Re: Re: Clarity of Orders

Adam,

Please see my additional comments below preceded by "MDA".

Regards to all,

Mike A.

Adam Kuehn wrote:

>At 11:43 PM +0100 7/24/05, Peter J Richardson wrote:
>  
>
>> > Both are ambiguous despite linguistic issues, simply because people
>>    
>>
>>> have been arguing both cases.
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't think anybody who has claimed these orders to be ambiguous 
>>have brought forward a second possible
>>meaning for them. This tends to suggest that these orders can only 
>>admit one meaning, and therefore should be
>>followed.
>>    
>>
>
>I think case 5 is fairly clearly ambiguous.  
>

MDA: Which is it, fairly or clearly? I rule this comment to be 
completely ambiguous. :-)

>Given the context, that 
>order can mean that the unit should move, or it could mean that the 
>unit supports another.
>

MDA: Why would a move order include the word "support(s)"? As quoted, it 
wasn't just an "S", it was the completely spelled out word "support(s)" 
The answer? No move order would include that word. It cannot possible be 
a move order. The word "to" is not a verb, and considering that someone 
may not have English as a first language, the use of the word "to" may 
not be clearly understood in the context of Diplomacy orders.

>In context, I don't understand what is meant,
>

MDA: The meaning is perfectly clear, if you consider, as an example, "It 
is my intent "to support" unit XYZ."

> 
>  
>
>so I would rule it ambiguous, unless there is sufficient external 
>evidence which provides additional clarity.  The context is crucial 
>here, both in creating the ambiguity and in failing to resolve it.
>
>On further examination, though, I think the inclusion of the foreign 
>unit in case 6 is enough to rescue the order.  It is clearer to begin 
>with, although the use of the future tense still bothers me.  But the 
>fact that the other unit is explicitly specified makes it clear 
>enough for me.  You don't ever specify a foreign unit for a hold 
>order.
>

MDA: I assume you meant a move order?

>
>So David and I agree.
>
>Incidentally (for Mike's benefit), I don't at all regard the approach 
>I am taking to be that of a "strict constructionist".  Quite the 
>opposite, in fact.  You seem to be confident that the player will 
>welcome your resolution of case 5 as a support order, and I'm not 
>convinced that you are correct.
>

MDA: Two things; (1) I would not be entirely happy if a player 
challenged my decision, but unless he or she could convince my that I 
have made an error, the ruling would stand (tournament situations where 
there is an appeal process excepted, of course), no matter how unhappy 
the player may get. (2) I do not need you to be convinced. I am 
convinced, and that's all I would need to make a ruling as GM.

>To me that doubt is the very 
>definition of ambiguity.
>
>YMMV,
>
>  
>