| Press for Spring of 1909 in ghodstoo |
Movement
"tyn" is and has been an acceptable abbreviation on USIN.
Dave Kleiman
Dear Despicable,
>I'm not qualified to argue with you, but I DO know
>that it has always rejected "tyn". That's the
>abbreviation I always use and it always gets sent
>back to me.
Would you please send a copy of the Judge output in which it rejects TYN?
>Again, I'm not going to argue, but I know what I've been getting.
Maybe you forgot? Maybe you misspelled "tyn"?
(I just told it F TYN, and it told me I had no fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea.)
Either that or the Judge altered its own source code. And I don't think it's
*that* smart. (What have you JudgeMaint guys been programming these days,
anyway, hmm?)
Gentle King Jamie
> Message from [email protected] as Germany to France, Russia, Italy, Austria,
> Turkey, England and Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
> >Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Germany's orders.
>
> I suppose that sounds like a broken record. I'll be damned if I know how
> the deadline got to be 1200 instead of 2330, though. Had it been 2330, as
> I thought it was, I would have had orders in in plenty of time.
Same excuse. I thought the deadline was tonight. My apologies.
Hohn
Private message from Germany to Master:
>Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Germany's orders.
I suppose that sounds like a broken record. I'll be damned if I know how
the deadline got to be 1200 instead of 2330, though. Had it been 2330, as
I thought it was, I would have had orders in in plenty of time.
-Pitt
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> :: Judge: USIN Game: Ghodstoo Variant: Standard
> :: Deadline: F1908B Mon Aug 11 1997 12:00:00 EST Boardman: 1997KT
>
> Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Turkey's orders.
> Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Germany's orders.
>
> These powers will be considered abandoned and free for takeover
> if orders are not received by Mon Sep 22 1997 12:00:00 EST.
This is a recording (beep). This is a recording.
Cal the Despicable
Sitting and Watching the same message over and over and over again...
:)
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
> Would you please send a copy of the Judge output in which it rejects TYN?
Wish I'd saved a copy, but I didn't.
> Maybe you forgot? Maybe you misspelled "tyn"?
Anything's possible.
Cal
Private message from Austria to Turkey:
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 am willing as I believe strongly that Hohn will drop Cal in a flash to go
ahead. Now that he has StP and can probably hold it for 2 years he will be
looking to sweep through Italy and hold tunis for the win.
We have to consider that Italy may be helping him to win intentionally.
Anyway I am here and would like to participate of course in the draw.
Sighoff
Edi Birsan
[email protected]
Web: www.mgames.com
Midnight Games
541-772-7872
Oh, I know why those guys are late. They are off somewhere singing Victory
carols, exchanging Victory gifts, or just sitting quietly and happily
around the Victory Tree.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Master:
I'm glad it's John who's away this time, because he was getting pretty sick
of all the delays. :)
Looking ahead, I'll have one more absence this summer, for three or four
days in the last week of August.
Hope you're enjoying your Victory in Japan Day,
Jamie
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
>
> > Message from [email protected] as Germany to France, Russia, Italy, Austria,
> > Turkey, England and Master in 'ghodstoo':
> >
> > >Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Germany's orders.
> >
> > I suppose that sounds like a broken record. I'll be damned if I know how
> > the deadline got to be 1200 instead of 2330, though. Had it been 2330, as
> > I thought it was, I would have had orders in in plenty of time.
>
> Same excuse. I thought the deadline was tonight. My apologies.
>
> Hohn
>
Deadlines for MOVES are always at 11:30 PM in the time zone of the
Judge, BUT for adjustments, the clock time is taken as "real time"
so since the retreats were released at noon last week the deadline
for the adjustments also was noon. I realize we all are "dumping
on Judge coding this week" but that's the way the Judge coding always
has been.
Sorry, perhaps I'll try to make note of it next time it happens.
While we're talking about deadlines, the next one is Monday, but I
am changing it to Tuesday since I will be away from the machine
next Monday and I have an "alert" that someone might have to request
a one day extension. I'd rather just grant it now.
Jim
[email protected] as Master set the deadline
for game 'ghodstoo' to Tue Aug 19 1997 23:30:00 EST.
Grace period deadline advanced to Tue Sep 30 1997 14:30:00 EST.
Private message from England to Germany:
I think I ought to tell you that France is away this week. Otherwise you
might worry that he was ignoring you preparatory to taking Munich or
something.
Apparently a trip came up at the last minute, John didn't give any details.
-GKJ
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'ghodstoo':
>Deadlines for MOVES are always at 11:30 PM in the time zone of the
>Judge, BUT for adjustments, the clock time is taken as "real time"
>so since the retreats were released at noon last week the deadline
>for the adjustments also was noon. I realize we all are "dumping
>on Judge coding this week" but that's the way the Judge coding always
>has been.
Sort of.
The difference is determined by the CLOCK parameter, not in any hard
coding. (The defaults for the CLOCKs are coded in, though.) Jim, you could
change it if you would rather have the minor phases processed always near
midnight, too.
-Jamie
Private message from England to Germany:
>Germany: Removes the army in Munich.
Trusting soul, you are.
Well, now.
Here's how it looks to me. Turkey can't take all of the Italian centers
(including Ven and Tri, I mean) this year. He probably can't get all of
them next year, but he might. Therefore, it's up to you and me to take Stp
next year. We have to be prepared to put four units against Stp, and we
have to keep Turkey from getting into Finland, too. Hm. That might be
impossible! What if Hohn orders Stp-Fin, and Mos-Lvn, Sev-Mos? Oh, no, it's
ok, because we still have two moves next year, not just one.
Right, so I will order Edi-Nwg-Bar, and Den-Bal-Bot. Ok? And are you
willing to order Swe-Fin? Then even if you bounce there, we have S1910 to
set up the taking of Stp.
It's a shame you don't have the army in Nwy and the fleet in Sweden, that
would add a little flexibility (more adjacency to Fin).
I think Edi is correct that Italy is deluding himself. I don't believe he
has a prayer of surviving the game. What could he be thinking?? So I figure
we can have a 4-way draw, unless F and T try pulling back from the danger
zones and eliminating us. But I'm not very worried about that. France would
have to do all the work, and I think we'd pretty easily throw the game to
Turkey.
You?
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Austria:
I think you're right that Cal is deluding himself. I can't see that he's
got much of a prayer of surviving this game. Of course, he's taking you
with him, maybe that's his desire.
I'll recommend that John try to support you in Venice, but if Cal decides
to take Ven and let Hohn have Tri, I don't think they can be prevented from
doing that.
Gentle King Jamie
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'ghodstoo':
[...]
>Deadlines for MOVES are always at 11:30 PM in the time zone of the
>Judge, BUT for adjustments, the clock time is taken as "real time"
>so since the retreats were released at noon last week the deadline
>for the adjustments also was noon. I realize we all are "dumping
>on Judge coding this week" but that's the way the Judge coding always
>has been.
Well, just to be clear, I *wasn't* dumping on the judge code (or coders).
That is the LAST thing in the world I would do since I know just how much I
personally benefit from the judges and the work of the coders and JK's and
I have a pretty good idea of how little appreciation is ever expressed to
them for it.
My complaint, if that's what it was, was with me and the fact that I missed
the fact that the deadline was at 1200 and not 2330. I'm sorry that wasn't
clearer.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to England:
>>Germany: Removes the army in Munich.
>
>Trusting soul, you are.
So? Do I have a choice at this point? It's either throw in with you and
France or try to throw the game to Turkey. If France is untrustworthy, MUN
was dead anyway. If not, SIL is better placed to impede Turkey. And,
besides, if France does try to squeeze me, I'm now worse off for doing what
I can to throw the game to Turkey now than I would be with MUN.
>Right, so I will order Edi-Nwg-Bar, and Den-Bal-Bot. Ok?
Yes.
>And are you willing to order Swe-Fin?
Done.
>Then even if you bounce there, we have S1910 to set up the taking of Stp.
Yes.
>I think Edi is correct that Italy is deluding himself. I don't believe he
>has a prayer of surviving the game.
Not so long as he tries to play with Turkey instead of against him, no.
>we can have a 4-way draw, unless F and T try pulling back from the danger
>zones and eliminating us. But I'm not very worried about that. France would
>have to do all the work, and I think we'd pretty easily throw the game to
>Turkey.
Yep. That's my strategy, too. Nonetheless, I think you and I need to make
it clear to John that we will consider any attempt to eliminate one of us
as an attempt to eliminate both of us and that we will respond
appropriately. Yes?
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to England:
I'm looking to retake STP as soon as possible, as per your suggestion.
Will you move to aid this endeavor?
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to France:
As you can see from my disbands, I'm on board with any plan to prevent the
Turkish solo (and keep Germany alive...). Please let me know what your
thoughts are for the next turn.
-Pitt
Private message from England to Turkey:
Hohn,
>I have no problem with cutting you in on the draw, and I have no
>problem with a four-way.
Cool.
A four-way is what I'm hoping for, certainly.
>As for my chances of victory, I am still of the firm opinion that
>France is the larger long-term threat, in light of the stalemate
>lines. It's true, I'm bigger right now, but I'm not going to stab as
>John claims. Because if I do, I feel there is a strong chance John
>will win as a result, due to Italian throw-game leverage.
Uh huh.
I guess I'll just stay out of all of that stuff, since my units are not
very close to the Mediterranean. But I will repeat for you that I guarantee
that I won't let France win.
>In any event, let's talk tactics very soon. I'll take a look at the
>board tomorrow (I'm too tired right now). Let me know if you have any
>ideas.
I don't have anything in mind. I will say that it has always been my
heart's desire to own Norway (a little leftover project of mine from the
opening :-)). But I am not in a big hurry. I feel very patient at the
moment.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
Hey guy, you still alive there? Did you get my last letter with the moves
I suggested? If not, let me know and I'll re-send it. If you did, we
need to change what I suggested for your armies in Austria. Vienna should
still move to Tyrolia to cut support for Ven, but Bud should move to boh
supported by galicia. Pitt has gone over to the "dark side".
Cal
Private message from England to Germany:
Now that the Judge is back (assuming it still is), I'm having second
thoughts. I think we should wait until Stp is secured to announce that we
plan to share a 4-way draw together, or throw the game together. I also
think we should announce this to John and Hohn (hm, never noticed that
before) at once.
What do you think?
GKJ
Private message from England to Germany:
>Yep. That's my strategy, too. Nonetheless, I think you and I need to make
>it clear to John that we will consider any attempt to eliminate one of us
>as an attempt to eliminate both of us and that we will respond
>appropriately. Yes?
Good point. Dividing and conquering might seem more attractive than trying
to take us both out at once. As Ben Franklin once said, "We must hang
together, or most assuredly we shall hang separately."
No rush since John is away. I'll write something later today.
GKJ
Private message from Turkey to England:
Jamie,
> Message from [email protected] as England to Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
> In case you're wondering, the press from me that Italy forwarded was part of
> something I wrote in reply to a general note from France to everybody except
> you. France offers a share of the draw to whomever will help him prevent you
> from winning.
> Why Italy decided to annoy me by forwarding that particular piece of mail,
> and showing me that he was forwarding it, I don't know. I guess there's a
> fair chance it was just an oversight.
> My thinking is not too far from Cal's, in fact. Not much of a
> revelation to you.
> There aren't many secrets left in a position like this one. Oh, maybe I
> still have one left....
I have no problem with cutting you in on the draw, and I have no
problem with a four-way.
As for my chances of victory, I am still of the firm opinion that
France is the larger long-term threat, in light of the stalemate
lines. It's true, I'm bigger right now, but I'm not going to stab as
John claims. Because if I do, I feel there is a strong chance John
will win as a result, due to Italian throw-game leverage.
In any event, let's talk tactics very soon. I'll take a look at the
board tomorrow (I'm too tired right now). Let me know if you have any
ideas.
Thanks,
Hohn
Private message from England to Germany:
>Hmmm...OK, why?
Well, it's mainly just an uneasy gut feeling.
What if John and Hohn heard the news and decided that if they are going to
go for a two-way, they'd have to do it as soon as possible? Generally, I
guess my point is that having everyone else proceed as they have been is
what we want for the next few moves. We'd rather have no surprises. As long
as Hohn thinks there is some chance that one of us will be harassing
France, he is much less likely to decide he has to break out into the MAO.
And I think that's about the only thing that could foil the big plan,
Turkey's picking up a western center.
It's not too big a deal. If you'd rather, we can announce our intentions now.
>>I also
>>think we should announce this to John and Hohn (hm, never noticed that
>>before) at once.
>
>Yes, agreed.
Ok.
Let's see, when is the move due, Tuesday? I'll be away for the weekend. I
won't enter my moves until I hear from John, he might want Lon-Eng for
support, just in case Cal hasn't come to his senses yet.
GKJ
Private message from Germany to England:
>Now that the Judge is back (assuming it still is), I'm having second
>thoughts. I think we should wait until Stp is secured to announce that we
>plan to share a 4-way draw together, or throw the game together.
Hmmm...OK, why?
>I also
>think we should announce this to John and Hohn (hm, never noticed that
>before) at once.
Yes, agreed.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to England:
>What if John and Hohn heard the news and decided that if they are going to
>go for a two-way, they'd have to do it as soon as possible? Generally, I
>guess my point is that having everyone else proceed as they have been is
>what we want for the next few moves. We'd rather have no surprises.
OK, I'll buy that.
>It's not too big a deal. If you'd rather, we can announce our intentions now.
No, you've convinced me that it's better to wait.
>Let's see, when is the move due, Tuesday? I'll be away for the weekend. I
>won't enter my moves until I hear from John, he might want Lon-Eng for
>support, just in case Cal hasn't come to his senses yet.
No problem. I need to hear from John, too. Though we are not going to
announce our agreement, yet, I still need to warn John that *I* might throw
the game to Turkey if he doesn't work with me. If the subjct comes up, any
influence you can bring to bear to sway John to back me up will be much
appreciated.
-Pitt
Private message from England to Master:
Jim,
My last absence for a long while:
I'll be leaving Mon 25 August, returning late the night of Wed 27 August.
I don't expect that to hold up the game -- maybe a day at most.
-Jamie
Private message from Master to England:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Jim,
>
> My last absence for a long while:
>
> I'll be leaving Mon 25 August, returning late the night of Wed 27 August.
>
> I don't expect that to hold up the game -- maybe a day at most.
>
> -Jamie
>
It shouldn't. IF Spring goes off on time, and IF there are no retreats,
THEN I will set the Fall deadline to Thursday. Do you seriously expect
that? I's say both IF's are questionable. So, you should be fine.
I will view your absence as private information as usual.
Jim
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> 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 am willing as I believe strongly that Hohn will drop Cal in a flash to go
> ahead. Now that he has StP and can probably hold it for 2 years he will be
> looking to sweep through Italy and hold tunis for the win.
>
> We have to consider that Italy may be helping him to win intentionally.
> Anyway I am here and would like to participate of course in the draw.
Don't know if I was supposed to receive this but I don't really care. I
DO however want to correct the impression that I am trying to help Hohn
"win intentionally". Edi's sour grapes notwithstanding, France is in
just
as likely a position to win as is Turkey. The difference is, France has
everybody else on the board helping him against Turkey. If I stab Hohn,
then France waltzes to an 18 centre win. This way, I have a chance to
share in a draw. I explained to France that I have no intention of
trying
to gain any ground against him. All I'm trying to do in the Med is set
up
a stalemate line that I am a vital part of. Similarly, I have no
intention
of moving my units so far from my centres that Hohn could slip into the
win himself.
BTW Edi, how was GenCon? Haven't been to one myself since '77 when they
held it at the Playboy Club in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin... :)
Cal
Private message from Observer to Master:
Dear Jim,
may I send the following message into the game or do you think it is
not the case (observer interference of some sort).
I am fairly confident that people like Jamie or Pitt know about this,
and I feel they have an unfair advantage.
At the same time if it is an observer pointing this out you might avoid
problems of GM interference (helping AI and possibly penalizing GE)
Bye,
Luca
Here is the message:
press to all but t
>Message from [email protected] as Italy to all but Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
>
>> Message from [email protected] as Austria to all but Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
I would suggest to some of the judge newbies around to read the "press file"
carefully. :)
Luca
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
Did you ever get this? I've sent it twice, to your direct e-mail
address and not through the judge. Trying the judge now.
Hohn
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 02:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hohn Cho
To: Cal White
Cc: Jim Burgess
Subject: Re: Ghodstoo I-T
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Cal White wrote:
> I figure I've got time now, so I'll write before the builds. They
> aren't likely to affect our tactical situation anyway.
> Here's my proposed set of moves for the Spring:
>
> Italy
> ~~~~~
> f tus-pie
> a rom-ven
> f tri s a rom-ven
> f tun-naf
>
> Turkey
> ~~~~~~
> f adr s a rom-ven
> f ion-apu
> a ser s f tri
> a vie-tyo
> a bud-vie
> f wes s f tun-naf
> f lyo s f tus-pie
>
> This should guarantee knocking Edi out by annihilating his army and even
> gives us a shot at annihilating the French army in Piedmont.
I think the moves are admirable. Consider them made, barring any
sudden tactical revelations.
> From what I've heard from Pitt, he's taking up the French offer a share
> in the draw after making sure you cannot win. I wouldn't count on him
> continuing against France. I think this makes it even more important to
> try popping those armies.
> Comments?
I have no problem with a four-way draw. I'd prefer FIT, but it's not
such a big deal to me that I'll risk galvanizing the entire board
against me, thus risking French victory (which has been the major
thing I've been trying to stop for the last several years, as you
know; I still think he has the better long-term position in light of
his small puppet power and his being beyond the stalemate line, but I
digress).
As for Pitt, I agree with you that he should not be in the draw. The
fact that he will accept John's offer does not surprise me, and I will
plan accordingly.
Thoughts?
Hohn
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> Did you ever get this? I've sent it twice, to your direct e-mail
> address and not through the judge. Trying the judge now.
Yup, I got it both times and responded to it whcih obviously YOU
never got. Sigh. Anyway, I've sent in these orders, but I'd advise
you to move A Bud-Vie, s by A Gal as I have major reason to believe
that Pitt will be working actively AGAINST us this turn and from
now on.
ttyl
Cal
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 02:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Hohn Cho
> To: Cal White
> Cc: Jim Burgess
> Subject: Re: Ghodstoo I-T
>
> On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Cal White wrote:
>
> > I figure I've got time now, so I'll write before the builds. They
> > aren't likely to affect our tactical situation anyway.
> > Here's my proposed set of moves for the Spring:
> >
> > Italy
> > ~~~~~
> > f tus-pie
> > a rom-ven
> > f tri s a rom-ven
> > f tun-naf
> >
> > Turkey
> > ~~~~~~
> > f adr s a rom-ven
> > f ion-apu
> > a ser s f tri
> > a vie-tyo
> > a bud-vie
> > f wes s f tun-naf
> > f lyo s f tus-pie
> >
> > This should guarantee knocking Edi out by annihilating his army and even
> > gives us a shot at annihilating the French army in Piedmont.
>
> I think the moves are admirable. Consider them made, barring any
> sudden tactical revelations.
>
> > From what I've heard from Pitt, he's taking up the French offer a share
> > in the draw after making sure you cannot win. I wouldn't count on him
> > continuing against France. I think this makes it even more important to
> > try popping those armies.
> > Comments?
>
> I have no problem with a four-way draw. I'd prefer FIT, but it's not
> such a big deal to me that I'll risk galvanizing the entire board
> against me, thus risking French victory (which has been the major
> thing I've been trying to stop for the last several years, as you
> know; I still think he has the better long-term position in light of
> his small puppet power and his being beyond the stalemate line, but I
> digress).
>
> As for Pitt, I agree with you that he should not be in the draw. The
> fact that he will accept John's offer does not surprise me, and I will
> plan accordingly.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Hohn
Private message from Observer to Turkey:
>Message from [email protected] as Italy to all but Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
>
>> Message from [email protected] as Austria to all but Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
I would suggest to some of the judge newbies around to read the "press file"
carefully. :)
Luca
Private message from England to Observer:
>I would suggest to some of the judge newbies around to read the "press file"
>carefully. :)
>
>Luca
Shhhhh.
On the other hand, I wonder whether even the Old Judge Hands will bother
reading the good old observer press.
Nah. Too lazy.
I do, but I can't say it's been very interesting. Do you guys have anything
to say? I won't tell the other powers, and they won't bother to look. :-)
Gentle King Jamie
>I am again curious as to the nature of the game play. It would appear that
>aside from a passive aggressive mental state towards deadlines that some
>players may slip into, I wonder if the no NMR policy actually encourages
>this sort of behavior response.
An interesting point.
>While there is some record of who delays a game in the Email judge world,
>it seems that the delays have no effect in real game make up or function in
>any manner to provide a penalty for the behavior. Not that I am a fan of
>punishment response to unwanted behavior... in real life. As a social game
>I am always curious as to the structures of the small society around the
>board, and attitudes to such things are interesting. So am I correct in
>that the behavior of being late is recorded but no one uses it for anything?
Well, it depends upon the GM. The judge does keep track of dedication
points, which go up with punctual behavior and down with late
behavior. But they only serve as a threshhold for entry to games, and
few games have any meaningful threshholds. And once points are built
up, one can get away with massive irresponsibility. I could quit 20
or so games on USEF right now and still be eligible to join any game
formed next week. Also, many times you'll join a game, assuming a
certain dedication minimum, and be asked soon after to 'make an
exception' for a player who has some sob story about why his rating is
low.
Some GMs go further than looking at dedication points. Mark Mulik has
been known to keep a running tally of who is late during the game, and
to enforce a 'three strikes' rule, with some strikes being forgiven if
a player is on time for five game years consecutively. I like this
approach. It does require more effort on the part of the GM, but
let's face it, Judge GMs really are not being asked to do very much as
thing stand.
Hmm..my xbiff is beeping, I bet it's something from Jamie. Hey, it
is! Surprise! :)
>Am I also correct in that lateness is not an issue within a email game and
>that player to player functions have not seen any effect of the lateness?
>For example in a postal game I would not ally with a player who I thought
>was tending to miss deadlines as with the standard NMR policy in postal
>games he is unreliable and his orders may convert to civil disorder...in
>fact he becomes a perfect enemy or an ally of my enemy which is where I
>like to put them.
I think emailers do consider availability when considering alliances.
Players who are habitually late also habitually don't respond to
messages, which tends to make them poor allies. Unforunately,
sometimes one is forced to make such an alliance. What is worse is
when you stab out of frustration, only to see the player take offense
at having his punctuality questioned, and to then see him play much
more seriously as your enemy!
This has, naturally, never happened to me, because I never stab.
;-]
Rick
First: I believe that John is away. He said about twelve days ago that he
would be gone for a week, and I suspect that it just turned out to be
longer than he thought. Note also that John has probably been the least
late player in the game up to now.
>I am again curious as to the nature of the game play. It would appear that
>aside from a passive aggressive mental state towards deadlines that some
>players may slip into, I wonder if the no NMR policy actually encourages
>this sort of behavior response.
To some extent, I'm sure it does. If we had NMRs, I am quite sure that more
players would send in provisional orders early.
>While there is some record of who delays a game in the Email judge world,
>it seems that the delays have no effect in real game make up or function in
>any manner to provide a penalty for the behavior. Not that I am a fan of
>punishment response to unwanted behavior... in real life. As a social game
>I am always curious as to the structures of the small society around the
>board, and attitudes to such things are interesting. So am I correct in
>that the behavior of being late is recorded but no one uses it for anything?
It is used. The main way it is used is that some games are set up with a
minimum DEDICATION. You can't signon unless you have, say, 100 dedication
points. This sort of thing is only mildly effective, since playing for a
year on a given Judge will get you those 100 points unless you are late
most of the time (or you've actually abandoned a power).
>Am I also correct in that lateness is not an issue within a email game and
>that player to player functions have not seen any effect of the lateness?
>For example in a postal game I would not ally with a player who I thought
>was tending to miss deadlines as with the standard NMR policy in postal
>games he is unreliable and his orders may convert to civil disorder...in
>fact he becomes a perfect enemy or an ally of my enemy which is where I
>like to put them.
Just speaking personally, I am more likely to ally with someone who I think
is reliably on time. There are a number of reasons for this, in my case.
-Jamie
Sorry for the delay folks, I simply spaced the deadline.
Interesting in that in postal play I general send in two or three seasons
at a time to avoid missing a deadline. However that technique which is
available here somehow, has never appealed to me because the game is
delayed for lack of orders.
I am again curious as to the nature of the game play. It would appear that
aside from a passive aggressive mental state towards deadlines that some
players may slip into, I wonder if the no NMR policy actually encourages
this sort of behavior response.
While there is some record of who delays a game in the Email judge world,
it seems that the delays have no effect in real game make up or function in
any manner to provide a penalty for the behavior. Not that I am a fan of
punishment response to unwanted behavior... in real life. As a social game
I am always curious as to the structures of the small society around the
board, and attitudes to such things are interesting. So am I correct in
that the behavior of being late is recorded but no one uses it for anything?
Am I also correct in that lateness is not an issue within a email game and
that player to player functions have not seen any effect of the lateness?
For example in a postal game I would not ally with a player who I thought
was tending to miss deadlines as with the standard NMR policy in postal
games he is unreliable and his orders may convert to civil disorder...in
fact he becomes a perfect enemy or an ally of my enemy which is where I
like to put them.
Edi Birsan
[email protected]
Web: www.mgames.com
Midnight Games
541-772-7872
> :: Judge: USIN Game: Ghodstoo Variant: Standard
> :: Deadline: S1909M Tue Aug 19 1997 23:30:00 EST Boardman: 1997KT
>
> Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Turkey's orders.
> Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for France'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 Tue Sep 30 1997 14:30:00 EST.
Hey Pitt!! Well done!!
Cal
I've always thought the best code improvement the judge folks could design would
be a due date prompt. I think a lot of folks use the deadline as a reminder to
deal with the game in question and the end of the grace period as the true
deadline. If there was a way to make the game send out announcements on some
pre-set schedule:
"Game: ghodstoo (USIN) has F1903M due in 48 hours"
"Game: ghodstoo (USIN) has F1903M due in 24 hours"
"Game: ghodstoo (USIN) has F1903M due in 2 hours"
or some easily programmed (by the GM in the game settings) system, I think late
might become more of a big deal. It could either go only to folks w/o a full
set of orders or to everyone, and maybe it could list what orders were submitted
so players could remember if what they submitted is what they still want.
I have suggested this to judge maint and the general response was that it was
among the many good proposals, but I needed to find a champion to get it done.
I have tried to learn C, but I am not ready to work on judge code yet, so if
someone hear wants to take on the role of champion, I will happily assist.
I believe the culture of NoNMR developed due to the lack of internet
reliability, (the post office may be slower but it is very reliable. Internet
providers can go missing for several days and i would make NMR really scary.
However, more often than not, when we hear why someone was late it is either
"very stressed in real life" or "oops, I spaced." A "deadline pending" alert
would address the latter and might even deal with some of the former, as a
stressful life is often made less stressful by polite nags to deal with the
crucial things, like submitting orders. Right now the late notices serve that
role, but like many of you, I feel a deadline should not be the reminder, it
should be the deadline.
Andy the everprompt
Hello, everyone,
Sorry to be a bit asleep at the switch. John indeed is away, and I had
been led to believe that he already had orders in for this turn. Clearly
that does not seem to be the case. Although at this time, I will not
reset the deadline, if I find some mail from him with an update, I'll
let you all know.
Jamie has described my understanding of the way NMRing is supposed to
work in the E-Mail world. In short, to my mind, the most important
aspect of the "noNMR" rule is that it allows for "computer screwups"
which happen far more frequently than with the much maligned USPS and
AT&T. This may well be such a "computer screwup" where John sent his
orders before he left but they were not accepted or sent for some
reason.
Jim
PS I will be a bit detached from E-Mail until Friday, I will try to
watch but if you don't get instant response, you'll know why.
My understanding of the main cause of NoNMR default is the same as Rick's.
Eric Klien's rule had to do with Electronic Protocol -- a game could not be
run under his auspices if it allowed NMRs. More recently (as I think I've
mentioned in this forum before), Nick Fitzpatrick has been as responsible as
anyone for the prevalance of NoNMR: Nick will generally not score a game for
the Hall of Fame if there have been any NMRs in it. (If a game is set to
allow NMRs, but there never are any, he'll enter the game on petition.)
-Jamie
>I believe the culture of NoNMR developed due to the lack of internet
>reliability, (the post office may be slower but it is very reliable. Internet
>providers can go missing for several days and i would make NMR really scary.
I think it developed because it was really easy to find people who
would play a game, but the people would loose interest after a couple
turns, either because of other distractions or because of net
unreliability. Keep in mind that during the early days of email quite
a number of the players were college students, who can be quite
flighty. As a result, early email games had huge problems with NMRs.
It was not just that people were late with orders, people would just
disappear. I don't think that would happen so much with postal games,
as the initial effort of involving oneself in postal play is much
greater. So, my understanding is that Eric Klien imposed a NoNMR rule
because usually one NMR meant a player gone completely. When this
happens too often the entire game falls apart.
I don't know if access was the problem so much as forcing players to be
committed from the start. Though the menace of net failure looms over
Internet users all the time, for the most part most of us will not
lose access for more than a few hours per year. Maybe a day or two
once every few years, if a major component fails completely. I can
only recall one time where a local compter failed, and I was forced to
be a day late with orders in a Dip game. And that's over ~9 years of
playing.
Rick
Nick Fitzpatrick has been as responsible as
anyone for the prevalance of NoNMR: Nick will generally not score a game for
the Hall of Fame if there have been any NMRs in it. (If a game is set to
allow NMRs, but there never are any, he'll enter the game on petition.)
True, but generally I was following Eric, and Danny Loeb, who appears to
have escaped the blame for this so far.
Nick
Ummm, here's your slightly addled GM, checking back in. I have NOT
waded through all of your messages this week yet, so I apologize if
I have missed something that I have not addressed here. I have been
travelling all week and checking E-Mail very infrequently. Anyone
want to volunteer to wade through the 400 messages in my queue for
me?? ;-) Thought not.....
1) John did tell me that he was leaving town on short notice, saying
that he had orders in for the "current" season, but might need an
extension of the next season. I mistakenly understood him to mean
that he had orders in for SPRING and that I only had to worry about
retreats (should he have any) or Fall.
2) Given my error, what I THOUGHT had occurred was that John sent in
Spring orders that the Judge didn't accept, etc. Since I was wrong
about that, I do feel that a deadline extension to tonight is in order,
which should make everyone feel comfortable, I hope?
3) In sailing through a sampling of the press, I see that Jamie has
resurrected our discussion about "unenforceable rules". While not
completely irrelevant, I feel that this issue is a case of "GM error"
where I should have extended the deadline until aug 22 anyway because
of a player absence, but misunderstood the request. Thus, once my
error became clear to all of you, "finishing up negotiation" and
submitting orders was appropriate.
4) I also note that we are facing additional deadline extensions in
the next couple of weeks. Is it going to be possible to fit Fall
in before that? I need to go back and look at exactly when people
are going to be away. I may ask to SHORTEN the fall deadline to
keep us moving. Again, please feel free to negotiate with that in
mind today.
Sorry again for the misunderstanding,
Jim
Private message from England to France:
Aside:
there is a small but significant chance that the opportunity may arise to
eliminate Germany without risk in the Fall. I have a feeling you may have
suggested the Spring moves to open that possibility. If it's really risk
free, hell, I'm game. But I do believe that Pitt would punish the attempt
if he survived it by throwing the game to Hohn. I'm quite sure of it, in
fact. So it would probably have to be outright elimination--leaving him
even one center might be very risky indeed.
GKJ
Private message from England to Germany:
Hi,
As I just told Pitt, I'll be away from this evening until late Wednesday night.
The possibilities for outcomes of this phase are too complicated to have
any set plan ready to go for the Fall, but I thought I'd mention some
options, since Jim may want to shorten the Fall deadline (to get it in
before Cal goes off to Northern Ontario).
One thing I thought of: if Pitt can take Stp in the Fall, I think he ought
to do it. (With the army, of course.) Then if John is in Kiel with his
fleet, we might possibly arrange to dislodge that unit so John can rebuild
it. Hm. No, we won't have two non-French units against Kiel. Unless Pitt is
dislodged and retreats to Mun or Ber. But no, John was going to move to
those. Hm. Oh well.
Well, then maybe if there's an extra center that one of us could get, John
should get it so he can build, and then one of us smaller powers could take
something from France next year and John can remove the northern fleet?
Pitt, even if you do get Stp, I would like to leave one of my fleets around
there to participate in the maintenance of Stp. The other fleets can go
back west to help out around the MAO if necessary. Or we might need one of
mine in Baltic to hold the line.
Anyway, if you two come up with a plan in my absence and just tell me what
it is, that might allow me to enter my Fall orders quickly when I get back.
Cheerio,
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Master:
Sorry to add to your queue.
>4) I also note that we are facing additional deadline extensions in
>the next couple of weeks.
Yeah, I saw Cal's note.
> Is it going to be possible to fit Fall
>in before that? I need to go back and look at exactly when people
>are going to be away.
I am leaving tonight, returning Thursday morning. (Actually Wednesday
night, but late, and I probably won't get a chance to log in that night.)
If John manages to get orders in within the next couple of hours, and if
there are no retreats--or if the retreats are fairly trivial from my
perspective--then I may be able to submit my Fall orders before I go away
this evening (early this evening, I'm afraid). But I may not. Actually, I
think there's only a very small chance of my doing that, given the fairly
small chance of the current phase being processed today at all.
I believe that Cal leaves on Aug 29th. I don't think I should have any
trouble getting my orders for the Fall in before that. So we ought to be
able to process F1909 before Cal goes away. Unless there are other holidays
I don't know about, of course.
> I may ask to SHORTEN the fall deadline to
>keep us moving.
Remember retreats.
Don't shorten it (the Fall movement deadline) to Wednesday, but if you want
to shorten it to Thursday night, I think that's ok with me. It's kind of
tight, and if I have some momentous decision to make next season (and
there's some chance of that) I might be pretty nervous about it, but in any
case I'd be back to plead for an extra day.
As long as I have no retreats (and it would be a very peculiar combination
of events indeed that would cause me to have one), you can certainly go
ahead and process the retreat phase without me.
-Jamie
Private message from Master to England:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Sorry to add to your queue.
>
> >4) I also note that we are facing additional deadline extensions in
> >the next couple of weeks.
>
> Yeah, I saw Cal's note.
>
I figured you did.....
> > Is it going to be possible to fit Fall
> >in before that? I need to go back and look at exactly when people
> >are going to be away.
>
> I am leaving tonight, returning Thursday morning. (Actually Wednesday
> night, but late, and I probably won't get a chance to log in that night.)
>
I understand.
> If John manages to get orders in within the next couple of hours, and if
> there are no retreats--or if the retreats are fairly trivial from my
> perspective--then I may be able to submit my Fall orders before I go away
> this evening (early this evening, I'm afraid). But I may not. Actually, I
> think there's only a very small chance of my doing that, given the fairly
> small chance of the current phase being processed today at all.
>
Well, as John has talked to you, I hope he submits his orders today!
Do you have some reason to believe he won't? But I do understand
that it is likely they will be processed after you leave.
> I believe that Cal leaves on Aug 29th. I don't think I should have any
> trouble getting my orders for the Fall in before that. So we ought to be
> able to process F1909 before Cal goes away. Unless there are other holidays
> I don't know about, of course.
>
Not that I know of.
> > I may ask to SHORTEN the fall deadline to
> >keep us moving.
>
> Remember retreats.
> Don't shorten it (the Fall movement deadline) to Wednesday, but if you want
> to shorten it to Thursday night, I think that's ok with me. It's kind of
> tight, and if I have some momentous decision to make next season (and
> there's some chance of that) I might be pretty nervous about it, but in any
> case I'd be back to plead for an extra day.
>
I was thinking of either Thursday or Friday for the fall deadline
depending on process time for Spring and retreats.
> As long as I have no retreats (and it would be a very peculiar combination
> of events indeed that would cause me to have one), you can certainly go
> ahead and process the retreat phase without me.
>
> -Jamie
>
>
Thank you for the last part. That obviously is essential if we are to
get through to Fall next week.
Jim
Private message from England to Master:
>Well, as John has talked to you, I hope he submits his orders today!
>Do you have some reason to believe he won't?
Sort of. I thought he would have submitted them by now. Since he hasn't, I
suppose he may not get around to it, or is waiting for something else.
If there are WAIT flags set, then the move won't be processed until
midnight, anyway. (And there are, I just checked.)
> But I do understand
>that it is likely they will be processed after you leave.
Yeah, that.
>I was thinking of either Thursday or Friday for the fall deadline
>depending on process time for Spring and retreats.
Should be fine, then. If I can't make it by Thurs night, I'll tell you
Thursday.
-Jamie
Private message from France to Austria:
I have sent in my orders, in line with what you have told me. Let's give
em hell.
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'ghodstoo':
> 4) I also note that we are facing additional deadline extensions in
> the next couple of weeks. Is it going to be possible to fit Fall
> in before that? I need to go back and look at exactly when people
> are going to be away. I may ask to SHORTEN the fall deadline to
> keep us moving. Again, please feel free to negotiate with that in
> mind today.
I have no problem with shortening ALL the deadlines from here on in.
Until or unless the situation becomes less static (he said ignoring
all the home centres that changed hands last year) I don't think
there are much more than tactical considerations to discuss.
Cal the Despicable
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
>Let me see if I understand what you are saying below:
>If I am getting pounded in a game and I do NOT want it to be counted in the
>Hall of Fame then all I have to do is to NMR and the the main players in
>the game get screwed out of any recognition. Hmmmm seems like another way
>to stab someone.
Noone has ever quite put it like that before ...
Well, sure, in a game that permits NMRs.
But if you're playing in an NMR game, presumably you aren't too interested
in Hall of Fame records anyway. It is pretty dumb to play in an NMR game in
pursuit of Hall of Fame points, since the odds are extremely good that
there will be at least one NMR.
Note also that the Hall of Fame is only one way to get 'recognized' for a
game. The HoF points system is not any kind of Official Hobby Scorekeeping;
it is Nick's. (This is a fact that it's good to mention now and then. Every
once in a while someone starts complaining about some unfairness or other
in the HoF. I generally ignore these and have little sympathy with them.
The Hall of Fame is just one set of records, it keeps track of certain
things that many people seem to be interested in. And Nick annually invites
the players who score very high in a certain dimension to play a demo game.
The next one must be coming pretty soon, by the way, right Nick?)
Since Nick does it very carefully and has long records, his is a popular
one. But there are others. I am not sure how Conrad Minshall treats NMR
games in his index, the DSI, for instance. (Conrad thought there were some
shortcomings in the HoF system, but rather than complain about it he just
made up his own system. Of course, it's a lot of work.)
-Jamie
Thanks for the defence, Jamie. HoF has taken some negative press, especially
in the snail mail world. I guess I assume that no-one is desperate enough
to manipulate the system badly enough to deliberatly NMR a game. Though
most NMR games have NMR's somewhere along the line, so I can think of
better scams.
Incidentally, the HoF is two things. The first is a database. All games
are in there, regardless of status. NMR and nonNMR games. Secondly
is the point system (which I have claimed for 5 years now, is temporary,
until I can institute some kind of zero sum based system). NMR games
(among other things) just don't get points.
I don't believe Conrad's system used NMR games either, but I would
have to check. Conrad, incidentally, used the HoF database to generate
his DSI system. I have always made the HoF database (which includes lots
of information for each game and player, which the HoF doesn't use) public
so anyone can take it, and develop whatever type of point system
they like! Of course, they have to rely on me, to maintain the database.
The next HoF? Good question. The last one was last September. My life
kind of fell apart last fall, and I was avoiding it. The backlog is huge,
I started getting back into it seriously in April, but then work blew up
big time. I think I averaged 70 hours weeks since the beginning of May.
Things have quietened up a bit lately, but I have taken the opportunity
to visit the real world a little. Hopefully, there will be something
put together, with the traditional August 31st cutoff date, to create
a hall97 game. I'm hopeful that September will be quiet, and I can
clean up the mess. (and that my hard-drive will not do something
stupid while there are the results from other 500 games sitting
there, without backups ...)
Nick
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
> I don't think so. I mean, yeah, it's a word. :-)
> (Late negotiations aren't monitorable because they could be done by phone,
> or extrajudicial e-mail, or....)
Certain things are going to be left to a sort of honor system, no
matter what, technically. People can lie about needing deadline
requests, too. But some things are rightfully considered outside the
realm of the actual "game" and inappropriate. Willfully ignoring the
deadline is one of those things, IMO.
> >Personally, my objection to this type of behavior is that it is
> >inconsiderate of your fellow players, to willfully ignore the
> >deadlines.
>
> What type of behavior?
Deliberately ignoring deadlines.
> Well, ahem.
> I'm afraid this could too rapidly deteriorate into rather silly venting of
> pet peeves.... However, I must say that using the deadline announcement as a
> prompt does seem just a *trifle* "inconsiderate of your fellow players."
On _occasion_. I'm often insanely busy, and until recently I'd been
involved in quite a few games (I put a moratorium on gamestarts, due
to my busy-ness). Sometimes, I just don't remember to send orders in
until reminded.
Since I monitor my e-mail in the background very often, though, I am
almost invariably able to send my orders in immediately upon
notification that orders are due. As I said, 90% of the time within
an hour or two of notification. And I still get my orders in on time
often enough to have racked up a ton of ded points in the space of
less than a year. Using the late notification as a prompt is the
exception for me, rather than the rule.
BTW, I think that the previous poster who urged implementation of a
"reminder" prompt regarding orders had a great idea, assuming the
behavior I describe above significantly bothers you and others.
> On the other hand, on this round John was simply out of town longer than he
> expected. He certainly wasn't deliberately ignoring a deadline. (I don't
> *think* you were suggesting that he was, but it kind of sounded like it.)
> Oh wait, I get it.
> You mean, John could have immediately submitted orders when he returned.
Right. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that he was the last
one to turn orders in.
> But he had been away for over a week, that would have been a very stupid
> thing to do.
"Stupid?" I wouldn't put it that way. I think it's acting pursuant
to the spirit of the rules, is all.
> He could have requested a deadline extension, as you note, but
> that would have held up the game even longer, while we waited for Jim to
> move the deadline, *then* John conducted Diplomacy.
But keeping the GM in the loop as the neutral arbiter of the game and
things like deadline extensions is the appropriate thing to do, I
feel. And I have little doubt that Jim would have been more than
willing to extend the deadline, in light of John's unexpectedly longer
trip. I would have had no problem with that, either.
It's a question of procedure, though, which I believe is important.
There is a world of difference between one player making a unilateral
decision to hold up the game, and the GM making an independent
decision that the game should be extended. Placing that discretion in
the hands of the GM is where it belongs.
As for your point about it potentially taking longer, personally, as a
practical matter that may be true in some cases. Alternatively and
ideally, the rules and guidelines would have been more firmly
established before the game began, so these things could have been
decided.
> Anyway, let's just get a ruling on what is legal, and we can all worry about
> what's good manners when we're sipping tea in the parlor.
> Gentle King Jamie "one lump or two?"
But arguing is so much fun. ;)
Hohn
Hohn,
>I tuned part of that discussion out, but as I recall, I thought it was
>determined that late negotiations _are_ monitorable (izzat a word?).
I don't think so. I mean, yeah, it's a word. :-)
(Late negotiations aren't monitorable because they could be done by phone,
or extrajudicial e-mail, or....)
>Personally, my objection to this type of behavior is that it is
>inconsiderate of your fellow players, to willfully ignore the
>deadlines.
What type of behavior?
> I've missed quite a few, I fully admit, but in 90% of the
>cases I get my orders in within 1-2 hours of the deadline. >That's
>because like someone else mentioned, I tend to use the deadline
>announcement as a prompt.
>
>But I've never deliberately ignored the deadline.
Well, ahem.
I'm afraid this could too rapidly deteriorate into rather silly venting of
pet peeves.... However, I must say that using the deadline announcement as a
prompt does seem just a *trifle* "inconsiderate of your fellow players."
On the other hand, on this round John was simply out of town longer than he
expected. He certainly wasn't deliberately ignoring a deadline. (I don't
*think* you were suggesting that he was, but it kind of sounded like it.)
Oh wait, I get it.
You mean, John could have immediately submitted orders when he returned.
But he had been away for over a week, that would have been a very stupid
thing to do. He could have requested a deadline extension, as you note, but
that would have held up the game even longer, while we waited for Jim to
move the deadline, *then* John conducted Diplomacy.
Anyway, let's just get a ruling on what is legal, and we can all worry about
what's good manners when we're sipping tea in the parlor.
Gentle King Jamie "one lump or two?"
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
> I was under the opposite impression.
> I was under the impression that after much discussion, Jim said that that
> rule was *NOT* in force in this game.
> To jog your memory, as I remember it he gave as his reason that he does not
> like unenforceable rules.
I tuned part of that discussion out, but as I recall, I thought it was
determined that late negotiations _are_ monitorable (izzat a word?).
> At the time I said that I preferred to operate under the following common
> rule: that no one is to negotiate with late powers, but that those with
> orders in could negotiate freely after deadline. That's the rule I like,
> unenforceability notwithstanding.
That's what I thought we were doing.
> But of course I will take advantage of
> the opportunity if it is legal, and I thought it was in this game.
Personally, my objection to this type of behavior is that it is
inconsiderate of your fellow players, to willfully ignore the
deadlines. I've missed quite a few, I fully admit, but in 90% of the
cases I get my orders in within 1-2 hours of the deadline. That's
because like someone else mentioned, I tend to use the deadline
announcement as a prompt.
But I've never deliberately ignored the deadline.
The proper thing to do in a situation such as this is to request a
deadline extension, IMO. The way it is now really doesn't sit well
with me, to be honest.
> >What's the rule on this?
>
> Yeah, what is it?
Hohn
Hohn,
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
>Certain things are going to be left to a sort of honor system, no
>matter what, technically. People can lie about needing deadline
>requests, too.
That's also my view.
I was just citing Jim's reason, as I remember it (his reason for *not*
having a no-negotiations-after-deadlines rule, namely, that it is
unenforceable).
Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, the rule I *prefer* is the
one I've mentioned: late parties are not supposed to send or be sent to
while they are late, but others may negotiate freely among themselves even
after the deadline, so long as their orders are in (and error-free).
That is the rule I like, but I do not believe it is the rule in this
particular game.
>BTW, I think that the previous poster who urged implementation of a
>"reminder" prompt regarding orders had a great idea, assuming the
>behavior I describe above significantly bothers you and others.
(It was Andy Schwarz.)
I also think it is a good idea. I don't think the behavior bothers me more
than it bothers the average person. It just adds lateness to games, that's
all.
>> You mean, John could have immediately submitted orders when he returned.
>
>Right. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that he was the last
>one to turn orders in.
[I think you mean, that he *will be* the last one to turn in orders....]
>> But he had been away for over a week, that would have been a very stupid
>> thing to do.
>
>"Stupid?" I wouldn't put it that way. I think it's acting pursuant
>to the spirit of the rules, is all.
If there were such a rule, it would be!
-Gentle King Jamie
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
[....]
>Whoa.
>
>It's past deadline. I specifically did not communicate with Cal after
>deadline on the turn when we had our miscommunication, despite the
>fact that there were potential judge and/or computer problems, because
>it was past deadline. That's what I thought the rule was: no post-
>deadline negotation.
I was under the opposite impression.
I was under the impression that after much discussion, Jim said that that
rule was *NOT* in force in this game.
To jog your memory, as I remember it he gave as his reason that he does not
like unenforceable rules.
At the time I said that I preferred to operate under the following common
rule: that no one is to negotiate with late powers, but that those with
orders in could negotiate freely after deadline. That's the rule I like,
unenforceability notwithstanding. But of course I will take advantage of
the opportunity if it is legal, and I thought it was in this game.
>What's the rule on this?
>
>Hohn
Yeah, what is it?
Gentle King Jamie
> I have returned. My road trip took longer than I expected. I did not
> enter orders because I left town before the builds had processed.
> I believe I've already absorbed my dedication point loss so let's just
> confer briefly and I'll enter my orders. Then the turn will process.
> Sorry for inconveniencing everyone.
Whoa.
It's past deadline. I specifically did not communicate with Cal after
deadline on the turn when we had our miscommunication, despite the
fact that there were potential judge and/or computer problems, because
it was past deadline. That's what I thought the rule was: no post-
deadline negotation.
What's the rule on this?
Hohn
Private message from England to Germany:
I was going to think through the suggestion, but if it's ok with both of
you, it's fine with me.
By the way: John, as you will have seen if you read all the broadcasts, Cal
seems to be pretty severely deluded into thinking that he is safe from
Turkish attack as long as he 'doesn't stray too far from home' (and he says
he thinks you are as much a threat to win as Hohn is because 'everyone is
helping' you). For this reason, Pitt and I thought it was crucial that we
should be able to get Stp by the end of next year. I'm sure I don't have to
explain further.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Germany to France:
>GKJ informs me that you have coordinated your moves. How about if I move
>ber-pru, kie-ber, and bur-mun? I'll support G into war and move out of mun
>in the fall.
The spring moves are fine. The fall moves are fine, as well, though I'm
happy either keeping MUN or taking WAR or BER if you take MUN.
-Pitt
Private message from France to Germany:
GKJ informs me that you have coordinated your moves. How about if I move
ber-pru, kie-ber, and bur-mun? I'll support G into war and move out of mun
in the fall.
Is this workable?
Private message from Germany to France:
>I have returned.
Welcome back.
>I believe I've already absorbed my dedication point loss so let's just
>confer briefly and I'll enter my orders. Then the turn will process.
I've (provisionally) decided to join you and Jamie to stop a Turkish solo.
Jamie and I have discussed it at length and we will do what we can to take
STP. I have ordered SIL-WAR, though it's sure to fail, in order to at
least tie up one or two of Turkey's armies. I'm hoping that you will move
your armies west, as well.
Here's the thing, though, John. Given a choice between a draw that doesn't
include Germany and a Turkish solo, I'll take the Turkish solo.
Neither of those options are very appealing to me, however, and I'm really
hoping for a draw that includes me. It seems to me that, in order to
ensure this happens, my only real weapon is the threat of doing what I can
to throw the game to Turkey. I think I'm in a pretty good position to do
that and I *will* do it unless I see some concrete moves from you that are
unambiguously in support of German survival into a draw. I apologize for
the naked threat but there it is.
I fully expect you to take MUN this year. I also fully expect that you'll
help me take BER in exchange (unless by some miracle I should take WAR).
I'm not looking to grow, only not to shrink. I will not accept any plan or
set of orders that does not allow me to maintain my size and that does not
also allow me to maintain the threat of throwing the game to Turkey.
Without that threat, I would be powerless. I hope you see my position and
my reason for taking it.
Having said all that, I feel quite certain that you and Jamie and I can
easily shut Hohn down if we do work closely together. I'm reasonably
certain that Jamie's on board with that plan. I hope you will be, too.
-Pitt
Private message from England to France:
I've ordered Lon-Nth, Edi-Nwg, Den-Bal, in pursuit of Stp (aiming to get it
next year, not this coming one). Pitt alleges to be on board; he is
supposed to order Swe-Fin.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to Italy:
I have returned. My road trip took longer than I expected. I did not
enter orders because I left town before the builds had processed.
I believe I've already absorbed my dedication point loss so let's just
confer briefly and I'll enter my orders. Then the turn will process.
Sorry for inconveniencing everyone.
John
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
>Let me see if I understand what you are saying below:
>If I am getting pounded in a game and I do NOT want it to be counted in the
>Hall of Fame then all I have to do is to NMR and the the main players in
>the game get screwed out of any recognition. Hmmmm seems like another way
>to stab someone.
Well, sure, in a game that permits NMRs.
But if you're playing in an NMR game, presumably you aren't too interested
in Hall of Fame records anyway. It is pretty dumb to play in an NMR game in
pursuit of Hall of Fame points, since the odds are extremely good that
there will be at least one NMR.
Note also that the Hall of Fame is only one way to get 'recognized' for a
game. The HoF points system is not any kind of Official Hobby Scorekeeping;
it is Nick's. (This is a fact that it's good to mention now and then. Every
once in a while someone starts complaining about some unfairness or other
in the HoF. I generally ignore these and have little sympathy with them.
The Hall of Fame is just one set of records, it keeps track of certain
things that many people seem to be interested in. And Nick annually invites
the players who score very high in a certain dimension to play a demo game.
The next one must be coming pretty soon, by the way, right Nick?)
Since Nick does it very carefully and has long records, his is a popular
one. But there are others. I am not sure how Conrad Minshall treats NMR
games in his index, the DSI, for instance. (Conrad thought there were some
shortcomings in the HoF system, but rather than complain about it he just
made up his own system. Of course, it's a lot of work.)
-Jamie
Let me see if I understand what you are saying below:
If I am getting pounded in a game and I do NOT want it to be counted in the
Hall of Fame then all I have to do is to NMR and the the main players in
the game get screwed out of any recognition. Hmmmm seems like another way
to stab someone.
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Nick Fitzpatrick has been as responsible as
> anyone for the prevalance of NoNMR: Nick will generally not score a game for
> the Hall of Fame if there have been any NMRs in it. (If a game is set to
> allow NMRs, but there never are any, he'll enter the game on petition.)
>
>
>True, but generally I was following Eric, and Danny Loeb, who appears to
>have escaped the blame for this so far.
>
>Nick
>
>
Edi Birsan
[email protected]
Web: www.mgames.com
Midnight Games
541-772-7872
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>I think the reliability factor for most of us is pretty lousy. My current
>ISP will have problems for a couple of hours at a time every few weeks. But
>it is a dream compared to my first ISP which regularly crashed for hours or
>even days at a time. And even IT was pretty good compared to the nightmare
>that was (still is?) AOL. I'm just glad I never went down that road.
Many of us regulars have unusually good connections. All the .edu and
employees at big .com companies, I guess.
I gm a fair number of newbie games, and I find that *most* players don't
have much connection trouble, but a significant minority do. And
unfortunately a large percentage of the continental Europe players have
regular failures. I guess that's largely the .nl players, the other
Continentals are still lagging well behind *them*. Scandinavia seems to be
ahead of the European pack.
>This from Nick:
>>True, but generally I was following Eric, and Danny Loeb, who appears to
>>have escaped the blame for this so far.
>
>Blame? I like NoNMR.
I agree. I think Nick was kind of kidding. Or just being Eeyore.
>Sometimes you get into a game
>that turns into a nightmare of delays and abandonments (I've been involved
>in two of those - in one I took over as the sixth(!) Austria), but those
>games are unusual.
I've found about the same.
My current newbie game has had three replacements. The first one was a
paradigm of responsibility, though -- the original player quickly found
that he couldn't put in enough time, asked to be replaced, and played
another season until I could find a replacement. The second guy just
vanished without a word, and didn't return my telephone call. That was very
annoying. The third guy disappeared too, I think he must have lost his
connection. In this last case, I noticed that the player had stopped
talking to anyone, and that he didn't answer my e-mail. When the deadline
passed, I got a replacement right away, not waiting for the Grace to
expire. This is a little unorthodox, and if Benni shows up again and
complains I'll feel bad about it, but I really really didn't want to wait
another five days. I felt my newbies (and the remainder are quite
responsible, I think) were getting close to being turned off to the whole
Judge scene. Understandably.
> Lates are common, but as someone (Andy?) pointed out,
>too many players seem to regard the deadline as a "reminder". I liked the
>idea of sending out reminder notices before the deadline.
Yeah, that's a good idea (right, it was Andy "No T In Me" Schwarz). I'm
tempted to say, "Or players could just manage to take a tiny bit of
responsibility for themselves," but we do have to deal with the reality,
and the Reminder idea sounds highly implementable.
-Jamie
>Though the menace of net failure looms over
>Internet users all the time, for the most part most of us will not
>lose access for more than a few hours per year. Maybe a day or two
>once every few years, if a major component fails completely. I can
>only recall one time where a local compter failed, and I was forced to
>be a day late with orders in a Dip game. And that's over ~9 years of
>playing.
>
>Rick
I think the reliability factor for most of us is pretty lousy. My current
ISP will have problems for a couple of hours at a time every few weeks. But
it is a dream compared to my first ISP which regularly crashed for hours or
even days at a time. And even IT was pretty good compared to the nightmare
that was (still is?) AOL. I'm just glad I never went down that road.
This from Nick:
>True, but generally I was following Eric, and Danny Loeb, who appears to
>have escaped the blame for this so far.
Blame? I like NoNMR. I only played in one NMR game and fount that there's
really not much point to putting a lot of effort into a game if a
disappearing power can decide the outcome. Sometimes you get into a game
that turns into a nightmare of delays and abandonments (I've been involved
in two of those - in one I took over as the sixth(!) Austria), but those
games are unusual. Lates are common, but as someone (Andy?) pointed out,
too many players seem to regard the deadline as a "reminder". I liked the
idea of sending out reminder notices before the deadline. I'm sure it is
right there in the queue behind my idea to optionally sort each country's
moves (Successful Moves, Bounced Moves, Successful Supports, etc) and is
scheduled to be implemented by the Twelfth of Never. No complaints though.
Anyone is welcome to change the code, so I could do it myself. But I tried
learning C and thought that in many ways, it was the most ridiculous excuse
for a language I'd ever seen.
Jeff
Private message from Germany to Master:
Jim,
>I have no problem with shortening ALL the deadlines from here on in.
>Until or unless the situation becomes less static (he said ignoring
>all the home centres that changed hands last year) I don't think
>there are much more than tactical considerations to discuss.
>
>Cal the Despicable
As you know if you've been monitoring my press with Jamie and John, I don't
agree with Cal's analysis. In fact, for me, things are more fluid and
critical now than any time since the early, early stages of the game. As a
result, I would not be comfortable with any shortening of deadlines, FWIW.
-Pitt
Retreats
Private message from Master to Germany:
Pitt,
I understand and completely agree. Does that also apply to shortening
this particular upcoming deadline (about which you are within your
rights), or can I call for Fall orders before Cal leaves on vacation
this upcoming Friday? Take a few days to think about it and factor
in Jamie's note, etc.
Jim
Private message from Master to Austria:
Hi Edi,
If you could get your retreat in quickly, then I can address whether
everyone is willing to get orders for Fall before Cal leaves on
vacation. Could you do that please?
Thanks!
Jim
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
We have a lot of interesting options coming up.
First, I'm thrilled we vaped those two French units. Of course, now
Edi has a place to retreat to, but I think VEN-ROM, TRI-VEN, ADR and
APU S TRI-VEN will still work admirably.
Second, we can take MAR, SPA or MID. I'd love to bust into the MID,
but I'll follow your lead on whatever you want to do.
Third and finally, I'm sure the "anti-Hohn" talk will be rearing its
ugly head again this turn, but after having looked at the board, even
if I stabbed you and everything worked perfectly, I'd go up to 16.
Then I'd promptly lose STP (which is inevitable within a year anyway)
while stagnating in the center and having my hands full of a new FI
alliance in the south.
Obviously, I don't want that.
I'm sticking with you, that's for certain. The question I _do_ have
is what do we want to do, though? Should we press on against France,
blow past the stalemate line and completely remove his chances of
victory at the expense of making me a potentially greater risk
(although you will be getting the major lion's share of any future
conquests, that is for certain)? Should we sit tight and wait
(although I will lose ground in the north)? Should we be shooting for
a four-way (which is fine) or a three-way (which is preferable)?
Thoughts?
Hohn
Just in case, for everyone's benefit I am retreating to Tuscany.
Trying to get the Judge to acknowledge that now.
Edi Birsan
[email protected]
Web: www.mgames.com
Midnight Games
541-772-7872
Private message from Italy to France:
John: Just want to reassure you that, despite the two units of yours
that got popped, I will keep my word to you and not try to take any of
your centres (or help Hohn to do so). I am fully aware that he is
dangerously close to to grabbing 18 centres, but I'll be doing my best
to avoid that.
What would you say to the idea of a three-way draw, you, me and Hohn? I
don't think Jamie & Pitt should be part of the final result.
Thoughts?
Cal
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Master to Austria, England, France,
> Germany, Italy and Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
> 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.
Thursday deadline fine by me.
Cal the Despicable
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> We have a lot of interesting options coming up.
Uh huh, and I have some dilemmas to face... :)
> First, I'm thrilled we vaped those two French units. Of course, now
> Edi has a place to retreat to, but I think VEN-ROM, TRI-VEN, ADR and
> APU S TRI-VEN will still work admirably.
Will you back it up with a bounce in Serbia to ensure I don't lose
Trieste to France?
> Second, we can take MAR, SPA or MID. I'd love to bust into the MID,
> but I'll follow your lead on whatever you want to do.
> Third and finally, I'm sure the "anti-Hohn" talk will be rearing its
> ugly head again this turn, but after having looked at the board, even
> if I stabbed you and everything worked perfectly, I'd go up to 16.
> Then I'd promptly lose STP (which is inevitable within a year anyway)
> while stagnating in the center and having my hands full of a new FI
> alliance in the south.
>
> Obviously, I don't want that.
>
> I'm sticking with you, that's for certain. The question I _do_ have
> is what do we want to do, though? Should we press on against France,
> blow past the stalemate line and completely remove his chances of
> victory at the expense of making me a potentially greater risk
> (although you will be getting the major lion's share of any future
> conquests, that is for certain)? Should we sit tight and wait
> (although I will lose ground in the north)? Should we be shooting for
> a four-way (which is fine) or a three-way (which is preferable)?
>
> Thoughts?
Yup, lots of them. This is my dilemma. If I help you break thru the
Med,
you WILL stab me to go for the win. I would do it in in your place
and I would expect no less of you... grin.
However, I promised France that I would be trying to set up a stalemate
line in the Med and would go no further lest you become as big a risk as
everyone is scared of. Now, I'd break that promise if it would do ME
any
good, but you'd benefit too much for comfort.
That leaves the question of what next? Well, given that there will be
no
solo win this game, the best we can do is to reduce the size of the draw
as much as possible. For obvious reasons, to me that means a three-way.
I haven't talked to France recently, so I have no idea if he will be
amenable to excluding his faithful lackeys, Jamie & Pitt. It would be
worth asking him though and I'll try that first. It occurs to me that
blackmail may be an option. He either votes for the draw, or I throw
the
game to you...
For the record, I will NOT do that, but hopefully John won't know that.
Thoughts?
Cal
Private message from Master to Turkey:
I'm setting the deadline to Thursday until I hear something to
the contrary.... just to get people to think about it.
Jim
I'm just noticing that the retreat doesn't seem to have been processed
correctly. I think I've just changed the deadline for the RETREAT.
Just to test, I'm changing the deadline back to tonight.
If it gets "weird", I'll fix it tomorrow. But I won't get to it first
thing. If a Judge whiz can tell me what happened, I'd appreciate it.
Jim
The "delay" feature is also to protect those who put their orders in and
then, on receiving the acknowledgement, realize that they mis-ordered
something. They have some time to fix the problem, before the judge hauls
off and processes the phase.
Manus
The judge has a 'delay' feature, which makes it wait a certain amount
of time before processing orders. This is included to prevent runaway
games when a bug hits the judge. In the case of Ghodstoo, this
parameter is set to a half-hour, which means that the judge waits 30
minutes before processing moves.
Rick
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Just in case, for everyone's benefit I am retreating to Tuscany.
Of course, you know, this means WAR! :)
You wascawwy wabbit...
Cal the Despicable