HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS; 26 SEP 92 20:05:53 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:04:05 BST
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: Avalon's 'de-luxe edition' and the 1976 rulebo

> esp. since we who play JUDGE games don't worry about that stuff,
> since we always specify our convoy route. Makes more sense.

GB> Why does it make more sense? If I want to get to Spain to Tunis and I
GB> can lobby the owners of both gol and wes+tyr to convoy me, why can't I
GB> tell the army in Spain to take whichever boat shows up? When fighting
GB> a land battle, you don't have to specify which neighbor is giving
GB> support and you can even get stuck with unwanted support. What would
GB> be really fun is if you got on the boat in wes and they dropped you
GB> off in North Africa instead of Tunis. While *that* isn't allowed, I
GB> see no reason to not leave the convoy route unspecified. Well, except
GB> to make it easier to program the judge.

   Since when did "sense" have anything to do with it?  Is is sensible that
it takes six months to move an army from Belgium to Holland and six months
from the top of StP to the bottom of Moscow?  No!  I agree with George,
I don't like the "specify the convoy route" rule (as I've already stated
I just *love* the UWC!)

GB> House rules are house rules, every game should have them. Myself I
GB> miss one very important aspect in the game, which is permitted in the
GB> rules but often not in many games, which is miswritten orders. The
GB> rules are clear that


  I agree, miswritten orders add a whole new scope to the game.  Obviously they
are not allowed in the Judge programming.  Most postal GMs *encourage*
the writting of "miswritten orders" although there are some heavy disputes.
ie if I have A(Lpl) and write F(Lpl)-wal is this a valid order for my
A(Lpl)?  Some GMS say no, it's a miswritten order.  Other GMs point out to
the rule about "badly written orders which can only have one meaning".
 If this is a
"badly written" order and not a "misorder" then it is OK and allowed.
And what happens if I just order "Lpl-Wal" without specifying the
unit type?  Is that a "miswritten" or a "badly written" order.

   It makes sense to be strict about orders from the point of view of
Judge.




Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS; 26 SEP 92 18:04:48 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:02:58 BST
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      PP and TAC

JD>> However, Dippers ought to know that there HAS been a significant change
JD>> in the rules since the 1976 edition. The change involves the convoy
JD>> rule and the cutting of support, and was designed to eliminate the
JD>> Pandin Paradox (I hope I've got his name right). There was a good bit
JD>> of discussion of the change and the paradox in an issue of EP about
JD>> a year ago or so.

MN>    However you're wrong!  The new Avalon Hill rules (which I think were
MN> released circa 1987) cleared up the `un-wanted convoy' busness (yawn!),
MN> they may have also cleared up PP but I am not so sure on this.

JD> I'm wrong, but you're not sure. Right, Mark.

Naturally you're the one who's wrong! 8-)
The main rule-fix in recent times hs been to outlaw TUC. (*shame*)
They may have changed PP at the same time.  (I don't have
a set of American rules.)

JD> I know I'm right about fixing the Pandin Paradox. I don't know about
JD> the unwanted convoy business. I agree that's nothing to worry about,
JD> esp. since we who play JUDGE games don't worry about that stuff,
JD> since we always specify our convoy route. Makes more sense.

   Since I see nothing wrong with the UWC the snail mail games I run
use the 1971 rulebook and hence allow the UWC.

JD> I don't have the new rules. I should get them, I guess.

There really isn't that much point.


JD> A convoyed attack on a fleet that is supporting an action in a body
JD> of water does not cut that support.
JD> (That's not the exact wording.)
JD> It's ugly. It doesn't make intuitive sense. But it does fix the
JD> paradox problem, and I can't think of a better way to fix it.

I'd have to get some old rule books out to check this, but this has
always been my understanding of this `problem'.  I *suspect* that
PP only existed in the pre-1971 rulebook and was one of the things
that was fixed in the 1971 rulebook (which fixed a number of problems
that had been found in the rulebook during postal play in the 1960's).
I don't think that the 1976 rulebook actually cleared this up.
(I may be wrong.) I'll reread the 1971 rulebook tonight.

Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:41:50 EDT
Reply-To:     Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Avalon's 'de-luxe edition' and the 1976 rulebo

>From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK

>  The delux diplomacy set will contain the board/rules and *wooden* pieces.

Big deal. We sophisticated e-mail players don't use physical objects
to represent our games. Anyway, we've all memorized the map. :-)

>>However, Dippers ought to know that there HAS been a significant change
>>in the rules since the 1976 edition. The change involves the convoy
>>rule and the cutting of support, and was designed to eliminate the
>>Pandin Paradox (I hope I've got his name right). There was a good bit
>>of discussion of the change and the paradox in an issue of EP about
>>a year ago or so.
>
>   However you're wrong!  The new Avalon Hill rules (which I think were
>released circa 1987) cleared up the `un-wanted convoy' busness (yawn!),
>they may have also cleared up PP but I am not so sure on this.

I'm wrong, but you're not sure. Right, Mark.
I know I'm right about fixing the Pandin Paradox. I don't know about
the unwanted convoy business. I agree that's nothing to worry about,
esp. since we who play JUDGE games don't worry about that stuff,
since we always specify our convoy route. Makes more sense.

I don't have the new rules. I should get them, I guess.

Jamie

p.s. the fix for the PP goes like this:
A convoyed attack on a fleet that is supporting an action in a body
of water does not cut that support.
(That's not the exact wording.)
It's ugly. It doesn't make intuitive sense. But it does fix the
paradox problem, and I can't think of a better way to fix it.
According to Ken Lowe, the paradox actually arose in a JUDGE game
once! I find that hard to believe, but Ken is so trustworthy....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:34:38 -0400
Reply-To:     George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
From:         George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Youngstown Query
              26 Sep 92 23:48:17 EDT."
              <9209270354.AA24571@mitchell.cit.cornell.edu>

> 1.  Why doesn't off-F and off-E touch each other? Logic
> tells me that either Fezzan touches off-D or the above-
> mentioned offboards should touch each other.

Using the (recent) map and rules published by the Schenectady
Wargamers Assoc., movement between off board boxes isn't even
permitted. You move into a box and then to a remote province. In
Loeb's version you move into a box and then to other boxes. So Loeb's
map and the judge rules is a slightly different variation of the
youngstown variant. His map is consistant; you can't move into a box
from two different provinces, only from the one it is in. So you can't
move fez-obd for that reason. And obe and obf touch obd but not each
other.

> 2.  Why do the following areas exist?  They seem kinda
> useless to me:  Kashmir, Hokkaido (they seem to have no purpose
> except allowing another retreat point for fleets/armies)...

I'm a little confused why you picked those areas vs. any other random
non-center province. Why does Burgandy exist? But to answer with an
answer, Kashmir, for example, is very strategic. It can be one end of
a solid defensive line for India. Take the orders "kas s del, del s
raj, raj s mad, mad s raj, eio s mad, cey holds". Six units hold the
southern end of a stalemate line.  If the kas unit is in nep, then
four units can attack del (one cuts the support of raj).

> also
> Brunie, Hir (this last one only stops certain fleet movements)
> Hon (why not let Kyoto touch ECS?), and Shan (why not let
> Laos touch Burma?).  Just wondering ...

Without Shan, three armies can't dislodge two english units in
Thailand and Johara without outside help. I'm sure we can think of
ways to use the other provinces but it is rather lates.

> 3.  Why is the Suez as weird as it is?  Why not just make
> it a province like any other (like Constantinople)

Suez is a province like any other. It is egypt that is wierd. Why is
egypt+suez unlike const? Well, to permit a convoy through the suez for
one thing. Can't do a convoy through const.

> 4.  This is probably the strangest question.  Why is Caspian Sea impassable?

Don't know that one. Maybe because it is in the original game.

> True enough, anyone who would put a fleet on the Caspian would be
> kinda dim, but it would allow for interesting retreats and would allow
> a fleet in Sevastapol to touch Iran, not to mention giving Omsk two
> coasts and making a fleet built in Moscow possible!!

Are you the same person who asked question number 2? :-)

George
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: DIPL-L@MITVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"DIPL-L@MITVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:51:27 TZONE
Reply-To:     gomide@BRFAPQ
Comments:     @FAPQ.FAPESP.BR - @FAPQ%FPSP.HEPNET - @BRFAPQ.BITNET - .BR
              gateway
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was GOMIDE@BRFAPQ
From:         gomide@FPSP.FAPESP.BR
Subject:      Apologies re: InterMeta course

PLEASE DO NOT SEND MONEY !
It is with regret that I perform this task. Dr. Gelson V. Gomes. a
professor of the University of Parana, Brazil, has exceeded this
privileges and announced a eletronic course:

> ____________________________________________________________
>        Mastering INTERNET Tools, Seizing METANET Power -
>                      The InterMeta Course
> ____________________________________________________________

I must apologize for this flagrant breach of network etiquette. Please
be aware that Dr. Gelson had no right to do so, since this is against
the rules of our ANSP network, and also against the Bitnet rules.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND MONEY!
I will not discuss what his motivations were. But his account has been
revoked, and there will be no such course through my network.

Please write by normal mail, to:
-> Gelson V. Gomes
-> 358, R. Alvaro Andrade - ap.1201
-> Curitiba PR BRAZIL 80610-240
to get more information on his objectives. He may want to give the
course by normal mail.  :-)

With regards,
--
Alberto Courrege Gomide | Fundacao de Amparo `a Pesquisa - (11)831-3357
Software Supervisor     | Rua Pio XI, 1500 - CEP 05468-901 - Sao Paulo
<gomide@fapq.fapesp.br> | FAX (11)261-4167 Telex (11)82014 - Brazil
(ACG8) - .BR Domain Technical Contact. |
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS; 26 SEP 92 20:39:32 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:37:41 BST
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: programming the judge

GB> Well, except to make it easier to program the judge.

MN> It makes sense to be strict about orders from the point of view of Judge.

GB> If I can't use "sense" to talk about Diplomacy, they you can't use it
GB> to talk about computer programs! :-)

GB> Seriously though, this notion that something works the way it does
GB> because of implied limitations in the supporting computer program
GB> will, I hope, become a thing of the past. If not, it will be a very
GB> dull 21st century. The judge is *great*. But all programs can be
GB> "improved" and adding (optional) support for miswritten orders should
GB> be (parhaps at the bottom) of the list of improvements.


   I agree.  Obviously you could make Judge more and more flexable by not
getting to accept orders in one, and only, valid format.  I am not
writting Judge code... but I don't think that this option is a very high
priority code and it'll probable remain at the bottom of the batch until
Ken is decommissioned.


GB> Then we can modify our computer players up to version 2 to take
GB> advantage of miswritten orders to the computer adjudicator. Then all
GB> the v1 computer players will say to themselves, but he is a computer,
GB> how could he have miswritten an order? Ah, he must be a *human* player
GB> trying to pretend to be a computer player. Well, I'm smarter than
GB> that...

Well the most common thing to occur is: Our player 1 has a miswritten order
this turn.  He's a good player so he would check his orders v.carefully.
Hence it must be a deliberate misorder and not an accidental misorder.
Hence he is trying to deceive us in some way...

Miswritten orders do not fool good players!

Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 10:40:28 -0400
Reply-To:     George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
From:         George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject:      more on youngstown off board movement

I though I would pass this on, a conversation I had with Ken about the
judge variant of youngstown. It gives you an idea of how a variant is
born.

  > Regarding off board area movement, your description is very different
  > from the version promoted by the Schenectady Wargamers Association, or
  > at least as I know it.

  That's probably correct.  I solicited rule descriptions and got two
  which were very different.  The fellow that sent me the SWA map gave
  me what he had as the SWA rules for this variant, but I found them
  quite inconsistant and confusing -- particularly when it came to the
  off board box movement.  The rules he gave me indicated that you
  couldn't move from one box to another and paths were not reflective.
  Eg: You could go from NPO-ObL-NAO, but NAO-ObL was not allowed, you
  had to go through ObA.  Another problem came up when trying to support
  units.  He tried to tell me you could support a move into another box
  although it wasn't explicitly described in his rules, but that violates
  basic principles of Diplomacy, namely that you can only support a move
  into a space where you can move.  Without being able to do that
  support, though, there were cases where a power could park a unit in an
  offboard box and it could stand off all attempted attacks no matter how
  many units the aggressor had free to throw at it.  Meanwhile, the guy
  with the standing unit could continue to pump units through the one-way
  door.  I chose to use most of Jon's rules when it came to the off board
  boxes as they were much more succinct and seemed to be more consistant
  with the rest of the game and the topology of the map -- not to mention
  much easier to implement.

  > So, I was wondering how wide spread your variant is and where/when did
  > Jon Monsarrat describe his off board rules?

  I have no idea how wide spread Jon's variant is/was.  I got it from another
  email enthusiast who got it from him as he had his own adjudication program
  that supported it.  My variant is a mixture of his (offboard boxes) and the
  SWA variant (initial locations and Suez) so I'm pretty sure that it is only
  used for games played via my adjudicator.  I have no connection with
  non-email Diplomacy, so I don't know what gets played outside my world.

  > George

  -Ken
From: nick@SUNBURN.UWATERLOO.CA (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Subject: Players from merlin - lets ban them
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:31:47 GMT
Reply-To: Nick Fitzpatrick <nick@SUNBURN.UWATERLOO.CA>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Last spring there was some concern, due to some strange things happening
at the site merlin.nmhu.edu.  Two things consistently happened,

a) players from this site would pop into a game, submit one set of orders,
then resign.

b) multiple players from this site would infest a game, and try and take
over.

There was a report recently, that they were back, and it almost seemed
as if they were behaving theirselves, however they are at it again, below
is part of the broadcast summary from the game giggles.  Essentially
two "different" players from the merlin site, took over two powers
in the game giggles, WITHIN 5 MINUTES of each other, a day later
they both resigned, WITHIN 1 MINUTE of each other.  This is consistent
with the activities last spring.  I find it very difficult to believe that
this can only be one player.

This morning I released a new copy of the Hall of Fame, an examination
of it will find about 15 references to the merlin site.  IN EVERY CASE
THE PLAYER INVOLVED WAS IN THE GAME FOR LESS THAN 1 GAME YEAR!  This situation
is intolerable  (the Hall of Fame is available by request to me!).

I am asking that the players from this site be banned from all future games
on the judge.  (They are already banned from all my games)

Nicholas Fitzpatrick
------------
History information for game giggles from Sat Oct  3 00:00:00 PDT

Date:    Sat Oct  3 14:09:54 1992 (718146594)
Subject: Diplomacy notice: giggles

angels_gary@merlin.nmhu.edu has taken over the abandoned
China in game giggles.
Deadline for giggles advanced to Sun Oct  4 14:08:55 PDT.
Grace period for giggles advanced to Mon Oct  5 14:08:55 PDT.

Date:    Sat Oct  3 14:15:01 1992 (718146901)
Subject: Diplomacy notice: giggles

siddiqui_s@merlin.nmhu.edu has taken over the abandoned
India in game giggles.
Deadline for giggles advanced to Sun Oct  4 14:13:57 PDT.
Grace period for giggles advanced to Mon Oct  5 14:13:57 PDT.

Date:    Sat Oct  3 15:06:20 1992 (718149980)
Subject: Diplomacy notice: giggles

angels_gary@merlin.nmhu.edu has resigned angels_gary@merlin.nmhu.edu
as China in game giggles.

Date:    Sat Oct  3 15:07:38 1992 (718150058)
Subject: Diplomacy notice: giggles

siddiqui_s@merlin.nmhu.edu has resigned siddiqui_s@merlin.nmhu.edu
as India in game giggles.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS;  4 OCT 92 11:22:50 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:00:38 BST
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      Women In Diplomacy

Retyped by Mark Nelson for email distribution on October 3rd 1992.
(Marie Cockrell was the first women to win two postal games.  She
placed 6th at the 1974 DipCon where she met her husband to be, Doug
Beyerlein, and achieved a 5= draw in her last game, a demo game in
Diplomacy World,)

 Europa Express (May 1982)

Marie (Cockrell) Beyerlein:  ``The sudden interest in women in Diplomacy
amd why there aren't more of them is familiar.  The same thing
happened when I was playing, and the speculations, (all by men,
of course) are the same in content and just as amusing as they were then.
My favourite speculation is the one where women supposedly aren't
as competitive as men.  I would say it's just possible
that they are *more* competitivie then men, but that they prefer
to compete *with each other*.  Women are, or were, taught from an
early age to defer to men, and our bag of man-catching tricks
(we used to need you guys in order to survive, remember?) includes the
ploy of always letting the man win at sports and parlor games.  My
mother actually scolded me once for beating a boyfriend at ping pong.
I don't think we are yet at the point where very many women feel
comfortable in competitive situations with groups of men.  A smart
male player who find himself in a game with two, or more, women
can probable exploit this knowledge by getting the women to fight
each other while he and his male allies mop up the board.''

``As long as there are just a few women in the hobby, those
women have tremendous advantages that should be exploited.
For one thing, it's not nice to hit a lady,  For another, male ego
sometimes prevents a man from believing that a lady who smiles at him
and says reassuring things with a soft voice is really lying to him.
But I think that the most powerful advantage is that if a women
is genuinely warm and friendly (and being pretty wouldn't hurt), then
she can soften the blow when she wins, and men won't mind losing
to her.  I have seen many a game in which players work to eliminate
or halt an unpopular or obnoxious player, just because they couldn't
stand his attitude if he won.''
From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Subject: Avalon's "de-luxe edition" and the 1976 rulebook revisited.
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:04:55 GMT
Reply-To: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS; 26 SEP 92 17:06:43 BST

Jamie, what are you doing logging on on a Saturday afternoon.  Surely
you *must* have something better to do? 8-)

(I assume that y'all have a copy of Rod Walker's ``Gamer's Guide To
Diplomacy'' published by Avalon Hill.  Every diplomacy player should
have a copy of this and Richard Sharp's ``Guide To Diplomacy'' in their
collection of dip material.)

  As far as I understand Avalon Hill have asked a number of well-known North
American dip players to contribute articles to a revised booklet.  I know
that Cal White has been asked to write something on pubbing a zine and
international contacts.  I think that David Hood (editor of *Diplomacy
World*, something else y'all should be getting) is in charge of
co-ordination with Avalon Hill.  Avalon Hill are , 8-), hoping to pub it in
1994.

  The delux diplomacy set will contain the board/rules and *wooden* pieces.
It will also contain a copy of the book, which I presume will also be
available direct from Avalon Hill.


>However, Dippers ought to know that there HAS been a significant change
>in the rules since the 1976 edition. The change involves the convoy
>rule and the cutting of support, and was designed to eliminate the
>Pandin Paradox (I hope I've got his name right). There was a good bit
>of discussion of the change and the paradox in an issue of EP about
>a year ago or so.


   Pandin's Paradox... yawn!

   However you're wrong!  The new Avalon Hill rules (which I think were
released circa 1987) cleared up the `un-wanted convoy' busness (yawn!),
they may have also cleared up PP but I am not so sure on this.  They've
not been released else-where so, for example, British players can still
attempt the unwanted convoy.  Personally, I never saw the problem with
the Unwanted Convoy and didn't see the need to outlaw it.  The new
American rules on TUC are pretty silly.  (If you have a copy of a new
set of rules reread the section on convoying armies and player intent.)

Mark.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
From: hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)
Subject: Re: Merlin Ban
Organization: Information Services, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:09:55 GMT

I'd support a ban too.  I play a lot of nopress gunboat games and I have no
idea who's playing which country.  So unlike in regular dip games, I don't
even know if a person from merlin is playing or not until I get to look at
the game summary at the end of the game.

--
hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)    :     :    :   :  : :: ::: :::: :::::
Unix Geek for Swarthmore College        :     :    :   :  : :: ::: :::: :::::
Information Services, Swarthmore, PA, US.       Copyright 1992 by Eiji Hirai.
I don't speak for Swarthmore College.                    All Rights Reserved.

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU