Re: Question about Spain and coasts

Additional comments below prefaced with "MDA:".

Regards to all,

Mike A.

Adam Kuehn wrote:

>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.
>

MDA: There can be no ambiguity, since it is not possible to have fleets 
on both the north coast and the south coast of Spain at the same time. 
There is only one fleet in Spain. It was obviously supporting move to 
the MAt, a legal move, and could obviously provide same, because F Spa 
could move to the MAt, regardless of which coast it was on. There is no 
possible ambiguity anywhere in this order set, let alone any absurdity.

>
>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?
>

MDA: It is fundamentally different because the unit identification is in 
question for the reasons you point out. In order for the GM to allow 
this order to be valid, he or she has to make an assumption as to player 
intent. In other words, the GM would have to make a decision between 
"Did he mean the fleet in NAf or an Italian fleet somewhere else?" As 
stated previously, there is only one fleet in Spain. The unit ID is not 
in question. The GM has no decision to make, because the question is 
"Did he mean the fleet on the north coast, or the fleet on the south 
coast?" For you to claim that the GM has to ask this question in the 
first place IS an absurdity, IMHO.

>
>  
>
>>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.
>

MDA: France didn't write a coast. It was not required for the move in 
question. Italy did, and got it wrong. Yes, if I'm France, I'm still 
real upset, especially when the GM cannot tell me why the support is 
invalid using the rules of Diplomacy. Of course, if we are playing a 
variant, which is apparently all you ever run, that's a different story.

>
>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.
>

MDA: No argument here, but then we are not talking about provinces 
(which are always required for unit identification purposes), we are 
talking about coastal designations in a order set where the coastal 
designations are not required for the orders to be valid. A completely 
different point of discussion, I would think.

>
>  
>
>>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.
>

MDA: I can believe that, even with the odd "absurdity" thrown in here 
and there. I trust you understand I fully reciprocate on the "friendly 
spirit of disagreement".

>
>-Adam
>
>
>(snip)
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>