Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)
"NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes:
>Hi Randy and Jim Burgess,
>Randy, as I said somewhere early on in this post, I'd love
>to hear from someone in the know about the rules. Maybe
>Jim did speak out about them, and if so, let's assume that
>I did not initially understand. Keep in mind that posts don't
>show up her in temporal order, but are nested by how
>people responded to which sub-topic.
That depends on the software with which you read the newsgroup,
I read it in UNIX with something called "nn", but let that go.
We're not accusing you of being intentionally difficult, you
will admit that you have way more time to craft posts than I
do and way more time to read them, I've not read most of your
longer posts completely and freely admit that.
>Here is what Jim wrote in one post:
>-----------------------------
>Those of us who know and
>talk to Allan Calhamer have some conception of the process of rule
>definement and his views. It is important what I said in the
>other note, that the Calhamerian views of the game are NOT
>worried much about the mechanics of move ordering, except
>that they be proper and consistent. The key is the Diplomacy
>and the balance of power.
>-----------------------------
You can "know" Allan pretty well by reading his articles:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/articles_by_allan.htm
See especially the article "A Dozen Years of Diplomacy".... Stephen
Agar sometimes reads this newsgroup, note his comments in editing
that article. Some of the "confusion" arises BECAUSE Allan needed
a lot of editing. But still, the key point is that A.B.C. almost
never writes about these kinds of finer points except to say
that he tried to get all the consistency stuff worked out so
they could get on with the Diplomacy.... and trying to sneak
Flying Dutchmen onto the board....
>If Jim Burgess is in the know, can you, Jim, comment on
>this directly? As far as the year 2000, fourth edition rule
>book goes, can you set me straight and say, for instance,
>"your interpretation that any unit involved in a stand-off
>doesn't move and has no effect on the province it
>attempted to move to is basically wrong." And, "Randy
>is basically right."
I am no more in the know on that than anyone here and we
all assure you on THAT issue, Randy is not basically right,
he's completely right.
>Then I will know from an inside, person in the know, what
>that inside view is. Or maybe there is no "inside" view,
>just consistency. I guess another way of saying it is
>this, is there such a thing as a main-stream way of
>playing that was intended by the year 2000, fourth
>edition rules, and if so, am I basically interpreting it incorrectly?
>My general impression is that, in advance,the answer
>will be that I'm not interpreting it correctly. Then the
>next question is this, by using the scenarios and
>outcomes as shown by DATC, which presumably
>Randy agrees with, is this the correct way as
>intended by the year 2000, fourth edition rule book?
>Once we get an insider view, then how I interpret the
>rules does, one must conclude, seem rather
>irrelevant, perhaps.
>Thanks
Again, don't try to slide "minority/majority" to "insider/outsider".
It isn't helping. There are tens of thousands of Diplomacy players
worldwide and we all play the game almost entirely the same way
as far as adjudication goes. Every once in a while we find a
small hobby sub-group that plays with some strange rule interpretation,
but these days that's pretty rare.
Jim-Bob
"NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes:
>Hi Randy and Jim Burgess,
>Randy, as I said somewhere early on in this post, I'd love
>to hear from someone in the know about the rules. Maybe
>Jim did speak out about them, and if so, let's assume that
>I did not initially understand. Keep in mind that posts don't
>show up her in temporal order, but are nested by how
>people responded to which sub-topic.
That depends on the software with which you read the newsgroup,
I read it in UNIX with something called "nn", but let that go.
We're not accusing you of being intentionally difficult, you
will admit that you have way more time to craft posts than I
do and way more time to read them, I've not read most of your
longer posts completely and freely admit that.
>Here is what Jim wrote in one post:
>-----------------------------
>Those of us who know and
>talk to Allan Calhamer have some conception of the process of rule
>definement and his views. It is important what I said in the
>other note, that the Calhamerian views of the game are NOT
>worried much about the mechanics of move ordering, except
>that they be proper and consistent. The key is the Diplomacy
>and the balance of power.
>-----------------------------
You can "know" Allan pretty well by reading his articles:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/articles_by_allan.htm
See especially the article "A Dozen Years of Diplomacy".... Stephen
Agar sometimes reads this newsgroup, note his comments in editing
that article. Some of the "confusion" arises BECAUSE Allan needed
a lot of editing. But still, the key point is that A.B.C. almost
never writes about these kinds of finer points except to say
that he tried to get all the consistency stuff worked out so
they could get on with the Diplomacy.... and trying to sneak
Flying Dutchmen onto the board....
>If Jim Burgess is in the know, can you, Jim, comment on
>this directly? As far as the year 2000, fourth edition rule
>book goes, can you set me straight and say, for instance,
>"your interpretation that any unit involved in a stand-off
>doesn't move and has no effect on the province it
>attempted to move to is basically wrong." And, "Randy
>is basically right."
I am no more in the know on that than anyone here and we
all assure you on THAT issue, Randy is not basically right,
he's completely right.
>Then I will know from an inside, person in the know, what
>that inside view is. Or maybe there is no "inside" view,
>just consistency. I guess another way of saying it is
>this, is there such a thing as a main-stream way of
>playing that was intended by the year 2000, fourth
>edition rules, and if so, am I basically interpreting it incorrectly?
>My general impression is that, in advance,the answer
>will be that I'm not interpreting it correctly. Then the
>next question is this, by using the scenarios and
>outcomes as shown by DATC, which presumably
>Randy agrees with, is this the correct way as
>intended by the year 2000, fourth edition rule book?
>Once we get an insider view, then how I interpret the
>rules does, one must conclude, seem rather
>irrelevant, perhaps.
>Thanks
Again, don't try to slide "minority/majority" to "insider/outsider".
It isn't helping. There are tens of thousands of Diplomacy players
worldwide and we all play the game almost entirely the same way
as far as adjudication goes. Every once in a while we find a
small hobby sub-group that plays with some strange rule interpretation,
but these days that's pretty rare.
Jim-Bob
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram