Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

the "Badly Written" rule

Expand Messages
  • Tom Tweedy
    ... I have just read the excellent article from Nick Kinzett in ARMISTICE DAY No.18 [see pdf link above] entitled Yes, the Badly Written rule is indeed GM
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 2, 2003
      >
      >http://www.armisticeday.com/issues/Issue18.pdf

      I have just read the excellent article from Nick Kinzett in ARMISTICE
      DAY No.18 [see pdf link above] entitled "Yes, the "Badly Written" rule
      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 unambiguous,
      however badly written.'

      Now what, he hypothesised, if the rule was meant for indecipherable
      'scribbled' orders? It might NOT be meant to be applied to something
      like: "A[Bul]-Com".

      Now orders are no longer 'badly written' or hard to read because we play
      by email and type them, so are we interpreting the rule out of context?

      Do we now have a case for insisting that abbreviations are typed
      correctly or be misordered?

      Tom
      --
      Tom Tweedy
      Diplomacy 2000
      http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000/
    • Mike Dean
      No - 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
      Message 2 of 18 , Oct 2, 2003
        No - 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!

        MIKE





        --- In ukpbm@yahoogroups.com, Tom Tweedy <tom@l...> wrote:
        > >
        > >http://www.armisticeday.com/issues/Issue18.pdf
        >
        > I have just read the excellent article from Nick Kinzett in
        ARMISTICE
        > DAY No.18 [see pdf link above] entitled "Yes, the "Badly Written"
        rule
        > 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
        unambiguous,
        > however badly written.'
        >
        > Now what, he hypothesised, if the rule was meant for
        indecipherable
        > 'scribbled' orders? It might NOT be meant to be applied to
        something
        > like: "A[Bul]-Com".
        >
        > Now orders are no longer 'badly written' or hard to read because
        we play
        > by email and type them, so are we interpreting the rule out of
        context?
        >
        > Do we now have a case for insisting that abbreviations are typed
        > correctly or be misordered?
        >
        > Tom
        > --
        > Tom Tweedy
        > Diplomacy 2000
        > http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000/
      • Bruce Edwards
        The point I would like to make is the situation where the player is deliberately trying to mislead his neighbours! Taking Mike s example - if I ordered F Bul
        Message 3 of 18 , Oct 2, 2003
          The point I would like to make is the situation where the player is deliberately trying to mislead his neighbours!
          Taking Mike's example - if I ordered F Bul > Con when it was actually an army, I would probably be rather put out if the Army was moved when my intention was to pretend to Austria or Russia that I was pulling back!
          Maybe if GMs were to stipulate that mis-orders would be corrected - if the intent was fairly obvious - unless the player stated it was deliberate!

          So if I was to order:
          F Bul > Con
          Mike would move my Army but if I ordered:
          F Bul > Con (deliberate misorder)
          then Mike would see my intention is to deceive - and not a mistake in writing the order!!

          I think it would be good if GMs were to point out errors to players, especially new players! You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't know what mistakes you made!!!

          B.

          psychopath website (for games) - http://www.psychozine.co.uk
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Mike Dean
          To: ukpbm@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 5:13 PM
          Subject: [ukpbm] Re: the "Badly Written" rule


          No - 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!

          MIKE





          --- In ukpbm@yahoogroups.com, Tom Tweedy <tom@l...> wrote:
          > >
          > >http://www.armisticeday.com/issues/Issue18.pdf
          >
          > I have just read the excellent article from Nick Kinzett in
          ARMISTICE
          > DAY No.18 [see pdf link above] entitled "Yes, the "Badly Written"
          rule
          > 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
          unambiguous,
          > however badly written.'
          >
          > Now what, he hypothesised, if the rule was meant for
          indecipherable
          > 'scribbled' orders? It might NOT be meant to be applied to
          something
          > like: "A[Bul]-Com".
          >
          > Now orders are no longer 'badly written' or hard to read because
          we play
          > by email and type them, so are we interpreting the rule out of
          context?
          >
          > Do we now have a case for insisting that abbreviations are typed
          > correctly or be misordered?
          >
          > Tom
          > --
          > Tom Tweedy
          > Diplomacy 2000
          > http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000/


          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT




          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Malcolm Cornelius
          ... I don t think the GM should do ANYTHING except enact the orders as written by the player. If the player makes a mistake, so be it, unlucky, play better.
          Message 4 of 18 , Oct 2, 2003
            on 02/10/03 21:27, Bruce Edwards at kactusjak@... wrote:

            > The point I would like to make is the situation where the player is
            > deliberately trying to mislead his neighbours!
            > Taking Mike's example - if I ordered F Bul > Con when it was actually an army,
            > I would probably be rather put out if the Army was moved when my intention was
            > to pretend to Austria or Russia that I was pulling back!
            > Maybe if GMs were to stipulate that mis-orders would be corrected - if the
            > intent was fairly obvious - unless the player stated it was deliberate!
            >
            > So if I was to order:
            > F Bul > Con
            > Mike would move my Army but if I ordered:
            > F Bul > Con (deliberate misorder)
            > then Mike would see my intention is to deceive - and not a mistake in writing
            > the order!!
            >
            > I think it would be good if GMs were to point out errors to players,
            > especially new players! You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't know
            > what mistakes you made!!!
            >

            I don't think the GM should do ANYTHING except enact the orders as written
            by the player.

            If the player makes a mistake, so be it, unlucky, play better.

            They should be an adjudicator and not have any other role.

            F(Bul) - Con when it is an army should fail.

            Bul - Con should succeed unless the house rules require that the type of
            piece be correctly named.

            --
            Best wishes

            Malcolm Cornelius

            MSN Messenger - malc_c@... ICQ - 47738640
          • Ben & Linley Goodale
            I m inclined to agree. Misorders are actually an important part of the game. A proactive GM can always query them with a player. ... From: Malcolm Cornelius
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
              I'm inclined to agree.

              Misorders are actually an important part of the game.

              A proactive GM can always query them with a player.
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Malcolm Cornelius
              To: ukpbm@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 2:59 PM
              Subject: Re: [ukpbm] Re: the "Badly Written" rule


              on 02/10/03 21:27, Bruce Edwards at kactusjak@... wrote:

              > The point I would like to make is the situation where the player is
              > deliberately trying to mislead his neighbours!
              > Taking Mike's example - if I ordered F Bul > Con when it was actually an army,
              > I would probably be rather put out if the Army was moved when my intention was
              > to pretend to Austria or Russia that I was pulling back!
              > Maybe if GMs were to stipulate that mis-orders would be corrected - if the
              > intent was fairly obvious - unless the player stated it was deliberate!
              >
              > So if I was to order:
              > F Bul > Con
              > Mike would move my Army but if I ordered:
              > F Bul > Con (deliberate misorder)
              > then Mike would see my intention is to deceive - and not a mistake in writing
              > the order!!
              >
              > I think it would be good if GMs were to point out errors to players,
              > especially new players! You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't know
              > what mistakes you made!!!
              >

              I don't think the GM should do ANYTHING except enact the orders as written
              by the player.

              If the player makes a mistake, so be it, unlucky, play better.

              They should be an adjudicator and not have any other role.

              F(Bul) - Con when it is an army should fail.

              Bul - Con should succeed unless the house rules require that the type of
              piece be correctly named.

              --
              Best wishes

              Malcolm Cornelius

              MSN Messenger - malc_c@... ICQ - 47738640



              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mike Dean
              In reply to Bruce, The PSYCHOPATH house rules actually do state that the GM should be informed of deliberate misorders, and that badly written orders where the
              Message 6 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                In reply to Bruce,

                The PSYCHOPATH house rules actually do state that the GM should be
                informed of deliberate misorders, and that badly written orders
                where the meaning is clear WILL be interpretted as such. So if you
                order F Bul-Con when you have an army, and you don't state that it
                is an intentional misorder, the GM should simply move your army!

                Of course, this means that it is obvious to the other players that
                you deliberately misordered. But so it goes....

                I still reiterate - why do you need a human GM if you are going to
                be so dogmatic about how people should submit orders and that their
                abbreviations should be absolutely correctly spelt or they misorder.
                If that's your view - go play on the JUDGES! A bit of pragmatism is
                called for here and I will always maintain that a good GM will show
                pragmatism when it comes to interpretting orders.

                On psychopath, and I am sure it MUST be true of Dip2000 and other
                sites too - we have a number of players whose first language is NOT
                English. This means that I have often seen orders which instead of
                putting the usual abbreviation for a province on the board clearly
                put something which is an abbreviation of the province name in the
                language of the person submitting the order. What is any reasonably
                minded GM supposed to do in those circumstances?

                IF we follow Malcolm's view - they should be misordered - and hey,
                guess what? The player thinks SOD THAT for a lark, NMRs, anarchies
                and never returns! Well that isn't going to happen when I'm GMing,
                and I hope wouldn't happen on psychopath at all.

                Ah well. I think I will have to agree to disagree on this one. But
                one thing is for sure - I won't change my pragmatic style of GMing
                to be so dogmatic that I discourage players from participating on
                psychopath!

                cheers

                MIKE

                --- In ukpbm@yahoogroups.com, Ben & Linley Goodale
                <ben_goodale@c...> wrote:
                > I'm inclined to agree.
                >
                > Misorders are actually an important part of the game.
                >
                > A proactive GM can always query them with a player.
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Malcolm Cornelius
                > To: ukpbm@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 2:59 PM
                > Subject: Re: [ukpbm] Re: the "Badly Written" rule
                >
                >
                > on 02/10/03 21:27, Bruce Edwards at kactusjak@t... wrote:
                >
                > > The point I would like to make is the situation where the
                player is
                > > deliberately trying to mislead his neighbours!
                > > Taking Mike's example - if I ordered F Bul > Con when it was
                actually an army,
                > > I would probably be rather put out if the Army was moved when
                my intention was
                > > to pretend to Austria or Russia that I was pulling back!
                > > Maybe if GMs were to stipulate that mis-orders would be
                corrected - if the
                > > intent was fairly obvious - unless the player stated it was
                deliberate!
                > >
                > > So if I was to order:
                > > F Bul > Con
                > > Mike would move my Army but if I ordered:
                > > F Bul > Con (deliberate misorder)
                > > then Mike would see my intention is to deceive - and not a
                mistake in writing
                > > the order!!
                > >
                > > I think it would be good if GMs were to point out errors to
                players,
                > > especially new players! You can't learn from your mistakes if
                you don't know
                > > what mistakes you made!!!
                > >
                >
                > I don't think the GM should do ANYTHING except enact the orders
                as written
                > by the player.
                >
                > If the player makes a mistake, so be it, unlucky, play better.
                >
                > They should be an adjudicator and not have any other role.
                >
                > F(Bul) - Con when it is an army should fail.
                >
                > Bul - Con should succeed unless the house rules require that the
                type of
                > piece be correctly named.
                >
                > --
                > Best wishes
                >
                > Malcolm Cornelius
                >
                > MSN Messenger - malc_c@c... ICQ - 47738640
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > ADVERTISEMENT
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                Service.
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Malcolm Cornelius
                ... Thought I d be playing against another player and their ability to play the game, not another player assisted by an intrusive GM. By establishing a
                Message 7 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                  on 03/10/03 10:34, Mike Dean at mike.dean@... wrote:

                  > I still reiterate - why do you need a human GM if you are going to
                  > be so dogmatic about how people should submit orders and that their
                  > abbreviations should be absolutely correctly spelt or they misorder.
                  > If that's your view - go play on the JUDGES! A bit of pragmatism is
                  > called for here and I will always maintain that a good GM will show
                  > pragmatism when it comes to interpretting orders.
                  >
                  > On psychopath, and I am sure it MUST be true of Dip2000 and other
                  > sites too - we have a number of players whose first language is NOT
                  > English. This means that I have often seen orders which instead of
                  > putting the usual abbreviation for a province on the board clearly
                  > put something which is an abbreviation of the province name in the
                  > language of the person submitting the order. What is any reasonably
                  > minded GM supposed to do in those circumstances?
                  >
                  > IF we follow Malcolm's view - they should be misordered - and hey,
                  > guess what? The player thinks SOD THAT for a lark, NMRs, anarchies
                  > and never returns! Well that isn't going to happen when I'm GMing,
                  > and I hope wouldn't happen on psychopath at all.
                  >
                  > Ah well. I think I will have to agree to disagree on this one. But
                  > one thing is for sure - I won't change my pragmatic style of GMing
                  > to be so dogmatic that I discourage players from participating on
                  > psychopath!

                  Thought I'd be playing against another player and their ability to play the
                  game, not another player assisted by an intrusive GM.

                  By establishing a precedent that you'll intervene to assist players, how far
                  do you go - Missed province on a retreat option ? Forgot to order a retreat
                  at all ? Forgotten support order ?

                  What if as GM you forget to correct a mistake ?

                  If the HR state that in the event of an invalid order being received you'll
                  attempt to contact the player to clarify it, maybe giving them until the
                  deadline to correct it, then fine.

                  This is something that was impossible in my day of postal GMing but in email
                  based play might be possible - are these games limited to email based
                  players ?

                  But I feel it is the players job to play the game correctly, by all means
                  steer them but I don't think the GM should be making decisions or correcting
                  things on behalf of players.

                  If the GMs role is anything other than interpreting the orders as written,
                  then it needs to be defined in the house rules being used, so the players
                  know what rules are being played to and what may or may not happen.

                  --
                  Best wishes

                  Malcolm Cornelius

                  MSN Messenger - malc_c@... ICQ - 47738640
                • Shaun Derrick
                  I must agree with Mike Dean on this. I used to be very strict in my early years of Diplomacy GMing, and indeed many other GM s were too. I have had one or two
                  Message 8 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                    I must agree with Mike Dean on this. I used to be very strict in my early years of Diplomacy GMing, and indeed many other GM's were too. I have had one or two confrontations with players over 'badly written' orders, but these days I am more lenient and will follow orders so long as the intention is clear; and errors by players are very few and far between.

                    GM intervention is *necessary*! So long as the GM advises players of his 'House Rules' on what he will and will not accept, there should be no problem. The more lenient GM's will have a much easier time than those that aren't!

                    F(Bul)-Con if it was an army would mean the army moves to Con. If the player wanted it to be a misorder, then he should have read the house rules!

                    Shaun Derrick

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Mike Dean [mailto:mike.dean@...]
                    Sent: 03 October 2003 10:35
                    To: ukpbm@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [ukpbm] Re: the "Badly Written" rule


                    In reply to Bruce,

                    The PSYCHOPATH house rules actually do state that the GM should be
                    informed of deliberate misorders, and that badly written orders
                    where the meaning is clear WILL be interpretted as such. So if you
                    order F Bul-Con when you have an army, and you don't state that it
                    is an intentional misorder, the GM should simply move your army!

                    Of course, this means that it is obvious to the other players that
                    you deliberately misordered. But so it goes....

                    I still reiterate - why do you need a human GM if you are going to
                    be so dogmatic about how people should submit orders and that their
                    abbreviations should be absolutely correctly spelt or they misorder.
                    If that's your view - go play on the JUDGES! A bit of pragmatism is
                    called for here and I will always maintain that a good GM will show
                    pragmatism when it comes to interpretting orders.

                    On psychopath, and I am sure it MUST be true of Dip2000 and other
                    sites too - we have a number of players whose first language is NOT
                    English. This means that I have often seen orders which instead of
                    putting the usual abbreviation for a province on the board clearly
                    put something which is an abbreviation of the province name in the
                    language of the person submitting the order. What is any reasonably
                    minded GM supposed to do in those circumstances?

                    IF we follow Malcolm's view - they should be misordered - and hey,
                    guess what? The player thinks SOD THAT for a lark, NMRs, anarchies
                    and never returns! Well that isn't going to happen when I'm GMing,
                    and I hope wouldn't happen on psychopath at all.

                    Ah well. I think I will have to agree to disagree on this one. But
                    one thing is for sure - I won't change my pragmatic style of GMing
                    to be so dogmatic that I discourage players from participating on
                    psychopath!

                    cheers

                    MIKE

                    --- In ukpbm@yahoogroups.com, Ben & Linley Goodale
                    <ben_goodale@c...> wrote:
                    > I'm inclined to agree.
                    >
                    > Misorders are actually an important part of the game.
                    >
                    > A proactive GM can always query them with a player.
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: Malcolm Cornelius
                    > To: ukpbm@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 2:59 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [ukpbm] Re: the "Badly Written" rule
                    >
                    >
                    > on 02/10/03 21:27, Bruce Edwards at kactusjak@t... wrote:
                    >
                    > > The point I would like to make is the situation where the
                    player is
                    > > deliberately trying to mislead his neighbours!
                    > > Taking Mike's example - if I ordered F Bul > Con when it was
                    actually an army,
                    > > I would probably be rather put out if the Army was moved when
                    my intention was
                    > > to pretend to Austria or Russia that I was pulling back!
                    > > Maybe if GMs were to stipulate that mis-orders would be
                    corrected - if the
                    > > intent was fairly obvious - unless the player stated it was
                    deliberate!
                    > >
                    > > So if I was to order:
                    > > F Bul > Con
                    > > Mike would move my Army but if I ordered:
                    > > F Bul > Con (deliberate misorder)
                    > > then Mike would see my intention is to deceive - and not a
                    mistake in writing
                    > > the order!!
                    > >
                    > > I think it would be good if GMs were to point out errors to
                    players,
                    > > especially new players! You can't learn from your mistakes if
                    you don't know
                    > > what mistakes you made!!!
                    > >
                    >
                    > I don't think the GM should do ANYTHING except enact the orders
                    as written
                    > by the player.
                    >
                    > If the player makes a mistake, so be it, unlucky, play better.
                    >
                    > They should be an adjudicator and not have any other role.
                    >
                    > F(Bul) - Con when it is an army should fail.
                    >
                    > Bul - Con should succeed unless the house rules require that the
                    type of
                    > piece be correctly named.
                    >
                    > --
                    > Best wishes
                    >
                    > Malcolm Cornelius
                    >
                    > MSN Messenger - malc_c@c... ICQ - 47738640
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > ADVERTISEMENT
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                    Service.
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                    ADVERTISEMENT
                    <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=256694.4002236.5216697.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705057088:HM/A=1784493/R=0/id=noscript/SIG=11q7p9e7k/*http://webevents.yahoo.com/universal/intolerablecruelty/>
                    <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=256694.4002236.5216697.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1784493/rand=275937696>

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Tom Tweedy
                    In message , Mike Dean writes ... So, you d allow A[Bul]-Com to go to Con then, right? But what if the
                    Message 9 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                      In message <blhiqk+2rad@...>, Mike Dean
                      <mike.dean@...> writes
                      >No - 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.

                      So, you'd allow A[Bul]-Com to go to Con then, right? But what if the
                      player WANTED to misorder it? That's what Nick Kinzett was talking about
                      by GM intervention.
                      >
                      >This will always be a contentious issue - and I notice that Dip2000
                      >now has "lenient" and "strict" GMs.

                      Yes, I was surprised that only Duncan Proffitt was on the STRICT list -
                      I was sure I had others. I think Duncan was just getting fed up of
                      deliberately sloppy orders.

                      >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!)
                      >
                      No, I agree with you, Mike, I've never had any problems interpreting
                      orders either. That's why I thought it would be easier having human GMs.

                      Tom
                      --
                      Tom Tweedy
                      Diplomacy 2000
                      http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000/
                    • Malcolm Cornelius
                      on 03/10/03 13:50, Shaun Derrick at shaun.derrick@travelmanagement.co.uk ... Absolutely you need to know the parameters you are playing under, I think I said
                      Message 10 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                        on 03/10/03 13:50, Shaun Derrick at shaun.derrick@...
                        wrote:

                        > I am more lenient and will follow orders so long as the intention is clear;
                        > and errors by players are very few and far between.
                        >
                        > GM intervention is *necessary*! So long as the GM advises players of his
                        > 'House Rules' on what he will and will not accept, there should be no problem.
                        > The more lenient GM's will have a much easier time than those that aren't!

                        Absolutely you need to know the parameters you are playing under, I think I
                        said what the GM will or won't do should be laid down in the HR, but I don't
                        think that we should put any rule in that makes deliberate misorders
                        impossible or obvious ...

                        > F(Bul)-Con if it was an army would mean the army moves to Con. If the player
                        > wanted it to be a misorder, then he should have read the house rules!

                        So how does he misorder it ? You won't let me misspell the province or
                        mistype the unit - Bul - Arm fooling no-one ?

                        Best

                        Malcolm
                      • Tom Tweedy
                        In message , Bruce Edwards writes ... That s exactly why Nick Kinzett says it s GM
                        Message 11 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                          In message <001101c38923$a63297a0$a8b1a43e@tinypc>, Bruce Edwards
                          <kactusjak@...> writes
                          >The point I would like to make is the situation where the player is
                          >deliberately trying to mislead his neighbours!
                          >Taking Mike's example - if I ordered F Bul > Con when it was actually
                          >an army, I would probably be rather put out if the Army was moved when
                          >my intention was to pretend to Austria or Russia that I was pulling back!

                          That's exactly why Nick Kinzett says it's GM intervention.
                          >
                          >So if I was to order:
                          >F Bul > Con
                          >Mike would move my Army but if I ordered:
                          >F Bul > Con (deliberate misorder)
                          >then Mike would see my intention is to deceive - and not a mistake in
                          >writing the order!!

                          Writing 'deliberate misorder' every time simply defeats the object of
                          the tactic though doesn't it.
                          >
                          >I think it would be good if GMs were to point out errors to players,
                          >especially new players! You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't
                          >know what mistakes you made!!!

                          Yes but most badly written orders are just sloppy ordering - things like
                          Bul-Con; or not specifying a country when supporting that country's
                          units.

                          Tom
                          --
                          Tom Tweedy
                          Diplomacy 2000
                          http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000/
                        • Tom Tweedy
                          In message , Malcolm Cornelius writes ... I must admit I agree entirely here. Although I do give
                          Message 12 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                            In message <BBA2A49B.482F1%malcolm@...>, Malcolm Cornelius
                            <malcolm@...> writes

                            >I don't think the GM should do ANYTHING except enact the orders as written
                            >by the player.
                            >
                            >If the player makes a mistake, so be it, unlucky, play better.
                            >
                            >They should be an adjudicator and not have any other role.
                            >
                            >F(Bul) - Con when it is an army should fail.
                            >
                            >Bul - Con should succeed unless the house rules require that the type of
                            >piece be correctly named.
                            >
                            I must admit I agree entirely here. Although I do give help to newcomers
                            in 1901.

                            Tom
                            --
                            Tom Tweedy
                            Diplomacy 2000
                            http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000/
                          • Tom Tweedy
                            In message , Mike Dean writes ... Then your saying we lose the deliberate misorder tactic then Mike,
                            Message 13 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                              In message <bljfrs+hsp2@...>, Mike Dean
                              <mike.dean@...> writes
                              >In reply to Bruce,
                              >
                              >The PSYCHOPATH house rules actually do state that the GM should be
                              >informed of deliberate misorders, and that badly written orders
                              >where the meaning is clear WILL be interpretted as such. So if you
                              >order F Bul-Con when you have an army, and you don't state that it
                              >is an intentional misorder, the GM should simply move your army!
                              >
                              >Of course, this means that it is obvious to the other players that
                              >you deliberately misordered. But so it goes....

                              Then your saying we lose the deliberate misorder tactic then Mike,
                              right? Hmmm... seems a bit draconian. Are you sure you're a 'lenient'
                              GM? :-)

                              >
                              >I still reiterate - why do you need a human GM if you are going to
                              >be so dogmatic about how people should submit orders and that their
                              >abbreviations should be absolutely correctly spelt or they misorder.
                              >If that's your view - go play on the JUDGES! A bit of pragmatism is
                              >called for here and I will always maintain that a good GM will show
                              >pragmatism when it comes to interpretting orders.

                              Because human GMs CAN help... but not to interfere. Human GMs can help
                              when players go down sick; go off to war [which has happened on
                              dip2000]; and when catastrophes hit, as it did for September 11th. Just
                              not for orders.

                              >
                              >On psychopath, and I am sure it MUST be true of Dip2000 and other
                              >sites too - we have a number of players whose first language is NOT
                              >English. This means that I have often seen orders which instead of
                              >putting the usual abbreviation for a province on the board clearly
                              >put something which is an abbreviation of the province name in the
                              >language of the person submitting the order. What is any reasonably
                              >minded GM supposed to do in those circumstances?

                              I agree we have to be careful with some abbreviations, YES. I've had
                              players from the Balkans who HAVE put Rom for Rumania... simply because
                              it's modern spelling is now Romania. But on the whole I've found most
                              foreigners speak, and write, better English than me!

                              >
                              >IF we follow Malcolm's view - they should be misordered - and hey,
                              >guess what? The player thinks SOD THAT for a lark, NMRs, anarchies
                              >and never returns!

                              If they leave that easily then they probably didn't like the game anyway
                              Mike. When I came back into the hobby and ordered a few screw-ups [my
                              brain wasn't properly in gear and I had Richard Hucknall as my GM], I
                              just pulled myself together and concentrated more to get my orders
                              right.

                              Tom
                              --
                              Tom Tweedy
                              Diplomacy 2000
                              http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000/
                            • Shaun Derrick
                              Misordering deliberately is difficult under such rules, I agree; but as long as the order is completely ambiguous or clearly impossible, then it is a misorder.
                              Message 14 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                                Misordering deliberately is difficult under such rules, I agree; but as long as the order is completely ambiguous or clearly impossible, then it is a misorder. The best option is to order the unit twice, ordering a different action each time - a more plausible misorder.
                                However, I don't think many players are fooled by deliberate misorders anyway, so I think the practice of using misorders is crude and largely counter-productive.

                                Shaun

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Malcolm Cornelius [mailto:malcolm@...]
                                Sent: 03 October 2003 14:01
                                To: ukpbm@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [ukpbm] Re: the "Badly Written" rule


                                on 03/10/03 13:50, Shaun Derrick at shaun.derrick@...
                                wrote:

                                > I am more lenient and will follow orders so long as the intention is clear;
                                > and errors by players are very few and far between.
                                >
                                > GM intervention is *necessary*! So long as the GM advises players of his
                                > 'House Rules' on what he will and will not accept, there should be no problem.
                                > The more lenient GM's will have a much easier time than those that aren't!

                                Absolutely you need to know the parameters you are playing under, I think I
                                said what the GM will or won't do should be laid down in the HR, but I don't
                                think that we should put any rule in that makes deliberate misorders
                                impossible or obvious ...

                                > F(Bul)-Con if it was an army would mean the army moves to Con. If the player
                                > wanted it to be a misorder, then he should have read the house rules!

                                So how does he misorder it ? You won't let me misspell the province or
                                mistype the unit - Bul - Arm fooling no-one ?

                                Best

                                Malcolm





                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              • Mark Wightman
                                ... I ve never understood this. Why should people have to specify the nationality of a foriegn support? To me the following orders are the same, it s not as if
                                Message 15 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                                  >
                                  > Yes but most badly written orders are just sloppy ordering - things like
                                  > Bul-Con; or not specifying a country when supporting that country's
                                  > units.


                                  I've never understood this. Why should people have to specify the
                                  nationality of a foriegn support? To me the following orders are the same,
                                  it's not as if there can be two different units in a province.

                                  A(Rum) s Turkish A(Bul) - Ser
                                  A(Rum) s A(Bul) - Ser
                                  A(Rum) s Bul - Ser

                                  Why should you have to include superfluous info? Although, I would say that
                                  if your did include it then it should be right.

                                  Cheers


                                  Mark
                                • Tom Tweedy
                                  In message , Mark Wightman writes ... It s not that they HAVE to order nationalities Mark,
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                                    In message <007401c389b4$7b539660$82037ad5@tinypc>, Mark Wightman
                                    <mr.sprout@...> writes
                                    >
                                    >>
                                    >> Yes but most badly written orders are just sloppy ordering - things like
                                    >> Bul-Con; or not specifying a country when supporting that country's
                                    >> units.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >I've never understood this. Why should people have to specify the
                                    >nationality of a foriegn support? To me the following orders are the same,
                                    >it's not as if there can be two different units in a province.
                                    >
                                    >A(Rum) s Turkish A(Bul) - Ser
                                    >A(Rum) s A(Bul) - Ser
                                    >A(Rum) s Bul - Ser
                                    >
                                    >Why should you have to include superfluous info? Although, I would say that
                                    >if your did include it then it should be right.

                                    It's not that they HAVE to order nationalities Mark, it's just as a GM I
                                    think it's nicer [certainly it's preferable].

                                    I've always ordered it, and used 'A', 'F' for units. (a) because the
                                    1971 rulebook suggested I should, and (b) because I know how easily GMs
                                    get confused over sloppy orders - and I want my units to move exactly as
                                    I ordered them.

                                    Sloppy ordering is okay around a f-t-f table where orders are quickly
                                    scribbled - that's understandable - but listing units using a
                                    typewriter/keyboard? I think it's laziness in some cases.

                                    Which is no bad thing in itself. But why go out of your way to confuse
                                    your poor hardworking GM by causing all these debates? I still say HANG
                                    'EM!

                                    Tom 'the lenient' Tweedy
                                    --
                                    Tom Tweedy
                                    Diplomacy 2000
                                    http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000/
                                  • Howard Bishop
                                    I ve never GM-ed diplomacy, but I am playing in my first couple of postal games. As a recent newbie I have to agree that I almost gave up when I got screwed
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                                      I've never GM-ed diplomacy, but I am playing in my first couple of postal
                                      games. As a recent newbie I have to agree that I almost gave up when I got
                                      screwed over a slight misspelling and a missed build order, which
                                      essentially put me two units back out of five. It's difficult enough with 6
                                      players trying to kill you, without feeling that you're fighting the rules
                                      as well. GM's should use a certain amount of discretion, especially with
                                      wet-behind-the-ears players.

                                      I think it's fair to say that as long as the adjudicator makes it clear what
                                      their policy is from the start, players can choose which games they want to
                                      play in.

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Tom Tweedy [mailto:tom@...]
                                      Sent: 03/Oct/2003 14:06
                                      To: ukpbm@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [ukpbm] Re: the "Badly Written" rule


                                      In message <BBA2A49B.482F1%malcolm@...>, Malcolm Cornelius
                                      <malcolm@...> writes

                                      >I don't think the GM should do ANYTHING except enact the orders as written
                                      >by the player.
                                      >
                                      >If the player makes a mistake, so be it, unlucky, play better.
                                      >
                                      >They should be an adjudicator and not have any other role.
                                      >
                                      >F(Bul) - Con when it is an army should fail.
                                      >
                                      >Bul - Con should succeed unless the house rules require that the type of
                                      >piece be correctly named.
                                      >
                                      I must admit I agree entirely here. Although I do give help to newcomers
                                      in 1901.

                                      Tom
                                      --
                                      Tom Tweedy
                                      Diplomacy 2000
                                      http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000/
                                      <http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk/dip2000/>


                                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                                      ADVERTISEMENT

                                      <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=256694.4002236.5216697.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050570
                                      88:HM/A=1784493/R=0/id=noscript/SIG=11q7p9e7k/*http://webevents.yahoo.com/un
                                      iversal/intolerablecruelty/>

                                      <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=256694.4002236.5216697.1261774/D=egroupmai
                                      l/S=:HM/A=1784493/rand=761325460>

                                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.