HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: desper@math.rutgers.edu (Rick Desper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Opening in Burmese
Keywords: Five-Player Youngstown Variant
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:36:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	Well, I seem to have lost my China/Italy player in Burmese.
If anybody would like to try out the five-player Youngstown variant,
here's your chance.  Burmese is a white-press Gunboat five-player
Youngstown game running on the Washington Judge.  The country pairings
are A/E, C/I, F/T, G/J and N/R.  The game is quite early, and no deep
alliances have formed, in my opinion.  
	If you are interested, just sign on as either China or Italy,
and send me a note.  We'll have to play with the settings to get your
second country going, but I've done it before, it's possible.  
					Rick
					Master of Burmese
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: ian@anasazi.com (Ian S. O'brien)
Subject: DIPL-L Question
Reply-To: ian@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:28:29 GMT
Summary: How to unsubscribe?


Quick question:

How do I unsubscribe to DIPL-L?

Thanks in advance, email answer would be fine.

-Ian
ian@anasazi.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: rilba@stna.dgac.fr (Rilba Guy STNA 7SU p8087 BD24)
Subject: One more opening !
Organization: STNA 95 rue Henri Rochefort 91025 Evry Cedex 33(1)60.79.80.00
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:05:53 GMT


Game 'zebra' on the Washington judge needs a new German ruler. The game is at
an early stage. Next move will be spring 1902. 

Germany has got five supply centers (Berlin, Kiel, Munich, Belgium, Holland)
and so is in a shape as good as possible !

Well, I'm playing the Russian Czar in this game, and should someone take over
Germany, I would be happy to get in touch as soon as possible !

By the way, the game is moderated without moderator. Can someone help us
and move the deadline so that everybody could be at peace during Christmas ?

Thanks in advance !
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  Guy RILBA - rilba@stna7.stna.dgac.fr - (33 1) 60.79.80.87

  Service Technique de la Navigation Aerienne - EVRY - FRANCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: What is the outcome of this move?
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:22:45 GMT

Jonathan Haas (positron@engin.umich.edu) writes:

> Support is *not* cut by an attack coming from the province into which
> support is given.

Josh "exception monger" Smith here, with yet another "unless..." (grin) In
this case: true, unless the attack dislodges the supporting unit.

Example 1:

  Austria: A Budapest - Rumania			(*bounce, dislodged*)
  Austria: A Serbia S A Budpaest - Rumania
  Austria: A Vienna - Budapest			(*bounce*)

  Russia:  A Galicia - Budapest
  Russia:  A Rumania S A Galicia - Budapest
  Russia:  A Sevastopol S A Rumania

The Austrian A Bud - Rum does not cut the Russian A Rum's support, so the
Russian attack on Budapest succeeds.

Example 2:

  Austria: A Budapest - Rumania
  Austria: A Serbia S A Budpaest - Rumania
  Austria: A Vienna - Budapest			(*bounce*)

  Russia:  A Galicia - Budapest			(*bounce*)
  Russia:  A Rumania S A Galicia - Budapest	(*cut, dislodged)

Since the Russian A Rum is dislodged by the Austrian A Bud - Rum, its
support is cut; that leaves Russia's unsupported A Gal - Bud to bounce
against Austria's unsupported A Vie - Bud (which thus also bounces).

So, the general rule is that a supporting unit's support can be cut under
one of two conditions:

    A) The supporting unit is attacked by a unit from a space other
    than the one into which it is givng support;

OR

    B) The supporting unit is dislodged by any unit.

The meaning of "attacked" in A should be obvious: if a unit in Space1 is
ordered to move to Space2, then the unit in Space1 is attacking the unit in
Space2.
-- 
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."
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re: poltava on u.washington.edu needs 3!
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 20:09:04 GMT

In article <BzKGBu.8F6@cscns.com> donley@cscns.com (Donley P'Simer) writes:
>The Standard, Gunboat game, poltava, on the UofW judge needs three
>players. I'm new at email Diplomacy, so I'm anxious to get started.
>Please sign up!
>
This game is taking so long to start, because someone set the level
to advanced . . . ., if you want the game to start, set it to any.

Nick

Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: mgilbert@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael W. Gilbert)
Subject: Re: Opinions - Diplomacy between moves and retreats?
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:14:49 EST

In article <Bz0CqI.Dy6@world.std.com> kovar@world.std.com (David C Kovar) writes:
>  The Avalon Hill rules state that there is no diplomacy allowed between
>the move and the retreat phases. Ie, no external input for retreats, 
>disbands, and builds. The Judge, on the other hand, permits this.
>I've not seen the rule enforced in several cases and I've run into 
>a case where it is being enforced now.
>
>  What is the popular opinion on this? Is diplomacy allowed between
>the movement phase and the retreat/build phases?
>
>-David
>

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."

I guess that the Judge is more postal than "standard," so press *should*
be allowed in these cases.

Mike Gilbert
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Building and disbanding units
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 12:59:35 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Keywords: building disbanding army fleet

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.

2. BUILDING AND REMOVING UNITS (ADJUSTMENTS).  After the Fall moves
have been played, and the retreats (if any) made, each player's number
of units must be adjusted to equal the number of supply centers his
Great Power controls.  If he has fewer centers than units, he must
disband the excess units only, by removing them from the board.  The
units removed may be any of his units he chooses.  If he has more
centers than units, he may build units by placing them, one in each
unoccupied supply center, in his home country only (provided that such
supply centers are still under his control).  

In other words (as I see it), no. Looks to me like you can only disband
if you have a deficit, and build if you have a surplus. 
-- 
__/\__  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: ian@anasazi.com (Ian S. O'brien)
Subject: How do I change my address?
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:58:03 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.diplomacy
Summary: judge help 

How do I permanently change my email address with the Judge(s)?

Will sending in a revised Registration update my current games or do I need
to send in a SET ADDRESS command?  (Assuming Register is how to do it) 

Step-by-step for the documentation interpretation impaired would help.
Thanks in advance,

-Ian
ian@anasazi.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: jroberts@sanjuan.UVic.CA (John Roberts)
Subject: What is the outcome of this move?
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:52:11 GMT

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).  Does everyone agree?  Would the result be the same if 

Russia Army Rumania S Galicia -> Budapest
Russia Army Galicia -> Budapest
Russia Fleet Sevastopol S Rumania

?

--
John M. Roberts   jroberts@sanjuan.uvic.ca (?)
voice: (604) 384-4131   fax: (604) 384-1194
From: comrade@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Peter Cooper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Re: Australia judge - down AGAIN!
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:23:04 +0800
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu () writes:

>Is the Australia judge down again?

Unfortunately, yes.  The machine has been having catastrophic media
problems due to a heatwave.  The hard drive now verifies correctly,
again, and I'm currently reinstalling the operating system.

As if all that wasn't bad enough, there may be some problems with the
backup tapes.  If the judge is unaffected, everythign should be up in
the next 20 hours or so.  If the judge's files are corrupted, it may
take longer.

Please contact David Bennett (guddt@uniwa.uwa.edu.au) for more
information.

Apologies

Peter
ps.  voting Libertarian wouldn't help.
-- 
email:  comrade@uniwa.uwa.edu.au   snail:  Peter Cooper
fax:    +61 9 380 1041                     Guild of Undergraduates
phone:  +61 9 380 3929                     University of Western Australia
"It was the banana that did it!" - Julia Marley
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: pmeyer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Philip Meyer)
Subject: who wrote "diplomacy adjunctor" program?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:47:07 GMT

Can someone tell me who wrote the DA program and when?

Thanks in advance,

	--phlip
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Interested in Starting a Game.
Keywords: Newbie--Please don't torch me
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:02:08 GMT

I am interested in starting or entering a game of diplomacy (preferably the
regular variation as I am somewhat a newbie) and was wondering how one goes
about doing this or if there were any games open I could start in.  Thanks.


-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
From: nlc@vulcan.xtel.co.uk (Neil Cook)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: EFF judge down?
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:47:31 GMT
Organization: X-Tel Services Ltd.

Is the EFF judge down? I have had no mail since Thursday.

Neil.
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: kovar@world.std.com (David C Kovar)
Subject: All games on the EFF judge must be moderated
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:26:01 GMT

  The policy of the EFF Judge is that all games must be moderated. I've 
not had the chance to modify the code yet to reflect this, so I enforce
it by hand. Please do not create a game on the EFF judge if you're not
planning on moderating it.

-David
From: arkoff@lclark.edu (Gary Arkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Thoughts on 1898 was Re: Youngstown 1898?
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:03:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Dec11.220324.15034
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <lihvghINN6s4@levelland.cs.utexas.edu> kbs@cs.utexas.edu (Kenneth Brian Samuel) writes:
>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

A good point and one that I had not considered before.  :)  One could
argue that this advantage is not unique to Russia as all of the powers are
now allowed more flexibility in their "origional" builds.  Never-the-less,
Russia is clearly one of the powers which gains most from this.  

-Gary

-- 
What is another word for 'thesaurus?'  --  Gary Arkoff --   arkoff@lclark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: jmcnamar@ucs.indiana.edu (Jason McNamara)
Subject: Youngstown nomenclature
Followup-To: rec.games.diplomacy
Organization: Indiana University - Go Hoosiers!
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:08:45 GMT

OK... this is what you people get for letting history geeks onto the group:

The Youngstown variant (which seems really neat, though I've not played it)
has an extra region in the Balkans surrounded by (clockwise from N)
Galicia, Rumania, Serbia, Budapest, and Vienna.  Located basically where
Transylvania and the Banat of Temesvar are today, the region is in the game
called Klug.  This doesn't match any of the usual spellings of the chief
city of that area, namely Cluj[-Napoca] (Romanian), Kolosvar (Hungarian),
Klausenberg (German), or even Claudiopolis (Latin).

Or does A-H need to be clever to hold the area? 
(A terrible pun for you German folks out there - sorry :-b )

Basically what I'm wondering is how did such a terrible misspelling find
its way into the game, and can it be changed?

Also, I should add that I'm quite impressed by the efficiency with which
everything in this corner of the universe runs - big thanks to the masters
& eff people for making this look effortless, though I should know better.

All for now.

Jason McNamara             jmcnamar@ucs.indiana.edu     
jmcnamar@indiana.bitnet
Russian and East European Institute & University Computing Svcs., Indiana
Univ.
"Bloomington has had but 3 days of sun since Clinton was elected...
                                                        ...Coincidence? 
Maybe."
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: lokendr@ecf.toronto.edu (LO KENDRICK)
Subject: Canadian Diplomacy Players -- Part II
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:40:50 GMT

I have received quite a good response so far from the last posting
and I have decided to post it again for those who missed it the first
time.

I am planning to get a group of people together to play Diplomacy.
Please drop me a line if you are interested.

1) I am looking for any interested players who would be interested in
   playing a game by e-mail.  Registration on the judge is NOT necessary,
   but internet e-mail access is.  Open to Canadian players of all le
   levels.  Diplomacy will take place over the e-mail channels, and I
   will personally GM the game, and produce move results; so it will
   most probably be a judge-independent game.

2) I am looking for any interested players who would be interested in
   playing in some sort of organized Diplomacy set of face-to-face
   games.  You should be living in or around the Metropolitan Toronto
   Area.  This will take place sometime in the new year, not yet
   determined.

   If you think you might be interested, (no obligation necessary!)
   drop me a line at lokendr@ecf.toronto.edu  or  lokendr@ecf.utoronto.ca.
   I look forward to hearing from you!  Merry Christmas.

   Kendrick
From: romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Michael Stimac)
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
Subject: Re: Building and disbanding units
Keywords: building disbanding army fleet
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:33:26 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

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.
>
>2. BUILDING AND REMOVING UNITS (ADJUSTMENTS).  After the Fall moves
>have been played, and the retreats (if any) made, each player's number
>of units must be adjusted to equal the number of supply centers his
>Great Power controls.  If he has fewer centers than units, he must
>disband the excess units only, by removing them from the board.  The
>units removed may be any of his units he chooses.  If he has more
>centers than units, he may build units by placing them, one in each
>unoccupied supply center, in his home country only (provided that such
>supply centers are still under his control).  
>
>In other words (as I see it), no. Looks to me like you can only disband
>if you have a deficit, and build if you have a surplus. 

(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.

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.
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Re: Building and disbanding units
Keywords: building disbanding army fleet
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:12:12 GMT

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.
>
>2. BUILDING AND REMOVING UNITS (ADJUSTMENTS).  After the Fall moves
>have been played, and the retreats (if any) made, each player's number
>[rest of rule deleted to save space]
>
>In other words (as I see it), no. Looks to me like you can only disband
>if you have a deficit, and build if you have a surplus. 

   Generally true, but--IF you have a piece that's dislodged in
combat, you can choose to disband it during the retreat phase, rather
than moving to an available space.  And IF that still leaves you with
a surplus, you may build the extra unit.

   In other words, you can't disband and rebuild at will during the
build phase, but if you have an opportunity to disband during the
retreats, you may build back that unit during builds (assuming you
still have enough supply centers).

			-Gary
-- 
|Gary Brainin                     |BITNET: garygm%leland.stanford.edu@stanford|
|garygm@leland.stanford.edu       |UUCP: ...decwrl!leland.stanford.edu!garygm |
|"...the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right |
|most valued by civilized men."    Olmstead v. U.S. (Brandeis, J., dissenting)|
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
From: fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott)
Subject: Re: diplomacy during retreats
Organization: Nerds On Parade
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:45:00 GMT

c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se writes: 

>>   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?

No.

1)  It is not possible to fix in the vast majority of the (PBeM) games.  So
folks don't really expect it be different in a non-partial-press-permitted
gunboat game simply because the it happens to be possible in this one specific
version of PBeM.  So unless it has been decreed before the game begins that
this particular F-t-F rule is to be used, it shouldn't be enforced.

2) The likely reason for the rule in F-t-F is to eliminate an otherwise
potentially time-consuming but mostly meaningless phase.  (I.e., if allowed
to, a lot of players would spend a lot of time negotiating over these
otherwise usually minor points.)  With snail mail, the mail exchange takes
too much time to even have these phases at all, so they're folded into the
regular phases, at the cost of some fore-knowledge of the situation the
players will not be able use.  (E.g., if England just double-crossed France,
but France still has a build, mighten they wish to build a *fleet*.)  This
certainly changes the game - probably more so than permitting negotiation
before build and retreat phases.  With PBeM, the mail exchanges are no
problem but enforcing no-negotiation is.  Besides, in a PBeM environment,
no time need be lost permitting negotiations - as long as it isn't causing
someone to be late with their moves.  So the rule has little purpose in PBeM.

Fred
Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy,news.answers