HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: What is the outcome of this move?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 05:37:30 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <jroberts.724492331@sanjuan> jroberts@sanjuan.UVic.CA (John Roberts) writes:
>I believe I know what will happen in this circumstance, but would
>like confirmation:
>
>Austria Army Budapest -> Rumania
>Austria Army Serbia S Budapest -> Rumania
>Austria Army Vienna -> Budapest
>
>Russia Army Rumania -> Budapest
>Russia Army Galicia S Rumania -> Budapest
>Russia Fleet Sevastopol S Rumania
>
>As I see it Vienna bounces, and the support from Sevastopol is invalid
>because Rumania is moving.  Therefore, we have a standoff 2 vs. 2
>(No-Passing Rule).  

Your analysis is correct. Sevastopol S Rumania is invalid.
Budapest -> Rumania (with support from Serbia) and Rumania -> Budapest
(with support from Galicia) stand each other off. Vienna -> Budapest
then bounces, as Budapest is occupied.


>Would the result be the same if 
>
>Russia Army Rumania S Galicia -> Budapest
>Russia Army Galicia -> Budapest
>Russia Fleet Sevastopol S Rumania

The end result is the same... nobody moves. The reason is somewhat
different, though. Rumania S Galicia -> Budapest is cut by the attack
from Budapest. But Sevastopol's support is still valid, so Budapest's
supported attack on Rumania results in a standoff, not dislodgment.
And Galicia -> Budapest, no longer supported, stands off against the
army in Budapest.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: Youngstown 1898?
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:57:10 GMT

Rick Desper (desper@math.rutgers.edu) writes:

> I think 1898 youngstown be feasible if a few players were added: say
> Vietnam and Africa (maybe Korea, too). 

Another problem we haven't mentioned is the inherent "brokenness" of the
Youngstown variant as it presently exists on the Judge. (I refer here to the
problems with the map, which have been discussed elsewhere.) While 1898
Youngstown might prove an interesting diversion from regular Youngstown, I
think it will eventually suffer from the flaws of its parent. I see the same
thing happening with my Y-5 variant: it's an intriguing twist on regular
Youngstown, but it's still hampered by all of Youngstown's flaws.

One of these days, I'll have enough time to get a decent Postscript version
of my Tenfold map together, and we can see if it actually does anything to
alleviate the problems of Youngstown or not... But meanwhile, I would argue
that the standard Youngstown variant is inherently flawed, and that variants
based on it are therefore something of a waste of time. But, I'm never one
to stop people from wasting their own time, so if you (or anyone else)
disagree, hey, have fun. (grin)
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA     ::  consult(std-disclaimer.pl).
"It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
From: haha@vipunen.hut.fi (Harri Haanp{{)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Re: Judge purposes
Date: 12 Dec 92 12:09:28 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In <1992Dec9.204837.2234@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes:
>>  I know when I first started playing diplomacy I ended up with a -110
>>dedication before I knew what was happening, I was trying to keep up with
>>the games. 
>>
>>  Perhaps we should adjust the dedication increase for making deadlines if
>>we're going to put more weight on the dedication itself.

>IMHO, the problem is the -100 per day penalty for letting your position
>go CD, which is a number far higher than any of the other bonuses or penalties.
>of the judge community.  The only problem is, it *does* happen - even to the
>"best of families" in our community.  Your company loses net access for a
>while; you're unexpectedly sick for a week; your sysadmin makes a mistake and
>all your mail gets forwarded to Timbuktu for a time; these things happen and

>I guess in my opinion, a better solution would be to reduce the CD penalty
>to something a little more reasonable.  I know this won't identify the flakes
>as quickly

>like to see the -100 penalty reduced to something in the -10 to -25 range.

Well, I've never played a Judge-moderated Diplomacy game, but...

Wouldn't it be possible to administer a more lenient penalty for the first
time someone goes CD? Or make the penalty something like 20 points + 20
points per past offense within the last 1/2 year, to a maximum of 100 pts?

How about adding some kind of 'badness' score for the players: It'd
increase by, say, 100 every time the player goes into CD and decrease by, say,
max( 1, badness/50 ) down to 0 every day. When a player goes CD, his dedication
could be penalized by min( badness/5 , 100 ).

Just random ideas, I can't really say what would be feasible.

Harri H.
From: galsci!cmckeithan
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous help.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 14:07:34 EST
Reply-To: iccdev!galsci!cmckeithan
Organization: Galaxy Scientific Corp.

an3253@anon.penet.fi writes:

> I just wanted to let you know that a program in Finland can allow you
> to send anonymous messages (Grey Press) in a game where that might
> otherwise be impossible.
> What do people think about that?

My feeling is that this would qualify as "goofing the master," even if
there is no master in the game.  Kind of akin to finding out someones
password to read their orders, or perhaps telnetting into their account,
breaking in, and sending in bad orders for them.  Sure, it might be
possible.  It might even be easy.  But if you want to send anonymous
messages, join a game that supports grey press.

IMHO.

Clifford M. Mckeithan Jr              emory!iccdev!galsci!cmckeithan
Galaxy Scientific Corp.               High Quality Engineering
Opinions expressed do not neccesarily reflect those of my employer.
From: arkoff@lclark.edu (Gary Arkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Re: How do I change my address?
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:20:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Dec18.082016.1119
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1992Dec17.235803.25101@anasazi.com> ian@anasazi.com (Ian S. O'brien) writes:
>How do I permanently change my email address with the Judge(s)?
>
1)  Register at the new address.
2)  Send in an iamalso command.

Example:  iamalso fred@great.place   (where fred@great.place is your old
					email account.)

3)  Sign on to all your games  (one at a time).
Send in a set address command.

-Gary

-- 
"The question is not, can animals reason? Nor, can they talk?  But, can
they suffer?"    -Jeremy Bentham, philosopher, 1748-1832.

                   Gary Arkoff --   arkoff@lclark.edu
From: guddt@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (David Bennett)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Australian judge
Date: 16 Dec 1992 13:10:26 +0800
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

The machine the judge was on has just suffer a major crash.  Someone
also managed to stuff up the backups.  The judge has been totaly wiped.
I will set it up again soon, but all the games are zapped.  As well
as all my changes to mail system...  The changes I made to several
other programs.  Scream!  I think I wil ltrack down who ever did the
backups and rip all their limbs off.

Sorry people.
David.
[DDT] Pink fish forever.
-- 
  David Bennett,  guddt@uniwa.uwa.oz.au | University Computer Club
     Where Pink fish swim backwards.    | c/o Guild of Undergraduates
These words I am singing now mean nothing more than meow to an animal - TMBG
Disclaimer: Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault.  Any grammer errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: abick@sebastian.carleton.ca (Alan Bick)
Subject: Difference between Moderated and Unrated
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:17:57 GMT


	I've noticed that some games are listed Moderated and some are
listed Unrated. What is the difference? I assume that the difference
between them is whether or not the game has (or had) a Master. Is this
correct?
	Does Unrated mean that dedication points are not used or that
wins/losses will not be recorded in the Hall of Fame?
	I checked help, deadlines, and index files hoping to find the
answer out myself. No luck. If the question is answered somewhere, can
someone tell me where. If it isn't, then it should be put in some kind of
Flags file.
	Are there any other choices between Moderated and Unrated?

Alan Bick

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: tax@tolsun.oulu.fi (Samuli Takala)
Subject: Re: Building and disbanding units
Keywords: building disbanding army fleet
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:05:58 GMT

In article <3007@tymix.Tymnet.COM> romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Michael Stimac) writes:
>In article <GbT=#JA@engin.umich.edu> positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.152808.9075@cs.few.eur.nl> vdakker@cs.few.eur.nl (Johan van den Akker) writes:
>>>Suppose I have 4 units and 5 supply centres. This means I can build 1
>>>unit during the adjustment phase. My question is: Is it also possible to
>>>disband 1 unit and build 2 units? The result would be the same: 5 units
>>>and 5 supply centres, but it would allow a sort of warp movement of
>>>units, which could be a reason to prohibit it.
>
>(enter lawyer mode)
>
>Sorry, but the rule says "if he has fewer centers than units,
>he *must* disband the excess units...". It says nothing about
>the possibility of *voluntarily* disbanding units. In particular
>this rule (and presumably no other rule) does not say in effect,
>that the *only* time you can disband is when you have fewer centers
>than units.
>
>The rules apparently have nothing to say about this scenario -
>You voluntarily disband a unit. You now have "fewer units
>than centers" and are entitled to build a unit. Unless there
>is a rule which states that dis-banding and building occur
>"simultaneously", then the actions can be presumed to occur
>in succession.
>
>The disbanding and building would have to be given in the
>right sequence to be legitimate.
>
>(exit lawyer mode)
>
>A simpler, related question would be: is it possible to
>voluntarily disband a unit? A sovereign power ought to
>have the option of de-militarizing if it wishes to.
>
If a unit is dislodged and you don't want it to retreat, you may disband that
unit. If you do this in fall you may immediately build a new unit to replace
this disbanded unit, supposing you still have enough supply centers to support
it. This is mentioned in the Gamers Guide to Diplomacy.
You may not disband a unit if it is not dislodged.

>I am personally not in favor of this interpretation.
>
>Michael Stimac
>-- 
>Michael Stimac
>(415) 355-8889
>romeo@tymnet.com
>These opinions are not necessarily anyone's but my own.

Samuli Takala, tax@tolsun.oulu.fi
               tax@rossy.oulu.fi
From: kbs@cs.utexas.edu (Kenneth Brian Samuel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Re: Youngstown 1898?
Date: 11 Dec 1992 14:46:09 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: levelland.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Dec11.050523.25146@lclark.edu>, arkoff@lclark.edu (Gary Arkoff) writes:
> IMHO, "standard" 1898 penalizes Russia to some
> extent as he is not given the one extra unit which he needs to be competive,

I don't know much about Youngstown, so I am just commenting on what
you said about the standard 1898. In my humble opinion, I think Russia
actually has a bit of an advantage in this variation, since he has the
option of building all armies instead of those super-weak fleets that
Russia is normally stuck with!

Ken

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Building and disbanding units
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<3007@tymix.Tymnet.COM>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:30:56 GMT

MS> == Michael Stimac <romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM>

 MS> Sorry, but the rule says "if he has fewer centers than units,
 MS> he *must* disband the excess units...". It says nothing about
 MS> the possibility of *voluntarily* disbanding units.

Sure it does.  You left out the word "only".  In other words, he can
disband the excess units, and no others.  If he has no excess, he can't
disband to get some.
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: c85perwe@IDA.LiU.SE (Per Westling)
Subject: Re: diplomacy during retreats
Reply-To: c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, University of Linkoping, Sweden
	<CI8JY09MA@linac.fnal.gov> <vincent.570.723975102@cc.und.ac.za>
	<Bz1vHp.3r5@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 08:48:15 GMT

In article <Bz1vHp.3r5@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick) writes:

>   In article <vincent.570.723975102@cc.und.ac.za> vincent@cc.und.ac.za (Russell Vincent) writes:
>   >This could possibly work well. Send in your retreats/adjustments as part of 
>   >your order and in order of preference. If you leave them out, a retreat is 
>   >either random or disbands and a build does not work.
>   >
>
>   This is all to complex, lets just maintain the status quo . . .,
>   I think that it is generally conceded that the No-negotiation
>   rule, can only be applied in FTF Diplomacy, . . . .

Partly true.  The fact is that in most cases (outside the US) PBM
Diplomacy play the retreat/build phase(s) combined with the move.
This is of course due to the fact that it is nice to have has few
phases as possible during a game year.  As everyone is aware of this
diplomatizing takes this into account, so eg builds are discussed at
the same times as moves etc.

Some house rules allow separation of seasons by majority vote, and
some have this separation as standrad in the first year.

I have always played with this rules and don't find it difficult.  And
why should it?  Most players should have some considerations about the
future in the game, not just the comming move.

When it comes to FtF it it common here in Sweden to have the retreats
made in direct conjunction with the moves (ie within 1 min or so after
the move).  There are sometimes a special build negotiation (say 3
minutes) but often this is used by some to start the Spring
negotiations.

>   If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
>   Nicholas Fitzpatrick

In anonymous games it would be simple.  Just dissallow the broadcast
command during non-move phases.
The question is: How much should we change the rules of Diplomacy?
We have changed the rules of convoy and the rules of negotiation.
When will THIS version of the game be regarded as a variant?
If it was possible to fix it, should we?

--
Per Westling              |
Mardtoprsgatan 15         |  c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se
S-582 48 LINKOPING        |  In praise of Idleness -- Bertrand Russel
SWEDEN                    |
Stuff regarding DPP may be sent to x90perwe@ida.liu.se instead.
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: What is part?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:13:28 GMT

AB> == Alan Bick <abick@sebastian.carleton.ca>

 AB> When doing a "list full" on the Cambridge Judge I came across a
 AB> power with the word "part" beside it. I've seen "move", "late",
 AB> "CD", and maybe "abandon" and I know what they all mean. What does
 AB> "part" signify?

Partial orders only.  Say for Spring 1901 that France sends in:

F Bre-MAO
A Par-Bur

and forgets about A Mar.  The Judge will return "Army Marseilles, No
Order Processed".  If the deadline comes, that person will be moved from
"move" (i.e. a move is due or in) to "part" (got some of the orders, but
not all units were ordered).

I *believe* that the Judge will use the partial orders at the close of
the grace period (all other units will hold) if full orders are not
received.
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: lokendr@ecf.toronto.edu (LO KENDRICK)
Subject: Diplomacy before retreats revisited
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:24:25 GMT

I don't particularly want to draw more blood out of this stone,
but I think I have come across an interesting situation.

I am presently moderating game purity on the Washington Judge.
It is a pure variant game:  There are only 7 supply centres on
the board on 7 spaces, all interconnected and nothing else.

The problem is, that if diplomacy _were_ allowed before retreats,
it makes for a completely different game.  I have come to accept
that it would probably be best if I allowed dip before retreats/
builds for judge games as it is the general concensus, but what
about for this game?

Here is my posting, that I put in my game to players and observers.
Please feel free to comment on the situation.



Broadcast message from lokendr@ecf.toronto.edu as Master in purity:


	I will allow the takeover of Italy as the original
	power had once requested that a replacement be found
	for him/her.  

	I throw this question on to the floor to all players
	and observers.  

	Should the rule on no diplomacy before retreats be
	enforced?  I personally don't care either way as long
	as the majority of people agree, and the opinion on
	rec.games.diplomacy seems to indicate that it should
	be allowed since it can't generally be stopped anyways.

	But one can see how it affects _this_ particular variant.
	If more than one power gets dislodged, there will be a
	50% chance (if diplomacy was not allowed) say if there
	were two retreats, that the units will be ordered to the
	same space and thus disbanded.  This makes for an entirely
	different game than if the retreats could be planned.

	I can see in a standard variant where it may not be necessary
	but in a pure variant, it will happen all the time as all
	the supply centres are interconnected.   Consider if there
	is only two spaces, and three retreats, etc.  Either you can
	be wiped out, or not.  Who's to say that the game encourages
	survivors to play on or get disbanded in an unlucky retreat?

	Who knows? Let's hear those opinions.

	Kendrick

From: brione@hpfcmdd.fc.hp.com (Brion Emde)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:07:36 GMT
Subject: Possible Judge Enhancement?
Organization: HP Mechanical Design Division
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

I have made a change to a local judge on my machine that was useful for our
local players.  We are playing a gunboat game, and need to set the deadlines
and such.  But since I am the one who usually sets the deadlines I made a 
change to the judge so the broadcast message that is sent:

someone@somewhere as MyPowerName has set the deadline .....

to 

someone@somewhere as aPower has set the deadline .....

This only occurs on gunboat games where the judge has been sent the command

set no show

or 

set noshow

and can be cleared with:

set show

I know the command name is wierd (I was never too good at coming up with
command names), but how does the idea sound to the all of you.  Do you think
there is any use for this kind of thing outside of a group of people that all
know each other and want to avoid knowing who each other's power is?

Brion Emde
Hewlett-Packard Mechanical Design Division
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(303)229-4838

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: an3253@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Anonymous help.
X-Anonymously-To: rec.games.diplomacy
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:14:59 GMT

I just wanted to let you know that a program in Finland can allow you
to send anonymous messages (Grey Press) in a game where that might
otherwise be impossible. 
What do people think about that?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Please note you _don't_ have to have an anon id to receive anonymous mail!
To see how your anonymized message would appear, mail it to test@anon.penet.fi
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Re: Opinions - Diplomacy between moves and retreats?
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:08:36 GMT
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <1992Dec11.161449.29222@newstand.syr.edu> mgilbert@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael W. Gilbert) writes:
>Well, the "AH Gamers' Guide" has a section on Postal Diplomacy.
>It says "Negitiations prior to retreats and adjustments can't be
>prevented, and are therefore allowed in postal play."

Not true.  The GM can ask for conditional retreats and builds to be
submitted with disband/random removal/build forfeiture the result of
no conditionals are submitted.

The GM can correspond directly with the affected player(s) before
releasing official results.  True, if this is done by mail, the
players can try to talk to the other powers, but not if the GM places
a strict time constraint or uses the phone.

Agitator
  #->

*Vision*Madoka*Yuri*Akane*Kyoko*Rally*Miria*Fujiko*Priss*Lum*//*Fuke Eroze*
*------------ R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G --------------//------------*
*IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?     \\ //  Only AMIGA!*
*================================ Bring Back the Caltech \X/ Cannon!! ====*
*Roderick Lee, HMC '91    "The Professional Agitator"    agitator@ucsd.edu*
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: starkey@netcom.com (Sean Starkey)
Subject: Re: EFF judge down?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:20:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.094731.9860@cs.nott.ac.uk> nlc@vulcan.xtel.co.uk (Neil Cook) writes:
>Is the EFF judge down? I have had no mail since Thursday.

No.  It's up now and has been all weekend.

	Sean Starkey			starkey@netcom.com
Home:	444 Saratoga Ave.	Work:	Praxair, Inc.
	Apt. 19K			2220 Martin Ave.
	Santa Clara, CA 95050		Santa Clara, CA 95050
	(408) 985-1454			(408) 727-3700
From: desper@math.rutgers.edu (Rick Desper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Re: Youngstown 1898?
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:55:14 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	I think 1898 youngstown be feasible if a few players were
added: say Vietnam and Africa (maybe Korea, too.)  There must be some
presence to mimic the effect that the colonial powers have in the
game.  Example of a starting position:
	Africa: A Eth
	Austria: A Tri
	China: A Pek
	England: F Edi
	France: A Bre
	Germany: A Kie
	India: A Cal
	Italy: A Nap
	Japan: F Tok
	Russia: A StP
	Turkey: A Smy
	Vietnam: A Sai
	(Korea: A Kor)
		One would have to redefine what "home supply center"
meant, but I think that such a set up might be interesting.  
					Rick