| Press for Fall of 1909 in ghodstoo |
Movement
I do understand the delay feature (thanks Manus and Rick), but why did
the Judge INFORM everyone what order the Austrian had submitted
before actually processing the turn? It just looked weierd to me.
I am now setting the deadline for Fall to Thursday (which I can do now
that the retreat processed fully). That is tomorrow, sports fans.
If there is a problem let me know. If that does prove to be a problem,
I will be shifting the deadline to September 15th, as previously
announced.
Jim
> I do understand the delay feature (thanks Manus and Rick), but why did
> the Judge INFORM everyone what order the Austrian had submitted
> before actually processing the turn? It just looked weierd to me.
>
Woah! I didn't know it did that (haven't been following TOO closely).
Tres weird indeed!
Manus
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I don't think we were all informed as to what the Austrian retreat
> was..
> Rick
>
Ah, now you all got the message that Edi sent as press, but you didn't
get that "Judge" message with the retreat in it with "Re:" (that's
it nothing else) as the Subject? Maybe it was some kind of "blip"
to the Master alone. It didn't say.
Here's the message (I looked carefully, no privleged info):
>From [email protected] Tue Aug 26 01:57:17 1997
Received: from ntsdave.kleiman.indianapolis.in.us (p8-term5-ind.netdirect.net) by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA02819; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 22:03:52 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.3] by ntsdave.kleiman.indianapolis.in.us (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka046394 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 1
997 21:06:10 -0500
Received: (from judge@localhost) by usin.kleiman.indianapolis.in.us (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA12631 for [email protected]; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 20:57:17 -0
500
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 20:57:17 -0500
From: USIN Diplomacy Judge
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re:
Status: RO
News about USIN can be found at
http://kleiman.indianapolis.in.us/diplomacy/usin.htm
All unmoderated games will be removed.
Judge keeper is [email protected].
Judge address is [email protected]
:: Judge: USIN Game: Ghodstoo Variant: Standard
:: Deadline: S1909R Mon Aug 25 1997 23:01:38 EST Boardman: 1997KT
Retreat orders for Spring of 1909. (ghodstoo.035)
Austria: Move Submitted.
England: No Move Required.
France: No Move Required.
Germany: No Move Required.
Italy: No Move Required.
Turkey: No Move Required.
Austria: Army Venice -> Tuscany.
Jim,
That email you got is exactly what you would get if you, as master, did a
signon/signoff in the interim period between when Edi submitted his retreat
and when the judge processed it.
I think you were in the process of changing the deadline and you may have
signed on w/o doing anything first, perhaps unintentionally, or maybe an
email lagged in the system and got processed in the lyucky few minutes of
DELAY.
Anyway, I as observer didn;t get the advance notice, so I suspect a cause
along the lines outlined above.
The re: by the way, would be the header if you had sent an email wih no
subject. Maybe you just did your signon line and accidentally mailed it,
with neither deadline extension nor subject?
Andy
Messages with Re: in the subject are not sent to all players. What
you got was a response to a GM login.
Rick
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Messages with Re: in the subject are not sent to all players. What
> you got was a response to a GM login.
>
> Rick
>
Thanks Rick and Andy, I think you guys explained it. I was sending
messages and trying to play around with the deadline RIGHT when
we were in that delay period, so that message just came to me.
Well, I was confused anyway. I did have it right that the deadline
change I was making was for the retreat!
Jim
Private message from Germany to France:
And now?
First off, I never heard back from you last turn, John. Are you agreeable
to the "Germany survives" plan I outlined? I need to hear from you in the
affirmative, please.
Assuming that I do get that agreement, what moves?
In the north, it looks like a repeat of the spring or...?
In central Europe...? Hohn needs MOS to cover STP and UKR and GAL to
protect WAR, so BOH could be at risk to MUN-BOH, SIL S MUN-BOH, VIE-TYR.
Or, does John keep MUN and I take BER by PRU-SIL, MUN S PRU-SIL, SIL-BER?
Or, something else.
Let me know what you think.
-Pitt
Actually, I must admit that I signed on as master to the game last night
when I got Edi's press. I was checking his retreat, since he had some
concern that the judge had not acknowledged his e-mail. So, Jim got an
echo of what I got, since I'm not really the GM of the game.
And, sorry, Jim, I intended to send you a note about what I did, but when I
saw the retreat phase process, I spaced it.
Your friendly neighborhood judgekeeper,
Dave
Can we all say "never mind"? Better yet, can we all SING it??
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in
> 'ghodstoo':
>
> Actually, I must admit that I signed on as master to the game last night
> when I got Edi's press. I was checking his retreat, since he had some
> concern that the judge had not acknowledged his e-mail. So, Jim got an
> echo of what I got, since I'm not really the GM of the game.
>
That's what it was all right.
> And, sorry, Jim, I intended to send you a note about what I did, but when I
> saw the retreat phase process, I spaced it.
>
No problem, I was just kind of shocked because I ALSO was doing things
around the same time and was perfectly willing to believe it was something
I did. A more experienced GM probably wouldn't have panicked. At least
I did manage to figure out what deadline was what.
> Your friendly neighborhood judgekeeper,
>
> Dave
>
Your friendly neighborhood gamemaster,
Jim
Private message from France to Germany:
I will look over the board tonight and give you my thoughts tomorrow.
Yours,
A dejected Napolean IV
Private message from France to Italy:
I am always interested in a smaller draw. Right now, I am interested in
being in any draw, for that matter. You and Hohn cleaned my clock.
So how would we carry this three-way off?
Private message from France to Germany:
Sorry, Pitt, I thought my actions answered your question. Germany
survives. I'm beginning to worry about France, though.
John
Private message from Italy to France:
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I am always interested in a smaller draw. Right now, I am interested in
> being in any draw, for that matter. You and Hohn cleaned my clock.
>
> So how would we carry this three-way off?
Well, if I'm not mistaken, this game is DIAS, no? That would mean that
Edi, Jamie & Pitt would have to be eliminated to reduce the draw to the
preferred 3-way. Edi will bit the big one this turn, but it would seem
to be up to you to take out Jamie and Pitt.
I've told Hohn that I wouldn't be going any further against lest he take
too much advantage. He hasn't answered yet, but his party line to date
suggests that he'll go along with this. He pointed out to ME that a
stab would only get him to 16 centres with the loss of STP imminent. I
think he'll agree to wait til the other three are eliminated.
Meanwhile, I'll be doing my best to make sure he resists temptation.
I would suggest that you write a letter to both Hohn & I discussing the
plan to go for a three way. He knows I was going to propose it to you,
so this can be your affirmation of the plan.
Later, :)
Cal
Private message from France to England:
I hope Cal is telling the truth. If so, anything I do will work, if not,
nothing will.
Best of luck.
Nappy
Private message from England to France:
Late breaking intelligence....
I am assured by the Despicable Cal that he has no intention of helping
Turkey gain control of the MAO. He also asserts that he will cover Tunis
this season. I didn't bother to ask whether he might try for Marseilles
himself, figuring he would just lie if he did intend it.
I think I'll still leave the Nwg fleet where it is.
For future reference: I would really like to get one more center. I know
this is not the most important concern at the moment, but next year,
assuming the anti-Mediterranean defenses are tight.
I don't much care which one it is.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to Germany:
I have ordered pru-lvn, ber-pru. Not much chance of taking war anyway, I
think. Let me know if you have a plan. I don't trust my tactical
instincts much right now.
Private message from France to Turkey:
My good friend Cal has broached the idea of a 3-way FIT draw. Of course, I
am most interested, especially in light of recent setbacks I have suffered
on the battlefield. Indeed, I would consider such an outcome to represent
Turkey and Italy's vast generosity.
If such is possible, how might this be arranged? Cal has suggested I would
be responsible for eliminating Germany and England. But I would need help.
What should I do this turn to show my commitment to the new alliance?
Private message from England to Italy:
Whew.
Do I have your permission to tell France the upshot of our tiny conversation?
GKJ
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Argh. The problem with this is that I would really, really like to
> get that goddamn French army in Tyrolia finally out of the picture.
> To do that, I can't spare VIE for the bounce.
We can afford to put this off for a turn or two in order to see if
France keeps his word in going for the three way. I REALLY don't
want to lose Trieste.
> If I happen to take TRI, you will still be at four (HOME + TUN). If I
> bounce France, you grow. Is that acceptable? I really think it's
> important to get him out of TYR. That's him breaching _our_ side of
> the line, and if we're not going to return the favor down south, he
Again, I think him breaching our line isn't as important as giving him a
chance to prove that he's willing to play for the three-way. If he
jerks
us around, HIS flank is MUCH more vulnerable than our central plain
area.
> Oh, I was confused; I thought you were concerned about _me_ breaching
> the line. I thought if you did it, you would have more leverage.
I don't want EITHER of us breaching his line and putting him in an
untenable position. Not yet anyway.
> > Also, France has tentatively agreed to the 3-way draw and I don't want
> > to alienate him before he can at least start to eliminate E & G.
>
> That is great!
>
> OK, in light of all this, what do you want to do with our fleets?
> Support each other? Make half-hearted, unsupported attacks? Retreat?
> I'm open to suggestions.
I'd say just support in place.
> The only thing that bums me out is that this might be our one chance
> to breach the line, and passing that up is painful to me, on a
> purist's level. But I understand your concerns. I just wish there
> was some way for me to allay them.
I understand your concerns (especially the "purist" part), but as I
said before, I can't afford to a) get too far from home; b) improve
your strategic and tactical position too much.
Cal
Private message from Italy to England:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Dear Despicable,
>
> I hope you share my view that if Turkey either (a) gets himself into the
> MAO, or (b) gains a French center, then he will have very little trouble
> winning the game.
Agreed.
> If you do not share this view, I will gladly attempt to convince you. If
> you do share it, I will rest much easier.
Rest easy, gentle King...
> (You will cover Tunis this season, won't you?)
Yup. :)
Cal the Despicable
Private message from England to Master:
Jim,
As you see, my moves are now in.
-Jamie
Private message from England to Turkey:
Thanks, I'll certainly take steps to prevent such a calamity, even as I
make sure John doesn't win.
Gosh, it would sure be helpful if I had more units to help me with so many
responsibilities!
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Turkey to England:
Jamie,
> Don't worry, I won't let John win!
Far be it from me to spread horrible rumors of doom and gloom, but I
have it on good authority that once the STP lock is removed from my
possession, you are not long for this world. I hope you can
reposition in time to prevent the inevitable.
Best,
Hohn
Private message from Italy to England:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Whew.
>
> Do I have your permission to tell France the upshot of our tiny conversation?
>
> GKJ
He knows...
Cal
Private message from Master to England:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Jim,
>
> As you see, my moves are now in.
>
> -Jamie
>
>
I will see it when I get this message back ;-)
Jim
Private message from England to Turkey:
Witch,
Don't worry, I won't let John win!
Other Witch
Private message from England to Germany:
I have just written to each of you separately. But since there is certainly
no reason not to have it open among the three of us (I think we can all see
that our interests have coalesced entirely, at least for the foreseeable
future), I'll spell out my thoughts again.
We don't know what Italy is up to. I have written to him, asking him
whether he agrees with me that Turkey will win if he either gets into MAO
or takes a French center. But I am not confident that he can be made to see
the light.
A. If Turkey gains a French center, I think it's really big trouble.
B. If Turkey gets into MAO, and France and I are not as prepared as we
possibly can be, with units ready to seal all egress, then I think Turkey
will simply eliminate Italy and be able to use the F MAO to win.
C. If Turkey gets into MAO, and I have sailed Nth-Eng (which I propose
to do) and have at least F Nwg ready to close off NAO, then I think we
might still be able to prevent Turkish victory.
D. If Italy takes Piedmont, with Turkish help, then I think maybe we
could still hold on as long as Italy gives Turkey no more help than that.
As I said to each of you separately, my F Nwg is needed for the taking of
Stp next year, *unless* Turkey can be prevented from entering Livonia for
*two* more seasons (F1909, S1910). My F Bal cannot be spared for this
purpose (it has to be in Bot so that I can support Swe-Fin if necessary in
Spring -- not so if I can move Nwg-Bar, but if I do that we don't need to
keep him out of Livonia anyway). So I don't actually think you can manage
to do this.
It seems to me what I ought to do is leave that fleet in Nwg. Then, if it
turns out I don't have to send it to Bar, I can go Nwg-NAO in S1910.
BTW, I think Austria's history. I think they will order Ven-Rom, Adr S
Tri-Ven, Vie-Tyo. I bet Cal will order Pie-Tus, too. Not that there is any
incentive for Edi to support French A Tyo-Ven, but Cal will want to make
sure.
My default orders will be:
Bal-Bot, Nwg H, Nth-Eng.
GKJ
Private message from England to Italy:
Dear Despicable,
I hope you share my view that if Turkey either (a) gets himself into the
MAO, or (b) gains a French center, then he will have very little trouble
winning the game.
If you do not share this view, I will gladly attempt to convince you. If
you do share it, I will rest much easier.
(You will cover Tunis this season, won't you?)
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Germany:
Pitt,
Hm, this is not looking so good.
Here's the problem. We could proceed according to plan, with my Nwg-Bar,
Bal-Bot, and your Swe-Fin again. Then we'll take Stp next year for sure.
But Italy might support Turkey into the MAO, or he might take Turkish
support into Marseilles. In that case, I believe we (the FEG coalition)
need my fleet currently in Nwg to be in NAO, or at least to be neighboring
NAO.
Can you and France prevent Turkey from entering Livonia for *two* more
seasons? If so, my one F Bal ( -> Bot) is enough to make sure we get Stp
next year, and of course there is no problem holding it once taken.
Otherwise, I think the best thing I can do is to leave the F Nwg where it
is. That way I can either move it to Bar in the Spring 1910, preparing for
the capture of Stp in the Fall, or move it to NAO in the Spring in case
Turkey has gained the MAO.
Another possibility is to somehow get Cal to come to his senses. I will try
that, but I am not especially hopeful.
I don't think there's much question of the FEG sticking together, at least.
Italy has seen to that!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to France:
Yes, I do see that you suffered some catastrophe.
Supposing that Italy is telling the truth, there are two problems. First,
he may be willing to accept assistance from Turkey in taking Marseilles.
Second, he may be willing to help Turkey take MAO.
I can't think of much you can do about the former. Ordering Tyo S Mar-Pie
seems like a bad idea, and probably useless anyway (I certainly expect
Turkey to order Vie-Tyo, to make sure Austria cannot retake Venice while
Italy order Ven-Rom, as he must).
There isn't much to do about the possible loss of MAO either, except to
plan what you'll do in that case. I think you ought to retreat to Portugal.
I can send my F Nth to Eng, and you'll build a F Bre in the Winter. You'll
order Hol-Bel this season, I assume, and we'll be close to covering the
troublesome exit routes from the MAO.
I have to think hard about whether I can afford to send F Nwg-NAO. We have
to make sure we can grab Stp next year. Can you and Germany prevent Turkey
from getting an army in Livonia for the next *two* seasons? I kind of doubt
it. If you can, then I could spare the F Nwg to go seal up NAO. Otherwise
it must go to Barents, or at least stray no further west from where it is
now.
I'll talk to Cal, but so far I think he has very badly misjudged the
situation. Maybe I can spell it out for him.
GKJ
Private message from France to England:
As you can see, things went very badly for me. Cal promises he won't help
Turkey take any of my centers, but seeing is believing. Any suggestions?
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
> Okay, this is fine, except I would prefer you arrange a self-bounce
> in Tri, so I don't worry about it staying mine in the Fall.
Argh. The problem with this is that I would really, really like to
get that goddamn French army in Tyrolia finally out of the picture.
To do that, I can't spare VIE for the bounce.
If I happen to take TRI, you will still be at four (HOME + TUN). If I
bounce France, you grow. Is that acceptable? I really think it's
important to get him out of TYR. That's him breaching _our_ side of
the line, and if we're not going to return the favor down south, he
> > Does this satisfy your concerns?
>
> Well, frankly, no. I am not willing to move my units that far from
> home.
Fair enough.
> Like I said, if the stalemate line gets breached in the Med, you would
> have the flexibility to try for the win and I wouldn't be in a position
> to stop you. I don't want that. I've already intercepted an errant
> Edi-all communication where he accuses me of trying to help you go for
> the win - I wasn't impressed to say the least.
Oh, I was confused; I thought you were concerned about _me_ breaching
the line. I thought if you did it, you would have more leverage.
> Also, France has tentatively agreed to the 3-way draw and I don't want
> to alienate him before he can at least start to eliminate E & G.
That is great!
OK, in light of all this, what do you want to do with our fleets?
Support each other? Make half-hearted, unsupported attacks? Retreat?
I'm open to suggestions.
The only thing that bums me out is that this might be our one chance
to breach the line, and passing that up is painful to me, on a
purist's level. But I understand your concerns. I just wish there
was some way for me to allay them.
Hohn
Private message from England to Germany:
I'm back.
I haven't had a chance to look at the position. I'll do that this
afternoon, and if I have comments/suggestions I'll let you know.
-Jamie
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> I have no problems with any of what you said. I can support TRI-VEN
> with ADR and APU, and I can have SER bounce a possible TYR attack on
> TRI. With VEN-ROM as well, we're guaranteed VEN and keeping ROM.
Okay, this is fine, except I would prefer you arrange a self-bounce in
Tri,
so I don't worry about it staying mine in the Fall.
> That leaves our fleets.
>
> I think I should support you into a center. And I should support you
> into MID. That way, you will hold the power, and I will not be in
> position to stab for the win. How about:
>
> PIE-MAR
> NAF-MID
>
> WES S NAF-MID
> GOL S PIE-MAR
>
> This guarantees us one of the two, and you may be able to build (an
> army, I think, would be better in light of how we're set; we need to
> shore up our center and the approaches to PIE).
>
> Does this satisfy your concerns?
Well, frankly, no. I am not willing to move my units that far from
home.
Like I said, if the stalemate line gets breached in the Med, you would
have the flexibility to try for the win and I wouldn't be in a position
to stop you. I don't want that. I've already intercepted an errant
Edi-all communication where he accuses me of trying to help you go for
the win - I wasn't impressed to say the least.
Also, France has tentatively agreed to the 3-way draw and I don't want
to alienate him before he can at least start to eliminate E & G.
Cal
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
I have no problems with any of what you said. I can support TRI-VEN
with ADR and APU, and I can have SER bounce a possible TYR attack on
TRI. With VEN-ROM as well, we're guaranteed VEN and keeping ROM.
That leaves our fleets.
I think I should support you into a center. And I should support you
into MID. That way, you will hold the power, and I will not be in
position to stab for the win. How about:
PIE-MAR
NAF-MID
WES S NAF-MID
GOL S PIE-MAR
This guarantees us one of the two, and you may be able to build (an
army, I think, would be better in light of how we're set; we need to
shore up our center and the approaches to PIE).
Does this satisfy your concerns?
Hohn
I don't think we were all informed as to what the Austrian retreat
was..
Rick
Private message from England to France:
Well, it's encouraging that Italy got his orders in and Turkey hasn't.
GKJ
Ghodzooks.
Exhibit One:
>Date: Tue Aug 26 11:48:23 1997 (872614103)
>Subject: Diplomacy notice: 'ghodstoo'
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'ghodstoo':
[....]
>I am now setting the deadline for Fall to Thursday
>(which I can do now that the retreat processed fully).
>That is tomorrow, sports fans. If there is a problem
>let me know. If that does prove to be a problem, I will
>be shifting the deadline to September 15th, as previously
>announced.
Exhibit Two:
>:: Judge: USIN Game: Ghodstoo Variant: Standard
>:: Deadline: F1909M Thu Aug 28 1997 23:30:00 EST Boardman: 1997KT
>
>Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Turkey's orders.
>Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Germany's orders.
>Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Austria's orders.
>
>These powers will be considered abandoned and free for takeover
>if orders are not received by Mon Oct 13 1997 14:30:00 EST.
The prosecution rests.
Gentle Barrister Jamie
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> Ghodzooks.
>
Sigh... I sort of knew this was going to happen; however, NO ONE told
me that the Thursday deadline might be a problem (and those that
even hinted at it, have orders in).
The question is: (see notes below) do I demand orders from all delayed
parties right now with NO further negotiation (Cal being gone and all)
or should I reset the deadline for the 15th? My inclination is toward
the former (to convince people that communication with the GM is
better than leaving him to assume), but I don't want to make a federal
case of it. I'll take private input on this and will be firm about
this by the end of the day. I myself will be more or less "out of E-Mail
range" September 1-8 and want to resolve this before then.
Jim
> Exhibit One:
>
> >Date: Tue Aug 26 11:48:23 1997 (872614103)
> >Subject: Diplomacy notice: 'ghodstoo'
>
> >Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> [....]
>
>
> >I am now setting the deadline for Fall to Thursday
> >(which I can do now that the retreat processed fully).
> >That is tomorrow, sports fans. If there is a problem
> >let me know. If that does prove to be a problem, I will
> >be shifting the deadline to September 15th, as previously
> >announced.
>
Problems?
>
> Exhibit Two:
>
> >:: Judge: USIN Game: Ghodstoo Variant: Standard
> >:: Deadline: F1909M Thu Aug 28 1997 23:30:00 EST Boardman: 1997KT
> >
> >Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Turkey's orders.
> >Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Germany's orders.
> >Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Austria's orders.
> >
> >These powers will be considered abandoned and free for takeover
> >if orders are not received by Mon Oct 13 1997 14:30:00 EST.
>
>
> The prosecution rests.
>
>
> Gentle Barrister Jamie
>
Jamie, are you arguing that there is a problem? What kind of problem?
Jim
Although I would not claim a perfect record on meeting deadlines, I do
wonder why players frequently miss them. All that is required is to submit
preliminary orders as soon as the results are in. You can change them at
any time. "Set wait" if you are worried about orders processing before you
are finished negotiating. The only reason not to do this is a deliberate
strategy of delaying the game.
John
Orders are in, my apologies. I completely zoned out again, and
immediately sent in orders this morning upon seeing my tardiness.
Hohn
Jim,
My 'prosecution' was rather a case against the lateniks, Exhibit One
demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that they were duly warned, given the
opportunity to request extra time.
But what to do now?
It would be draconian to demand orders immediately, since this has not been
the rule or practice in the past. On the other hand, Cal is gone, and it is
somewhat unfair to have in effect forced him to submit orders under a short
deadline, and then let others negotiate the phase while he is off in the
far reaches of the Great White North.
My opinion of what to do in this particular case is just to ask everyone to
get orders in as soon as possible. To put it bluntly, Edi isn't going to be
gaining much advantage by a lot of extra negotiating; let's just ask Pitt
and Hohn not to push it, and expect them both to have their orders in
shortly, but without threats or ultimatums. (Maybe Pitt is off on another
undercover job. Shhhh!)
The overall situation has moved slightly beyond annoying. However, we are
all going to sit and wait until Sept. 15th anyway, so this particular
occasion is no big deal, to my mind. But I would definitely like to see the
current phase processed well *before* Cal gets back. Otherwise we've just
slipped *another* season behind.
-Gentle King Jamie
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ghodstoo':
> Although I would not claim a perfect record on meeting deadlines, I do
> wonder why players frequently miss them. All that is required is to submit
> preliminary orders as soon as the results are in. You can change them at
> any time. "Set wait" if you are worried about orders processing before you
> are finished negotiating.
Personally, I like to have all the information in (e.g. negotiations)
before I make a decision. Thus, I am uncomfortable with sending in
preliminary orders, since the situation might change with later and
last-minute negotiations.
And set wait doesn't work if you know you might not be able to check
or answer your mail for significant stretches of time, such that you
might miss the deadline by a little bit.
> The only reason not to do this is a deliberate
> strategy of delaying the game.
Your analysis is incomplete, and thus your conclusion is flawed. See
above. Besides, I have no incentive to drag this game out, certainly.
The sooner it ends, the sooner I can relieve the ever-increasing
burdens on my time.
Hohn
I note (with thanks) that Hohn is now in. Jamie's broadcast statement
precisely summarizes my thoughts on the matter as well. I am not
trying to be draconian here. And Jamie's last sentence pretty well
sums it up. If this deadline is delayed until mid-September, we've
lost another season.
Jim
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
>This policy:
[attribution improved by me, jd]
Hohn Cho:
>>And set wait doesn't work if you know you might not be able to check
>>or answer your mail for significant stretches of time, such that you
>>might miss the deadline by a little bit.
>constitutes intention to violate the rules of the game. Deadlines are not
>advisory.
>
>I believe the analysis is now complete.
Hm.
Missing a deadline isn't a violation of the rules. Intentionally missing
one might be.
I don't think Hohn ever intends to miss a deadline. Rather, he foresees
that he might miss one. That seems to me to be an important distinction.
Rick Desper filled in some details, and I am quite sure that it's that sort
of thing Hohn was thinking of too.
This is really, really fun, but even so I guess I'd rather be playing
Diplomacy.
Could we get back to that now? Where's Pitt?
-Jamie
A reason I do not always submit preliminary moves:
Even if I use SET WAIT, the moves I have submitted for only a
preliminary purpose will be processed if, for some unknown reason, my
network crashes, or some other real-life emergency prevents me from
submitting the 'real' set of orders before deadline.
I would prefer a deadline to pass without my set of orders submitted,
than to have it pass with a preliminary set of orders. I don't see
this as 'intention to violate the rules of the game' as I have no
intention for an unexpected delay to occur.
If I do suffer a computer crash, it is much better for me to stall the
game than to have a set of orders out there which has been submitted
without any negotiation. I could also argue that it is better for the
game as a whole, as such a policy decreases the influence of random
events.
Having said this, there will be circumstances where I will submit
orders and set a WAIT flag. Actually this is far more the pattern
for me, but mostly in games without press, where I get no new
information before deadline.
Rick
>And set wait doesn't work if you know you might not be able to check
>or answer your mail for significant stretches of time, such that you
>might miss the deadline by a little bit.
>
>constitutes intention to violate the rules of the game. Deadlines are not
>advisory.
I agree. "Deadline" means deadline for getting your moves
in, not deadline for ending negotiations.
This policy:
On Fri, Aug 29, 1997 11:55 AM, USIN Diplomacy Judge
wrote:
And set wait doesn't work if you know you might not be able to check
or answer your mail for significant stretches of time, such that you
might miss the deadline by a little bit.
constitutes intention to violate the rules of the game. Deadlines are not
advisory.
I believe the analysis is now complete.
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> >Could we get back to that now? Where's Pitt?
> >
> >-Jamie
>
> ... and Edi?
>
> -J
>
One of the things I've noted about Pitt is that he gets enough "Judge"
mail that it frequently takes him awhile to figure out that he is late,
since he hasn't sorted through all his mail -- and "late for deadline"
messages come out with the same Subject as all other messages except
moves. Did any of the Judge coders here ever think about changing
the subject line in a "Judge is waiting for orders message" to
something like:
ONE OR MORE PLAYERS HAVE MISSED THE DEADLINE IN ghodstoo
That way it would stand out to the player, rather than facing pages
of generic "ghodstoo" messages.
Thoughts?
Jim
PS and what are Edi and Pitt's E-Mail addresses again? I probably
should wing a direct message to each.
PPS at this point, my inclination is to let the turn process
when Edi and Pitt get orders in without changing the deadline.
That obviously will change if either reports connection problems
that caused the delay.
>One of the things I've noted about Pitt is that he gets enough "Judge"
>mail that it frequently takes him awhile to figure out that he is late,
>since he hasn't sorted through all his mail -- and "late for deadline"
>messages come out with the same Subject as all other messages except
>moves.
>Did any of the Judge coders here ever think about changing
>the subject line in a "Judge is waiting for orders message" to
>something like:
>
>ONE OR MORE PLAYERS HAVE MISSED THE DEADLINE IN ghodstoo
>
>That way it would stand out to the player, rather than facing pages
>of generic "ghodstoo" messages.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Jim
Well, the message that you yourself get when a deadline passes and you have
missed it does have a different header. It says "DIPLOMACY DEADLINE
MISSED".
That ought to tip you off, especially such a keen eyed professional
observer like Pitt.
Lateness announcements that are distributed to all of us (observers,
players, master alike) just have the ordinary DIPLOMACY NOTICE subject line.
Oh, [email protected] (Jeff Serandos) has just said this. (Everyone
note his dedication points, please. Here is someone who hasn't gotten one
of those notices in a while, I guess.)
>PS and what are Edi and Pitt's E-Mail addresses again? I probably
>should wing a direct message to each.
You know how to use the LIST command, right? (It is a very good idea for
the master to keep a LIST, by the way, in case of Judge outage. Downage.)
>It figures that I have the word that Pitt is indeed unavoidably
>out of network connection while I was typing that last message.....
Oh.
But couldn't he just tell you his orders, via whatever medium he used to
tell you he was unavoidably out of network connection?
-Jamie
Huh? If you miss a deadline, the header reads "Diplomacy deadline missed:
".
>One of the things I've noted about Pitt is that he gets enough "Judge"
>mail that it frequently takes him awhile to figure out that he is late,
>since he hasn't sorted through all his mail -- and "late for deadline"
>messages come out with the same Subject as all other messages except
>moves. Did any of the Judge coders here ever think about changing
>the subject line in a "Judge is waiting for orders message" to
>something like:
>
>ONE OR MORE PLAYERS HAVE MISSED THE DEADLINE IN ghodstoo
>
>That way it would stand out to the player, rather than facing pages
>of generic "ghodstoo" messages.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Jim
It figures that I have the word that Pitt is indeed unavoidably
out of network connection while I was typing that last message.....
Given the circumstances, enjoy a long Labor Day weekend everyone!
Jim
[email protected] as Master set the deadline
for game 'ghodstoo' to Mon Sep 15 1997 23:30:00 EST.
Grace period deadline advanced to Mon Oct 27 1997 14:30:00 EST.
Private message from Observer to Master:
Jim:
I know that Pitt is laid up with health problems, and has been generally
out of touch. I know this is not what you want to hear, but with people
asking, I thought I should mention it to you. I keep hoping he is near
back to the land of the hale and healthy, but so far, from what I hear,
he is still recovering with difficulty.
Manus
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ghodstoo':
> constitutes intention to violate the rules of the game. Deadlines are not
> advisory.
What rules of the game? Please provide a cite. Where does it say I
or anyone must send in preliminary orders? Where does it say that my
non-deliberate missing of a deadline "violates the rules of the game?"
There is a mechanism in place to "punish" late deadliners, and there
is a person with the discretion to take additional steps in case of
bigger problems. Where, then, is the problem?
Do you suggest a more draconian measure? Then let's decrease the
grace period. Or ask Jim for some type of action. Either course of
action would be fine by me.
> I believe the analysis is now complete.
Sorry, it's still not, John. You're talking about something different
here than what I was referring to.
You said:
> The only reason not to do this is a deliberate
> strategy of delaying the game.
This is simply untrue. I have provided an alternate explanation and
motivation, one that is not nearly as mean-spirited as you attempt to
ascribe to me. As people have said, I'm not doing this deliberately,
which is in contrast to other situations (arguably some in this very
game). Thus, your analysis is still either incomplete or faulty.
I'm extremely under the gun right now. Part of me feels that I
shouldn't even be playing in this game right now. But I was under the
impression that this was a "demo" game where the participation of each
original, selected player was deemed more important than the
occasional vagaries of our busy real life schedules.
If I was mistaken, then perhaps we should open the floor to
discussions of replacements. Whatever it is, let's please come to a
resolution; I'm getting a bit tired of defending myself. If you want
to think of me as the big bad inconsiderate Hohn, be my guest. I've
stated my position, and you can make whatever judgments you choose.
Hohn
> I don't think Hohn ever intends to miss a deadline. Rather, he foresees
> that he might miss one. That seems to me to be an important distinction.
> Rick Desper filled in some details, and I am quite sure that it's that sort
> of thing Hohn was thinking of too.
All very true, and Rick stated an additional concern very well, one
which I have considered in the past but did not articulate in my
previous letter.
Hohn
>Could we get back to that now? Where's Pitt?
>
>-Jamie
... and Edi?
-J
I have only seen this a few times, because I am chronically
early, but late-submitters do get a different subject header.
So when someone is late, those on time get "Diplomacy notice:
ghodstoo" while the actual offenders get "Diplomacy Deadline
missed: ghodstoo"
When someone abandons, I know the subject is also different,
something like "Diplomacy game waiting: ghodstoo" I have never
seen what it looks like to the abandonee. Can anyone comment
on that? Does it say "You just got booted from: ghodstoo"?
Andy
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> Well, the message that you yourself get when a deadline passes and you have
> missed it does have a different header. It says "DIPLOMACY DEADLINE
> MISSED".
Never mind..... (hides face shamefully under a rock...)
>
> That ought to tip you off, especially such a keen eyed professional
> observer like Pitt.
>
> Lateness announcements that are distributed to all of us (observers,
> players, master alike) just have the ordinary DIPLOMACY NOTICE subject line.
>
But that's because I have never missed a deadline MYSELF. I was going
from the messages I was getting! Hah!! Take that!!!
> Oh, [email protected] (Jeff Serandos) has just said this. (Everyone
> note his dedication points, please. Here is someone who hasn't gotten one
> of those notices in a while, I guess.)
>
> >PS and what are Edi and Pitt's E-Mail addresses again? I probably
> >should wing a direct message to each.
>
> You know how to use the LIST command, right? (It is a very good idea for
> the master to keep a LIST, by the way, in case of Judge outage. Downage.)
>
>
> >It figures that I have the word that Pitt is indeed unavoidably
> >out of network connection while I was typing that last message.....
>
> Oh.
> But couldn't he just tell you his orders, via whatever medium he used to
> tell you he was unavoidably out of network connection?
>
> -Jamie
>
No, because the message was not directly from him, natch. Nevertheless,
the source is unimpeachable. Sorry, September 15 it is.
Jim
Private message from Master to Turkey:
Hi guys,
I don't have Edi's retreat logged in yet, but I want to look ahead
to the Fall deadline. I would like to set the deadline for Fall
to Thursday (to cover us up to Cal's vacation. Otherwise, I would
set the deadline to Monday September 15th). If anyone has any
comments or contrary opinions please send them confidentially to me.
When I reveal a deadline ruling, I will not refer to the presence
or content of particular comments from you.
Jim
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I said:
>
> > I have never
> > seen what it looks like to the abandonee.
>
>
> I guess I meant abandoner, though maybe not Who is doing the abandoning,
> the judge (i.e. abandon serve as a synonym for "to boot out") or the player
> (where abandon means "to be so inconsiderate to 6 or so other folks as to
> leave them in the lurch.")
>
> Jamie? You are my usuual source for thing linguisto-philosophical.
>
> Andy
As some of you know, the local POP for my ISP burned down about a month
ago. (Translation: I couldn't dial my internet provider locally.) This
caused a spate of late notices for me (and caused a player in a game I was
GM'ing to suffer a one pt. ded hit...,) including an abandonment in a
daily move game.
As I recall, when someone swooped in to take my position all I received
was a "Diplomacy notice: gamename" header with the standard, "Someone has
taken over the abandoned Power," notice.
>>Wes
Sorry to be late but My E-mail has been down for 2 days.
Edi Birsan
[email protected]
Web: www.mgames.com
Midnight Games
541-772-7872
I said:
> I have never
> seen what it looks like to the abandonee.
I guess I meant abandoner, though maybe not Who is doing the abandoning,
the judge (i.e. abandon serve as a synonym for "to boot out") or the player
(where abandon means "to be so inconsiderate to 6 or so other folks as to
leave them in the lurch.")
Jamie? You are my usuual source for thing linguisto-philosophical.
Andy
Guess I should point out now that I will be on vacation from
August 29 to September 11 while me and my canoe take on the wilds of
Northern Ontario solo :)
Cal
Private message from Observer to Master:
Hello Jim,
>Message from [email protected] as Austria to all but Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
>Well I am back from the GenCon convention and I would like to join in the
>talk on what to do with Turkey. I suspect that Cal is unable and unwilling
>to join in an attack on Turkey as all his actions have been to support
>Turkey. There is nothing there to indicate he will come over to our side.
I wonder if Edi is aware that the messages sent in this way goes to
all the powers but Turkey, adn also to alternates and observers.
If Turkey is also signed on as observer he will get the message.
If Turkey sends a history command he will get the message.
To avoid this Austria should send a message to all but Turkey and observers/
alternates.
All this is, I believe, mentioned in the press files, but since they are
novices ....
I didn't want to broadcast this for obvious reasons and I am not so sure
that it would be fair by you to warn him about this.
Bye,
Luca
Private message from Observer to Master:
The deadlines for retreats and adjustments can also be fixed to a
specific time, if you like. To do so, use commands like
set retreats clock 1410
set adjust clock 1410
Those fields are initialized at -1 (which means no fixed time) but can
be set to a specific time just as the move clock is.
Rick
On Fri, Aug 29, 1997 2:42 PM, USIN Diplomacy Judge
wrote:
If you want
to think of me as the big bad inconsiderate Hohn, be my guest. I've
stated my position, and you can make whatever judgments you choose.
Hohn, I never even mentioned your name. If you feel targeted by my
complaint about those who are chronically late, maybe that'll tell you
something.
As I said, I don't claim a perfect record. I was even booted from a game
that allowed no missed deadlines. Still, I'll point out that your
justification for being late was not Rick Desper's. Yours was that you
might want to change your orders in light of last-minute information. If
the rule is no negotiating after the deadline, then this implies your
policy violates the rules. Further, in practice, your policy of not
submitting preliminary orders works out to frequent missed deadlines.
Perhaps in each particular instance, you don't intend to miss the deadline,
but the policy has that effect in many instances. Since you are aware of
this, it skirts on being intentional.
Again, I am not picking on you. I am not that troubled by missed
deadlines. It's a minor annoyance, no more. But while we are waiting for
the game to resume, we might as well discuss this in an open, friendly
manner. We might disagree on what deadlines mean, but I don't take it
personally. I hope you won't either.
Best,
John
Gentle King Jamie Explains it All to You
Hello, and welcome to, "The King's English", with your host, Gentle King
Jamie....
As you know, this program is being brought to you courtesy of the BBC, as
sporadic entertainment while your Diplomacy game founders.
>> Broadcast message from [email protected]
>> > I have never
>> > seen what it looks like to the abandonee.
>>
>>
>> I guess I meant abandoner, though maybe not
>> Who is doing the abandoning, the judge (i.e. abandon
>> serve as a synonym for "to boot out") or the player
>> (where abandon means "to be so inconsiderate to 6 or
>> so other folks as to leave them in the lurch.")
The player abandons the game, as a sailor abandons his ship, and a good
captain never abandons his.
So really the player who has given up on the power is the abandoner. But
this raises a rather more interesting fact I have recently discovered, which
I have been hoping to find cause to mention in public. There are several
apparent misuses of the "-ee" suffix that have crept into common usage, and
now have to be considered acceptable. For instance, people who have retired
are called "retirees"; people who escape from jail are called "escapees". So
I think we can allow you "abandonee" if you really like it.
I always wondered about Cherokees -- who Cheroked 'em?
In a related linguistic confusion, the Judge mistakenly marks powers
"abandon", rather than "abandoned".
And that's The King's English for today,
signing off,
your host
GKJ
Private message from Germany to Master:
Jim,
FYI, my orders have been in since Friday and, by looking at a LIST, it
appears that Edi's are in, too. I assume that the reason the turn has not
processed is because you extended the deadline and someone still has WAIT
set. If everyone sets NOWAIT or you send a PROCESS command, the current
turn will process (having everyone set NOWAIT is preferable since PROCESS
will cause the turn to run even if someone has an error flag set).
-Pitt
At 03:32 PM 9/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
> News about USIN can be found at
> http://kleiman.indianapolis.in.us/diplomacy/usin.htm
>
> All unmoderated games will be removed.
> Judge keeper is [email protected].
> Judge address is [email protected]
>
>:: Judge: USIN Game: Ghodstoo Variant: Standard
>:: Deadline: F1909M Mon Sep 15 1997 23:30:00 EST Boardman: 1997KT
>
>Game 'ghodstoo' order #036 (F1909M) has a deadline of Mon Sep 15 1997
23:30:00 EST.
>One or more players have requested that orders not be processed
>until the deadline.
>Those who haven't gotten their orders in will be abandoned if nothing
>is received by Mon Oct 27 1997 14:30:00 EST.
>
>The parameters for 'ghodstoo' are as follows:
> Move clock 1410 min 12.00 next 167.50 grace 999.00 delay 0.50 days
-mTWTF-
> Retreat clock -1 min 0.00 next 23.50 grace 999.00 delay 0.50 days
-mTWTF-
> Adjust clock -1 min 0.00 next 47.50 grace 999.00 delay 0.50 days
-mTWTF-
> Access: Any-site, Level: Any, Moderated, Dedication: -10.
> Variant: Standard.
> Flags: NoNMR, NoProxy, DIAS.
> Press: White, Partial Allowed, No Fake.
> Boardman Number: 1997KT.
> Winning Centers: 18.
> Index: 43
>
>The following players are signed up for game 'ghodstoo':
> Master [email protected]
> Turkey move 13/13 738 [email protected]
> England move 3/3 90 [email protected]
> Italy move 4/4 88 [email protected]
> Germany move 3/3 850 [email protected]
> Observer 1812 [email protected]
> France move 8/10 182 [email protected]
> Austria move 1/1 87 [email protected]
> Observer 129 [email protected]
> Observer 491 [email protected]
> Observer 233 [email protected]
> Observer 207 [email protected]
> Observer -367 [email protected]
> Observer 546 [email protected]
> Observer 265 [email protected]
> Observer 104 [email protected]
> Observer [email protected]
> Observer -3 KMH4%Rates%[email protected]
> Observer [email protected]
> Observer 601 [email protected]
> Observer 161 [email protected]
> Observer 459 [email protected]
> Observer [email protected]
> Observer [email protected]
> Observer [email protected]
> Observer 449 [email protected]
> Observer [email protected]
> Observer 71 [email protected]
> Observer [email protected]
> Observer 496 [email protected]
> Observer 2970 [email protected]
> Observer 3708 [email protected]
>
>Status of the Movement phase for Fall of 1909. (ghodstoo.036)
>
>Austria: Army Tuscany.
>
>England: Fleet Baltic Sea.
>England: Fleet Norwegian Sea.
>England: Fleet North Sea.
>
>France: Army Marseilles.
>France: Army Tyrolia.
>France: Fleet Holland.
>France: Army Prussia.
>France: Army Berlin.
>France: Fleet Spain (south coast).
>France: Army Munich.
>France: Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
>
>Germany: Army Sweden.
>Germany: Fleet Norway.
>Germany: Army Silesia.
>
>Italy: Army Venice.
>Italy: Fleet North Africa.
>Italy: Fleet Trieste.
>Italy: Fleet Piedmont.
>
>Turkey: Army Bohemia.
>Turkey: Army Vienna.
>Turkey: Fleet Gulf of Lyon.
>Turkey: Fleet Apulia.
>Turkey: Fleet Western Mediterranean.
>Turkey: Fleet Adriatic Sea.
>Turkey: Army Galicia.
>Turkey: Army Serbia.
>Turkey: Army Moscow.
>Turkey: Army St Petersburg.
>Turkey: Army Ukraine.
>Turkey: Army Bulgaria.
>Turkey: Fleet Aegean Sea.
>
>
>Ownership of supply centers:
>
>Austria: Venice.
>England: Denmark, Edinburgh, London.
>France: Belgium, Berlin, Brest, Holland, Kiel, Liverpool, Marseilles,
> Paris, Portugal, Spain.
>Germany: Munich, Norway, Sweden.
>Italy: Naples, Rome, Trieste, Tunis.
>Turkey: Ankara, Budapest, Bulgaria, Constantinople, Greece, Moscow,
> Rumania, Serbia, Sevastopol, Smyrna, St Petersburg, Vienna,
Warsaw.
>
>Austria: 1 Supply center, 1 Unit: Builds 0 units.
>England: 3 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 0 units.
>France: 10 Supply centers, 8 Units: Builds 2 units.
>Germany: 3 Supply centers, 3 Units: Builds 0 units.
>Italy: 4 Supply centers, 4 Units: Builds 0 units.
>Russia: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0 units.
>Turkey: 13 Supply centers, 13 Units: Builds 0 units.
Hohn,
I accept your explanation and I withdraw my assertion that habitual
lateness constitutes a deliberate intention to violate the rules.
I do not withdraw my assertion that following a policy that results in
frequent lateness is bad form. On that, we'll have to agree to disagree, I
suppose.
As for singling you out, no, the fact that I quote from your response to my
original message containing no reference to you does not mean I singled you
out. You answered, so I answered back. I was and am perfectly happy to
discuss the matter in the abstract.
Or not at all, for that matter.
John
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ghodstoo':
> Hohn, I never even mentioned your name. If you feel targeted by my
> complaint about those who are chronically late, maybe that'll tell you
> something.
Come on, John. This statement seems incredibly disingenuous to me.
You quoted _my_ message, and then made an inference/connection that
your "logic" of how:
> The only reason not to do this is a deliberate
> strategy of delaying the game.
therefore applied to me.
You quite clearly were referring to me. You don't have to mention
someone by name to refer to them.
> As I said, I don't claim a perfect record. I was even booted from a game
> that allowed no missed deadlines. Still, I'll point out that your
> justification for being late was not Rick Desper's. Yours was that you
> might want to change your orders in light of last-minute information.
I say again: just because I did not have the time or desire to go into
every single possible motivation behind my general use (or lack
thereof) of a certain practice does not mean that I do not hold those
motivations, nor does it mean my expressed motivation was my sole
motivation.
Rick's motivation was one that I had considered in the past, and also
considered valid. Unless you also want to call me a liar in addition
to calling me a deliberate violator of the rules, my statement should
be sufficient.
> If
> the rule is no negotiating after the deadline, then this implies your
> policy violates the rules. Further, in practice, your policy of not
> submitting preliminary orders works out to frequent missed deadlines.
> Perhaps in each particular instance, you don't intend to miss the deadline,
> but the policy has that effect in many instances. Since you are aware of
> this, it skirts on being intentional.
Things have gotten worse lately because of my incredibly busy
schedule. This is one reason why I haven't started a new game in
several months.
I've apologized in the past, and I will again if I am late again. But
unless you are suggesting more dramatic action, I'm not sure what more
I can do. I disagree with your rationale regarding preliminary
orders, and I have no intention of adopting that practice, at least
not here, not in the middle of this game. Again, I've stated my
position; you may feel free to make whatever judgments you choose.
I do not intentionally violate any rules. I have never intentionally
missed a deadline. Nor have _I_ ever conducted negotiations after a
deadline has elapsed.
> Again, I am not picking on you. I am not that troubled by missed
> deadlines. It's a minor annoyance, no more. But while we are waiting for
> the game to resume, we might as well discuss this in an open, friendly
> manner. We might disagree on what deadlines mean, but I don't take it
> personally. I hope you won't either.
I am a blunt person, and I call 'em like I see 'em. You claim you
didn't intend to make it personal. If that is the case, then you
shouldn't have said this:
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ghodstoo':
>This policy:
>
>Hohn Cho wrote:
>>And set wait doesn't work if you know you might not be able to check
>>or answer your mail for significant stretches of time, such that you
>>might miss the deadline by a little bit.
>
>constitutes intention to violate the rules of the game. Deadlines are not
>advisory.
>I believe the analysis is now complete.
That is quite clearly making it personal, and that is quite clearly
singling me out, despite your protestations to the contrary. It is
also quite clearly untrue, in my case.
John, if you want me to stop taking it personally, I would appreciate
it if you backed off from what is, IMO, an indefensibly extreme
position, namely that with respect to preliminary orders:
> The only reason not to do this is a deliberate
> strategy of delaying the game.
I would therefore appreciate it if you made it quite clear that, in
light of my explanations, you do _not_ claim that I am deliberately
violating the rules.
Hohn
Private message from Germany to Master:
>Welcome back!
I'm not sure how "back" I am since I'm still pretty sick but thanks just
the same.
>Is it possible that your orders didn't get through? I'll let you know.
Nope. I double-checked when I grabbed the LIST. They were in.
-Pitt
Private message from Master to Germany:
Hi Pitt,
Welcome back! I'm going to check now (actually the verification
message for this note is the check) but last I did check you
were NOT in. Is it possible that your orders didn't get
through? I'll let you know.
Jim
Private message from Master to Turkey:
All orders are now in, but there are one or more of you with WAIT's
set. Given the circumstances, I would rather NOT force the turn to
process, but leave it in the hands of the players. I will say that
Cal did NOT set wait. I will be more or less out of contact from
now until the weekend, so I won't reset the deadline until then if
the turn processes this week. But if it does process, I will set the
next deadline where Cal owes orders to the 15th.
Your GM,
Jim
Private message from England to Austria:
So long, then.
Who do you think will be the next out?
Gentle King Jamie
I fully intend to attend World DipCon next year. The dorm rates make
it affordable even for a grad student.
Rick
> By the way the following was received in regard to DipCon XXXI.
>
I will be there. All who know me from PBEM are welcome to show up and
gladhand with me (no pun intended). I know Simon Szykman will be there
as well, and I will put money on Pitt Crandlemire showing up. Who else?
SYS,
Manus
Well I must say it was fun. I will snicker that it took till 1909 to knock
me out.
However, after the last two set of moves I really wonder what people are
thinking about in their tactical choices.
Anyway, this was my first Email game of regular Diplomacy and I would be up
for another demonstration game when this game finally drags its way down to
resolution.
Edi
Edi Birsan
[email protected]
Web: www.mgames.com
Midnight Games
541-772-7872
Private message from England to Germany:
Well, there's obviously no rush, since Italy has a build but Cal won't
return for nearlly two weeks.
I think the French builds are awfully obvious.
Pitt, if you want to keep the A Sil (with a chance of retaking a home
center some time), you could dump the F Nwy. I can support you into StP in
the Spring while covering Nwy. (Keeping the F Nwy and dumping the A Fin
doesn't work, I think.)
-Jamie
Private message from France to Germany:
That could have been worse. I am asking you for suggestions on what to
build and how to proceed from here.
Pitt, I did not intend for you to lose a unit. Obviously, since I can't
build three, I would prefer that this did not happen. I will do my best to
get the unit back to you ASAP.
I think Italy might finally see the light.
Adjustments
> [....] but there are one or more of you with WAIT's set.
Oops.
>I will be more or less out of contact from now until the
>weekend, so I won't reset the deadline until then if the
>the turn processes this week. But if it does process, I
>will set the next deadline where Cal owes orders to the 15th.
That's what the deadline is now, the 15th. It won't get backed up for
subsequent phases, so you won't have to do anything.
-Jamie
Private message from England to Germany:
More reasons to think Italy has come around:
1. His moves last season
2. His apparent willingness to let his F Pie be destroyed (rebuilding it is
the only way I can see that he can save Rome and Naples, so this suggests he
finally sees that the threat is real).
Am I mistaken, or do we no longer strictly speaking *need* Italy to prevent
Turkey from winning? John builds F Bre, A Par. He moves Par-Gas, MAO-Por,
Bre-MAO (my F Eng can support that). Now it's just a matter of shoring up
the defenses in Germany, and digging the yellow army out of Stp. And both of
those are pretty trivial, aren't they?
I think Hohn shares my assessment of the situation. He's tried a transparent
and borderline desperate ruse to get me to do something dumb.
If my impression (not a serious analysis, I warn you) is correct, then I can
only expect that the curtain is about to fall on the great Italian drama. Or
does anyone think Hohn will want Cal in the draw? (HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH)
GKJ
Private message from France to Germany:
Re Italy, nothing makes me optimistic except that if he does not do
something, Turkey wins. He's said repeatedly he won't allow that. He
wants to be the balancer between me and Turkey. Logically, that should
mean that eventually he'll switch sides once Turkey becomes too
threatening. I think that's now.
Private message from Germany to France:
>That could have been worse. I am asking you for suggestions on what to
>build and how to proceed from here.
I'll have to take a look at the board and get back to you on suggestions
for your builds.
>Pitt, I did not intend for you to lose a unit. Obviously, since I can't
>build three, I would prefer that this did not happen. I will do my best to
>get the unit back to you ASAP.
Good. Frankly, I don't see why I can't get it back this year but we'll
have to work out the details on that after the builds process.
>I think Italy might finally see the light.
I'd like to think so but I'm curious as to what makes you say that.
-Pitt
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
> > By the way the following was received in regard to DipCon XXXI.
> >
> I will be there. All who know me from PBEM are welcome to show up and
> gladhand with me (no pun intended). I know Simon Szykman will be there
> as well, and I will put money on Pitt Crandlemire showing up. Who else?
>
> SYS,
> Manus
I hope to be there.
Oh yeah, I'm back :)
Cal
>
> I hope to be there.
>
> Oh yeah, I'm back :)
>
> Cal
>
Welcome back early! I set the deadline to Sept. 15 in expectation that
you would be gone much longer. Did you "get lost"? ;-)
Input on a new deadline would be appreciated.
Jim
With regards to the next deadline, I've told Jim to go ahead and set it
whenever is convenient. I'm back early from the trip (why yes, it WAS
lovely, thanx for asking... grin), so let's proceed, shall we?
My build is in...
Cal
Well, holding a grudge from game to game is a *kind* of crossgaming. Or
maybe it's better to say that there's no bright line between them. Indeed,
from the outright "Swap you Sweden in GHODSTOO for support into
Constantinople in WAGGAWAGGA" that Cal calls 'cross-gaming', to the "Gee,
that Charlie was awfully quick to backstab in BODKIN, I guess I won't be so
inclined to trust him this time", there is a very fuzzy, murky continuum.
But to answer the question about grudges....
Nah, I'm not gonna answer it.
;-)
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Italy to Master:
Jim:
I'm back early, so feel free to set the deadline to whenever you
choose. I'm mailing my build in ASAP.
btw, Unless Hohn is snowing me (and even if he is he really CAN'T get to
18 centres as things stand now) I'll be proposing a draw in a year or
two. I think I've managed to insinuate myself into part of it. Now if
I can just UNinsinuate Jamie & Pitt... :)
Cal
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy and Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
>
> My good friend Cal has broached the idea of a 3-way FIT draw. Of course, I
> am most interested, especially in light of recent setbacks I have suffered
> on the battlefield. Indeed, I would consider such an outcome to represent
> Turkey and Italy's vast generosity.
>
> If such is possible, how might this be arranged? Cal has suggested I would
> be responsible for eliminating Germany and England. But I would need help.
>
> What should I do this turn to show my commitment to the new alliance?
Sorry I couldn't get back to you on this before I left. Obviously it's
too late to talk about last turn, but the upcoming turn can be
discussed. :)
It looks as if England is now a part of any French stalemate line. This
begs the question: are you still willing to take him out? If so, I
think the best thing to do is for Hohn and I to set up OUR stalemate
line in the Med while allowing you to get into a position to grab
English centres. Naturally, you'd want to see a turn or two of Hohn and
I moving defensively before you take a chance of moving anything north.
Fair enough?
Hmm, the thought occurs to me that Gentle King Jamie could be of use in
taking Germany down BEFORE he bites the big bullet in the sky.
Comments? Hohn?
Cal
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
Hi Hohn:
I'm back, safe and sound, if somewhat worse for wear... :)
Anyway, I just waded through nearly 250 messages and found the results
of the last moves. Glad to see Edi is gone and Pitt is reduced to
(probably) a northern force.
To be honest, I wasn't happy about losing Trieste (especially since I
don't see any convenient way for me to get it back). That said, I'm
happy to note that you still don't have any route to 18 centres as long
as John has Munich and St Pete's is precarious. Therefore, I still feel
as secure as a four centre Italy can near the end game... grin.
It looks as if England is banding with France fleet-wise to shore up the
Mediterranean front. That's bad if only from the POV that England is
now probably a vital part of any French stalemate line. Oh well, it
looks as if the four way is just a matter of time. I might propose it
to France and see if he'll take Pitt out. Comments?
I'm going to build an army in Naples. You have more than enough fleets
which can move thru the Ion/Tyn area and hold up France. If you move
out of Apu to Ion, I'll move my Venice fleet south and my armies north.
I'll cover the Piedmont/Tyrolia corridor defensively while your armies
concentrate further north.
I'm hoping you'll either decline the build or build an army for
transport north. I would consider ANOTHER fleet as hostile.
How does this sound for now?
I'm going to ask Jim to move the deadline up a bit as I AM back early.
Cal
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I have no time to write a full response right now, but the answer to Edi's
> question is that the pounding that PBM gives about "cross-gaming" is also
> pounded into PBEM'ers. Cross-gaming is *the* big ethical no-no. Come to
> think of it, it's about the *only* ethical no-no, isn't it? :-)
As an old-time PBM Dipper (although not quite as old as Edi...heh heh),
I think you guys are talking about two different things here.
The idea of saying "If you don't give me Sweden in 1999AX, I'll stab you
in 1998FC..." is certainly tabu in both (all) versions of Diplomacy.
However, what I understood Edi to be saying is that you don't carry an
attitude from one game to the next. For example, in this current game,
Edi and I have been at odds practically from the get go. That does NOT
mean that, in the next game we play together that Edi will definitely
play against me. He'll obviously bring certain ideas about my playing
style to the next game (as I will about his), but it will neither
preclude nor demand that we ally. Each game will be treated, as far as
is humanly possible, as a separate entity.
To give an example of this, at the Canadian Diplomacy championships a
few years back, I found myself in three games with Bob Acheson, another
old time Dipper noted as a tough FTF presence. In the first game, we
were at each other's throats from the opening salvo in S'01. We fought
a great battle and I was lucky enough to grab a piece of the 3-way
draw.
The next game, Bob and I were in a situation that made sense for us to
ally. As I/A, we were allied from the first turn (although we used the
first game's results to hide the fact from the other players) and we
virtually waltzed to one of the easiest 2-ways I've ever been in.
The third game, we again both shared in a draw, but it came after we had
allied for a while, attacked each other for a while and then worked
together in a "stop-the-leader" alliance to force a 4-way with both of
us in it.
That's the sort of attitude I like to take to every game I play and,
although you don't often find players who subscribe to it, I am sure
that Edi understands the "aesthetics" of such an attitude.
Ca va?
Cal the Despicable (but for this game only)
I have no time to write a full response right now, but the answer to Edi's
question is that the pounding that PBM gives about "cross-gaming" is also
pounded into PBEM'ers. Cross-gaming is *the* big ethical no-no. Come to
think of it, it's about the *only* ethical no-no, isn't it? :-) (Well,
other than hacking into the judge somehow to get someone's orders, or using
profane language or the kind of thing that was talked about in the "No Holds
Barred" article in a recent issue of The Pouch Zine. :-)
Stab you soon,
Manus
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> Well now Cal, you know I do not carry things from one game to another so I
> will always look at it given the personalities of the game and the position
> there.
>
> This brings about another point in the exploration of the Email hobby. In
> the postal game one of the cardinal...if not the only...point of ethics
> that was pounded into me at an early age was that you never bring into a
> game a grudge from a prior game. You may be more cautious because someone
> was foolish in double crossing you or shortsided in not allying with you
> etc, but you did not go into the game with the mind set of 'getting even'.
> Unfortunately in some play by mail game systems, especially ones with a lot
> of intensity and detail, there is a greater tendency to forget that point
> of ethics. I wonder what the norm is in the Email side of things.
Heck Edi, I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't carry a grudge.
In fact, I would count on your ability to treat each game as a separate
entity.
One of the reasons I don't play at CanCon any more is that there are a few
players who take it as a goal in life to take me out of the game ASAP
simply because I have won a couple of them. That's no fun for me and I
don't know what they get out of it.
It's also the reason I would prefer to play only in demo games.
In case anyone out there is thinking of starting one, please take the
preceding as a blatant hint.
Thank you...
Cal
Well now Cal, you know I do not carry things from one game to another so I
will always look at it given the personalities of the game and the position
there.
This brings about another point in the exploration of the Email hobby. In
the postal game one of the cardinal...if not the only...point of ethics
that was pounded into me at an early age was that you never bring into a
game a grudge from a prior game. You may be more cautious because someone
was foolish in double crossing you or shortsided in not allying with you
etc, but you did not go into the game with the mind set of 'getting even'.
Unfortunately in some play by mail game systems, especially ones with a lot
of intensity and detail, there is a greater tendency to forget that point
of ethics. I wonder what the norm is in the Email side of things.
Edi
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
> Anyway, this was my first Email game of regular Diplomacy and I would be up
> for another demonstration game when this game finally drags its way down to
> resolution.
>
> Edi
That goes ditto for me. My other two experiences of e-mail Dip were not
very good and I'd love to play in another Demo game.
Hey, Edi! Wanna ally? :)
Cal
Private message from England to Master:
For the record, I would also be interesting in playing another demo. Only I
don't particularly want everyone to think I'm eager.... (Once I start
thinking about playing another game, the metadiplomatic aspects of all
public discussion start to overwhelm me.)
Jamie
Another demo game after this one? Yes, I do think it is a good idea
to keep this series going. I want to get Steve Cooley from the
E-Mail/FTF world into the next one, but really need to know who the
hot E-Mail players are. Not to nag (Nick has been speaking of this
lately), but there hasn't been a Hall of Fame listing lately, so it is
hard to know who has been winning lots of games recently. I got
John just by working my way down the HoF rankings and didn't know him
before. Everyone else here I knew before we started. I would rather
add some of those "hot" players for the next one to keep the mix spinning.
I have set the deadline to the 10th because I will be unavailable by
E-Mail between now and then. You guys can get it to process sooner
by getting orders in and not setting wait. I think only one player
is missing now (I'll know for sure when I see this message).
Jim
Private message from England to Turkey:
Witch,
Feeling pretty happy about my prospects these days. Know any reason I
shouldn't be?
Other Witch
Private message from England to Germany:
Pitt, you there?
We have until Monday night, but I'd rather get this settled and stop
thinking about it.
I will order Bot S GERMAN A Fin-Stp and Nwg-Nwy, expecting Fin-Stp, unless
I hear otherwise.
And John, tell me what you want me to do with F Eng.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Germany to France:
>I will order Bot S GERMAN A Fin-Stp and Nwg-Nwy, expecting Fin-Stp, unless
>I hear otherwise.
Yeah, I already confirmed that. Didn't you get it?
>And John, tell me what you want me to do with F Eng.
And I'm waiting for John to tell me his plans are in Central Europe, too.
-Pitt
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
> I'm back, safe and sound, if somewhat worse for wear... :)
How was the trip?
> Anyway, I just waded through nearly 250 messages and found the results
> of the last moves. Glad to see Edi is gone and Pitt is reduced to
> (probably) a northern force.
Me too. Although Pitt's disband keeps him somewhat in my hair. As I
suspected, but oh well.
> To be honest, I wasn't happy about losing Trieste (especially since I
> don't see any convenient way for me to get it back). That said, I'm
> happy to note that you still don't have any route to 18 centres as long
> as John has Munich and St Pete's is precarious. Therefore, I still feel
> as secure as a four centre Italy can near the end game... grin.
Heh.
My apologies. I couldn't in good conscience send you a response to
your last letter of last turn, since I was past deadline (not that you
would have gotten it anyway, since you were on vacation, but
still...), but my reasoning was that I figured there was a less than
even chance of my making it into TRI (all we needed was Edi to either
move to ROM, or to have John move to TYR, and Edi moving to ROM was
about 50/50, as I saw it), and again, I really felt taking TYR was
important.
I agree, though, there is no way I'm making 18. I'm losing STP this
year, no matter what.
> It looks as if England is banding with France fleet-wise to shore up the
> Mediterranean front. That's bad if only from the POV that England is
> now probably a vital part of any French stalemate line. Oh well, it
> looks as if the four way is just a matter of time. I might propose it
> to France and see if he'll take Pitt out. Comments?
I have no problem with a four-way, to be honest, especially if I'm the
largest power. It's a minor sop to my ego. :)
Truth to be told, I'd like to have a four-way for the simple external
reason that I'm short of time.
Regardless, I'm pleased that you will be part of any draw that will
shake down from here on out. We worked very well together, once we
got past the initial fits and starts. (Well, there was that one turn
where the judge screwed us up, but that will probably be rendered moot
by the draw situation).
> I'm going to build an army in Naples. You have more than enough fleets
> which can move thru the Ion/Tyn area and hold up France. If you move
> out of Apu to Ion, I'll move my Venice fleet south and my armies north.
> I'll cover the Piedmont/Tyrolia corridor defensively while your armies
> concentrate further north.
> I'm hoping you'll either decline the build or build an army for
> transport north. I would consider ANOTHER fleet as hostile.
> How does this sound for now?
> I'm going to ask Jim to move the deadline up a bit as I AM back early.
All sounds good. I agree that I need another army. In fact, I regret
building 1/1 army/navy the previous year; I didn't have time to
carefully consider the build situation, and I fell back on my natural
balanced impulse, rather than build two armies as I should have.
Please let me know how you want to proceed this season.
Hohn
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
> Well I must say it was fun. I will snicker that it took till 1909
> to knock me out.
Good job on that. It was good playing with you again, Edi.
> However, after the last two set of moves I really wonder what
> people are thinking about in their tactical choices.
I'm looking forward to the EOG statements.
> Anyway, this was my first Email game of regular Diplomacy and I would be up
> for another demonstration game when this game finally drags its way down to
> resolution.
Assuming people would be tolerant of my schedule, I'd be interested as
well. If not, no offense taken.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Master:
Jim,
A few thoughts.
Well, my diplomatic efforts to have Cal bust the stalemate line
failed. If he had, I think I might have been able to make 18, and I
certainly would have gone for it. But since Cal was (appropriately)
wary, I knew that even if I'd stabbed him, I'd only be able to get to
about 16 this past year. Then I would have had to contend with a
board united entirely against me, with no one past the French
stalemate line, and with STP inevitably falling the next year. There
was no way I'd make 18 under those conditions.
Thus, I opted not to stab. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I still felt
French victory was feasible if I had stabbed, and I didn't want to be
the big loser responsible for a solo in this game (that wasn't mine,
of course). ;)
Three-way, four-way, it makes little difference to me if it's not a
win. Actually, I'd probably rather be the largest power in a four-way
than the second-largest power in a three-way, to be honest. If it
gets down to three-way, I suspect John will have 17, me at 13, and Cal
at 4. So the four-way is fine with me.
BTW, in my last mail to Cal, I said that I hadn't analyzed the build
situation carefully and had thus built 1/1 army/navy on the previous
build phase. That is untrue. I knew that I should build 2 armies if
I was playing for the draw. But since at that time, I was still
playing for the win, I built the 1/1.
Moot point now, though. I might, might, might have been able to sway
Pitt to my side last year, but considering his silence and lack of
communication, his situation and position, and my lack of time, I just
let it go.
I think this game is over now. All but the kicking and screaming. ;)
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Guys,
> Comments? Hohn?
I'll be happy to hang back while the dust settles and Jamie is taken
out by John. Obviously, Pitt must go as well; probably before Jamie.
Maybe we can time it so that Jamie is stabbed at the same time he
stabs Pitt?
Hohn