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

Re: [ukpbm] Re: the "Badly Written" rule

Expand Messages
  • Tom Tweedy
    In message , Bruce Edwards writes ... That s exactly why Nick Kinzett says it s GM
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              > 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 6 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 18 , Oct 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  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.