Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:03:47 EST
Reply-To:     Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      NMR, Replacements, and spleen

From:         Joel Furr <jfurr@NYX.CS.DU.EDU>

>Speaking as one of the advocates of NMR, I couldn't care less if NMR games
>don't get EP numbers.  If *you* want to play games that
>     a) drag on forever while 6 of 7 players wait for the grace period
>        to elapse so they can replace a vanished player,
>     b) involve in some cases the replacement of every single original
>        player (one game I'm in is on its way to the replacement of
>        all of the original REPLACEMENT players),
>     c) have less to do with diplomacy than with exasperation and boredom,

>then you play them.  Have fun.  But don't expect me and SOME of the
>rec.games.diplomacy players to agree when you claim that these games are
>the ONLY acceptable version.

As a child of four could plainly see, I have no expectation that
Joel or anyone else will do much of anything. Surprising as
it may seem, I spend very little time thinking about what
Joel will do. As everyone who spoke in the recent exchange
but Joel was able to figure out, my ENTIRE point
was directed to the question of scoring. EP #'s, fine, who
cares, there are plenty of numbers to go around. JUDGE run
games, great, the more the merrier.

>Again, you're entitled to your opinion.  But don't you think that if we
>look long and hard enough, we can find examples under ANY set of rules
>where everything fell apart and the game turned into a joke?  Hmm?

I couldn't say. But the question isn't relevant.

My claim was that NMR's will have a significantly greater
tendency to produce spoiled games than will replacements.
By "spoiled," I don't mean "no fun to play." I mean
"defective for purposes of scoring." It is abundantly obvious
to me that "fun to play" is entirely up to the various players.

As Mark has astutely pointed out, a perfectly good solution
is to have various rankers use various ranking/scoring
systems, each alerting potential consumers of their
scoring ground rules. That is an excellent idea. It would
have the additional benefit of reminding users that a scoring
system is not the last word on standing, but only one imperfect
measure. Bravo, Mark.

>Or are you saying that because one NMR game didn't work out well,
>all NMR should be denied any recognition as a valid way to play
>Diplomacy?

Oh, good, that's right. I probably did mean that. Even though
nothing I said implied it. Bold inference.

>I don't quite understand the source of your utter hatred for NMR, but I
>think I can safely say that you're not going to get your way in getting
>NMR banned from the judges or whatever crazed agenda you seem to have.

No comment deserved, none offered.

>>Not every NMR affects a game that way. But unless we want to have
>>post hoc judges deciding how disastrous a given NMR turned out to
>>be, we need to maintain the rule that only NoNMR games can be
>>counted in Hall of Fame. Whereas I think there is no problem at
>>all counting multiple replacement games toward HoF points.

>Nope, that's a patently idiotic point of view.

Imagine my shame.

> There are games going now where people have come in
>and taken over positions where they have, say, seven or eight
>units, and they roll over some weaker powers.  Should these
>people get credit in the hall of fame for superior play?
>I don't think so.

Currently, they don't. They get credit for the part of the
game they play. Mark suggests that a replacement player
could in effect get a bonus for his good deed. While I
agree with the spirit, in my opinion the scores should
reflect achievements and not good deeds. Perhaps there
is some other kind of reward that replacements could get.

Joel might consider looking into the facts before spouting.

I see from everyone else's responses that my basic position
is widely shared; namely, that NMR games shouldn't count
in scoring, but multiple replacement games should. Several
respondants made additional intelligent points I hadn't
thought of. So I'm quite satisfied, and thank them for
their sane remarks. Also for their defense of MY sanity,
though I assure them none was needed. But it was touching.

I WOULD like to address the concerns offered by John Roberts.
They are important ones.
Someone who enters a game as a replacement (a non-gunboat game,
I am assuming!) and sends moves right away without any
diplomacy at all is either (a) goofy, or (b) a victim of
a goofy deadline (as Neil Dodgson's case illustrates).
Moderators should make sure to allow replacements enough
time (and obviously more than 24 hours) to conduct
negotiations before moves are due.

As for goofy players, they are anathema to the game. But they
show up as starters, too, not just as subs. REALLY goofy players
do function as partial randomizers. That's why EP has rules
against goofy play. (They are difficult to enforce, though,
as has become clear recently.)

As I said, I am quite satisfied with the by-and-large
discussion, so it's unlikely I will post again on this topic.

Jamie
Xref: sparky bit.listserv.dipl-l:530 rec.games.diplomacy:884