Re: Digest Number 834
Hugh Polley <[email protected]> Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:54:51 -0400 (EDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.diplomacy.cat23.gm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
There shortly will be one other solution! Use Hugh Polley's Engineer Diplomacy Adjudicator with its order spell checker. Add the foreign words to the spell checker as you encounter them and in the future it will give the right order when this word is used again! It will be released soon with in three weeks! http://ca.geocities.com/hapolley --- [email protected] wrote: > There are 10 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. Re: Re: Clarity of Orders > From: "Deepak Mohoni" <[email protected]> > 2. Update > From: "squirelibbymcafee" > <[email protected]> > 3. Re: Re: Clarity of Orders > From: "Michael D. Ashland" > <[email protected]> > 4. Re: Update > From: lgtennant <[email protected]> > 5. Update > From: Randall Shane <[email protected]> > 6. Re: Update > From: "David E. Cohen" > <[email protected]> > 7. Re: Update > From: rsetzer <[email protected]> > 8. Re: Update > From: rsetzer <[email protected]> > 9. German Player Needed for Standard Game > From: Adam Kuehn <[email protected]> > 10. Re: Re: Clarity of Orders > From: Adam Kuehn <[email protected]> > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:30:42 +0530 > From: "Deepak Mohoni" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Re: Clarity of Orders > > Absolutely. Grammar uber alles. > > Cheers, > Deepak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 8:44 PM > Subject: Re: [CAT23-GM] Re: Clarity of Orders > > > > That sounds like a really cool solution (especially > with the "orders as > > written" > > section)... I say when the free computerised > translators can handle this, > > we > > switch to this plan ;-) > > > > Joe > > > > On 25 Jul 2005 at 20:21, Deepak Mohoni wrote: > > > > One way out may be to send the orders in our respective > native languages, > > and have them translated by competent translators. > > > > Players from English-speaking countries could use the > grammar checker > > that's > > bundled in with Microsoft Word. Of course, they must > take care to ensure > > that the default country setting is correctly set to UK > or US - depending > > on > > where the GM is from. > > > > Cheers, > > Deepak > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 7:51 PM > > Subject: Re: [CAT23-GM] Re: Clarity of Orders > > > > > >> We non-native English speakers doesn't always knows > when we shoulds puts > >> an s after the verb. It seem to me it aren't the best > of ideas to > >> disallows orders > >> on such finer grammatic points. :-) > >> > >> But then again, having one way of adjudicating for > English-speakers and > >> one > >> for the rest of us may not make a lot of sense either. > >> > >> Joe > >> > >> On 25 Jul 2005 at 9:57, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> This "s"? Maybe so. I do not know if this is an > order to move to the > >> province to to support a unit holding in the province. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: rsetzer <[email protected]> > >> Date: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:21 am > >> Subject: Re: [CAT23-GM] Re: Clarity of Orders > >> > >>> Not always and not in all cases. Which is the point > of asking. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Stephen Worthy wrote: > >>> > Both are ambiguous despite linguistic issues, > simply because > >>> people > >>> > have been arguing both cases. > >>> > > >>> > This is why I e-mail players to clarify these > things. Perhaps > >>> you'd > >>> > have time to do that? > >>> > > >>> > Stephen > >>> > > >>> > --- In [email protected], "David E. Cohen" > >>> <zendip18@o...> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> >>I was leaning that way before, and on reflection I > have > >>> > > >>> > concluded "to > >>> > > >>> >>supports" is just ambiguous, both grammatically and > dip-wise. I > >>> > >>> > > >>> > would say > >>> > > >>> >>that "to support", on the other hand, is not, and > can be part of > >>> a > >>> > > >>> > valid > >>> > > >>> >>support order. > >>> >> > >>> >>----- Original Message ----- > >>> >>From: "Michael D. Ashland" <warlord@m...> > >>> >>To: <[email protected]> > >>> >>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:19 PM > >>> >>Subject: Re: [CAT23-GM] Clarity of Orders > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >>>Adam, > >>> >>> > >>> >>>Is English your first language? It may not be for > the player in > >>> >>>question, and the "s" on "supports" could be a > typo. I'm not an > >>> > > >>> > English > >>> > > >>> >>>major by any stretch of the imagination, and only > Libby knows > >>> > > >>> > for sure, > >>> > > >>> >>>but I would not rule these orders as ambiguous > unless the > >>> player > >>> > > >>> > had > >>> > > >>> >>>been warned about this type of thing earlier in > the game. > >>> >>> > >>> >>>I know there are "strict constructionists" out > there, and > >>> that's > >>> > > >>> > one of > >>> > > >>> >>>the reasons we like human GM's around here. > >>> >>> > >>> >>>And for the record, I'm not trying to determine > the player's > >>> > > >>> > intent. I > >>> > > >>> >>>do not care what his or her intent was. I'm taking > a poorly > >>> > > >>> > written > >>> > > >>> >>>order, and deciding that it only has one possible > meaning, > >>> using > >>> > > >>> > just my > >>> > > >>> >>>own particular brand of logic, in a case taken out > of context, > >>> > > >>> > and with > >>> > > >>> >>>some circumstances assumed. > >>> >>> > >>> >>>Regards to all, > >>> >>> > >>> >>>Mike A. > >>> >>> > >>> >>>Adam Kuehn wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>>>Michael D. Ashland wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>>You are going to get opinions both ways, but > "to" is a > >>> > > >>> > preposition, not > >>> > > >>> >>>>>a verb, and as such, the presence of the word > "support(s)" (a > >>> > > >>> > transitive > >>> > > >>> >>>>>verb in this case) in the orders would settle > the question in > >>> > > >>> > my mind. > >>> > > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>Case 6 is an infinitive, read literally, so I can > see how your > >>> >>>>argument might hold there. But I do not > understand your > >>> > > >>> > willingness > >>> > > >>> >>>>to parse the phrase "to supports" down into its > components and > >>> > > >>> > then > >>> > > >>> >>>>rule that "supports" is somehow more important > because of > >>> which > >>> > > >>> > part > >>> > > >>> >>>>of speech it represents. By itself, "to" has a > clear meaning. > >>> >>>>("[U]sed as a function word to indicate > movement", if you want > >>> > > >>> > the > >>> > > >>> >>>>exact, pedantic phrase from Merriam-Webster > online.) By itself, > >>> >>>>"supports" has an equally clear, but opposite, > meaning. Their > >>> >>>>concatenation, "to supports", is grammatically > nonsensical. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>I just don't see how the part of speech of the > component words > >>> > > >>> > helps > >>> > > >>> >>>>you divine the intent of the person writing the > order. I'm not > >>> >>>>trying to be overly picky, I'm just genuinely > interested in > >>> > > >>> > hearing > >>> > > >>> >>>>why you think the part of speech helps, given > that each word is > >>> >>>>independently successful in conveying unambiguous > meaning. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>In my view, as likely as not we are looking at a > cut-and-paste > >>> > > >>> > error. > >>> > > >>> >>>>The player intended one thing at first, and then > tried to cut > >>> in > >>> > > >>> > the > >>> > > >>> >>>>opposite thing but failed to delete the > superceded material. But > >>> >>>>which material is to be superceded? There's just > no way to know. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>-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-GM > >>> >>>>Yahoo! Groups Links > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>>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-GM > >>> >>>Yahoo! Groups Links > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > 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-GM > >>> > Yahoo! Groups Links > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> 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-GM > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> 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-GM > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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-GM > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > 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-GM > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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-GM > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:15:27 -0000 > From: "squirelibbymcafee" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Update > > Gentleman, > > Thank you all for your input. I would have responded > sooner, but I > have come down with a bug and am trying to get as much > rest as > possible. There were however a couple of questions > raised that I at > least should respond to. > > First, in the game I am running, the issues of whether or > not the > orders are ambiguous or not (I ruled both as unclear) is > moot given the > others orders submitted by the players opposition. For > that I am > thankful. > > Second, I believe one of you asked about instructions I > may have > provided in my house rules regarding the writing of > orders. An expert > from rule seven reads as follows: > > "The clarity and detail of submitted orders is up to the > player. > Brevity is discouraged. All submitted orders are to be > written in > agreement with the official rules (See Abbreviations). > Variations that > are without any vagueness of intent, or are with out > ambiguity, will be > acceptable. The GM will make no attempt to correct a > player's orders." > > Third, I require prelims, as many of your know. One of > the reasons I > do so, is that sometimes I am able to catch a problem > with a player's > orders and suggest they re-examine what they have > submitted. In this > instance the player failed to meet the prelim deadline > and therefore > this opportunity was not available to me. I don't always > look at > orders, but in this game on at least two separate > occassions I have > prompted players to relook the orders they have > submitted. > > As for the strict interpretation of the "English" > language, in my > personal opinion the point is moot if players do as I > suggest and > either write the orders in agreement with the game rules, > or do as I do > and submit the orders copied from the RP software. > Granted, I can > still submit an invalid order with RP, but at least the > GM doesn't have > to ponder the language, just the logic. > > Thank you all, > > Libby > > wnrytyrsd > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:29:50 -0400 > From: "Michael D. Ashland" <[email protected]> > Subject: 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, > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:05:19 -0700 > From: lgtennant <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Update > > Sorry, Libby, but I would say that your return of orders > to a player for clarification is totally uncalled for. > IMO it is GM interference of the first order. You should > simply accept them as is, publish them as is, and then > give your interpretation of what they mean. Len > ----- Original Message ----- > From: squirelibbymcafee > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:15 PM > Subject: [CAT23-GM] Update > > > Gentleman, > > Thank you all for your input. I would have responded > sooner, but I > have come down with a bug and am trying to get as much > rest as > possible. There were however a couple of questions > raised that I at > least should respond to. > > First, in the game I am running, the issues of whether > or not the > orders are ambiguous or not (I ruled both as unclear) > is moot given the > others orders submitted by the players opposition. For > that I am > thankful. > > Second, I believe one of you asked about instructions I > may have > provided in my house rules regarding the writing of > orders. An expert > from rule seven reads as follows: > > "The clarity and detail of submitted orders is up to > the player. > Brevity is discouraged. All submitted orders are to be > written in > agreement with the official rules (See Abbreviations). > Variations that > are without any vagueness of intent, or are with out > ambiguity, will be > acceptable. The GM will make no attempt to correct a > player's orders." > > Third, I require prelims, as many of your know. One of > the reasons I > do so, is that sometimes I am able to catch a problem > with a player's > orders and suggest they re-examine what they have > submitted. In this > instance the player failed to meet the prelim deadline > and therefore > this opportunity was not available to me. I don't > always look at > orders, but in this game on at least two separate > occassions I have > prompted players to relook the orders they have > submitted. > > As for the strict interpretation of the "English" > language, in my > personal opinion the point is moot if players do as I > suggest and > either write the orders in agreement with the game > rules, or do as I do > and submit the orders copied from the RP software. > Granted, I can > still submit an invalid order with RP, but at least the > GM doesn't have > to ponder the language, just the logic. > > Thank you all, > > Libby > > wnrytyrsd > > > > > > > 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-GM > > > > SPONSORED LINKS Role playing games Online role playing > games Role playing games online > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a.. Visit your group "CAT23-GM" on the web. > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email > to: > [email protected] > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:48:42 -0700 (PDT) > From: Randall Shane <[email protected]> > Subject: Update > > > You say that like it's a bad thing. > > If that's how Libby runs her games, and if the players > are aware that > she will give a player a chance to clarify ambiguous > prelim orders -- > well, it may technically be GM interference, but it's > certainly well > within acceptable bounds. > > That's the beauty of human run games -- as long as the GM > is fair, > flexibility can be allowed, and can help games run much > more enjoyably. > > --- lgtennant <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry, Libby, but I would say that your return of > orders to a player > > for clarification is totally uncalled for. IMO it is > GM interference > > of the first order. You should simply accept them as > is, publish > > them as is, and then give your interpretation of what > they mean. Len > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: squirelibbymcafee > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:15 PM > > Subject: [CAT23-GM] Update > > > > > > Gentleman, > > > > Thank you all for your input. I would have responded > sooner, but I > > > > have come down with a bug and am trying to get as > much rest as > > possible. There were however a couple of questions > raised that I > > at > > least should respond to. > > > > First, in the game I am running, the issues of > whether or not the > > orders are ambiguous or not (I ruled both as unclear) > is moot given > > the > > others orders submitted by the players opposition. > For that I am > > thankful. > > > > Second, I believe one of you asked about instructions > I may have > > provided in my house rules regarding the writing of > orders. An > > expert > > from rule seven reads as follows: > > > > "The clarity and detail of submitted orders is up to > the player. > > Brevity is discouraged. All submitted orders are to > be written in > > agreement with the official rules (See > Abbreviations). Variations > > that > > are without any vagueness of intent, or are with out > ambiguity, > > will be > > acceptable. The GM will make no attempt to correct a > player's > > orders." > > > > Third, I require prelims, as many of your know. One > of the reasons > > I > > do so, is that sometimes I am able to catch a problem > with a > > player's > > orders and suggest they re-examine what they have > submitted. In > > this > > instance the player failed to meet the prelim > deadline and > > therefore > > this opportunity was not available to me. I don't > always look at > > orders, but in this game on at least two separate > occassions I have > > > > prompted players to relook the orders they have > submitted. > > > > As for the strict interpretation of the "English" > language, in my > > personal opinion the point is moot if players do as I > suggest and > > either write the orders in agreement with the game > rules, or do as > > I do > > and submit the orders copied from the RP software. > Granted, I can > > still submit an invalid order with RP, but at least > the GM doesn't > > have > > to ponder the language, just the logic. > > > > Thank you all, > > > > Libby > > > > wnrytyrsd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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-GM > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS Role playing games Online role > playing games Role > > playing games online > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > a.. Visit your group "CAT23-GM" on the web. > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email > to: > > [email protected] > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of > > Service. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:44:42 -0400 > From: "David E. Cohen" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Update > > I agree with Randall's sentiments. There is a GM for > every taste. Libby > for example, is a very strict-constructionist GM, but she > reviews orders in > detail. Others, who are much looser, do not. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Randall Shane" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:48 PM > Subject: [CAT23-GM] Update > > > > > > You say that like it's a bad thing. > > > > If that's how Libby runs her games, and if the players > are aware that > > she will give a player a chance to clarify ambiguous > prelim orders -- > > well, it may technically be GM interference, but it's > certainly well > > within acceptable bounds. > > > > That's the beauty of human run games -- as long as the > GM is fair, > > flexibility can be allowed, and can help games run much > more enjoyably. > > > > --- lgtennant <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Sorry, Libby, but I would say that your return of > orders to a player > >> for clarification is totally uncalled for. IMO it is > GM interference > >> of the first order. You should simply accept them as > is, publish > >> them as is, and then give your interpretation of what > they mean. Len > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: squirelibbymcafee > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:15 PM > >> Subject: [CAT23-GM] Update > >> > >> > >> Gentleman, > >> > >> Thank you all for your input. I would have > responded sooner, but I > >> > >> have come down with a bug and am trying to get as > much rest as > >> possible. There were however a couple of questions > raised that I > >> at > >> least should respond to. > >> > >> First, in the game I am running, the issues of > whether or not the > >> orders are ambiguous or not (I ruled both as > unclear) is moot given > >> the > >> others orders submitted by the players opposition. > For that I am > >> thankful. > >> > >> Second, I believe one of you asked about > instructions I may have > >> provided in my house rules regarding the writing of > orders. An > >> expert > >> from rule seven reads as follows: > >> > >> "The clarity and detail of submitted orders is up to > the player. > >> Brevity is discouraged. All submitted orders are to > be written in > >> agreement with the official rules (See > Abbreviations). Variations > >> that > >> are without any vagueness of intent, or are with out > ambiguity, > >> will be > >> acceptable. The GM will make no attempt to correct a > player's > >> orders." > >> > >> Third, I require prelims, as many of your know. One > of the reasons > >> I > >> do so, is that sometimes I am able to catch a > problem with a > >> player's > >> orders and suggest they re-examine what they have > submitted. In > >> this > >> instance the player failed to meet the prelim > deadline and > >> therefore > >> this opportunity was not available to me. I don't > always look at > >> orders, but in this game on at least two separate > occassions I have > >> > >> prompted players to relook the orders they have > submitted. > >> > >> As for the strict interpretation of the "English" > language, in my > >> personal opinion the point is moot if players do as > I suggest and > >> either write the orders in agreement with the game > rules, or do as > >> I do > >> and submit the orders copied from the RP software. > Granted, I can > >> still submit an invalid order with RP, but at least > the GM doesn't > >> have > >> to ponder the language, just the logic. > >> > >> Thank you all, > >> > >> Libby > >> > >> wnrytyrsd > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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-GM > >> > >> > >> > >> SPONSORED LINKS Role playing games Online role > playing games Role > >> playing games online > >> > >> > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > >> > >> a.. Visit your group "CAT23-GM" on the web. > >> > >> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email > to: > >> [email protected] > >> > >> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of > >> Service. > >> > >> > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > >> > > > > > > > > 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-GM > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:21:25 -0500 > From: rsetzer <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Update > > Returning orders to a player for clarification is sort of > like error > checking innit? And if you do it for one, you have to do > it for all, all > the time. > > > > lgtennant wrote: > > Sorry, Libby, but I would say that your return of > orders to a player for clarification is totally uncalled > for. IMO it is GM interference of the first order. You > should simply accept them as is, publish them as is, and > then give your interpretation of what they mean. Len > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: squirelibbymcafee > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:15 PM > > Subject: [CAT23-GM] Update > > > > > > Gentleman, > > > > Thank you all for your input. I would have responded > sooner, but I > > have come down with a bug and am trying to get as > much rest as > > possible. There were however a couple of questions > raised that I at > > least should respond to. > > > > First, in the game I am running, the issues of > whether or not the > > orders are ambiguous or not (I ruled both as unclear) > is moot given the > > others orders submitted by the players opposition. > For that I am > > thankful. > > > > Second, I believe one of you asked about instructions > I may have > > provided in my house rules regarding the writing of > orders. An expert > > from rule seven reads as follows: > > > > "The clarity and detail of submitted orders is up to > the player. > > Brevity is discouraged. All submitted orders are to > be written in > > agreement with the official rules (See > Abbreviations). Variations that > > are without any vagueness of intent, or are with out > ambiguity, will be > > acceptable. The GM will make no attempt to correct a > player's orders." > > > > Third, I require prelims, as many of your know. One > of the reasons I > > do so, is that sometimes I am able to catch a problem > with a player's > > orders and suggest they re-examine what they have > submitted. In this > > instance the player failed to meet the prelim > deadline and therefore > > this opportunity was not available to me. I don't > always look at > > orders, but in this game on at least two separate > occassions I have > > prompted players to relook the orders they have > submitted. > > > > As for the strict interpretation of the "English" > language, in my > > personal opinion the point is moot if players do as I > suggest and > > either write the orders in agreement with the game > rules, or do as I do > > and submit the orders copied from the RP software. > Granted, I can > > still submit an invalid order with RP, but at least > the GM doesn't have > > to ponder the language, just the logic. > > > > Thank you all, > > > > Libby > > > > wnrytyrsd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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-GM > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS Role playing games Online role > playing games Role playing games online > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > a.. Visit your group "CAT23-GM" on the web. > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email > to: > > [email protected] > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > 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-GM > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:22:27 -0500 > From: rsetzer <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Update > > Well, heck, in defense of a judge the, it checks your > orders and tells > you if you made a mistake as well. > > > > Randall Shane wrote: > > You say that like it's a bad thing. > > > > If that's how Libby runs her games, and if the players > are aware that > > she will give a player a chance to clarify ambiguous > prelim orders -- > > well, it may technically be GM interference, but it's > certainly well > > within acceptable bounds. > > > > That's the beauty of human run games -- as long as the > GM is fair, > > flexibility can be allowed, and can help games run much > more enjoyably. > > > > --- lgtennant <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>Sorry, Libby, but I would say that your return of > orders to a player > >>for clarification is totally uncalled for. IMO it is > GM interference > >>of the first order. You should simply accept them as > is, publish > >>them as is, and then give your interpretation of what > they mean. Len > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: squirelibbymcafee > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:15 PM > >> Subject: [CAT23-GM] Update > >> > >> > >> Gentleman, > >> > >> Thank you all for your input. I would have responded > sooner, but I > >> > >> have come down with a bug and am trying to get as > much rest as > >> possible. There were however a couple of questions > raised that I > >>at > >> least should respond to. > >> > >> First, in the game I am running, the issues of > whether or not the > >> orders are ambiguous or not (I ruled both as unclear) > is moot given > >>the > >> others orders submitted by the players opposition. > For that I am > >> thankful. > >> > >> Second, I believe one of you asked about instructions > I may have > >> provided in my house rules regarding the writing of > orders. An > >>expert > >> from rule seven reads as follows: > >> > >> "The clarity and detail of submitted orders is up to > the player. > >> Brevity is discouraged. All submitted orders are to > be written in > >> agreement with the official rules (See > Abbreviations). Variations > >>that > >> are without any vagueness of intent, or are with out > ambiguity, > >>will be > >> acceptable. The GM will make no attempt to correct a > player's > >>orders." > >> > >> Third, I require prelims, as many of your know. One > of the reasons > >>I > >> do so, is that sometimes I am able to catch a problem > with a > >>player's > >> orders and suggest they re-examine what they have > submitted. In > >>this > >> instance the player failed to meet the prelim > deadline and > >>therefore > >> this opportunity was not available to me. I don't > always look at > >> orders, but in this game on at least two separate > occassions I have > >> > >> prompted players to relook the orders they have > submitted. > >> > >> As for the strict interpretation of the "English" > language, in my > >> personal opinion the point is moot if players do as I > suggest and > >> either write the orders in agreement with the game > rules, or do as > >>I do > >> and submit the orders copied from the RP software. > Granted, I can > >> still submit an invalid order with RP, but at least > the GM doesn't > >>have > >> to ponder the language, just the logic. > >> > >> Thank you all, > >> > >> Libby > >> > >> wnrytyrsd > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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-GM > >> > >> > >> > >> SPONSORED LINKS Role playing games Online role > playing games Role > >>playing games online > >> > >> > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > >> > >> a.. Visit your group "CAT23-GM" on the web. > >> > >> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email > to: > >> [email protected] > >> > >> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of > >>Service. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> > >> > >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > 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-GM > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:30:48 -0400 > From: Adam Kuehn <[email protected]> > Subject: German Player Needed for Standard Game > > We are in the build phase for Winter, 1901. Germany > holds Berlin, > Munich, Kiel and Denmark, with units F Den, A Kie, and A > Ruh. A > misorder prevented the German capture of Holland. Our > German player > has had plenty of time to deliver a build, but has failed > to do so, > so it is time for me to reluctantly seek his replacement. > I do not > have this game posted on a website quite yet, but I can > send the turn > adjudications, the latest map, and my house rules to > anyone who is > interested. > > Reply to me, please, and not to the list. > > Thanks, > > -Adam, GM Dip 999 (yeah, I got the number a long time > ago) > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 10 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:26:49 -0400 > From: Adam Kuehn <[email protected]> > Subject: 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 > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > 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-GM > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com