Re: Question about Spain and coasts

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam Kuehn" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [CAT23-Gchat] 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"

To be honest the invalidation of an order with the incorrect coast specified did not surprise me. What surprised 
me was that you stated http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/CAT23-Gchat/message/2877 that you would invalidate 
option 2 of Scott's original list, ie the one in which a coast was not specified.

What is ambiguous about

F Spain supports WME to MAO  ?

What is the relevance of the non-stated coastal designation to this order?

I agree with the rest of your post where you state that if that is what you say in your House Rules then players 
get what they signed up for, but this is the ruling that I would consider contrary to the "an order that can 
admit one meaning must be followed" rule.

Regards
Peter





>>
>>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
>
>
> Community email addresses:
>  Post message: [email protected]
>  Subscribe:    [email protected]
>  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]
>  List owner:   [email protected]
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>  http://www.onelist.com/community/CAT23-Gchat
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>