yet another possible rules issue

[Guest]

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/

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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/

 

[Guest]

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.



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

 

[Guest]

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/

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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/

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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>

 

[Guest]

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