Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

yet another possible rules issue

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 30, 2004 3:46:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

I searched the DATC before posting this, and I couldn't find any similar
discussion, so I thought this may be of interest.

One of my friends, Scott, suggested to me recently that there is an
oversight in the 2000 rules concerning the definition of standoff. Here
are the relevant remarks, on page 6 under the heading "Standoffs":

The following common situations involve forces of equal strength
trying to occupy the same province at the same time. These
situations are called standoffs. ...

* Units of equal strength trying to occupy the same province
cause all those units to remain in their original provinces.
... (This is also true of equally supported units....)


My friend noticed that this definition of standoff does not account for
the case where one unit (that holds) is more supported than the other
(that moves). This means that literally speaking, there is no
"standoff" from the following orders:

Germany: A Ber - Sil
Russia: A Sil Hold; A War S A Sil

The Overview section of the Support Order chapter are sufficient to
ensure that the result we expect for this example is the actual result.
Nonetheless, many wonky things result from a literal interpretation of
the definition of "standoff" as it is phrased. For example, the failed
convoy rule gets turned on its ear: "A convoy that causes the convoyed
Army to standoff at its destination results in that army remaining in
its original position." So strictly under the 2000 definition of
standoff, these orders:

England: A Lon - Hol, F Nth C A Lon - Hol
Germany: A Hol hold, A Kie S A Hol

result in German A Holland being dislodged! The rules of convoy allow
the attempt, and only the standoff rule could fail it. (Whereas if Army
Kiel had not given support, the convoy would fail.)


But wait, there's more! In early 2004 Lucas brought up the following
situation (under the subject "New rule issue."), which I believe to be a
paradox:

England:
A Norway - Sweden
F Denmark Supports A Norway - Sweden
F Norwegian Sea - Norway

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway via Convoy
F Skagerrak Convoys A Sweden - Norway

To briefly explain, the problem is whether F Norwegian Sea can move to
Norway or not. On the one hand, two units can exchange places using a
convoy, so Sweden stands off in Norway against Norwegian Sea, and
therefore is dislodged in Sweden; Norwegian Sea remains. On the other
hand, a dislodged unit has no effect on the province that dislodged it,
so Norwegian Sea moves to Norway unopposed. Thus, paradox.

However, my friend Scott argues that because of the mis-definition of
the term "standoff" in the official rules, this situation is in fact not
a paradox. He reasons that in the mechanics of the game, the effective
strength of the Russian Army Sweden to move to Norway is in fact less
than the effective strength of the English Fleet Norwegian Sea to move
to Norway. This imbalance in strength, he argues, is the necessary
application of the rule that a dislodged unit has no effect on the
province that dislodged it.

Applying the strict definition of "standoff" in the 2000 rules, he
argues that there is no standoff in Norway because Fleet Norwegian Sea
is stronger than Army Sweden. Fleet Norwegian Sea moves to Norway, and
Army Sweden is dislodged. No paradox.

I think my friend is full of it, and is not only abusing an oversight in
the rules to alleviate a clear paradox, but in doing so is also assuming
a convenient mathematical model for unit strength that the rules do not
specify.

Anybody else want to weigh in?

--
Will Berry
Co-founder, Second Brain website hosting
http://www.secondbrainhosting.com/

More about : rules issue

Anonymous
May 31, 2004 12:36:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Will Berry" <wberry@wberry.org.x> wrote in message
news:YQcuc.16677$3X4.14201@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> Anybody else want to weigh in?

You guys need to find girlfriends.

Derek
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 9:16:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Derek McLachlin" <dmclachlin@videotron.ca> writes:

> "Will Berry" <wberry@wberry.org.x> wrote in message
> news:YQcuc.16677$3X4.14201@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> Anybody else want to weigh in?
>
> You guys need to find girlfriends.

Hey! It isn't so easy finding girls that likes to talk about the minutia
of Diplomacy rules. I'm lucky enough knowing a few that likes to play
the game itself.

--
Björn Lindström <bkhl@elektrubadur.se>
http://bkhl.elektrubadur.se/
Related resources
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 3:15:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Derek McLachlin" <dmclachlin@videotron.ca> writes:

>"Will Berry" <wberry@wberry.org.x> wrote in message
>news:YQcuc.16677$3X4.14201@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> Anybody else want to weigh in?

>You guys need to find girlfriends.

>Derek

I'm generally on Derek's side, and I already have a wife, but
I'll say again that what DOES make Diplomacy and this newsgroup
interesting is this diversity. So, I reject Derek's implied
putdown and I look forward to SOMEONE commenting on Will's note.

8-)

I'm just going to say that this is one more example where I think
that the attempt by Hasbro to simplify the wording of the rules,
while generally well intentioned, was a failure. I think it would
be interesting for Will and others interested in these issues
to propose a new set of rules that they think would avoid more
confusion. We could call 'em the "r.g.d rules"..... ;-)

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 7:42:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Jim Burgess wrote:
>
> I'm just going to say that this is one more example where I think
> that the attempt by Hasbro to simplify the wording of the rules,
> while generally well intentioned, was a failure. I think it would
> be interesting for Will and others interested in these issues
> to propose a new set of rules that they think would avoid more
> confusion. We could call 'em the "r.g.d rules"..... ;-)

A good name I think. Maybe I will get a draft going in spare time. I
think it would be good to do the following:
- Separate the actual rules from the examples to avoid clutter and
possible contradiction.
- Define the term "legal order" once and for all.
- Put all discussion of the standard map in its own section, and make
the actual rules to be map-neutral.
- Eliminate all known paradoxes once and for all with no ill side
effects (i.e. no 'all hold' rule or 1982 rule) and no 'in case of
paradox' (Szykman) rules, even though this will alter the basic strategy
of the convoy order either in the weaker or stronger direction.
- Allow unwanted convoys, and make moves succeed when either the land
route or the convoy route succeeds.

and most importantly:
- Document alternatives, such as no unwanted convoys, land or water
route not both, Szykman, Brennan, all hold, 1982, etc. to satisfy
die-hard advocates of other approaches to the various convoy-related
problems; and allow a GM to use these alternatives as canon in a
particular game. This will effectively produce multiple rule-sets, but
we sort of have this already, and each faction of personal preference
will threaten blood in the streets if their way is not adopted; so I see
no choice but to allow all accepted solutions as sanctioned house rules.

--
Will Berry
Co-founder, Second Brain website hosting
http://www.secondbrainhosting.com/
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 10:02:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

> Nonetheless, many wonky things result from a literal interpretation of
> the definition of "standoff" as it is phrased. For example, the failed
> convoy rule gets turned on its ear: "A convoy that causes the convoyed
> Army to standoff at its destination results in that army remaining in
> its original position." So strictly under the 2000 definition of
> standoff, these orders:
>
> England: A Lon - Hol, F Nth C A Lon - Hol
> Germany: A Hol hold, A Kie S A Hol
>
> result in German A Holland being dislodged! The rules of convoy allow
> the attempt, and only the standoff rule could fail it.


Not at all. The rules state that the "numerically greater force wins",
thus, A(Lon) cannot possibly win, whether this situation is defined as a
standoff or not.

A(Lon) - Hol fails, and the army stays put.

There is no paradox in any of this. The problem is that in the
real world, we would expect something like this to be called a standoff,
but the Dip rules definition does not do so, and so we get a little
confused...


As for the other example:

> I think my friend is full of it, and is not only abusing an oversight in
> the rules to alleviate a clear paradox, but in doing so is also assuming
> a convenient mathematical model for unit strength that the rules do not
> specify.
>

Me too. However, that leads to the question: should we play this like it
was /intended/
or like it is written? (at least, it seems obvious to me what the intention
behind the "has no
effect" clause is)
Because if we take the latter approach, then your friend is probably right,
even thought it is
very counterintuitive.

Cheers,
Anders :) 
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 10:02:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Anders Reed-Mohn wrote:
>>So strictly under the 2000 definition of standoff, these orders:
>>
>>England: A Lon - Hol, F Nth C A Lon - Hol
>>Germany: A Hol hold, A Kie S A Hol
>>
>>result in German A Holland being dislodged! The rules of convoy allow
>>the attempt, and only the standoff rule could fail it.
>
> Not at all. The rules state that the "numerically greater force wins",
> thus, A(Lon) cannot possibly win, whether this situation is defined as a
> standoff or not.

I could not find that phrase in the 2000 rules. The Overview section of
the Support Order chapter does say: "A unit moves with its own strength
combined with all of its valid supports. Unless it is opposed by a unit
that is equally or better supported, it can complete its move." So I
suppose if you interpret those sentences as a revision to the definition
of "standoff", then you could alleviate the 'more supported than
necessary' hole.


> However, that leads to the question: should we play this like it
> was /intended/ or like it is written? (at least, it seems obvious
> to me what the intention behind the "has no effect" clause is)
> Because if we take the latter approach, then your friend is probably right,
> even thought it is very counterintuitive.

I think every GM wants to play it as intended, not as written. It is,
after all, supposed to be a game about politics and war. The problem is
that in many of these rule issues, there is no obvious intent. I
suppose this is why people pester Mr. Calhamer occasionally to get his
opinion (i.e. intent) of new issues.

The discussion of the afore-mentioned paradox degenerated into a mild
flame war earlier over whether Fleet Norwegian Sea "should" bounce or
not. There were similarly hot feelings over whether "F Nwy - Stp(SC)"
is a legal order or not.

--
Will Berry
Co-founder, Second Brain website hosting
http://www.secondbrainhosting.com/
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 12:25:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:c9f448$29u$1@pcls4.std.com...
> "Derek McLachlin" <dmclachlin@videotron.ca> writes:
>
> >"Will Berry" <wberry@wberry.org.x> wrote in message
> >news:YQcuc.16677$3X4.14201@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> Anybody else want to weigh in?
>
> >You guys need to find girlfriends.
>
> >Derek
>
> I'm generally on Derek's side, and I already have a wife, but
> I'll say again that what DOES make Diplomacy and this newsgroup
> interesting is this diversity. So, I reject Derek's implied
> putdown and I look forward to SOMEONE commenting on Will's note.

Of course I only intended a light-hearted barb. If having an in-depth
discussion of the intricacies of the new definition of a "standoff" makes
people happy, then they should go right ahead! I myself have been known to
spend a lot of time on things that other people would think quite
ridiculous.

Derek
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 1:56:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Will Berry" wrote:
> A good name I think. Maybe I will get a draft going in spare time. I
> think it would be good to do the following:
> - Separate the actual rules from the examples to avoid clutter and
> possible contradiction.
I would suggest to take the current rules and make as little changes
as possible. Any bigger change, has the risk that a new issue is
introduced. For instance, the DPTG has three bugs.

Lucas
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 3:39:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Will Berry" <wberry@wberry.org.x> wrote in message
news:kgLuc.48248$ZM1.22442@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Anders Reed-Mohn wrote:
> > Not at all. The rules state that the "numerically greater force wins",
> > thus, A(Lon) cannot possibly win, whether this situation is defined as a
> > standoff or not.
>
> I could not find that phrase in the 2000 rules. The Overview section of
> the Support Order chapter does say: "A unit moves with its own strength
> combined with all of its valid supports. Unless it is opposed by a unit
> that is equally or better supported, it can complete its move."


My bad! I was looking at the wrong rulebook, had two in front of me,
the 2000 rules does not say what I said :) 

However, it does say, in addition to what you quoted: "one unit cannot
attack
and advance against another without help", which basically covers my
original
point. The lone unit cannot kick butt on it's own, and thus the move fails.


Cheers,
Anders :) 
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 12:48:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Anders wrote:
> The lone unit cannot kick butt on it's own, and thus the move fails.


I personally think that if the rules were phrased in this kind of language,
life would be much simpler. ;) 

Alastair
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 7:03:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Will Berry <wberry@wberry.org.x> writes:

>Anders Reed-Mohn wrote:
>>>So strictly under the 2000 definition of standoff, these orders:
>>>
>>>England: A Lon - Hol, F Nth C A Lon - Hol
>>>Germany: A Hol hold, A Kie S A Hol
>>>
>>>result in German A Holland being dislodged! The rules of convoy allow
>>>the attempt, and only the standoff rule could fail it.
>>
>> Not at all. The rules state that the "numerically greater force wins",
>> thus, A(Lon) cannot possibly win, whether this situation is defined as a
>> standoff or not.

>I could not find that phrase in the 2000 rules. The Overview section of
>the Support Order chapter does say: "A unit moves with its own strength
>combined with all of its valid supports. Unless it is opposed by a unit
>that is equally or better supported, it can complete its move." So I
>suppose if you interpret those sentences as a revision to the definition
>of "standoff", then you could alleviate the 'more supported than
>necessary' hole.

I agree, the phrase is not there, this is generated by the choice
to "emphasize the standoff" in writing these rules. It was
decided by the Hasbro/other rule rewriters that this wasa source
of considerable confusion by new players of the game. You see,
in MOST games, the rules tell you how attacks are resolved to
determine a winner (usually using dice or chance), it is ONLY
in Diplomacy that you have this simultaneous movement and
simultaneous thwarting of aims.

>> However, that leads to the question: should we play this like it
>> was /intended/ or like it is written? (at least, it seems obvious
> > to me what the intention behind the "has no effect" clause is)
>> Because if we take the latter approach, then your friend is probably right,
>> even thought it is very counterintuitive.

>I think every GM wants to play it as intended, not as written. It is,
>after all, supposed to be a game about politics and war. The problem is
>that in many of these rule issues, there is no obvious intent. I
>suppose this is why people pester Mr. Calhamer occasionally to get his
>opinion (i.e. intent) of new issues.

BUT, this is NOT about intent, it is about the weaknesses of
language and the nearly impossible choices that one faces in
deciding how to frame the rules of Diplomacy. No need to pester
Allan on this one! He made it very clear in the rules he
wrote. What we want is the writing to reflect the intent!
You guys are showing me again why ***I*** as an experienced
player do not like the 1999/2000 Hasbro rules.... but
let's talk about the real issue, language!

>The discussion of the afore-mentioned paradox degenerated into a mild
>flame war earlier over whether Fleet Norwegian Sea "should" bounce or
>not. There were similarly hot feelings over whether "F Nwy - Stp(SC)"
>is a legal order or not.

>--
>Will Berry
>Co-founder, Second Brain website hosting
>http://www.secondbrainhosting.com/

That's a whole different kettle of fish though.....

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 7:07:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Will Berry <wberry@wberry.org.x> writes:

>Jim Burgess wrote:
>>
>> I'm just going to say that this is one more example where I think
>> that the attempt by Hasbro to simplify the wording of the rules,
>> while generally well intentioned, was a failure. I think it would
>> be interesting for Will and others interested in these issues
>> to propose a new set of rules that they think would avoid more
>> confusion. We could call 'em the "r.g.d rules"..... ;-)

>A good name I think. Maybe I will get a draft going in spare time. I
>think it would be good to do the following:
>- Separate the actual rules from the examples to avoid clutter and
>possible contradiction.

Agreed, but again note that this flies in the face of "teaching
newbies". Such rules would be VERY hard to read if you didn't
already have some familiarity with the game. And hey, you're
a hypertext guy, why be limited by linearity???

>- Define the term "legal order" once and for all.

I suppose..... you're more worried about this than me.

>- Put all discussion of the standard map in its own section, and make
>the actual rules to be map-neutral.

Absolutely!

>- Eliminate all known paradoxes once and for all with no ill side
>effects (i.e. no 'all hold' rule or 1982 rule) and no 'in case of
>paradox' (Szykman) rules, even though this will alter the basic strategy
>of the convoy order either in the weaker or stronger direction.
>- Allow unwanted convoys, and make moves succeed when either the land
>route or the convoy route succeeds.

Ooooh, do we agree on this...

>and most importantly:
>- Document alternatives, such as no unwanted convoys, land or water
>route not both, Szykman, Brennan, all hold, 1982, etc. to satisfy
>die-hard advocates of other approaches to the various convoy-related
>problems; and allow a GM to use these alternatives as canon in a
>particular game. This will effectively produce multiple rule-sets, but
>we sort of have this already, and each faction of personal preference
>will threaten blood in the streets if their way is not adopted; so I see
>no choice but to allow all accepted solutions as sanctioned house rules.

>--
>Will Berry
>Co-founder, Second Brain website hosting
>http://www.secondbrainhosting.com/

Correct, and perfectly appropriate for something that we would
call r.g.d rules......

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 7:09:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Derek McLachlin" <dmclachlin@videotron.ca> writes:


>"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>news:c9f448$29u$1@pcls4.std.com...
>> "Derek McLachlin" <dmclachlin@videotron.ca> writes:
>>
>> >"Will Berry" <wberry@wberry.org.x> wrote in message
>> >news:YQcuc.16677$3X4.14201@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> Anybody else want to weigh in?
>>
>> >You guys need to find girlfriends.
>>
>> >Derek
>>
>> I'm generally on Derek's side, and I already have a wife, but
>> I'll say again that what DOES make Diplomacy and this newsgroup
>> interesting is this diversity. So, I reject Derek's implied
>> putdown and I look forward to SOMEONE commenting on Will's note.

>Of course I only intended a light-hearted barb. If having an in-depth
>discussion of the intricacies of the new definition of a "standoff" makes
>people happy, then they should go right ahead! I myself have been known to
>spend a lot of time on things that other people would think quite
>ridiculous.

>Derek

Of course you did, and that's how I took it, I was trying to make the
larger point..... and see how quickly the discussion expanded to
an even larger one??

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 7:10:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Alastair Tomlinson" <agtomlinson.nospamplease@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

>Anders wrote:
>> The lone unit cannot kick butt on it's own, and thus the move fails.


>I personally think that if the rules were phrased in this kind of language,
>life would be much simpler. ;) 

>Alastair

I think writing some REALLY good newbie rules also would be a good
thing (aren't I good at making suggestions without actually DOING
anything???) and they WOULD be phrased colloquially.

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 2:12:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<c9i5se$4tk$1@pcls4.std.com>...
>
>
>
> BUT, this is NOT about intent, it is about the weaknesses of
> language and the nearly impossible choices that one faces in
> deciding how to frame the rules of Diplomacy. No need to pester
> Allan on this one! He made it very clear in the rules he
> wrote. What we want is the writing to reflect the intent!
> You guys are showing me again why ***I*** as an experienced
> player do not like the 1999/2000 Hasbro rules.... but
> let's talk about the real issue, language!
>

OK, how about this:

Is it possible to think about - or 'have' - 'intentions' outside of language?
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 3:45:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

ciczack@hotmail.com (Stefan Sjostrom) writes:

> OK, how about this:
>
> Is it possible to think about - or 'have' - 'intentions' outside of
> language?

It certainly is. You can want something you don't know the word for,
can't you?

However, it would be nice if the rules of Diplomacy was written in a
formal language.
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 3:45:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

bkhl@elektrubadur.se (Björn Lindström) wrote in message news:<s38n032bjrw.fsf@numerus.ling.uu.se>...
> ciczack@hotmail.com (Stefan Sjostrom) writes:
>
> > OK, how about this:
> >
> > Is it possible to think about - or 'have' - 'intentions' outside of
> > language?
>
> It certainly is. You can want something you don't know the word for,
> can't you?

No, it's not. You can want something you don't know the word for, but
not without knowing how to describe it. Otherwise, how would you know
if you got it? (A little Wittgenstein would help here!) OR,
alternately, you can want something that causes a particular effect,
without knowing what that object is.
>
> However, it would be nice if the rules of Diplomacy was written in a
> formal language.


Will
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 9:41:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:
> No, it's not. You can want something you don't know the word for, but
> not without knowing how to describe it.

If you can prove that, you'll put Wittgenstein to shame. :-)
Anonymous
June 18, 2004 3:45:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

bkhl@elektrubadur.se (Björn Lindström) wrote in message news:<s387ju6b39c.fsf@numerus.ling.uu.se>...
> wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:
> > No, it's not. You can want something you don't know the word for, but
> > not without knowing how to describe it.
>
> If you can prove that, you'll put Wittgenstein to shame. :-)


Don't tempt me. :)  All I meant was without knowing something's proper
name (caliing a spade a spade, say). Let's say I've never known the
word "calculator". I see one being used. I ask the person using it
what it is; they reply, "A device to do math problems with." I could
then think, "I could use one of those. I think I want it." I then say
to the person, "Give me that device to do math problems with." I have
expressed my desire in language the whole time, but I do not know the
WORD for it. That does not mean I am not using language.

Will
Anonymous
June 18, 2004 6:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

ciczack@hotmail.com (Stefan Sjostrom) writes:

Absolutely, have you ever studied semiotics or linguistics?

Jim-Bob

>Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<c9i5se$4tk$1@pcls4.std.com>...
>>
>>
>>
>> BUT, this is NOT about intent, it is about the weaknesses of
>> language and the nearly impossible choices that one faces in
>> deciding how to frame the rules of Diplomacy. No need to pester
>> Allan on this one! He made it very clear in the rules he
>> wrote. What we want is the writing to reflect the intent!
>> You guys are showing me again why ***I*** as an experienced
>> player do not like the 1999/2000 Hasbro rules.... but
>> let's talk about the real issue, language!
>>

>OK, how about this:

>Is it possible to think about - or 'have' - 'intentions' outside of language?
Anonymous
June 18, 2004 11:35:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:

You guys also are VERY much restricting your discussion by talking
about "things" (were we able to define what a thing was....) when
I thought we were talking about broader concepts, like an
adjudication, which is not a thing.

Jim-Bob

>bkhl@elektrubadur.se (Björn Lindström) wrote in message news:<s387ju6b39c.fsf@numerus.ling.uu.se>...
>> wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:
>> > No, it's not. You can want something you don't know the word for, but
>> > not without knowing how to describe it.
>>
>> If you can prove that, you'll put Wittgenstein to shame. :-)


>Don't tempt me. :)  All I meant was without knowing something's proper
>name (caliing a spade a spade, say). Let's say I've never known the
>word "calculator". I see one being used. I ask the person using it
>what it is; they reply, "A device to do math problems with." I could
>then think, "I could use one of those. I think I want it." I then say
>to the person, "Give me that device to do math problems with." I have
>expressed my desire in language the whole time, but I do not know the
>WORD for it. That does not mean I am not using language.

>Will
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 1:03:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:35:54 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
<burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:
>
>You guys also are VERY much restricting your discussion by talking
>about "things" (were we able to define what a thing was....) when
>I thought we were talking about broader concepts, like an
>adjudication, which is not a thing.

Why isn't an adjudication a thing?

Tim
Anonymous
June 19, 2004 6:43:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:

> Don't tempt me. :)  All I meant was without knowing something's proper
> name (caliing a spade a spade, say). Let's say I've never known the
> word "calculator". I see one being used. I ask the person using it
> what it is; they reply, "A device to do math problems with." I could
> then think, "I could use one of those. I think I want it." I then say
> to the person, "Give me that device to do math problems with." I have
> expressed my desire in language the whole time, but I do not know the
> WORD for it. That does not mean I am not using language.

You're just getting yourself into a circle argument. How can you know
the word without knowing it's meaning.

<drops the name of G.E. Moore>
Anonymous
June 20, 2004 9:17:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

news@9oakhill.com (Tim Goodwin) writes:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:35:54 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
><burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>>wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:
>>
>>You guys also are VERY much restricting your discussion by talking
>>about "things" (were we able to define what a thing was....) when
>>I thought we were talking about broader concepts, like an
>>adjudication, which is not a thing.

>Why isn't an adjudication a thing?

>Tim

OK, possibly it is, I don't THINK it is, but it illustrates that
part of the problem in this discussion is that people are using
terms without clear definitions. I don't want to get completely
self-referential and pedantic, but I would assert an adjudication
is a member of a relatively large set of concepts that goes beyond
"tangible objects" (and PLEASE, let's not debate the definition of
that, though we surely could).

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 4:11:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:17:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
<burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:


>I would assert an adjudication
>is a member of a relatively large set of concepts that goes beyond
>"tangible objects"

I think "tangible objects" is a subset of "things". The thing is that
lots of things aren't tangible. That we may not agree about this is
an unfortunate thing. I like to argue about things, so feel free to
continue the debate. Don't just blurt out the first thing that comes
to your mind; make sure every thing is in order first. I have a thing
about unsupported assertions.

Tim
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 12:16:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

bkhl@elektrubadur.se (Björn Lindström) wrote in message news:<s38k6y49y2b.fsf@numerus.ling.uu.se>...
> wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:
>
> > Don't tempt me. :)  All I meant was without knowing something's proper
> > name (caliing a spade a spade, say). Let's say I've never known the
> > word "calculator". I see one being used. I ask the person using it
> > what it is; they reply, "A device to do math problems with." I could
> > then think, "I could use one of those. I think I want it." I then say
> > to the person, "Give me that device to do math problems with." I have
> > expressed my desire in language the whole time, but I do not know the
> > WORD for it. That does not mean I am not using language.
>
> You're just getting yourself into a circle argument. How can you know
> the word without knowing it's meaning.
>
> <drops the name of G.E. Moore>

Um...you can't. In my example, I suggested the opposite: knowing its
meaning without knowing the word-- a vocabulary defect, if you would.
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 5:45:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

news@9oakhill.com (Tim Goodwin) writes:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:17:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
><burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:


>>I would assert an adjudication
>>is a member of a relatively large set of concepts that goes beyond
>>"tangible objects"

>I think "tangible objects" is a subset of "things". The thing is that
>lots of things aren't tangible. That we may not agree about this is
>an unfortunate thing. I like to argue about things, so feel free to
>continue the debate. Don't just blurt out the first thing that comes
>to your mind; make sure every thing is in order first. I have a thing
>about unsupported assertions.

>Tim

Thanks, Tim, I will try to do that, BUT we both agree that "thing"
is a very general word. I thought we were talking about adjudications
;-)

And adjudications are to me best described as a decision logic,
where the question is working out a unique solution from a set
of inputs..... but OK, criticism accepted.

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 6:21:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:45:11 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
<burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>news@9oakhill.com (Tim Goodwin) writes:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:17:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
>><burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>I would assert an adjudication
>>>is a member of a relatively large set of concepts that goes beyond
>>>"tangible objects"
>
>>I think "tangible objects" is a subset of "things". The thing is that
>>lots of things aren't tangible. That we may not agree about this is
>>an unfortunate thing. I like to argue about things, so feel free to
>>continue the debate. Don't just blurt out the first thing that comes
>>to your mind; make sure every thing is in order first. I have a thing
>>about unsupported assertions.
>
>>Tim
>
>Thanks, Tim, I will try to do that, BUT we both agree that "thing"
>is a very general word. I thought we were talking about adjudications
>;-)
>
>And adjudications are to me best described as a decision logic,
>where the question is working out a unique solution from a set
>of inputs..... but OK, criticism accepted.

A theorum is a thing. A proof is a thing. I suppose it may be a
question of whether the process of proving is a thing. One might say
that FDR did great things. So, I think the process can be a thing, as
well as the product of that process.

Tim
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 7:52:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

news@9oakhill.com (Tim Goodwin) writes:

>On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:45:11 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
><burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>>news@9oakhill.com (Tim Goodwin) writes:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:17:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
>>><burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I would assert an adjudication
>>>>is a member of a relatively large set of concepts that goes beyond
>>>>"tangible objects"
>>
>>>I think "tangible objects" is a subset of "things". The thing is that
>>>lots of things aren't tangible. That we may not agree about this is
>>>an unfortunate thing. I like to argue about things, so feel free to
>>>continue the debate. Don't just blurt out the first thing that comes
>>>to your mind; make sure every thing is in order first. I have a thing
>>>about unsupported assertions.
>>
>>>Tim
>>
>>Thanks, Tim, I will try to do that, BUT we both agree that "thing"
>>is a very general word. I thought we were talking about adjudications
>>;-)
>>
>>And adjudications are to me best described as a decision logic,
>>where the question is working out a unique solution from a set
>>of inputs..... but OK, criticism accepted.

>A theorum is a thing. A proof is a thing. I suppose it may be a
>question of whether the process of proving is a thing. One might say
>that FDR did great things. So, I think the process can be a thing, as
>well as the product of that process.

>Tim

Hi Tim, I suppose, but what I had in my mind was..... and the
question will be "can I put it into words".... how can you look
at a decision logic to uniquely move from sets of orders to
adjudication, and this whole thing about things... ;-) ... is
just a digression from that point.

So, I come back to my point, and I WILL be technical, which I
usually avoid here. To me, what people are looking for in refining
the rules and the adjudication process is best solved with the
decision table technique, quoting from a pair of experts from
Belgium:

"The decision table technique, with its ability to check a given
specification for completeness, consistency and correctness, has been
recognized as a very inviting formalism in a variety of areas. Common
application domains include: program structuring, manual decision making,
systems analysis and design, representation of complex texts, verification
and validation of knowledge bases, knowledge acquisition."

This is the stuff from which they design "expert systems" and I
think that's what the people who are talking about this want.
AND, these systems (Vanthienen [one of the authors above] and
Wets have showed this) can convert decision tables into rules,
and this is what you want. IF someone wanted to approach this
properly this is what they would do. If I ever got to the bottom
of my to-do list (not likely) I could get closer to designing what
would be required than this "hint". But those of you with more
time, have at it!

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 8:54:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:52:41 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
<burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>Hi Tim, I suppose, but what I had in my mind was..... and the
>question will be "can I put it into words".... how can you look
>at a decision logic to uniquely move from sets of orders to
>adjudication, and this whole thing about things... ;-) ... is
>just a digression from that point.
>
>So, I come back to my point,

No fair.
Anonymous
June 21, 2004 9:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

news@9oakhill.com (Tim Goodwin) writes:

>On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:52:41 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
><burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>>Hi Tim, I suppose, but what I had in my mind was..... and the
>>question will be "can I put it into words".... how can you look
>>at a decision logic to uniquely move from sets of orders to
>>adjudication, and this whole thing about things... ;-) ... is
>>just a digression from that point.
>>
>>So, I come back to my point,

>No fair.

Is too fair. Especially when I used the time honored methodology
of the "appeal to an expert"....

I'm not going to debate the Thing any more unless we're talking
about the Addams Family's Thing.

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 12:23:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:

>> You're just getting yourself into a circle argument. How can you know
>> the word without knowing it's meaning.
>>
>> <drops the name of G.E. Moore>
>
> Um...you can't. In my example, I suggested the opposite: knowing its
> meaning without knowing the word-- a vocabulary defect, if you would.

And that's where the circle starts, as suggested by Moore...
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 12:21:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

bkhl@elektrubadur.se (Björn Lindström) wrote in message news:<s38smco93d6.fsf@numerus.ling.uu.se>...
> wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:
>
> >> You're just getting yourself into a circle argument. How can you know
> >> the word without knowing it's meaning.
> >>
> >> <drops the name of G.E. Moore>
> >
> > Um...you can't. In my example, I suggested the opposite: knowing its
> > meaning without knowing the word-- a vocabulary defect, if you would.
>
> And that's where the circle starts, as suggested by Moore...

You're going to have to make your argument explicit; right now you're
just confusing me. I can not know a word, then learn it later....I
don't see the conceptual problem here at all.

As noted above, one cannot know a word without knowing its meaning.
You can, however, know a concept (its meaning, if you will) without
knowing the word that stands for it. That word can then be learned,
rectifying the vocabulary defect.

But my real conclusion is that, while you can be ignorant of a given
word, if you know its meaning you still put it into words-- vocabulary
choice, perhaps. So a person lacking a given vocabulary item still
does not express its meaning outside of language-- Wittgenstein.

PS: Gestures may be used, generally as supplements. But try using only
gestures sometime, and you'll see you can't communicate very well. And
at any rate, you don't think in gestures-- though you might think in
terms of names of gestures.
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 4:56:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>news@9oakhill.com (Tim Goodwin) writes:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:35:54 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
>><burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>>wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:
>>>
>>>You guys also are VERY much restricting your discussion by talking
>>>about "things" (were we able to define what a thing was....) when
>>>I thought we were talking about broader concepts, like an
>>>adjudication, which is not a thing.
>
>>Why isn't an adjudication a thing?
>
>>Tim
>
>OK, possibly it is, I don't THINK it is, but it illustrates that
>part of the problem in this discussion is that people are using
>terms without clear definitions. I don't want to get completely
>self-referential and pedantic, but I would assert an adjudication
>is a member of a relatively large set of concepts that goes beyond
>"tangible objects" (and PLEASE, let's not debate the definition of
>that, though we surely could).
>
>Jim-Bob

You walked into that one, Jim-Bob. Is there a clear definition of
"thing"? I would have thought that a common definition of "thing" was
anything you can talk about.
--
Politas
To reply, replace nospam with diplomacy
http://www.livejournal.com/users/politas/
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 5:45:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Politas <nospam@politas.mailshell.com> writes:

>Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>>news@9oakhill.com (Tim Goodwin) writes:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:35:54 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
>>><burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>wabbott9@yahoo.com (Will Abbott) writes:
>>>>
>>>>You guys also are VERY much restricting your discussion by talking
>>>>about "things" (were we able to define what a thing was....) when
>>>>I thought we were talking about broader concepts, like an
>>>>adjudication, which is not a thing.
>>
>>>Why isn't an adjudication a thing?
>>
>>>Tim
>>
>>OK, possibly it is, I don't THINK it is, but it illustrates that
>>part of the problem in this discussion is that people are using
>>terms without clear definitions. I don't want to get completely
>>self-referential and pedantic, but I would assert an adjudication
>>is a member of a relatively large set of concepts that goes beyond
>>"tangible objects" (and PLEASE, let's not debate the definition of
>>that, though we surely could).
>>
>>Jim-Bob

>You walked into that one, Jim-Bob. Is there a clear definition of
>"thing"? I would have thought that a common definition of "thing" was
>anything you can talk about.
>--
>Politas
>To reply, replace nospam with diplomacy
>http://www.livejournal.com/users/politas/

Since I've been on newsgroups since the mid-1980's you'd think
I'd have gotten the hang of it by now, wouldn't you?

I was admittedly getting a bit exasperated using a word like
thing that is so imprecise, note that NO one seriously responded
to my more serious note that might actually get someone somewhere
;-) in thinking about linking adjudications to rules. And that's
the thing that's important here....

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 6:59:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In message <cb9d6b$id5$1@pcls4.std.com>, Jim Burgess
<burgess@TheWorld.com> writes

>I was admittedly getting a bit exasperated using a word like
>thing that is so imprecise, note that NO one seriously responded
>to my more serious note that might actually get someone somewhere
>;-) in thinking about linking adjudications to rules. And that's
>the thing that's important here....

Oscar Wilde claimed he could discuss any subject at any time. A
companion took him up on this, and asked him to discuss the Queen. He
responded: "The queen is not a subject."

Nick
--
Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 7:29:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Politas <nospam@politas.mailshell.com> writes:

> You walked into that one, Jim-Bob. Is there a clear definition of
> "thing"? I would have thought that a common definition of "thing" was
> anything you can talk about.

That is a popular type of definition. However, when you study language,
it turns out that a lot of the words can't be said to point to any part
of the world in an ostensive fashion. Thus the conclusion that words
only gain meaning in actual usage.
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 6:16:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

This is a very belated reply, but noone else in the thread seems to have
thought of this, so...

In rec.games.diplomacy, on Sat, 29 May 2004 23:46:00 -0400,
Will Berry <wberry@wberry.org.x> wrote:
> I searched the DATC before posting this, and I couldn't find any similar
> discussion, so I thought this may be of interest.
>
> One of my friends, Scott, suggested to me recently that there is an
> oversight in the 2000 rules concerning the definition of standoff. Here
> are the relevant remarks, on page 6 under the heading "Standoffs":
>
> The following common situations involve forces of equal strength
> trying to occupy the same province at the same time. These
> situations are called standoffs. ...
>
> * Units of equal strength trying to occupy the same province
> cause all those units to remain in their original provinces.
> ... (This is also true of equally supported units....)
>
>
> My friend noticed that this definition of standoff does not account for
> the case where one unit (that holds) is more supported than the other
> (that moves). This means that literally speaking, there is no
> "standoff" from the following orders:
>
> Germany: A Ber - Sil
> Russia: A Sil Hold; A War S A Sil

Yes, that's correct...

[snippage]
> England:
> A Norway - Sweden
strength 2 Nwy-Swe

> F Denmark Supports A Norway - Sweden
uncut support

> F Norwegian Sea - Norway
strength 1 Nwg-Nwy

> Russia:
> A Sweden - Norway via Convoy
strength 1 Swe-Nwy, via convoy

> F Skagerrak Convoys A Sweden - Norway
undislodged convoy

> To briefly explain, the problem is whether F Norwegian Sea can move to
> Norway or not. On the one hand, two units can exchange places using a
> convoy, so Sweden stands off in Norway against Norwegian Sea, and
> therefore is dislodged in Sweden; Norwegian Sea remains.

> On the other hand, a dislodged unit has no effect on the province that
> dislodged it, so Norwegian Sea moves to Norway unopposed. Thus,
> paradox.

Looking at the above movement strengths...

Nwy-Swe is the one that "must win", it has the greatest movement
strength.

Swe-Nwy moves at strength one via convoy to Nwy, as does Nwg-Nwy.

Thus, Nwg-Nwy bounces with Swe-Nwy, or would if not for the magic rule
below...

A Swe doesn't move and is thus dislodged by Nwy...

As a result of being dislodged by A Nwy, it has no effect on Nwy...

Thus, F Nwg-Nwy succeeds.

I guess it depends on whether you think that the "exchange places using
convoy" rule or the "no effect on province that dislodged it" rule takes
precedence, which way the apparent problem should be resolved.

Everything happens simultaneously, including dislodgement, so I guess
the "no effect" rule takes precedence, removing the exchange places
effect, thus A Swe-Nwy effectively "doesn't happen", which means that
F Nwg->Nwy moves unopposed.

I don't really see a paradox... just a weird precedence and "which
rule(s) apply(ies)" problem.

I'm curious to know how the various judge software interprets this
situation... I suspect that there *is* usually a bounce over Nwy,
followed by A Swe being dislodged, but I'm not sure.

The point would be moot if the orders above were:

E:

A Nwy-Swe (strength 2 => succeed)
F Den S A Nwy-Swe (uncut, support ok)
A Kie-Ber (strength 1 => bounce)

R:
A Swe-Ber, via convoy (strength 1, convoyed => bounce, dislodged)
F Bal convoy Swe-Ber (undislodged, convoy ok)

because this doesn't involve the "no effect on province that dislodged"
thing...

Either way, A Swe is dislodged and cannot move to its target province...
the only question is whether the "other army" succeeds in its move or
not.

> However, my friend Scott argues that because of the mis-definition of
> the term "standoff" in the official rules, this situation is in fact not
> a paradox. He reasons that in the mechanics of the game, the effective
> strength of the Russian Army Sweden to move to Norway is in fact less
> than the effective strength of the English Fleet Norwegian Sea to move
> to Norway. This imbalance in strength, he argues, is the necessary
> application of the rule that a dislodged unit has no effect on the
> province that dislodged it.

I think I agree with your friend Scott.

> Applying the strict definition of "standoff" in the 2000 rules, he
> argues that there is no standoff in Norway because Fleet Norwegian Sea
> is stronger than Army Sweden. Fleet Norwegian Sea moves to Norway, and
> Army Sweden is dislodged. No paradox.

It's not so much a "paradox" as a rules applicability and precedence
question... "No effect on" is pretty unequivocal about being applicable
all the time. "Can exchange via convoy" is a special exception to the
general rule of opposed movement. Thus, I think the "no effect on" rule
wins.

> I think my friend is full of it, and is not only abusing an oversight in
> the rules to alleviate a clear paradox, but in doing so is also assuming
> a convenient mathematical model for unit strength that the rules do not
> specify.

No, I think the same "problem" exists in other rulesets too, but don't
have them on me to check. And there is a convenient mathematical model
for unit strength specified in the rules. Units have a strength of one,
which they may spend how they like on a particular province that they
can reach. In some circumstances, that strength is moved back to their
own province (support cuts, etc) for use by the unit itself as
"defensive strength".

That's pretty clear... The "no effect on" rule is an application of the
latter, i.e., that A Swe (because it is dislodged), loses the ability to
move its strength to the province it was dislodged from, thus its
strength sits as "defensive strength 1 to myself".

> Anybody else want to weigh in?

This is the "direction of attack when convoyed" problem rearing its head
again, really... It's an open debate whether a "convoyed" attack "comes
from" the originating province, or from the province of the last
convoying fleet.

Personally, I think it makes more sense for it to be the latter, but the
rules as written really don't support that position.

I think that the KL Judge operates with the latter, though, which is,
IMO, a consistent position with its "convoy routes must be fully
specified" rules modification.

Ook,

Thorf

--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thorfinn@tertius.net.au</a>
~/ For those who've come across the seas, ~/ We've boundless plains to share, ~/
~/ With courage let us all combine, ~/ To Advance Australia Fair. ~/
-- Part of the Australian National Anthem.
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 6:16:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Thorfinn wrote:
>
> Looking at the above movement strengths...
>
> Nwy-Swe is the one that "must win", it has the greatest movement
> strength.
>
> Swe-Nwy moves at strength one via convoy to Nwy, as does Nwg-Nwy.
>
> Thus, Nwg-Nwy bounces with Swe-Nwy, or would if not for the magic rule
> below...
>
> A Swe doesn't move and is thus dislodged by Nwy...
>
> As a result of being dislodged by A Nwy, it has no effect on Nwy...
>
> Thus, F Nwg-Nwy succeeds.

I agree that this is a reasonable and intuitive adjudication, but so is
the exact opposite result: that since Sweden clearly "bounced" out of
Norway, so should the other unit trying to move there. And both results
are equally within the rules; that is, neither is within the rules.

> I guess it depends on whether you think that the "exchange places using
> convoy" rule or the "no effect on province that dislodged it" rule takes
> precedence, which way the apparent problem should be resolved.
>
> Everything happens simultaneously, including dislodgement, so I guess
> the "no effect" rule takes precedence, removing the exchange places
> effect, thus A Swe-Nwy effectively "doesn't happen", which means that
> F Nwg->Nwy moves unopposed.
>
> I don't really see a paradox... just a weird precedence and "which
> rule(s) apply(ies)" problem.

That's just the thing; all rules apply all the time. The rulebook
sometimes phrases the various rules as exceptions or precedences, but
this is mere linguistic convenience. "The rules" are always the same,
and they directly contradict each other on this point.

I will be satisfied that there is no rule paradox here if someone can
answer this question. What rule, other than the rule of standoff,
causes Army Sweden to remain in place, where it is dislodged?

If the answer is that no rule (other than the standoff rule) causes
Sweden's attempted move to be unsuccessful, as I believe is the case,
then the result that Norwegian Sea is allowed to move to Norway is
clearly against the rules.

The reason is simple: if Sweden's move to Norway is unsuccessful, it is
so because a standoff has occurred in Norway; and since Sweden and
Norwegian Sea are two equally supported units trying to occupy Norway,
neither may occupy it according to the standoff rule.


> I'm curious to know how the various judge software interprets this
> situation... I suspect that there *is* usually a bounce over Nwy,
> followed by A Swe being dislodged, but I'm not sure.

Diplo 2.8 (http://www.geocities.com/bogdanfl/Diplo.html) produces the
result that Norwegian Sea moves successfully to Norway. But then again,
it will adjudicate some slightly different sets of orders (that
certainly have no paradox) wrongly. So I don't trust the result from
Diplo at all.


> Thus, I think the "no effect on" rule wins.

This statement indicates a subterranean belief, or rather assumption,
that there is no such thing as a rule paradox. Whenever a contradiction
arises, you will simply consult your intuition on how it should be, pick
one of the mutually contradictory rules to "win" (i.e. take precedence),
and go with it.

The problem with this approach is that it is essentially the same as
using house rules. It allows play to continue, but other people will
prefer the "other rule" to "win", and then doctrinal conflict ensues.
It's a dodge, not a fix; and it does not make the problem go away.


> No, I think the same "problem" exists in other rulesets too, but don't
> have them on me to check. And there is a convenient mathematical model
> for unit strength specified in the rules. Units have a strength of one,
> which they may spend how they like on a particular province that they
> can reach. In some circumstances, that strength is moved back to their
> own province (support cuts, etc) for use by the unit itself as
> "defensive strength".

Yes, that's true. But there are further considerations that are
necessary for a complete mathematical model of adjudication. The rules
only specifically talk about a unit moving with its own strength
combined with that of all its valid supports. They do not precisely
specify a method of calculating that strength; nor do they precisely
specify how dislodgement affects a unit's effective strength. This is
left up to the judge designers, as long as the judge conforms to the
criteria in the rules.

For example, here is one possible model of movement strength that
accounts for the rule that a dislodged unit has no effect on the
province that dislodged it.
- A unit ordered to move is initially given a movement strength of 1.
- For each other unit ordered to support the moving unit to move, add
1 to the movement strength, unless any unit moves to the supporting
unit's province with a movement strength of 1 or more and is unopposed
by an equally or better supported unit also moving to the same province.
- If a moving unit's movement strength is greater than the movement
strength of any other unit trying to move to the province, and also
greater than the defensive strength of the destination province, the
unit occupies the destination province instead of the starting province.
- If a unit is dislodged, it no longer occupies its province.
- A dislodged unit that is ordered to move to the same province the
new occupant of its province came from, the movement strength of that
unit is decreased to zero.
- Each province is given an initial defensive strength of 1/2.
- If the province is occupied, its defensive strength is increased by 1.
- For each unit supporting the unit in the province to hold, increase
the defensive strength of the province by 1, unless any unit moves to
the supporting unit's province with a movement strength of 1 or more and
is unopposed by an equally or better supported unit also moving to the
same province.

These example rules ignore convoys, assume all units are the same type,
and fail to account for the self-dislodgement rules, but otherwise I
believe they work for "normal" situations. Note that I gave all empty
provinces a defensive strength of 1/2, and count defensive strength
towards the province, not the unit in it. This is obviously never
specified in the rules; it's just my preferred representation. It
nicely implies that dislodged units cannot switch places with their
attacker even if the attacker's province is left empty, but that doesn't
mean that this formula represents the "true rules" any more than any
other approach.

In the Norway paradox, this implementation would probably allow
Norwegian Sea to move, even though this is against the rules. But in
paradox cases, where the rules contradict each other, any result
produced by a particular model is purely accidental. We should not
trust the answer from one judge program or another, because a different
but equally valid approach of adjudicating "normal" support and
dislodgement situations may produce a different answer to this problem.
Adding convoy considerations to the model I drafted above might cause
it to reverse its decision on the Norway paradox, for example.


> This is the "direction of attack when convoyed" problem rearing its head
> again, really... It's an open debate whether a "convoyed" attack "comes
> from" the originating province, or from the province of the last
> convoying fleet.

I disagree here. There is no support being cut in the entire set of
orders. It would be a mistake to draw analogy to other convoy rules
problems because it is a completely separate logical problem.


--
Will Berry
Director, Techwood Con gaming convention
http://www.techwoodcon.com/
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 6:16:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

*sigh* Replying to my own post...

Will Berry wrote:
>
> In the Norway paradox, this implementation would probably allow
> Norwegian Sea to move, even though this is against the rules. But in
> paradox cases, where the rules contradict each other, any result
> produced by a particular model is purely accidental.

And it will produce any result only when it has bugs. If the
implementation is perfect, it will loop infinitely on a true paradox.

--
Will Berry
Director, Techwood Con gaming convention
http://www.techwoodcon.com/
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 2:40:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

> And it will produce any result only when it has bugs. If the
> implementation is perfect, it will loop infinitely on a true paradox.
The DipTool, JDip and PalmPolitik adjudicators use paradox detection
and then apply a paradox rule on the paradox.

The rules have some flaws, but they can all be fixed, without breaking
Diplomacy adjudication tradition.

Lucas
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 12:29:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Will Berry <wberry@wberry.org.x> wrote:

>I will be satisfied that there is no rule paradox here if someone can
>answer this question. What rule, other than the rule of standoff,
>causes Army Sweden to remain in place, where it is dislodged?
>
>If the answer is that no rule (other than the standoff rule) causes
>Sweden's attempted move to be unsuccessful, as I believe is the case,
>then the result that Norwegian Sea is allowed to move to Norway is
>clearly against the rules.
>
>The reason is simple: if Sweden's move to Norway is unsuccessful, it is
>so because a standoff has occurred in Norway; and since Sweden and
>Norwegian Sea are two equally supported units trying to occupy Norway,
>neither may occupy it according to the standoff rule.

Every time I hear a solid argument for one adjudication, someone
replies with another, equally solid argument for the other. This is a
very strong one.

>> This is the "direction of attack when convoyed" problem rearing its head
>> again, really... It's an open debate whether a "convoyed" attack "comes
>> from" the originating province, or from the province of the last
>> convoying fleet.
>
>I disagree here. There is no support being cut in the entire set of
>orders. It would be a mistake to draw analogy to other convoy rules
>problems because it is a completely separate logical problem.

Well, I think what's involved here is not just the question of where a
convoy "comes from", but rather, where it "goes to". If a convoyed
attack comes from the last convoying sea province, then logically, the
army must be moving to the first convoying fleet's province.

So in this case, the "no effect" rule is bypassed because Sweden is
going to Skagerrak, and then moving from Skagerrak to Norway. The
Ska - Nwy move bounces the Nwg - Nwy, and then Swe is dislodged
normally.
--
Politas
To reply, replace nospam with diplomacy
http://www.livejournal.com/users/politas/
!