Re: Re: Clarity of Orders

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

As opposed to incompletely ambiguous, no doubt.  :-)

>  >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.

Sure it can, in this specific context.  Taken in isolation, I might 
agree with you, but this example came with context supplied.  The 
player had an established pattern in his orders in which he used the 
word "to" by itself to indicate movement and the word "support" by 
itself to indicate a support order.  Given this established pattern, 
I still don't understand how you can think that order is unambiguous.

>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.

Except that we have some of his other orders, and they indicate a 
clear understanding: "to" was used to mean movement.  It is a 
complete red herring that "to" is not a verb.  It is a word which may 
be, and in fact was, used to indicate movement.  ("Pawn to King's 
Bishop 4", "Unit A to Province B")  "Supports" was used, by itself, 
to indicate support.  The fact that BOTH this player's established 
movement word AND this player's established support word appear in 
this order is what renders it ambiguous.  In my view, ruling on this 
order without accounting for context is taking the very strict 
constructionist approach you appeared to dislike.

You asked, "Why would a move order include the word 'support(s)'?" 
In this particular context, it is equally valid to ask the question, 
"Why would this player's support order include the word 'to'?"

>  >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."

Ignoring the use-mention problem in that sentence, your example is 
clear.  But it also is neither the sentence, nor the context, at 
issue here.

>  >You don't ever specify a foreign unit for a hold
>  >order.
>
>MDA: I assume you meant a move order?

Yes, sorry.

>  >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.

(1) It is the GMs job to make the tough calls.  (2) Well, there it 
is, then.  LOL.

-Adam