Judge Command

[rs]

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

RS is me, who represents me. (Ray Setzer. The original post may have
been miss-subjected-lined, but it is a valid Dip question.

Why is there not a "no late order" type of flag in the judge to lock it
down and prevent additional orders after the deadline has passed.

To explain the reasoning. There is a manaual process flag which the GM
can set to keep the judge from processing until the gm issues the
process command. However, in these cases, the GM may wish to lock down
the judge to playes putting in further orders changes.

 

[Guest]

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

"RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message news:42136d3b_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
>
> Why is there not a "no late order" type of flag in the judge to lock it
> down and prevent additional orders after the deadline has passed.
>
> To explain the reasoning. There is a manaual process flag which the GM
> can set to keep the judge from processing until the gm issues the
> process command. However, in these cases, the GM may wish to lock down
> the judge to playes putting in further orders changes.

I can think of two possible reasons. (1) No one besides you ever thought
of this, so no one took the time to write the code. (2) If the flag is set
and a player is late, they would be unable to cure their default because the
Judge would reject their late orders. If the GM had to manually accept
orders from late players, it would increase the burdens on the GM and make
it more difficult to find volunteers to perform this role.

I don't know whether either of these is the actual reason. ;-)

--
I don't actually read my hotmail account, but you can replace hotmail with
excite if you really want to reach me.

 

[Guest]

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

> > Why is there not a "no late order" type of flag in the judge to lock it
> > down and prevent additional orders after the deadline has passed.
> >
> > To explain the reasoning. There is a manaual process flag which the GM
> > can set to keep the judge from processing until the gm issues the
> > process command. However, in these cases, the GM may wish to lock down
> > the judge to playes putting in further orders changes.
>
> I can think of two possible reasons. (1) No one besides you ever thought
> of this, so no one took the time to write the code. (2) If the flag is
set
> and a player is late, they would be unable to cure their default because
the
> Judge would reject their late orders. If the GM had to manually accept
> orders from late players, it would increase the burdens on the GM and make
> it more difficult to find volunteers to perform this role.
>
> I don't know whether either of these is the actual reason. ;-)

Let me ask a stupid question. If there *were* a "no late order" flag and it
were set, would this prohibit *all* players in a game from submitting orders
after a deadline has passed? I have on many occasions updated or revised
orders after a deadline has passed when *another* player is late.
Personally, it's my belief that if your orders were originally submitted on
time, and the turn doesn't adjudicate because of someone else's failure to
submit orders, you should be able to alter them at will. And I thought the
electronic protocal house rules allowed for press beyond the deadline as
long as you have already submitted orders, which implies that orders can be
updated as well. Am I missing something?!?

 

[Guest]

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

In article <864b7$4213d7f9$d08d6ebc$18172@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Frank Bell <frank999@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Let me ask a stupid question. If there *were* a "no late order" flag and it
>were set, would this prohibit *all* players in a game from submitting orders
>after a deadline has passed?

It seems to me that if you really mean "orders cannot be submitted
late" all you need to do is set the game NMR and set the grace
period to zero, so that the turn processes at the deadline, regardless
of orders received. I can't figure out what else "no late orders"
would do--surely you don't want the game waiting for orders that
it then must refuse?

Once no more orders can be accepted, surely there is no reason not
to process the turn at once.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com

 

[Guest]

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

Frank Bell wrote:
>Personally, it's my belief that if your orders were originally submitted on
time, and the turn doesn't adjudicate because of someone else's failure to
submit orders, you should be able to alter them at will.

Indeed, the very fact of their lateness may lead others to change their
orders. Late players often submit orders in haste, and that may make it
somewhat more likely that, when they finally get around to sending them in,
they'll make what might be considered the "high-probability" moves and
overlook some obscure possibility that others had previously felt they had
to allow for.