Re: Question about Spain and coasts

Michael D. Ashland wrote:

>I am amazed at the number of "strict constructionists" there are out
>there. Apparently, they feel that ANY error, no matter how trivial, will
>invalidate an order. I find this very curious, because to take this
>approach is contrary to the rules of Diplomacy as I understand them.

Well, I am a strict constructionist and I don't see how that is 
contrary to the rules.  I do admit, however, that part of the reason 
I strictly construe is for my own convenience.  If I always require 
fleets to designate proper coasts, I have less chance of screwing up 
an adjudication.  But I do also think that it leads to better play if 
the GM does not make assumptions about poor orders.  If a player 
wants the order to be followed they have absolute control over 
whether or not it is.

>"F (Spa)nc - s F (Naf) - MAO"
>
>The issue was that the fleet was actually on the south coast.
>
>  From the official rules of Diplomacy:
>
>"A poorly written order that has only one meaning must be followed."

Well, that's the crux of it, right there.  The issue is whether or 
not this order has more than one meaning.  I say it doesn't.  It 
says, exactly, "the fleet on the north coast of Spain supports the 
move of the fleet in North Africa to the Mid-Atlantic Ocean."  But 
there is no fleet matching that description.  Bummer for the person 
if they intended something else, but facially, that's what the order 
says.

>"The Fleet ... is considered to be occupying the entire province."

It seems to me that the primary intent of this language is to make it 
abundantly clear that it is not permitted to have two fleets in the 
province, one on each coast.  Ironically enough, however, you seem to 
use this provision to conclude that a clear and unambiguous reference 
to a fleet on the north coast of Spain, in fact unambiguously refers 
to a fleet on the south coast of Spain!  Forgive me if I don't quite 
follow the reasoning that leads to such an absurd result.  At the 
very least it seems one would have to rule that this order is 
ambiguous, since the facial referent is so clearly different from the 
actual unit.

Just out of curiosity, would you rule similarly if a player wrote:

F Spa(sc) S ITALIAN F Naf - MAO

if, in fact, F Naf were owned by England?  There is no provision in 
the present rule book that requires the nationality to be specified, 
but there simply is no Italian fleet in North Africa.  The player may 
have mistakenly believed that the unit was, in fact, Italian, and 
would be willing to help the Italian player with such a move while he 
would not wish to help an English player make that move.  Or maybe he 
simply wrote the wrong country.  There's no way to know.  But however 
you fall on the issue of player intent, there simply is no Italian 
fleet making the specified move.

Would you allow the move?  If not, what makes it fundamentally 
different from the coastal case?

>Let's turn it around:
>
>Units:
>
>French F Spa (sc)
>Italian F NAf
>
>France - F Spa to MAt
>
>Italy - F NAf S F Spa (nc) to MAt
>
>Should the GM rule the support order as invalid because it references a
>unit that "does not exist", even though the coastal designation has
>absolutely no impact on the validity of the move being supported?

Correct.  This case cannot be distinguished from the original and, in 
my view, both orders should be disallowed.  If the player wants the 
order followed, they should make sure the order is correct and 
unambiguous.  They do have full control over that, you know.

>I would be really upset to find myself on the receiving end of such a
>ruling by a GM because there is no possible ambiguity in the order set.
>The support order has only one possible meaning. It supports F Spa to
>the MAt. What coast F Spa starts on has no impact whatsoever on this
>meaning.

Then don't write a coast (unless the GM requires it) or make sure you 
specify the correct one.  If you were to get upset at being on the 
receiving end of such a ruling, the person to be upset at is 
yourself.  Write the order correctly, and it goes.

Personally, I get Bohemia and Silesia confused all the time.  Should 
I be angry at the GM for disallowing my order of A Boh - Mun, when in 
fact my unit was located in Silesia?  Which province the army starts 
in has no impact whatsoever on the intended result: I want to attack 
Munich.  Surely, though, when the GM correctly writes A Boh - Mun 
[NSU] and A Sil [unordered - holds] the correct object of my ire is 
my own stupid self.

>For those of you insisting that there is an ambiguity here, please
>explain, because I do not see one.

I don't see one, either.  There just isn't a unit of the sort 
unambiguously described in the order, so the order necessarily fails.

All offered in a friendly spirit of disagreement, of course.  I don't 
at all mean to slight your point of view, even as I disagree with it.

-Adam