised above as CRC's would have to substantiate their rankings under a clear and open criteria, at least under how I would understand "objective rankings" to be conducted.
It is worth pointing out that in this rankings consultation, as in previous rankings consultations, the serious disagreements have been over whether a nation should be in one tier or the tier directly above or below. This does, I think, show that there is more consensus than we sometimes realise. We are not, for example, having major disputes where you have one group saying a nation's economy should be "Very Strong" and another group saying it should be "Weak". The differences of opinion are tending to be over increments. So in fairness to the GRC (and its predecessors) I don't think we need to be too overly negative about how the rankings are being done. FWIW, I am personally inclined to believe that by and large, the GRC (and its predecessors) has made a sincere and genuine effort to serve the community in their efforts to formulate the rankings in a fair and reasonable way.
The GRC will be setting itself an impossible task if it attempts to draw up an overly-formal, pseudo-scientific method of producing "objective rankings" (whatever that means). As explained previously, drawing up the rankings is always going to be more of an art than a science. Given that the players tasked with doing the rankings will inevitably have their own perspectives on RP, it is also probably almost inevitable that there will always be a degree of bias and perception of bias when it comes to the rankings process. In my view, it is disingenuous and counter-productive for the GRC to insist there is "no bias" and that the process will always be 100% "objective".
Our expectations of the rankings process should be more realistic. We should not expect some kind of scientific process, with GRC members attempting to (and being expected to) "prove" that their rankings are irrefutably scientifically correct. What we need are a set of rankings which represent a broad consensus of what the more RP oriented part of the community can accept. In my view, this is what a rankings consultation should be about: an open discussion, and a search for a general consensus, insofar as that can be reasonably achieved. We should not expect the rankings to be perfectly in accordance with whatever our own preferences are. But as I say, we should expect a discussion, we should expect a reasonable degree of transparency and we should expect for the GRC to engage with legitimate points that are put forward.
Auditorii wrote:I do not protest Aldegar's ranking; luckily I've only begun there. Who knows, maybe it's a new home!
What I wish to add is that despite my relative absence from the game, Ostland was strategically important to the Northern Council and embarked on a large project of port expansion and economic functions prior to my departure. While it did not necessarily go as far and as detailed as my normally redundant posts do, Ostland was the center of the "State Commissariat of Dovani" which was the Dorvish and the Northern Council's project in Dovani following the Dovani War. Ostland was the launching point for invasions and other forces, a natural boon to the economy of Ostland is undoubtable. Not to mention at the time the chilling of relations with Hulstria would've allowed a far greater flow of goods and moneys across the border and permitted for Ostland to continue to grow. I think that the downgrade is a little rough, I can see your thoughts behind it and if you claim that it is to remain, then it is. I just believe that it should be kept as "Weak" especially due to the foreign presence and the number of integral ports that played a huge role in the Dovani conflict as well as Ostland as the focal point of rebuilding and center of administration of rebuilding.
Auditorii wrote:http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7252&start=40#p136353
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7252&start=40#p136401
These posts generally show how Ostland in the face of sanctions was becoming more open and was cooperating with Hulatria and other countries. Grand Duke Magnus was also RPd as a reformer and was considered to be widely popular. These reforms opened up Ostland for further foreign investment.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7252&start=60#p138619
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7252&start=50#p136643
These posts note that the NC-based reconstruction efforts and war planning had benefits for Ostland both militarily and economically.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests