From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Diplomacy - EP Chapter 2 - Issue 295
Originator: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:55:03 GMT

Issue #295 of Chapter Two of the Electronic Protocol
By Nicholas Fitzpatrick (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca)
October 6, 1992                      (1992 10 06)
Distributed via: rec.games.pbm rec.games.board bit.listserv.dipl-l
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Protocol Games played on the Diplomacy Adjudicator
-------------------------------------------------------------

**** TABLE OF CONTENTS ****
PART ONE - Opinions, Letters, and Editorials:
    Game Ounce controversy
    DIPL-L material in EP
PART TWO - Summary of all moderated games on the Judge:
    List of game openings
    List of EP games on the DA
    For more info about the Judge
    For more info about the Electronic Protocol
    For archives
    List of diplomacy adjudicators
    List of gamemasters
PART THREE - Report from the Battle Front
    Dram EOG Report


***** PART ONE *****

Abbreviations used in this issue:  DL  = Danny Loeb
                                   JD  = Jamie Dreier
                                   KD  = Karl Dotzek
                                   KL  = Ken Lowe (jdr)
                                   LHM = Lars Henrik Mathiesen
                                   NF  = Nick Fitzpatrick
                                   MN  = Mark Nelson

*** GAME OUNCE CONTROVERSY ***

JD  I am slightly puzzled about the hubbub over Ken's ruling in OUNCE.  
First of all, myself I disagree with the ruling. But that's not what I'm
confused about. Did the two players propose and vote for a draw? And Ken
overruled THAT?? I thought that any time all surviving players agree to
a draw, the game is a draw. What's all this about "adjudication"??

KL  Yes, Italy proposed a two-way draw between himself and Russia.  I vetoed
the proposal.  There was never any official voting.

JD  I want to know whether it is a general house rule of EP that there can
be no draws unless the GM (or some authority) approves. 

KL  I don't know, but there ought to be.  I admit that nothing that I have
written prior to my ruling in game Ounce says that I wouldn't allow a
non-stalemated draw (except for a broadcast in game Fontenoy), but I
really feel that playing for one is not in the spirit of the game (no,
I was never playing for one in game MoD).  It really does ruin the game
for the remaining players if there are players out there that are
playing for some result other than the win or a survivorship in a
stalemated draw.  I think there actually is something in the EP house
rules against "goofy play".  I think intentionally committing suicide by
throwing the game to a third power should be considered "goofy play"
just as not taking the win when it is handed to you should be.  Russia
was prolonging the game by not taking his 18th center (he could have
taken and held 21 unopposed on the turn I made my ruling).

JD  I don't agree, by the way. I think perfectly good and sincere Dip players 
can have other reasonable goals than Win Win Win. I've commented on this in EP, 
but briefly, I think that if persuading someone that you have a certain goal 
can help you win, then we must assume that goal is reasonable. (Hm. I might 
want to take that back.)

JD  In any case, I believe that any draw agreed to by all survivors ought to
be permitted, or certainly any draw that INCLUDES all survivors (to allow 
games with DIAS rules).

JD  But more to the point, Ken is not anywhere in the hierarchy of the game
I mentioned in my original letter. So it is important to me to find out
whether EP house rules say anything about the general conditions under
which a 2-way draw is permitted. I will assume that it is up to the
individual GM unless told otherwise.

NF  I was looking through the rules (and the ep.house.rules, and
the rules file from the judge), for support for a similar case in
the game Lot, however I could find no evidence to support this position,
so perhaps we (ie Ken) had better alter the rules!  :-)

NF  On the other hand, there is something in the ep.house.rules, that says
that a player CAN complain about a decision of the GM, however NONE
have done so, and I do not even think that any of the players in Ounce
are even aware that anyone is still discussing the situation.

JD  I have a game that is heading toward a 2-way draw. Actually, there is a 
fair chance that a real, stalemated split could come up.  But if not, is it 
going to be impossible for the two remaining players to vote for a draw??

JD  One other thing, about OUNCE specifically. A player, Sean Starkey, who
started with Austria later took over Turkey. I think that's a really bad
idea. I guess it's hard to prevent in an unmoderated JUDGE game, but
Eric (or whoever is now in charge at the level that Eric used to be)
should think about this issue.


Eric Klien writes:

>JD " I thought that any time all surviving players agree to a draw,
>the game is a draw."

EK Correct.
>
>JD  "I want to know whether it is a general house rule of EP that there can
>be no draws unless the GM (or some authority) approves."
>
EK  I have no such house rule!


Jamie Dreier writes:

JD  Ok.  So, just to be clear: 
If I were in a game, and was one of two survivors, and I and the
other survivor wanted to agree to a draw, but our GM vetoed, the
official EP line would be that the GM could not veto that draw.

JD  I will assume this is right.

JD  That said, I have written to the actual GM of WIN91, and am awaiting
his thoughts on the issue. Also, I think that if the game DOES
run into a 17-17 split, it will very likely be one in which there
are stalemate lines on both sides. So I doubt I would have to
appeal a GM ruling.

JD  (For the record, if anyone wants to look at DPPE, in which Danny's DIPLOMAT
has just been eliminated, he'll see that there is a fair chance for a similar
17-17 stalemate, between England and Turkey. It all depends on how France 
decides to play, having just been stabbed by England.  France is almost bound 
to lose; the only question is whether he will allow a Turkish victory or whether 
he will dig in and wait to be eliminated by England.  A VERY interesting game, 
IMHO.)


Nick Fitzpatrick writes:

NF  Well, I have looked through all our rules (the judge files rules, 
ep.house.rules) and the real rules, and I can find nothing in it to support
Ken's decision in the game Ounce.  Technically either Eric of I could overrule
him, however, according to our rules, someone would have to appeal to us, as
no-one has done so . . . .

NF  If we should allow these 17-17 draws, where one power is obviously able
to win or not, is another question.  From everything I have read, the answer
is that however distasteful we might find it, the answer it, yes, we should
allow it.


Danny Loeb (and Nick Fitzpatrick) write:

DL  As the author of the EP/Judge house rules file, let me put my own
2-cents in on this OUNCE controversy.

DL  There is a rule against CRAZY (goofy) play. This rule is in general
very lightly enforced and has never in my knowledge been applied to
DRAW voting. However, a good case can be made in a situation similar
to OUNCE where a player ignores a simple strategy available by which
to win the game.

DL  While it might be possible to use the above reasoning, the CRAZY play
rule is clearly to be avoided in any argument since it is so
subjective. For some people, voting for any non-DIAS draw is CRAZY. If
such an interpretation of the CRAZY rule is intended then this should
have been specified before the game started.

DL  In conclusion, there are merits to both sides of the arguments.
Nevertheless, the point is mute since as far as I know, the loser has
not appealed the decision.

DL  The NNSD "no-non-stalemated-draws" rules is in many ways very
appealing to me, since it draws out the underlying paradox in
diplomacy which makes the game so interesting to me: You can not win
without allies, and your allies can not win if you do.

DL  However, what would be the effects of an NNSD rule. If the players
REALLY want a draw, and are thwarted by NNSD, then they could slowly
move their units to a real stalemate situation and claim a draw. This
additional hurdle merely slows down the game. Alternatively, the
players could overturn the decision with a unanimous vote. (The GM
could however legally abandon the game at that point or force them off
the JUDGE if this was Ken, and the players would have to find a new
home for their game.)

DL  Another alternative would be for all players to leave standing orders
(all hold) with the GM. The GM could then play the game by himself for
the rest of eternity.

DL  Thus, we see that against DETERMINED players there is no such thing as
NNSD. (Although perhaps the same could be said for DIAS).
Nevertheless, an NNSD rule if announced beforehand, would serve as a
psychological hurdle that would prevent players from believing so much
in these unstable 2-way draws.

DL  On the other hand, NNSD rules suddenly imposed after the game is over
do not serve much of a useful function.


> JD  One other thing, about OUNCE specifically. A player,Sean Starkey, who
   started with Austria later took over Turkey. I think that's a
   really bad idea. I guess it's hard to prevent in an unmoderated
   JUDGE game, but Eric (or whoever is now in charge at the level that
   Eric used to be) should think about this issue.

DL  Eric changing the EP rules last year to prevent such takeovers.  I'm
not sure if this is a good idea. Other than observers, ex-players are
the most easily motivated reserved player pool. They usually can
re-enter a game with much less disruption than a totally new player.
This should be allowed, certainly if no one objects.

NF I was not aware of this, in fact I prefer to have stand-bys who
were already eliminated.  They have a better feel for the game, and I 
have yet to encounter any one carrying out grudge matches.  A good example
of a game where players keep returning is Danny Loeb's game Hastings.

DL  This raises an important question. How do we adopt our house rules.
For the moment, Eric writes whatever he likes in the EP house rules,
and I recopy whatever part of that which I like into the EP/JUDGE
house rules. No announcement is given of rule changes, and the rules
are too long to have the patience to completely reread.

DL  Instead, I suggest that we have a democratically elected RULES
COMMITTEE that would deliberate on such questions and publicize their
decisions.

NF Are there any other views on this subject?

>NF  Well, I have looked through all our rules (the judge files rules,
   ep.house.rules) and the real rules, and I can find nothing in it to
   support Ken's decision in the game Ounce.  Technically either Eric
   of I could overrule him, however, according to our rules, someone
   would have to appeal to us, as no-one has done so . . . .  If we
   should allow these 17-17 draws, where one power is obviously able
   to win or not, is another question.  From everything I have read,
   the answer is that however distasteful we might find it, the answer
   it, yes, we should allow it.

DL  I agree completely with Nick.  Such draws ARE distasteful.  And we
should take action against them.  The action by Ken is hard to
justify, but possible via the goofy play rules.  But there is no
appeal, so we should just sit on our hands.


Danny Loeb and Mark Nelson write:

>MN  I have already expressed my opinion that a GM has no right to over-rule
the players if they agree a result.  I should add that 
the only occasion a GM may overrule the players is if
the result in question contradicts the houserules.  For instance, if the
houserules state DIAS then you can't agree to a non-DIAS draw.

>MN  If OUNCE were to be given a BN then it would be declared "irregular" 
(which means that many rating masters wouldn't rate it) because a former 
player has reappeared in the game as a standby.  This is regarded as being
a *BAD* thing.  There is *no* real justification for allowing this to 
happen.

DL  I'd like to hear more on this point. What are the specific
disadvantages to having a player return in a new role? Any case
histories? For the record, I should say that I have reentered many of
the games which I have played in IRON-CROSS, FONTENOY, ...
And I allow such reentries in the games that I run.

MN  There are two reasons why re-entering games is frowned upon by ethical 
GMs.  Suppose I am playing Germany and you enter the game as France.  I 
diplome with you and tell you what my strategy is.  Sometime later you come 
back into the game as Italy.  You know what my strategy is because I have 
already told you.  Are you going to use this knowledge which Italy (as a power)
has no reason to know?  Of course you are!

MN  I'm playing Germany, I stab and eliminate your France.  You come back
into the game as Russia.  The game will end as a German or Turkish win.  Are 
you more inclined to throw the game to Germany or Turkey?  

MN   In short, a player who re-enters a game is likely to be effected by 
knowledge that a proper standby would not have.  
 
MN   All games that have players re-entering them are irregular and (IMHO) 
unsuitable for serious ratings.  (Begs the question, how serious do you take
ratings?)

>MN  I have also already stated that any GM who will either force a result on
the players or force the players to continue playing against their will
is a bad GM and should not be allowed to run further EP games.  The GM
has *no* business telling the players what they can, and can not, do.

DL  The GM has an obligation to apply the rules as he sees fit. This does
mean he tells people what to do. However, players are allowed to quit: singly 
if they find a replacement or making a similar arrangement, or in mass if it 
is unanimous.  Thus a GM's decision can be overturned by a unanimous vote of 
the players. However, the players may then be charged with the burden of finding 
a new GM (or a new JUDGE, or a new magazine, etc...) If the decision is NOT 
unanimous, the GM can still be overturned by one of his superiors if any of 
the players appeal.

MN  The GM is under an obligation to apply the house-rules.  House-rules ensure
that players know in advance under what conditions the game will be played.
Why should players attract stigma as dropouts because of unethical GMing?

>MN  If you object to player's agreeing early 2-way draws before they reach 
17-17 then you should run DIAS games.  In one sense Ken is right: 2-way
draws are a lot less common in DIAS games because almost invariable one 
of the potential drawees will stab and go for the win before the draw is
agreed.

DL  This is completely besides the point. The players involved in the draw
were the only 2 survivors. Thus, the draw was acceptable by DIAS standards. 

>MN  It is perfectly within the spirit of the game to accept a draw when
you could (possible) go for the win.  For instance many players prefer a
safe draw to an attempted win which could result in them losing the game.
Drawing is better than losing!

DL  Again, this is besides the point. The player in question had a certain
win. His opponent had 3 UNDEFENDABLE supply centers whereas he had no
supply centers in danger. Thus, there was no risk involved in going
for a win. 

MN  I was discussing a more general situation illustrating why people 
sometime accept draws when they could get better results.  I'm sorry if 
you were unable to realize this.

MN  But to take this specific game.  Perhaps the player who could win is 
playing in another game with his ally and doesn't want to stab him in this
game in case it effects the other game.  Perhaps they've had such a good time
playing together that they don't wont to spoil it by a stab.  I can provide
(postal) games where both of these situations have arisen. 

MN  The bottom line is that if the players are happy with the result the
GM has no business telling them to continue playing.  The name of the game
is *diplomacy*.  It's good diplomacy by the player who would come 2nd to
convince the other player to settle for the draw.

>MN  We also have to recognize that games are not played in isolation.  
What happens in one game can (and often does) effect what happens in other
games.  Many players bare this in mind when they accept results.

DL  This may possibly be an explanation of why the draw was accepted.  Are 
these players in any other games together?  If so, then they should be accused 
of CROSS-GAME PLAY. They are clearly allowing play in one game directly 
influence play in another game. This is ILLEGAL according to EP house rules.
If what Mark suggests is found to be true, then the players should be suspended. 

MN  This is drivel and utter nonsense.  The players might be allied in two 
games, the circumstance might be right.   Players who *enter* a game with
the intention of *allying* should be suspended, but you would have to prove
that they had entered the game with that purpose. 

MN  It is inevitable that people who play in many games will play opponents
in more than one game.  Is it CROSS-GAMING to say that "I know that abc is
a reliable ally" or that "def never writes letters" or "ghj is good 
tactically"?

MN  It is a poor diplomacy player who does not use information in one game to
his benefit in another game.  Do you know what an ARMOURED DUCK is?

MN  Consider this case.  Suppose these players are allied in 3 games.
By showing that he can be trusted by accepting a 2=draw in game A 
Player P gains the trust of Player Q in the other two games.  He then stabs
Q in these games and wins them both.  Net result is 2 wins and one draw. 
Is this good play or poor play?

MN  In my view it is an acceptable tactic to accept a worse result in one game
if you expect to gain better results elsewhere.  Purists may object to this.

>MN  Ken talks about "ruining the game for the others".  This is rubbish, 
if the other players object then they can force the players to continue 
with the game by vetoing the draw and forcing the potential drawees to
eliminate the non-drawees. It is, and has always been, a legitimate
tactic to play for the draw.

DL  Here, Mark is referring to non-DIAS draws. In the game OUNCE, this
question did not come up.

>MN  If Russia wants to accept a 2=draw rather than a win that it is up to 
him.  I would ask Ken to read the demo-game in Avalon Hill's Gamer's Guide
To Diplomacy?  Does he consider that goofy player?  Isn't it, in fact, 
extremely good diplomacy by one player to convince Russia to accept a 2=
rather than to go for the win.  Why should this player's good diplomacy
be ignored because Ken thinks Russia should accept the win rather than the
draw.

DL  When I read the player's guide, I really thought the German player was
a fool. (He allowed the game to continue years after collecting his
18th supply center by refusing to build his 18th unit. At that time,
victory was based on units rather than SC's.) Obviously, his ally did
a good job of negotiation. His ally is therefore a good player. 
It is Germany in the demo game who would be accused of "Goofy Play."

MN  I don't consider it Goofy play.

MN  SO let's get this right.  Suppose we have a RG draw which Russia can win.
Suppose I am Russia and Danny, or Ken, is GMing.  I realize that stabbing
allies creates a bad reputation.  I tell my ally that I will accept a draw.
Then Ken/Danny overturns the result and declares it a WIN.  Hence I get
the credit for the win and I don't stab my ally.  Maybe I should play 
a game with Danny gming it...

>MN  In the last game of postal diplomacy I played in I agreed a 2= draw
as France.  I had 15, Germany had 16 and Turkey had 3.  If the game had 
continued all the way then he would probably have ended in a win.  I 
thought that Germany had the better chances of a win so I was happy for 
a 2=, Germany thought I had better chances for the win so he was
happy for the draw and we both convinced Turkey that we were not going to 
stab each other and that he might as well agree to the 2= and save us 
wasting time playing it out.  Does Ken think that there was bad play here?

DL  I think you and Germany played well, and that Turkey may have played
poorly. Nevertheless, I wouldn't classify Turkey's play as goofy since
he probably wouldn't have won in any case. 

MN  But if you had been the GM you may have thought that Germany had a forced
win.  In that case you would have declared it a German win because it was
goofy play by Germany not to get his certain win.  Excellent Gming...NOT!

>MN  Probable why none of the players has complained about Ken's poor ruling is
that none of them know the EP houserules.

DL  This is another problem. Eric keeps on writing longer and longer
rules, but I would bet that the majority of players do not even know
that they exist....

DL  Perhaps the 2 players should be sent copies of this discussion....?




*** DIPL-L MATERIAL IN EP ***

There has been some discussion of the appropriateness of DIPL-L material
being reprinted in EP Chapters 1 and 2.

LHM  It is, of course, very nice of you to distribute your zines on
DIPL-L, but when two issues with nothing but a cute joke and last
week's news are reissued to this same list where they were taken
from, I begin to feel a little concerned for my archive disk.
(Chapter 2 has not been that bad, but it does include some matter
from on here.)

DL  I have already complained about this to Eric Klien. As ex-editor of
Chapter 2, he would reprint material from my chapter and from DIPL-L
itself. In his response, he said he was unaware of such duplication
that perhaps the authors had submitted the material to both of us.
Now I think this is an insufficient excuse. Eric should read DIPL-L
and EPC2 and remove any duplicate material in EPC1 or at least replace
it with the briefest of summaries and information on how to find out
more.

LHM  Perhaps you could invent a chapter of EP that would digest DIPL-L,
   and then distribute that to all interested parties, but not back to us?

DL   I don't see why anyone would prefer to get that instead of DIPL-L
itself.

NF  Mostly due to the E-mail load.  It can be really frustrating if
one has a primitive E-mail system (such as the one our undergraduates
get here at Waterloo).

NF  Also, if the traffic on DIPL-L grows, even I would hesitate to
subscribe to it, and would monitor it through Usenet (or through the
@#$% error messages).

NF By the way, I archive almost everything that comes through DIPL-L, it
is available from me (by month, since about April) or from the Marburg
FTP site.


***** PART TWO *****
**** LIST OF GAME OPENINGS ****

Moderated Replacement Openings include:
tick, infinite, mindanao

Unmoderated games openings include:
zoom, bali, and zen.
(belch is proceeding NMR for 'interests sake')

Unmoderated Australian judge openings:
bing, twinkles, surgeon

Signups available for the following moderated games in formation:
shuppan, senlac, ulm, trafalga, boyne and sinister.
hall92, if your name is andre :-)
baldric at Australian judge.
(krauts for german speakers only)

**** LIST OF EP GAMES ON THE DA ****
--- EXPLANATION ---
Here is the monthly update on games played on Judge. Each game is
represented by a line of data (followed possibly by a line of comments

--- please send me comments I can use if you are a GM!). The games are
sorted according the variant rules which are used.   Also if you
have an EP number, and I don't, please send it to me.

Column  Explanation
------  -----------
(1)     Name of game including a "#" if game is "private" or "unlisted"
(2)     Electronic Protocol number (and Chapter) if available.
(3)     Name of the GM (see list of GMs below).
(4-10)  Updates on game in chronological order (most recent on the right)

The updates for a game in formation indicate the number of players
needed to start. For example, -5.

The updates for a game in progress indicate the season (F for Fall or
S for Spring), the last 2 digits of the year, and the phase (M for
movement, B for builds, and R for retreats). All this is possibly
followed by the indication of the number of replacement players (-1),
temporary replacements (T1) needed, or needed later on (*1).

--- LIST ---
Name      EP# GM      Feb04   Apr03   Jun30   Aug26   Sep15   Sep29   Oct 6
-------   --- --      -----   -----   -----   -----   -----   -----   -----
STANDARD RULES
dram      159 jdr     S01M    F03M    ?       F10M    S12M    F12M    Over
furlong   164 jdr             F02M    ?       S08R-2  F09M    S10M    Over
infinite  166 jdr             F02M    ?       F08M    F09M    F10M    S11M-1
karat     185 jdr             S01M    ?       S05M    F06M    F07M    F07B
meter     187 jdr             S01M    ?       S08M    S09M    S10M    F10M
newton    188 jdr             S01M    ?       S07M    S08M    F08B    F08M
pint      190 jdr                     ?       S06M-1  S07M    S08M    F08M
quart     191 jdr                     ?       F06M-2  S07M    F07M    F07M
rad       205 jdr                     ?       F04B-1  F05R    F06M    F06R
second    206 jdr                     ?       S06M    F06M    S07M    S07M
ton       207 jdr                     ?       S03M-2  F04M    S05M    F05M
unit      208 jdr                     ?       S05M    F05M    F06M    F06B
volt      209 jdr                     ?       S04M    F04M    S05M    F05M
watt      210 jdr                     ?       F02M-3  F02B    S03M    F03R
ant       211 jdr                     ?       S04R    S05M    F05M    S06M
beetle    212 jdr                     ?       F04M    F04B    S05R    F05M
cicada    213 jdr                     -3      F03M    S04M    F04R    S05M
dragnfly  214 jdr                             S03M    S03R-1  F03B    S04M
earwig    215 jdr                             F02M    F03M    F04M    S05M
fly       216 jdr                             S02M    F02B    S03M    F03M
gnat      217 jdr                             F02M    S03M    F03B    S04M
hornet    218 jdr                             S01M    S02M    S02R    F02M
inchworm  219 jdr                             S01M    F01M    F02M    S03M
junebug   220 jdr                             S01M    S01M    S02M    S02M
locust    221 jdr                             -1      F01M    F02B    S03M
moth      224 jdr                                     S01M    S02M    F02M
pillbug   227 jdr                                     S01M    F01M    S02M
spider    228 jdr                                     S01M-1  F01M-1  S02M
tick      229 jdr                                     S01M    S01M    S01M-3
wasp      230 jdr                                     S01M    S01M    F01M
antelope  232 jdr                                     -5      S01M    F01M
beaver    233 jdr                                             F01M    S02M
cow       234 jdr                                             S01M    F01M
dog       237 jdr                                             S01M    F01M
elk       240 jdr                                             -7      S01M
ferret        jdr                                                     -3
baldrick      Bob                                             -7      -6
              This game is on the Australian judge, players are asked to
              list the game before joining.  (ie has grey press, etc)
cheetah   225 desper                  S01M    F05M    F06B    F08M    S09M
              Nasty stab by Italy of Austria
croatia   148 Nick    F03M    F06M    F10M    F12M    F13R    F14B    S15M
              Most advanced standard game on judge (with marengo)
diablos       j_oregan                -5      S01M    F01M    F02M    F02M
fall          Gummi                           ?       S02M    S03M    F03M
grass         karl            S01M    S04M    S06M-2  S07M    F07B    S08M
              German language game
hall92        Nick                                                    -1
              Hall of Fame game, unlisted, but observers are welcome!
kaiser        karl            -3      F05M    F07B    S08M    S09M    S09M
marengo   129 scottb  S09M    F11B    S14M    S14M    S14M-2  F14R    S15M
              Oldest standard EP # in Chapter 2.
peregrin  236 Casmacin                                -6      S01M    S01M
ulm       235 Marty                                   -6      S01M    S01M
womble        n0kernic                                F02M    F03B    F04M
              Only Adelaide University Comp. Sci!!!
wren      223 Casmacin                        F01B    S03M    S04M    F04M

STANDARD GUNBOAT - Identities of players unknown. 
dppd      238 loeb                                    F09M    S13M    Over
              FT blocked E win!  First standard gunboat draw in history
              of judge!
dppe      239 loeb            S01M    F05B    S08M    S09M    S10M    F10B
              Last remaining game against the Bordeaux Diplomat. Turkey
              is heading towards victory. New DPP games near the end of
              the year?
eldritch      j_oregan                S02M    S04M    S05M    F05B    S06M
sarajevo  195 desper                          F03B    F04M    S06M    F06B
              Big year for Russia this time!
sinister      Starkey                                 -7      -7      S01M
              An Evil game for Evil Players  *Please* read press help!
trafalga      Marty                                   -7      -5      -2

STANDARD GUNBOAT ROUND-ROBIN - Each player plays all 7 powers in 7 games.
game 2    174 Jamie                           F05M    F06M    F07M    F07B
game 3    175 Jamie                           F07R    F08R    F09M    F09R
game 4    176 Jamie                           F02B    S03R    S04R    S05M
game 5    177 Jamie                                   F01M    F02M    F03M

YOUNGSTOWN RULES (10 players) Extended map including Asia and Africa.
dien      124 jdr     S11M    F11M    F15M    F18M    S19R    S19R    S20M
giggles       dwisemanF08B    S10M    S12M    F13M    S14M    S14M    S14M-2
              Local ERIM game
krauts        karl                    -9      -9      -10     -10     -11 (-:
              Press to be written in German. Long signon period anticipated.z
timor     160 nick    -10     F01M    S05M    F07M    F08M    F09M    S10M

YOUNGSTOWN GUNBOAT GAMES
celebes   197 nick                    -8      F03M    S04M    F05M    S06M
              Super warp  36h deadline, 72h grace, 7 days a week.
luzon     192 Marty                   F04M-2  S05M    F05M    F06M    F06B
              Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace.
mindanao  231 Marty                   -6      -4      S01M    S01M    F01M-1
shuppan       Josh                                    -8      -5      -4
              A White Press Gunboat!!
sumatra   182 nick                    F05B    F07M    F08M    F09M    F09B
              Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace.
sunda     171 nick                    F05M    S07M-1  S08M-2  F09M    F09M
              Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace.

CHAOS RULES (34 players) Regular map. Each SC is owned by a different player.
fontenoy  114 jdr     F09M    F10M    F15M    F17B    F18R    F19M    
              First Chaos game. 6 remaining players in a wide open position.
iona      169 jdr     S01M    F02M    S06M    F08M    S09M    S10M    F10M
              UV3 northern alliance faces AG18 southern alliance. (U and 1 lead)
zenith        NONE                    -11     F00B*2  F01M    F01B    S02M

GREAT BRITAIN RULES (7 players) Britain starts with 6 SC's but all armies!
hastings  139 loeb    S05R    F07B    S16M    F19M    F20M    F21B    F22M
              England (with 6 fleets!), France, Turkey push back G.
senlac        Matt                                    -7      -6      -6

1898 RULES / GUNBOAT GAME
corsica   222 dmb                     S00M    F00M-1  S01M    F01M    F01B
boyne         Marty                                   -6      -6      -4

MACHIAVELLI RULES - An economic variant of Diplomacy marketed by Avalon Hill.
sober         andre                   F54M    F55M    S56M    U56M-1  F56M
              A gunboat Machiavelli Variant without Loans and special units.

**** FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THE JUDGE****
For X:                                  Send Y to JUDGE@U.WASHINGTON.EDU:
------                                  ---------------------------------
        (*QUESTIONS ABOUT A CERTAIN GAME*)
More detailed information about a game: LIST <name-of-game>
History of a game:                      SUMMARY <name-of-game>
Detailed Recent History of a game:      HISTORY <name-of-game> <options>
Regular updates for a certain game:     OBSERVE <name-of-game> <password>
Copy of variant rules:                  GET INFO.<name-of-variant>
                        or              GET PRESS
                        or              GET GUNBOAT
        (*GENERAL QUESTIONS*)
General information                     HELP
Update of the list of games above       LIST
More detailed list                      LIST FULL
To be informed of all game changes      OBSERVE CONTROL <password>
Default house rules                     GET EP.HOUSE.RULES

Other information: Contact me (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca) or
Ken Lowe (jdr@u.washington.edu) or your game master (see list below)

**** FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL ****
To solve Email problems, contact one of the email wizards:
        swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, andre@hern.stonemarche.org
        eisen@cs.jhu.edu, eisen@jhuigf.BITNET, or wcw27974@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Other information: Contact Eric Klien (eric_s_klien@cup.portal.com)

**** FOR ARCHIVES ****
1) Use the HISTORY command for recent game result.
Use the GET command (especially GET FLIST) to receive JUDGE related
files.
2) Contact the archivists, jlitvin@hfglobe.intel.com/John Litvin,
3) Anonymous FTP
Machine:                Directory:              Contents:
Milton.U.Washington.Edu /public/misc            judge source, postscript maps
FTP.FU-Berlin.DE        /pub/misc/diplomacy     variants, hall of fame,
                                                postscript maps, articles,
                                                judge source
137.248.151.12          /pub/incoming/ep-chapter Old issues of EP.

**** LIST OF DIPLOMACY ADJUDICATORS ****
USA           judge@u.washington.edu
Australia     judge@gu.uwa.edu.au
South Africa  judge@shrike.und.ac.za

**** LIST OF GAME MASTERS ****
David M Bowen               dmb@bigd.cray.com dmb@sequoia.cray.com
Dave Cebula                 cebulad@physics.orst.edu
Karl Dotzek                 karl@adler.ims.uni-stuttgart.de
Jamie Dreier                pl436000@brownvm.brown.edu
Nicholas Fitzpatrick        nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca
Danny Loeb                  loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr
Ken Lowe                    jdr@u.washington.edu
Michael Luft                scottb@cs.utexas.edu
Sean MacIntosh              casmacin@atlas.cs.upei.ca
John Aidan O'Regan          J_Oregan%csvax1@iruccvax.UCC.IE
Andre Verweij               andre@duteina.tudelft.nl andre@hlniob.uucp.
Gudmundur Bjarni Josepsson  gummi@rhi.hi.is
Rick Desper                 desper@mat.rutgers.edu
Matt McLeod                 C9106225@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Josh Smith                  irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Sean Starkey                starkey@netcom.com
Bob Blanchett               s1029708@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au
Marty Brumm                 marty@pc1504.Chemie-Uni.Marburg.de


***** PART THREE *****

*** DRAM EOG REPORT ***

Summary of game dram through F1912R.

  Master:        Ken Lowe            jdr@u.washington.edu
  Austria:       Martin Brumm        marty@pc1504.Chemie.Uni-Marburg.DE
   from F1908M:  Eddie Melton        melton@mc1.wes.army.mil
  England:       Jonas Andersson     t89jan@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se
  France:        Johnathaen Schmitt  jss0235@dijkstra.UnivNorthCo.EDU
   from F1904M:  Kirk Randall        cheng@u.washington.edu
   from F1907B:  James A. Dare       jdare@math.rutgers.edu
  Germany:       Zachary Hendsch     styx@Athena.MIT.EDU
   from F1906B:  Kevin Quinlan       quinlan@erim.org
  Italy:         Gregory Bean        bean@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
   from S1904M:  angles gary         angels_gary@merlin.nmhu.edu
   from F1905M:  John O'Regan        J_ORegan@csvax1.ucc.IE
   from F1910B:  Martin Brumm        marty@pc1504.Chemie.Uni-Marburg.DE
  Russia:        Kevin Reynolds      S9GK7@starburst.uscolo.edu
   from F1901B:  Justin Knoll        U8155653@NMSUVM1.BITNET
  Turkey:        Igor D. Divjak      91056703@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
   from S1904M:  Don St.Germain      S5200011@NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA
   from S1905M:  Chris Naughton      NAUGHTONC@crl.aecl.ca
   from F1906B:  Chris Naughton      NAUGHTONC@crl.aecl.ca


Game parameters are/were as follows:
  Move    clock 1410 min 12.00 next  72.00 grace 168.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF-
  Retreat clock   -1 min  0.00 next  24.00 grace  72.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF-
  Adjust  clock   -1 min  0.00 next  24.00 grace  72.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF-
  Access:  Different-site, Level: Any, Moderated.
  Variant: Standard.
  Flags:   NoNMR, NoProxy.
  Press:   White, No Fake Broadcast.
EP 159, game completed October 1992, German win

Historical Supply Center Summary
--------------------------------
    Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie
Year  Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri
1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A
1901 I I I I E E E F F F F F E G G G G G . E R R R R T T T T T A A A A I
1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F E G G G G G G E R R R R T T T T T A A A A I
1903 I I I I E E E F F G F F G G G G G G G G R R R T T T T T T A A R A A
1904 I I I I G E E F F G F F G G G G G G G G R R R R T T T T T A A A A A
1905 A I I I G E G F G G F F G G G G G G G G R R R R T T T T T A R A A A
1906 I I I A G G G F F G G F G G G G G G G G R R R T T T T T T T R A A A
1907 I I I A G G G G F I G G G G G G G G G G G R R R T T T T T T R A A A
1908 I I I A G G G G G I G G I G G G G G G G G R R R T T T T T T A A A A
1909 I I I A G G G G G I G G G G A G G G G G G R R R T T T T T T A A A A
1910 A I I T G G G G I I G A G G A G G G G G G R R R T T T T A T A A A A
1911 I I I T G G G G G I G A G G A G G G G G G G R R A T T A A T A A A A
1912 A I A G G G G G G A G G G G G G G G G G G G G A A T T A A A A A A A


History of Supply Center Counts
-------------------------------
Power    1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09   Player
Austria     3   4   4   4   5   5   4   4 \         Martin Brumm
                                            5   6   Eddie Melton
England     3   5   5   3   2   1                   Jonas Andersson
France      3   5   5   4 \                         Johnathaen Schmitt
                            4   3   3   1 \         Kirk Randall
                                                    James A. Dare
Germany     3   5   6   9  10  12  13*\             Zachary Hendsch
                                       15& 15* 15*  Kevin Quinlan
Italy       3   5   5   4 \                         Gregory Bean
                            4 \                     angles gary
                                3   3   4   5   4   John O'Regan
Russia      4   4 \                                 Kevin Reynolds
                    4   4   4   5   4   4   3   3   Justin Knoll
Turkey      3   5   5   6 \                         Igor D. Divjak
                            5 \                     Don St.Germain
                                5   7 \             Chris Naughton
                                        6   6   6   Chris Naughton
Index:     10  22  24  27  28  34  38  44  45  46

Power    1910 '11 '12                               Player
Austria     8   9  12                               Eddie Melton
Germany    13  15  19                               Kevin Quinlan
Italy       4 \                                     John O'Regan
                4   1                               Martin Brumm
Russia      3   2                                   Justin Knoll
Turkey      6   4   2                               Chris Naughton
Index:     42  48  72

* = 1 unused build.
& = 2 unused builds.

Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the
number of players.  It is a measure of how far the game has progressed.


Broadcast message from melton@mc1.wes.army.mil as Austria in dram:


Greetings to all!

To Italy/Russia:
     When I joined the game it was a 4-way alliance between you, Turkey
     and I.  It was working well until I joined with Germany.  Because
     I do not carry my "revenge" from one game to the next, I have to
     get it in the current game.  This was an attack on Turkey and not
     on either of you.

To Turkey:
     The attack on you was not personal, I have nothing against you.
     The reason I "backstabbed" you and the others, was because of
     the treats you made to Italy (John O'Regan) and I, your allies.
     This is a game of DIPLOMACY, you do not treaten to take supply
     centers from you allies if you plan to keep them as your allies.
     Yes, I gave the game to the German, he is a good player and a
     very easy person to work with (and he didn't convince me to
     join with him, I went to him).  I hope I haven't made a
     permenant enemy, I play to win and I am as loyal as a Diplomacy
     player can be, but do not treaten me! I throw the game to get
     my revenge.

To Germany:
     Good Game!  As I told you before, I have no hard feelings toward
     you for breaking our alliance.  You played well and I would do
     the same thing again.  You were very honest with me even to the
     end.  As you know, I am also a honest player (even though Turkey
     doesn't think so) I never lied to him, if he remembers, I said
     I would leave Rumainia, and I did, I never said where I was going.
     (anyway what game are we playing, lieing is part of the game)
     Thanks for a good game.


Again Congradulations to Germany!

Eddie


Broadcast message from quinlan@erim.org as Germany in dram:

Greetings, Powers!

Thanks for the Congratulations, although I did take Germany over 
in pretty good shape. Thus, credit should be shared with my
predecessor. Thanks for a rather enjoyable game, as the moves went
rather timely with minimal delays...

Hope to see you all in future Campaigns!

Kevin Quinlan
Germany

Newsgroups: rec.games.board