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

Re: the "Badly Written" rule

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.