GRC Economic and Military Rankings

General discussions about the Particracy web game.

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Luis1p » Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:07 am

Aquinas wrote:Those answers were generally much better than what came before, Luis, so thank you for that. Still some points remaining though, which I would like to follow-up on.

Luis1p wrote:3. I don't really see anything wrong with this. The player did not portray his thoughts in regards to the RP Accord while formulating the rankings the player was assigned to complete. Opting out of the RP Accord did not have an overall impact on how this player ranked nations. However, influencing rankings based on personal thoughts of the Accord will not be allowed in the rankings process.


My concern is that it will affect the credibility of the rankings/RP Accord if a key GRC member involved with drawing up the rankings is personally opposed to the RP Accord and is choosing to opt-out of it. There is also the obvious risk that a player who wants to opt-out of the RP Accord but is unable to do so (due to the views of the other players in the nation) may resent it that they are obliged to respect the RP Accord, whilst the aforesaid GRC member is not.

Luis1p wrote:6. An explanation on Istalia's down ranking can be found in previous pages of the consultation thread.


There has been sufficient explanation of the economic downgrading, but not really of the military downgrading.

Luis1p wrote:7. Fairly due to RP, both economically and militarily, by Vesica. Compared to other TW nations, New Alduria stood out stronger in terms of military and economics. Vesica can give you more details if you are not so convinced.


Vesica offered to provide an explanation last week, but did not respond to my request to actually do so.

Respectfully, I'm a little alarmed that, as the Third World Co-Ordinator and GRC Chair, you are not able to explain New Alduria's upranking, and when pressed to do so, you are asking Vesica to provide the explanation instead. Vesica is the player who actually controls New Alduria, which obviously means he may be perceived to have a potential conflict of interest when it comes to assessing New Alduria's rankings. This raises the question: did anybody other than Vesica assess New Alduria's positions in the rankings?


Istalia's downrank was because of its weakening economics and simply the lack of any good military RP. Military RP would be difficult with a weakening economy.

In terms of New Alduria, I had originally kept it at its previous rank and Vesica rebutted that it should be raised becuase of the role-play he initiated. After a good scan through the RP, I thought it was good enough for an uprank.
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 Aquinas » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:19 pm

Luis1p wrote:
Aquinas wrote:Those answers were generally much better than what came before, Luis, so thank you for that. Still some points remaining though, which I would like to follow-up on.

Luis1p wrote:3. I don't really see anything wrong with this. The player did not portray his thoughts in regards to the RP Accord while formulating the rankings the player was assigned to complete. Opting out of the RP Accord did not have an overall impact on how this player ranked nations. However, influencing rankings based on personal thoughts of the Accord will not be allowed in the rankings process.


My concern is that it will affect the credibility of the rankings/RP Accord if a key GRC member involved with drawing up the rankings is personally opposed to the RP Accord and is choosing to opt-out of it. There is also the obvious risk that a player who wants to opt-out of the RP Accord but is unable to do so (due to the views of the other players in the nation) may resent it that they are obliged to respect the RP Accord, whilst the aforesaid GRC member is not.

Luis1p wrote:6. An explanation on Istalia's down ranking can be found in previous pages of the consultation thread.


There has been sufficient explanation of the economic downgrading, but not really of the military downgrading.

Luis1p wrote:7. Fairly due to RP, both economically and militarily, by Vesica. Compared to other TW nations, New Alduria stood out stronger in terms of military and economics. Vesica can give you more details if you are not so convinced.


Vesica offered to provide an explanation last week, but did not respond to my request to actually do so.

Respectfully, I'm a little alarmed that, as the Third World Co-Ordinator and GRC Chair, you are not able to explain New Alduria's upranking, and when pressed to do so, you are asking Vesica to provide the explanation instead. Vesica is the player who actually controls New Alduria, which obviously means he may be perceived to have a potential conflict of interest when it comes to assessing New Alduria's rankings. This raises the question: did anybody other than Vesica assess New Alduria's positions in the rankings?


Istalia's downrank was because of its weakening economics and simply the lack of any good military RP. Military RP would be difficult with a weakening economy.

In terms of New Alduria, I had originally kept it at its previous rank and Vesica rebutted that it should be raised becuase of the role-play he initiated. After a good scan through the RP, I thought it was good enough for an uprank.


These are rather bland responses which tend to rather convey an impression you are bluffing your way through this.

I don't have the energy to pursue the Istalia issue any further right now.

As I pointed out previously, there have been only 5 articles posted on New Alduria's news thread since May 2018 (the beginning of this rankings period). There was some evidence of New Alduria being caught up in a war, although there was little detail on that, and certainly no in-depth RP to suggest serious military development. I don't think I saw anything to suggest serious economic development. To the contrary, there was some evidence to suggest the economy may have slowed (eg. a General Strike, the effects of the war).

Luis1p wrote:5. The GRC is organized by Continent and has members for each continent. The Global Roleplay Committee Register says "GRC Chair", my signature says "GRC Head". That was a mistake by me, it should say chair, but it almost is essentially the same thing. Directly quoting from GRC discussion for transparency, the GRC Chair:
The position of Chairperson comes with the following responsibilities and powers (not an extensive list!);

1. To create new structural protocols for the GRC, organise responsibilities (such as in the rankings) and set (soft) deadlines for certain work if anything is taking too long. Can also call for final votes and generally do anything necessary to ensure the smooth running of the GRC.

2. Encourage active participation and if necessary recommend moderation review a player's position in the GRC.

3. Will often act as the main spokesperson for the group.


Am I correct in presuming from CCP's new signature that he has now been appointed GRC chair until March 2019? Are you standing down from the GRC, now you have become a Moderator?

Well, thank you for all of the GRC work you have done, and for all of the Moderation work you are about to be doing.

I hope you can assure us, though, that this is going to be a smooth process, and there will be no "sudden surprises" as a result of the GRC Chair suddenly changing in the middle of the rankings consultation. Memories are returning to me of what happened when the WCRC position changed in the middle of the September General Assembly President election...
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 Luis1p » Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:23 pm

Aquinas wrote:These are rather bland responses which tend to rather convey an impression you are bluffing your way through this


I promise you I'm not. I've been answering quite honestly to everyone.

Aquinas wrote:I don't have the energy to pursue the Istalia issue any further right now.


I don't either tbh.

Aquinas wrote:Am I correct in presuming from CCP's new signature that he has now been appointed GRC chair until March 2019? Are you standing down from the GRC, now you have become a Moderator?

Well, thank you for all of the GRC work you have done, and for all of the Moderation work you are about to be doing.

I hope you can assure us, though, that this is going to be a smooth process, and there will be no "sudden surprises" as a result of the GRC Chair suddenly changing in the middle of the rankings consultation. Memories are returning to me of what happened when the WCRC position changed in the middle of the September General Assembly President election...


Announcement on this soon. ;) GRC Chaur transition will be smooth.
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 Zanz » Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:01 pm

Luis1p wrote:
jamescfm wrote:
Luis1p wrote:3. I don't really see anything wrong with this. The player did not portray his thoughts in regards to the RP Accord while formulating the rankings the player was assigned to complete. Opting out of the RP Accord did not have an overall impact on how this player ranked nations. However, influencing rankings based on personal thoughts of the Accord will not be allowed in the rankings process.

Honestly, this is a difficult one for me to comprehend. First, though, let's be clear that we are referring to CCP and I encourage him to contribute to this discussion so that it doesn't seem like we're doing it without giving him a chance to defend himself. I don't really understand how anybody can contribute to something in a meaningful way when they fundamentally don't believe in its existence, purpose and methodology. Regardless of whether you agree, Luis, you must admit these seems pretty unfair and hypocritical from the point of view of other players.


Alright. I see understand your points. I didn't quite see it from other players' perspectives. I'll let CCP give his input on it.


Since this consultation is due to end tomorrow (15th November) but this hasn't yet been addressed, can you clarify, Luis, whether the consultation will remain open until this outstanding question is resolved? Can you also clarify, please, whether you've notified CCP of his participation being requested specifically, here?
Official Troll King since 8/14/2013.
User avatar
Zanz
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Luis1p » Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:14 pm

Zanz wrote:Since this consultation is due to end tomorrow (15th November) but this hasn't yet been addressed, can you clarify, Luis, whether the consultation will remain open until this outstanding question is resolved? Can you also clarify, please, whether you've notified CCP of his participation being requested specifically, here?


I'll keep the thread open, but Rankings will become effective. I'll make sure CCP answers.
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 Aquinas » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:49 pm

Luis1p wrote:
Aquinas wrote:These are rather bland responses which tend to rather convey an impression you are bluffing your way through this


I promise you I'm not. I've been answering quite honestly to everyone.


Your honesty is not being questioned (at least not by me, anyway), but I have genuinely been finding some (not all, some) of your answers rather bland/anodyne/formulaic, and also a bit evasive. The general impression this leaves is that the GRC is not entirely on top of things and is reluctant to engage with feedback.

Luis1p wrote:
Aquinas wrote:I don't have the energy to pursue the Istalia issue any further right now.


I don't either tbh.


The reason I don't have the energy to pursue that issue any further is because it is proving so much hard work to get answers from the GRC, and the response you've given just there is a perfect illustration of the attitude we've been up against.

To be clear, I would not be hard on you for finding me (or anyone else here) a bit of a pain in the ass. On a human level, that's understandable enough - I get that. We are asking questions, and some of those questions are maybe a bit challenging or awkward.

What I find more problematic is that the GRC is not engaging with legitimate points, and is now even publicly stating on an actual rankings consultation that it is reluctant to discuss a particular nation's ranking. At least to me, this is seeming to suggest the GRC needs to rethink some things.

At this point, I think I am going to finally give up on hoping for a fuller response to the Istalia and New Alduria situations.
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 Axxell » Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:45 am

Look, this is what we do: do not continue to debate about Istalia. The downgrading about economic ranking, as already I said, it is more than justified due to the fact that all Majatra for more than the half of the 45th century has been affected by very important economic and diplomatic crisis and Istalia was found to be the epicenter of most part of the economic crisis.
About the military ranking, despite a little disappointment (because at least, funding of Defence never changed in the last century, it remained always the highest or one of the highest item of expenditure for the state and the defence was always able to persue objective and to partecipate also to the West Majatran War without too much issues, and Istalia also persued and is persuing a global undercover counterintelligence programs and also focused on a highly secret intelligence "space" program http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=575051), I already agreed in saying that actually the military RP was very few in the last months.
So, after some consultation with the other players in Istalia, we decided to accept this downgrading: it will be an interesting challenge to persue the path of the recovering and it will be an opportunity to push me (and other players in Istalia) to resume military RP.
So, I think that nobody has to continue to debate about Istalia.

However, if I can just say one thing, I didn't understand very well a little thing: the meaning of "Malivia's Regional power status and economic heft is largely residual from its rise two centuries ago during its war with Narikaton". I think that you have to make a choice: look just to the previous four months' RP, or consider the "residual effect of things happened in previous centuries", because, and it will be the veritable last comment on Istalia, if we have to think to such "residual things", well... sorry but I think that Istalia has sufficent "residual" happenings to justify its maintainment at the top of the ranks for the other next 2 centuries! :P (And in general this could be applied to all the nations that tendencially in the last years has been the more active on the side of the RP, but this could be something that could lead to a veritable blocking of the positions in the rankings, especially for some nations that I constated that have always been the most active because they are the ones which were chosen as "home" of the most active players passed through particracy).

Thank you and have a good day :)
Alleanza Radicale (Radical Alliance) - Istalia (Active)
User avatar
Axxell
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:08 am

Re: GRC Economic and Military Period (COMMENT PERIOD)

Postby Aquinas » Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:07 am

Before we enter the next "era" for the economic & military rankings, I think it would be a good idea to review the Game Rules surrounding the Global RP Accord:

[6]k. The Global Role Play Accord (GRA) is an opt out index of nations. Membership in the GRA allows the RP Committee to determine the nation’s economic and military characteristics. To opt-out of the GRA a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of players with seats voting in favour.

i.To opt back in a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of players with seats voting in favour.


l. The RP committee will post detailed descriptions of the nations' economic and military on the Particracy forums for those nations which fall under their purview.


Part (l) suggests the GRC will only post rankings for nations which have ratified the RP Accord. Since this is obviously not the procedure the GRC is following, I suggest either removing the non-ratifier nations from the rankings or (and this would be my personal preference) amending the text of the rules.

Another issue is that ideally, the rules should clearly set out (a) how players should report alleged breaches of the RP Accord and (b) the process through which reported breaches will be dealt with. In particular, what will be the role of the GRC (if any) in cases where an alleged breach of the RP Accord is reported?

Under the old system, players could report alleged breaches to the RP Committee, and the RP Committee could then make a recommendation to Moderation on how to proceed (although Moderation would have the final say).
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 Luis1p » Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:12 pm

Several players raised questions regarding GRC members who play or have played in nations which opt-out of the Global Role Play Accords. Some players specifically pointed to CCPs role as a prominent player in Hawu Mumenhes (which is currently opted-out of the GRA) while simultaneously serving as a prominent member of the GRC.
This question has been raised by a small number of players in the past. FIrst, it's important to keep in mind that Game Rules do not currently require GRC members to confine their game play to GRA-affiliated nations. Additionally, moderation hand-picked or approved every member of the GRC including CCP. So there has been no violation of the rules and moderation has observed no malice or purposeful unfairness within the GRC when compiling the Rankings.
However, because this question has been raised before, moderation did discuss this issue with CCP to sound out his views. CCP addressed this issue publicly in a non-GRC capacity here (http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?p=135692#p135692), and his reply to moderation questions on the issue were substantially the same as seen in the link.
Since that time, the GRC has taken the decision to move in the direction of a more transparent Rankings process which has been discussed in this thread. In response to player questions during this consultation, moderation queried CCP's views given the impending change. CCP responded that while he currently does not play in Hawu Mumenhes or any opted-out nation, he would support returning that nation to the GRA if he were a playing there due upcoming changes to the Rankings process.
Finally, this should not be taken to mean that any rules have been changed or violated. Any changes to the GRA opt-out process would be handled by moderation through a separate rules change announcement. This is simply provided as an answer to several players who have raised questions about this
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 » Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:14 pm

I would suggest that this thread should be split off from the rankings consultation at your previous message Luis since we have clearly moved beyond discussion of the rankings themselves and onto a broader issue (though it does relate to the rankings). In my opinion, this response is not sufficient for a few reasons and I'm going to attempt to outline those reasons without getting into an essay war.

Let's move away from framing this as an abstract discussions and recognise that the concern is specifically related to CCP's role in the rankings and more generally in the Global Role-Play Committee. My initial concern was stated clearly earlier in the thread; it is that the legitimacy of the rankings and of the Committee is undermined when you have members involved who fundamentally don't believe in their purpose. It seems Zanz shares that view and I feel that Aqunias probably has similar concerns, though I encourage both to correct me if I am misrepresenting them. Since I voiced those concerns, CCP has been appointed as the Chair of the GRC according to the Register and that means that those concerns become pressing as he will be in a position of increased responsibility.

Perhaps a larger issue now though is that the general impression from CCP in relation to this matter is that he doesn't give a shit. As much as I appreciate you responding to what is being discussed here, Luis, you shouldn't have to act as his mouthpiece. If he genuinely wants to serve the community then I feel he has a responsibility to address legitimate concerns about his actions and the impact which they have.

The response from CCP may be that he has already addressed these issues in the Political Protocols thread. That's patently false. Having read the thread several times, at no point does he address how his role on the GRC interacts with his opposition to its activities. In fact, his characterisation of the rankings is actually wrong in my opinion. CCP describes them as "essentially arbitrary" and "not arrived at by player initiative or consensus" and this thread provides pretty compelling evidence that this isn't an accurate understanding of the process. If you are correct in saying you have spoken to him about the matter then he cannot plead ignorance. All of this raises significant doubt about his ability to act, as you describe his new role in the appointment post, as "a spokesperson and leader for the GRC" and I think it is absolutely crucial that CCP responds to this matter, both quickly and directly.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest