1196Re: the "Badly Written" rule
- Oct 2, 2003No - no case whatsover Tom. I firmly believe that the "badly
written" rules still stands.
A(Bul)-Com to me is an example of a badly written rule.
F(Bul)-Con when it is in fact an army is another example.
In both cases - for me - the ARMY moves from BUL to CON.
The intention is clear - the order should be followed.
I'm afraid the article you refer to although fairly well written
does quote some rather ridiculous examples of what a GM might
interpret as badly written. It is quite obvious (IMHO) what
constitutes a badly written order and what is completely wrong. If a
player orders to move A(War) when in fact he has A(Lvn) then that's
tough - but (again IMHO) if he orders A(Liv) rather than using
the "accepted" abbreviation for Livonia (Lvn), and he doesn't have a
unit in Liverpool - why the hell should he be penalised for using
the wrong abbreviation. The meaning is PERFECTLY clear.
This will always be a contentious issue - and I notice that Dip2000
now has "lenient" and "strict" GMs.
Perhaps the time has come for GMs when responding to orders to
actually point out ERRORS to the players and how they will be
corrected? So far I have never felt the need to do this. All badly
written orders I have come across have either been PERFECTLY clear,
or so badly written or wrong that they could not have ANY meaning.
I would be surprised if there was any (sane) GM out there who could
not reasonably use their judgement as to what the player intended
and know when to draw the line. Let's face it - that's surely why we
all enjoy playing using HUMAN GMs. If we want to start insisting on
using only the CORRECT, APPROVED abbreviations, why don't we all
just pack up and start using the judges. (God FORBID!)
Just my thoughts. I expect that there may be one or two who
disagree. Ah well!
--- In email@example.com, Tom Tweedy <tom@l...> wrote:
> I have just read the excellent article from Nick Kinzett in
> DAY No.18 [see pdf link above] entitled "Yes, the "Badly Written"
> is indeed GM Interference".
> One of the GMs on my site put forward some related comments on the
> subject [it was being hotly debated again for the umpteenth time].
> The suggestion was that at the time when the boxed set rules were
> written, everyone sat around the board scribbling out their orders.
> The Ruling was 'The GM will accept any orders that are
> however badly written.'
> Now what, he hypothesised, if the rule was meant for
> 'scribbled' orders? It might NOT be meant to be applied to
> like: "A[Bul]-Com".
> Now orders are no longer 'badly written' or hard to read because
> by email and type them, so are we interpreting the rule out of
> Do we now have a case for insisting that abbreviations are typed
> correctly or be misordered?
> Tom Tweedy
> Diplomacy 2000
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>