Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Processing Phases of a Perfect Adjudication Engine

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 11:59:45 AM

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

**************************************************
Processing Phases of a Perfect Adjudication Engine
**************************************************

Subtitle for this article:
"Initial Ideas on Partitioning the Perfect Adjudicator."

This article is located at
http://www.geocities.com/Diplomacy2007/

If you see any inconsistencies in the following proposal, or you have
any ideas,
please let me know.

Subtitle for this article:
"Initial Ideas on Partitioning the Perfect Adjudicator."

Define the "rule set" to be whatever assumptions are being made by the
system.

As an initial idea, the perfect adjudicator could be broken down into
the
following phases.

*******
PHASE 1: Conversion of Illegal Orders to Broadly Legal Orders
*******

The conversion of illegal orders to legal orders is handled at this
stage.
During this conversion, it would be explicitly known what rule set was
being
used and what the outcome of any particular rule set would produce.

I have not studied all the ambiguities either in the rule sets or the
different
interpretations, but here is a made-up example:
Illegal Order: French Army in Paris to the planet Venus.

This might be converted into a legal order in any of the following ways
(plus
even other ways) depending upon which rule set is being used:
* French Army in Paris holds.
* French Army in Paris holds, and any other military units with orders
attempting to support the French Army holding in Paris are rewritten so
that
the order no longer states that this other unit supports the Army in
Paris that
is now holding.

Note that it would certainly be legal for a convoy order (at this stage
and in
this phase of procesing) not to specify its route. So, the following
orders
would all be considered legal:
* Army in Brest to London.
* Army in Brest to London via convoy.
* Army in Brest to London via convoy route English Channel.
* Army in Brest to London via convoy route Mid-Atlantic Ocean then
English
Channel.
* Army in Brest to Edinburgh via convoy route Mid-Atlantic Ocean then
North
Atlantic then Norwegian Sea.

The last three examples introduce a notation that is new, but I hope
that it is
understandable.

Note, by the way, that this phase would also determine that there are
indeed
legal configurations of fleets to carry out the convoy order
(regardless of how
vague the convoy order may be). Exactly what determines a "legal
configuration
of fleets?" Well, there must be at least one path from the convoying
army's
initial position to its destination, where this path consists of one or
more
fleets with convoying orders that match appropriately the convoying
army's.

Note, of course, that if there is a fleet in a body of water, but there
are no
armies standing adjacent to that fleet, then that fleet's convoy order
is quite
impossible and therefore illegal and would be rewritten at this stage
applying
whatever rule set is operational.

Note further this peculiar situation:
English Army in Edinburgh to Norway.
English Army in York to Norway.
English Flet in North Sea convoys Army in York to Norway.

Assuming that there are no other units on the board, the English Army
in
Edinburgh has no fleet to convoy it, so this order is illegal because
it is
impossible, and would need to be rewritten.

Consider this example:
English Army in Edinburgh to Norway.
English Army in York to Norway.
English Fleet in North Sea convoys Army in York to Norway.
Russian Fleet in Norwegian Sea convoys Army in Edinburgh to Norway.

Now, theoretically, the armies that must cross a waterway to their
destination
now have a fleet which will convoy them, so the orders are legal. We
are not
yet interested in whether or not the English Army in Edinburgh "wants"
to be
convoyed or not. Only that the orders are broadly legal and possible.

As an example of an illegal configuration of fleets (and I suspect that
there
may be many scenarios depending on the rule set that is being used), if
the
order, French Army in Brest to London, is given, and there are no
fleets located
within either the English Channel nor the Mid-Atlantic, then there
cannot be a
convoy, and the convoy order would be illegal and would need to be
converted into a legal order using whatever rule set is operational.

Note that at this stage, there is still tons of ambiguity existing, and
this
seems particular true if you are using the year 2000, fourth edition
rule book.
That is, there is tons of ambiguity even though we may have a completed
set of
perfectly legal orders. Here is an example:

English Army in London to Belgium.
English Fleet in English Channel convoys Army in London to Belgium.
English Fleet in North Sea convoys Army in London to Belgium.
The orders for other military units are not specified, and could be
anything
that is a legal order.

We do not yet know which fleet will be used in the convoy. We do not
even know
if there even will be a convoy (due to the application of other rules,
such as
the fleet or fleets being dislodged). All we know is that for the
three orders
shown so far, they are legal orders.

Here is another scenario where the legal orders are ambiguous.

Austrian Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Austrian Fleet in Adriatic Sea convoys Army in Trieste to Venezia.
The orders for other military units are not specified, and could be
anything
that is a legal order.

Does the army move by land to Venezia or does it convoy? Do the
introduction of
other units on the board with their own unique, legal orders influence
this
decision? Again, this is ambiguous, and the different ambiguities
depends on
the rule set being used. These ambiguities are allowed to exist at
this phase
in the processing, because all we care about is that the orders are
broadly
legal.

And, here is another ambiguous scenario.

French Army in Spain's south coast to Tuscany.
Russian Fleet in Gulf of Lyon convoys Army in Spain's south coast to
Tuscany.
English Fleet in West Mediterranean convoys Army in Spain's south coast
to Tuscany.
French Fleet in Tyrhennian Sea convoys Army in Spain's south coast to
Tuscany.
The orders for other militray units are not specified, and could be
anything
that is a legal order.

The situation is ambiguous because we don't know about the other units
on the
field and what their orders are, and we don't know, necessarily, which
convoy
route or routes will apply in the face of the convoying fleets being
dislodged by
other attacking units, and so forth. Again, at this phase of
processing, this
ambiguity is fine, we are only looking to determine if the orders are
broadly
legal.

Here are two more examples:

Scenario A:
British Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
German Fleet in English Channel convoys Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
German Fleet in North Sea convoys Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
Russian Fleet in Irish Sea convoys Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
Russian Fleet in North Atlantic convoys Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
Russian Fleet in Norwegian Sea convoys Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
The orders for other militray units are not specified, and could be
anything
that is a legal order.

Scenario B:
British Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
German Fleet in English Channel convoys Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
German Fleet in North Sea convoys Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
Russian Fleet in Irish Sea convoys Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
Russian Fleet in North Atlantic convoys Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
British Fleet in Norwegian Sea convoys Army in Wales to Edinburgh.
The orders for other militray units are not specified, and could be
anything
that is a legal order.

All the orders in the above two examples are legal. But, we recognize
that
exactly which convoy, if any (since we don't know what other units are
doing to
dislodge any of the fleets, nor do we know what rule set is being
applied),
that will be taken is unknown at this stage. Again, at this phase of
processing, this ambiguity is fine, we are only looking to determine if
the
orders are broadly legal.

What has been accomplished during this first phase? When this phase of
processing is completed, all the orders have been converted to broadly
legal
orders. There no longer exist any illegal orders. How illegal orders
are
convertd to legal orders may depend on the rule set being used.

Let is be noted that it appears that the only ambiguity that would
exist at the
end of this phase concerns whether or not an army will be convoyed
(which arises
if you are convoying an army to a neighboring coastal province, for
example) or
which one convoying route the army will eventually take if there are
choices, or
whether the convoy will occur at all as a function of the national
make-up of
the fleet or fleets involved in the convoy. These ambiguities are
allowed to
exist at the end of this processing phase as long as all the orders are
broadly legal.

*******
PHASE 2: Further Refinements of Orders Related to Convoys
*******

This is an optional phase; specifically, if the adjudicator is going
to be
using the year 2000, fourth edition rule book, broadly legal orders as
has
already been determined in phase 1 are all that are needed to correctly
adjudicate a position (or so we assume at this time, though I have not
provided
the logic yet to handle this type of stuff within the "perfect
adjudication
engine").

Any other rule set differing from the year 2000, fourth edition rule
book, or
any "contrary" or "different" interpretation of the year 2000, fourth
edition
rule book, would apply their rule set in this phase. The definition of
the
rule set and the outcome of applying the rule set would be public and
defined.

Even if you are using the year 2000, fourth edition rule book,
adjustments for
some reason or another may be needed in this phase (for instance,
perhaps your
interpretation is different from the vast majority, or perhaps there is
a
paradox which will make it impossible to determine which choice of many
broadly
general orders can be applied correctly).

An a general example, assume that there exists a rule set which insists
that the
convoy order for the army specify exactly which route will be used.
Then, in
this phase, the orders are changed to be consistent with the rule set
being
used.

First example related to the above paragraph:
Change this order
French Army in Brest to London.
To this order:
French Army in Brest to London via convoy route English Channel.

Second example related to the above paragraph:
Change this order
French Army in Brest to London.
To this order:
French Army in Brest to London via convoy route Mid-Atlantic then Irish
Sea then
North Atlantic then Norwegian Sea then North Sea.

Or perhaps your rule set mandates that any general convoy route that is
not
specified in detail is illegal. Then,
Take this order:
French Army in Brest to London via convoy.
and toss it out or convert it to a hold, and adjust any other related
orders
so that the orders as a whole are still legal.

Now consider this scenario:
Austrian Army in Trieste to Venezia via convoy route Adriatic Sea.
Austrian Fleet in Adriatic Sea convoys Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Other units, if any, and their orders are not shown.

In the above example, assume that the rule set being used dictates that
under
some circumstance (a circumstance which we will not define but will
assume
exists for the given scenario) the Army in Trieste definitely will not
convoy
but instead travel by land to Venezia. Then, at this phase of
processing, the
order would be re-written for all units effected; here is the new order
set for
this example:
Austrian Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Austrian Fleet in Adriatic Sea holds.
Other units, if any, and their orders are not shown.

When we leave this phase, we either still have broadly legal orders
that
existed when we entered this phase (i.e., no changes were made, or this
step
was skipped), or we have orders which are more detailed but still
legal.

It is this second phase just discussed that perhaps holds many issues
and
debates with respect to the Diplomacy community; so, it is probably
wise to
partition it into a separate phase in the processing so that these
differences
of opinions, differences of interpretations, and not to mention just
simply
differences in which rule book is being used, don't "pollute" the
actual
adjudication process which is discussed in the next section.

*******
PHASE 3: The Core Adjudication Process
*******

Adjudication of the position now occurs formally. If a unit is
determined to
be dislodged, what happens to the unit after it is dislodged is not
determined
in this phase.

*******
PHASE 4: Processing of Dislodged Units
*******

Any units which were dislodged in the previous phase are handled in
this phase.
Different rule sets will handle this differently. For instance, under
one
rule set, you would need further inputs from the players before you
determined
the outcome of a particular dislodged military unit.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 12:53:19 PM

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

Hi Nick,

Thanks for writing.

I don't know what will occur concerning the end of lines.
If I choose one application, then I get "funny" characters, if
I choose another, then it won't create a .html file that
geocities will accept as valid, and so forth. What a headache.

But, the articles are at my web site and can be read without
any distraction of this kind:
http://www.geocites.com/Diplomacy2007/

Thanks
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 8:31:21 PM

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

In message <1106153985.551421.181290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes, among other things,

>Note, of course, that if there is a fleet in a body of water, but there
>are no
>armies standing adjacent to that fleet, then that fleet's convoy order
>is quite
>impossible and therefore illegal and would be rewritten at this stage
>applying
>whatever rule set is operational.

I think that what you are saying is interesting. But the way it is
formatted, with alternate long lines and very short lines, makes it so
hard for me to read that I usually don't bother. I suspect I am not
alone in this. So, could I urge you to change your newsgroup-posting
software so as to make your postings more readable?

My guess is that something in your software limits line-lengths to 80
characters. Then something else limits them to 72, inserting a line-end
near the end of each of the original lines.

Nick
--
Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk
Related resources
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 11:52:13 AM

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

In rec.games.diplomacy, on 19 Jan 2005 09:53:19 -0800
NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
> But, the articles are at my web site and can be read without
> any distraction of this kind:
> http://www.geocites.com/Diplomacy2007/

Unfortunately, Geocities comes with its own set of distractions,
including some very evil javascript code that forces you to allow
popunder windows before you can view the site.

And then the articles on your site are in PDF format, which has
its own headaches.

Is it too much to ask to have them as plain text that fits within
72 columns? There's nothing fancy you're doing with layout or
embedded images which justifies the more complex formats you're
using. And I'm sure there are free web hosts less evil than
geocities out there!

Bron.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 6:56:12 PM

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

David E. Cohen wrote:
> Heck, Jim, what this person really needs to do is play!

I would like to play my first game: the face to face version.
But, I'm still working on finding people who are even interested.

Obviously there is much more to the game than understanding
the rules and "Judge"-type algorithms. So, your point is well
taken. Hopefully, if I get lucky, I'll eventually find people who
might find Diplomacy fun.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:24:30 PM

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

Hi Lucas,

Could you point me in the direction where I could find out exactly
what these bugs are in the DPTG; for instance, I'd like to see the
input scenario and the input orders for all three examples, see the
results that the DPTG gives, and then puzzle over it, unless an
explanation is given, as to why the adjudicated result is incorrect.

Also, when you say the DPTG contains three bugs, do you mean that
you sat down at your desk and implemented the algorithm they gave
by hand? Or do you mean that you ran a program which attempted
to implement the DPTG described algorithm?

Thanks
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 1:32:51 AM

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

Bron Gondwana <brong@brong.net> writes:

>In rec.games.diplomacy, on 19 Jan 2005 09:53:19 -0800
>NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> But, the articles are at my web site and can be read without
>> any distraction of this kind:
>> http://www.geocites.com/Diplomacy2007/

>Unfortunately, Geocities comes with its own set of distractions,
>including some very evil javascript code that forces you to allow
>popunder windows before you can view the site.

>And then the articles on your site are in PDF format, which has
>its own headaches.

>Is it too much to ask to have them as plain text that fits within
>72 columns? There's nothing fancy you're doing with layout or
>embedded images which justifies the more complex formats you're
>using. And I'm sure there are free web hosts less evil than
>geocities out there!

>Bron.

It also helps to spell the link (geocities) correctly, so people
can click on it. You do want to try to make your posts more
readable if you want the newsgroup vets to look at them.

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 1:32:52 AM

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

Heck, Jim, what this person really needs to do is play! LOL


"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:csukaj$i1v$1@pcls4.std.com...
> Bron Gondwana <brong@brong.net> writes:
>
> >In rec.games.diplomacy, on 19 Jan 2005 09:53:19 -0800
> >NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >> But, the articles are at my web site and can be read without
> >> any distraction of this kind:
> >> http://www.geocites.com/Diplomacy2007/
>
> >Unfortunately, Geocities comes with its own set of distractions,
> >including some very evil javascript code that forces you to allow
> >popunder windows before you can view the site.
>
> >And then the articles on your site are in PDF format, which has
> >its own headaches.
>
> >Is it too much to ask to have them as plain text that fits within
> >72 columns? There's nothing fancy you're doing with layout or
> >embedded images which justifies the more complex formats you're
> >using. And I'm sure there are free web hosts less evil than
> >geocities out there!
>
> >Bron.
>
> It also helps to spell the link (geocities) correctly, so people
> can click on it. You do want to try to make your posts more
> readable if you want the newsgroup vets to look at them.
>
> Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 3:56:17 AM

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

Note that there is a rather detailed description about
how to make an adjudication program in the DATC.

This one is considered correct and passes all test cases.
It can also handle paradoxes. Palmpolitik is based on it
and JDip uses the same principle but is not directly
based on this description.

The DPTG contains 3 hard bugs (wrong in any of the interpretations
of the rules).

Regards,

Lucas


"NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> schreef in bericht news:1106438172.422917.210130@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> David E. Cohen wrote:
> > Heck, Jim, what this person really needs to do is play!
>
> I would like to play my first game: the face to face version.
> But, I'm still working on finding people who are even interested.
>
> Obviously there is much more to the game than understanding
> the rules and "Judge"-type algorithms. So, your point is well
> taken. Hopefully, if I get lucky, I'll eventually find people who
> might find Diplomacy fun.
>
> Thanks
>
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 3:09:20 PM

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

"NewsGroupUser"
> Hi Lucas,
>
> Could you point me in the direction where I could find out exactly
> what these bugs are in the DPTG; for instance, I'd like to see the
> input scenario and the input orders for all three examples, see the
> results that the DPTG gives, and then puzzle over it, unless an
> explanation is given, as to why the adjudicated result is incorrect.
In the DATC. The first bug is in test case 6.E.7. This is a bug in the
DPTG, that has been known for a long time. The second bug is rather
similar. It is the same case but combined with a circular movement.
If you correct the DPTG for the first bug, the same situation will
still go wrong when it is combined with a circular movement.

The third bug is really different. The DPTG fails on test case 6.E.15.
In this case the DPTG is not deterministic. It depends on which orders
you start, so that is clearly wrong.

Those bugs are really bugs, they are not disputed in the community.

Of course, there much other things in the DPTG about the interpretation
of the rules. That are not bugs, but choices you might or might not
agree on.

> Also, when you say the DPTG contains three bugs, do you mean that
> you sat down at your desk and implemented the algorithm they gave
> by hand? Or do you mean that you ran a program which attempted
> to implement the DPTG described algorithm?
I never programmed the DPTG or tested a program that implemented the
DPTG. The cases can be checked by hand.

Regards,

Lucas
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 1:23:41 AM

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

"David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:

>Heck, Jim, what this person really needs to do is play! LOL

Yeah, that's right of course, but he's having fun doing this. I'd
hate to ruin his fun, but of course us players might prefer to
joust in our games than write to him. What ARE we going to do
in OUR game???? Something is just NOT right, we aren't winning.
WHo cares about convoy paradoxes!

Jim-Bob

>"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>news:csukaj$i1v$1@pcls4.std.com...
>> Bron Gondwana <brong@brong.net> writes:
>>
>> >In rec.games.diplomacy, on 19 Jan 2005 09:53:19 -0800
>> >NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> >> But, the articles are at my web site and can be read without
>> >> any distraction of this kind:
>> >> http://www.geocites.com/Diplomacy2007/
>>
>> >Unfortunately, Geocities comes with its own set of distractions,
>> >including some very evil javascript code that forces you to allow
>> >popunder windows before you can view the site.
>>
>> >And then the articles on your site are in PDF format, which has
>> >its own headaches.
>>
>> >Is it too much to ask to have them as plain text that fits within
>> >72 columns? There's nothing fancy you're doing with layout or
>> >embedded images which justifies the more complex formats you're
>> >using. And I'm sure there are free web hosts less evil than
>> >geocities out there!
>>
>> >Bron.
>>
>> It also helps to spell the link (geocities) correctly, so people
>> can click on it. You do want to try to make your posts more
>> readable if you want the newsgroup vets to look at them.
>>
>> Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 1:23:42 AM

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

Who says we're not winning?

"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:ct185d$gbb$1@pcls4.std.com...
> "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >Heck, Jim, what this person really needs to do is play! LOL
>
> Yeah, that's right of course, but he's having fun doing this. I'd
> hate to ruin his fun, but of course us players might prefer to
> joust in our games than write to him. What ARE we going to do
> in OUR game???? Something is just NOT right, we aren't winning.
> WHo cares about convoy paradoxes!
>
> Jim-Bob
>
> >"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> >news:csukaj$i1v$1@pcls4.std.com...
> >> Bron Gondwana <brong@brong.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >In rec.games.diplomacy, on 19 Jan 2005 09:53:19 -0800
> >> >NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >> >> But, the articles are at my web site and can be read without
> >> >> any distraction of this kind:
> >> >> http://www.geocites.com/Diplomacy2007/
> >>
> >> >Unfortunately, Geocities comes with its own set of distractions,
> >> >including some very evil javascript code that forces you to allow
> >> >popunder windows before you can view the site.
> >>
> >> >And then the articles on your site are in PDF format, which has
> >> >its own headaches.
> >>
> >> >Is it too much to ask to have them as plain text that fits within
> >> >72 columns? There's nothing fancy you're doing with layout or
> >> >embedded images which justifies the more complex formats you're
> >> >using. And I'm sure there are free web hosts less evil than
> >> >geocities out there!
> >>
> >> >Bron.
> >>
> >> It also helps to spell the link (geocities) correctly, so people
> >> can click on it. You do want to try to make your posts more
> >> readable if you want the newsgroup vets to look at them.
> >>
> >> Jim-Bob
>
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 1:24:54 AM

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

"NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes:


>David E. Cohen wrote:
>> Heck, Jim, what this person really needs to do is play!

>I would like to play my first game: the face to face version.
>But, I'm still working on finding people who are even interested.

>Obviously there is much more to the game than understanding
>the rules and "Judge"-type algorithms. So, your point is well
>taken. Hopefully, if I get lucky, I'll eventually find people who
>might find Diplomacy fun.

>Thanks

Why don't you tell us where you're located and we'll tell you
where the next organized FTF games or tournaments are near you?

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 6:40:21 PM

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

"David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:

Well, maybe you are.....

>Who says we're not winning?

>"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>news:ct185d$gbb$1@pcls4.std.com...
>> "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> >Heck, Jim, what this person really needs to do is play! LOL
>>
>> Yeah, that's right of course, but he's having fun doing this. I'd
>> hate to ruin his fun, but of course us players might prefer to
>> joust in our games than write to him. What ARE we going to do
>> in OUR game???? Something is just NOT right, we aren't winning.
>> WHo cares about convoy paradoxes!
>>
>> Jim-Bob
>>
>> >"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
>> >news:csukaj$i1v$1@pcls4.std.com...
>> >> Bron Gondwana <brong@brong.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >In rec.games.diplomacy, on 19 Jan 2005 09:53:19 -0800
>> >> >NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> >> >> But, the articles are at my web site and can be read without
>> >> >> any distraction of this kind:
>> >> >> http://www.geocites.com/Diplomacy2007/
>> >>
>> >> >Unfortunately, Geocities comes with its own set of distractions,
>> >> >including some very evil javascript code that forces you to allow
>> >> >popunder windows before you can view the site.
>> >>
>> >> >And then the articles on your site are in PDF format, which has
>> >> >its own headaches.
>> >>
>> >> >Is it too much to ask to have them as plain text that fits within
>> >> >72 columns? There's nothing fancy you're doing with layout or
>> >> >embedded images which justifies the more complex formats you're
>> >> >using. And I'm sure there are free web hosts less evil than
>> >> >geocities out there!
>> >>
>> >> >Bron.
>> >>
>> >> It also helps to spell the link (geocities) correctly, so people
>> >> can click on it. You do want to try to make your posts more
>> >> readable if you want the newsgroup vets to look at them.
>> >>
>> >> Jim-Bob
>>
>>
!