GRC Economic and Military Rankings

[jamescfm]

Wu Han's case for Indrala seems pretty compelling to me so I would like to suggest that it exchanges places with Malivia (which I mentioned earlier in the discussion as being higher than it should be).

[Axxell]

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.

Sorry, I didn't read this actentively and then I reed better also Wu Han post. Residual? So, we should regard to the RP produced in these months or we have also to consider what was doing previously? In this case, what about the "residual" status of Istalia, which despite all it seems to me that continue to be more active than Malivia on the international stage with a considerable voice on several international crisis? I can responde also that Istalia achieved to revive the Majatran Alliance and also to promote a further treaty which was welcomed and ratified by most part of the members of the organization which increased furthermore the MA competences and internal organization and its activities.
The fact that serious menaces, furthermore, emerged in Majatra forced Istalia to concentrate its attention into the continent where, however, we continued to deploy forces in Jelbania as well as during the West Majatran War.

Sorry but pointing our my attention to these posts triggered now my reaction about the military ranking.

[Luis1p]

After a discussion with the GRC, we have reassessed the rankings of nations that have been previously questioned by the community.

Hawu Mumhenes = will be down ranked to Average Economy

Malivia= will be down ranked to middle power and average economy

Luthori= will be down ranked to middle power and average economy

Dankuk = will remain as originally proposed

Baltusia = will remain as originally proposed

Kanjor= will be down ranked to weak power and small economy

Indrala = will be up ranked to regional power

These changes have not been added yet to the official rankings post yet, however I will make sure to do it tomorrow.

[Aquinas]

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.

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.

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.

[Luis1p]

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.

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.

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.

So to start off, I can somewhat agree that the GRC is a bit unorganized at the moment. However, we do plan a series of changes and reshaping to the GRC which would address your comments on the organization and transparency as well as WuHan's comments.

On objective standards, we wanted a new way to do complete rankings in a more efficient and sophisticated way than just "personal judgement". The GRC believed that objective standards would be a great way to improve the structure of rankings, but also justify the way we rank countries in the future. Yes, it is a new way to complete rankings, but we think it will make rankings easier for the GRC to complete and justify our positions. RP will always be part of rankings.

[Auditorii]

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.

[Reddy]

Happy with my country Barmenia's ranking and the rest of the rankings in general. I would also like to say that I am very impressed by how the GRC has proven itself to be responsive in this process so far. It is good to see that you are absorbing criticism and suggestions well. I am also looking forward to the reforms that Luis hinted at.

[Luis1p]

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.

I see. I ranked the Third World countries and I down ranked Ostland precisely because of inactivity. I see your points behind keeping it at a weak power. Can you link some of those posts?

[Auditorii]

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.

[Luis1p]

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.

Okay, I will adjust ranking. I think tge quality of RP should be enough to at least keep its current position.