Diplomacy - EP Chapter 2 - Issue 295 From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 02:55:03 +0000 Issue #295 of Chapter Two of the Electronic Protocol By Nicholas Fitzpatrick (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca) October 6, 1992 (1992 10 06) Distributed via: rec.games.pbm rec.games.board bit.listserv.dipl-l ------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Protocol Games played on the Diplomacy Adjudicator ------------------------------------------------------------- **** TABLE OF CONTENTS **** PART ONE - Opinions, Letters, and Editorials: Game Ounce controversy DIPL-L material in EP PART TWO - Summary of all moderated games on the Judge: List of game openings List of EP games on the DA For more info about the Judge For more info about the Electronic Protocol For archives List of diplomacy adjudicators List of gamemasters PART THREE - Report from the Battle Front Dram EOG Report ***** PART ONE ***** Abbreviations used in this issue: DL = Danny Loeb JD = Jamie Dreier KD = Karl Dotzek KL = Ken Lowe (jdr) LHM = Lars Henrik Mathiesen NF = Nick Fitzpatrick MN = Mark Nelson *** GAME OUNCE CONTROVERSY *** JD I am slightly puzzled about the hubbub over Ken's ruling in OUNCE. First of all, myself I disagree with the ruling. But that's not what I'm confused about. Did the two players propose and vote for a draw? And Ken overruled THAT?? I thought that any time all surviving players agree to a draw, the game is a draw. What's all this about "adjudication"?? KL Yes, Italy proposed a two-way draw between himself and Russia. I vetoed the proposal. There was never any official voting. JD I want to know whether it is a general house rule of EP that there can be no draws unless the GM (or some authority) approves. KL I don't know, but there ought to be. I admit that nothing that I have written prior to my ruling in game Ounce says that I wouldn't allow a non-stalemated draw (except for a broadcast in game Fontenoy), but I really feel that playing for one is not in the spirit of the game (no, I was never playing for one in game MoD). It really does ruin the game for the remaining players if there are players out there that are playing for some result other than the win or a survivorship in a stalemated draw. I think there actually is something in the EP house rules against "goofy play". I think intentionally committing suicide by throwing the game to a third power should be considered "goofy play" just as not taking the win when it is handed to you should be. Russia was prolonging the game by not taking his 18th center (he could have taken and held 21 unopposed on the turn I made my ruling). JD I don't agree, by the way. I think perfectly good and sincere Dip players can have other reasonable goals than Win Win Win. I've commented on this in EP, but briefly, I think that if persuading someone that you have a certain goal can help you win, then we must assume that goal is reasonable. (Hm. I might want to take that back.) JD In any case, I believe that any draw agreed to by all survivors ought to be permitted, or certainly any draw that INCLUDES all survivors (to allow games with DIAS rules). JD But more to the point, Ken is not anywhere in the hierarchy of the game I mentioned in my original letter. So it is important to me to find out whether EP house rules say anything about the general conditions under which a 2-way draw is permitted. I will assume that it is up to the individual GM unless told otherwise. NF I was looking through the rules (and the ep.house.rules, and the rules file from the judge), for support for a similar case in the game Lot, however I could find no evidence to support this position, so perhaps we (ie Ken) had better alter the rules! :-) NF On the other hand, there is something in the ep.house.rules, that says that a player CAN complain about a decision of the GM, however NONE have done so, and I do not even think that any of the players in Ounce are even aware that anyone is still discussing the situation. JD I have a game that is heading toward a 2-way draw. Actually, there is a fair chance that a real, stalemated split could come up. But if not, is it going to be impossible for the two remaining players to vote for a draw?? JD One other thing, about OUNCE specifically. A player, Sean Starkey, who started with Austria later took over Turkey. I think that's a really bad idea. I guess it's hard to prevent in an unmoderated JUDGE game, but Eric (or whoever is now in charge at the level that Eric used to be) should think about this issue. Eric Klien writes: >JD " I thought that any time all surviving players agree to a draw, >the game is a draw." EK Correct. > >JD "I want to know whether it is a general house rule of EP that there can >be no draws unless the GM (or some authority) approves." > EK I have no such house rule! Jamie Dreier writes: JD Ok. So, just to be clear: If I were in a game, and was one of two survivors, and I and the other survivor wanted to agree to a draw, but our GM vetoed, the official EP line would be that the GM could not veto that draw. JD I will assume this is right. JD That said, I have written to the actual GM of WIN91, and am awaiting his thoughts on the issue. Also, I think that if the game DOES run into a 17-17 split, it will very likely be one in which there are stalemate lines on both sides. So I doubt I would have to appeal a GM ruling. JD (For the record, if anyone wants to look at DPPE, in which Danny's DIPLOMAT has just been eliminated, he'll see that there is a fair chance for a similar 17-17 stalemate, between England and Turkey. It all depends on how France decides to play, having just been stabbed by England. France is almost bound to lose; the only question is whether he will allow a Turkish victory or whether he will dig in and wait to be eliminated by England. A VERY interesting game, IMHO.) Nick Fitzpatrick writes: NF Well, I have looked through all our rules (the judge files rules, ep.house.rules) and the real rules, and I can find nothing in it to support Ken's decision in the game Ounce. Technically either Eric of I could overrule him, however, according to our rules, someone would have to appeal to us, as no-one has done so . . . . NF If we should allow these 17-17 draws, where one power is obviously able to win or not, is another question. From everything I have read, the answer is that however distasteful we might find it, the answer it, yes, we should allow it. Danny Loeb (and Nick Fitzpatrick) write: DL As the author of the EP/Judge house rules file, let me put my own 2-cents in on this OUNCE controversy. DL There is a rule against CRAZY (goofy) play. This rule is in general very lightly enforced and has never in my knowledge been applied to DRAW voting. However, a good case can be made in a situation similar to OUNCE where a player ignores a simple strategy available by which to win the game. DL While it might be possible to use the above reasoning, the CRAZY play rule is clearly to be avoided in any argument since it is so subjective. For some people, voting for any non-DIAS draw is CRAZY. If such an interpretation of the CRAZY rule is intended then this should have been specified before the game started. DL In conclusion, there are merits to both sides of the arguments. Nevertheless, the point is mute since as far as I know, the loser has not appealed the decision. DL The NNSD "no-non-stalemated-draws" rules is in many ways very appealing to me, since it draws out the underlying paradox in diplomacy which makes the game so interesting to me: You can not win without allies, and your allies can not win if you do. DL However, what would be the effects of an NNSD rule. If the players REALLY want a draw, and are thwarted by NNSD, then they could slowly move their units to a real stalemate situation and claim a draw. This additional hurdle merely slows down the game. Alternatively, the players could overturn the decision with a unanimous vote. (The GM could however legally abandon the game at that point or force them off the JUDGE if this was Ken, and the players would have to find a new home for their game.) DL Another alternative would be for all players to leave standing orders (all hold) with the GM. The GM could then play the game by himself for the rest of eternity. DL Thus, we see that against DETERMINED players there is no such thing as NNSD. (Although perhaps the same could be said for DIAS). Nevertheless, an NNSD rule if announced beforehand, would serve as a psychological hurdle that would prevent players from believing so much in these unstable 2-way draws. DL On the other hand, NNSD rules suddenly imposed after the game is over do not serve much of a useful function. > JD One other thing, about OUNCE specifically. A player,Sean Starkey, who started with Austria later took over Turkey. I think that's a really bad idea. I guess it's hard to prevent in an unmoderated JUDGE game, but Eric (or whoever is now in charge at the level that Eric used to be) should think about this issue. DL Eric changing the EP rules last year to prevent such takeovers. I'm not sure if this is a good idea. Other than observers, ex-players are the most easily motivated reserved player pool. They usually can re-enter a game with much less disruption than a totally new player. This should be allowed, certainly if no one objects. NF I was not aware of this, in fact I prefer to have stand-bys who were already eliminated. They have a better feel for the game, and I have yet to encounter any one carrying out grudge matches. A good example of a game where players keep returning is Danny Loeb's game Hastings. DL This raises an important question. How do we adopt our house rules. For the moment, Eric writes whatever he likes in the EP house rules, and I recopy whatever part of that which I like into the EP/JUDGE house rules. No announcement is given of rule changes, and the rules are too long to have the patience to completely reread. DL Instead, I suggest that we have a democratically elected RULES COMMITTEE that would deliberate on such questions and publicize their decisions. NF Are there any other views on this subject? >NF Well, I have looked through all our rules (the judge files rules, ep.house.rules) and the real rules, and I can find nothing in it to support Ken's decision in the game Ounce. Technically either Eric of I could overrule him, however, according to our rules, someone would have to appeal to us, as no-one has done so . . . . If we should allow these 17-17 draws, where one power is obviously able to win or not, is another question. From everything I have read, the answer is that however distasteful we might find it, the answer it, yes, we should allow it. DL I agree completely with Nick. Such draws ARE distasteful. And we should take action against them. The action by Ken is hard to justify, but possible via the goofy play rules. But there is no appeal, so we should just sit on our hands. Danny Loeb and Mark Nelson write: >MN I have already expressed my opinion that a GM has no right to over-rule the players if they agree a result. I should add that the only occasion a GM may overrule the players is if the result in question contradicts the houserules. For instance, if the houserules state DIAS then you can't agree to a non-DIAS draw. >MN If OUNCE were to be given a BN then it would be declared "irregular" (which means that many rating masters wouldn't rate it) because a former player has reappeared in the game as a standby. This is regarded as being a *BAD* thing. There is *no* real justification for allowing this to happen. DL I'd like to hear more on this point. What are the specific disadvantages to having a player return in a new role? Any case histories? For the record, I should say that I have reentered many of the games which I have played in IRON-CROSS, FONTENOY, ... And I allow such reentries in the games that I run. MN There are two reasons why re-entering games is frowned upon by ethical GMs. Suppose I am playing Germany and you enter the game as France. I diplome with you and tell you what my strategy is. Sometime later you come back into the game as Italy. You know what my strategy is because I have already told you. Are you going to use this knowledge which Italy (as a power) has no reason to know? Of course you are! MN I'm playing Germany, I stab and eliminate your France. You come back into the game as Russia. The game will end as a German or Turkish win. Are you more inclined to throw the game to Germany or Turkey? MN In short, a player who re-enters a game is likely to be effected by knowledge that a proper standby would not have. MN All games that have players re-entering them are irregular and (IMHO) unsuitable for serious ratings. (Begs the question, how serious do you take ratings?) >MN I have also already stated that any GM who will either force a result on the players or force the players to continue playing against their will is a bad GM and should not be allowed to run further EP games. The GM has *no* business telling the players what they can, and can not, do. DL The GM has an obligation to apply the rules as he sees fit. This does mean he tells people what to do. However, players are allowed to quit: singly if they find a replacement or making a similar arrangement, or in mass if it is unanimous. Thus a GM's decision can be overturned by a unanimous vote of the players. However, the players may then be charged with the burden of finding a new GM (or a new JUDGE, or a new magazine, etc...) If the decision is NOT unanimous, the GM can still be overturned by one of his superiors if any of the players appeal. MN The GM is under an obligation to apply the house-rules. House-rules ensure that players know in advance under what conditions the game will be played. Why should players attract stigma as dropouts because of unethical GMing? >MN If you object to player's agreeing early 2-way draws before they reach 17-17 then you should run DIAS games. In one sense Ken is right: 2-way draws are a lot less common in DIAS games because almost invariable one of the potential drawees will stab and go for the win before the draw is agreed. DL This is completely besides the point. The players involved in the draw were the only 2 survivors. Thus, the draw was acceptable by DIAS standards. >MN It is perfectly within the spirit of the game to accept a draw when you could (possible) go for the win. For instance many players prefer a safe draw to an attempted win which could result in them losing the game. Drawing is better than losing! DL Again, this is besides the point. The player in question had a certain win. His opponent had 3 UNDEFENDABLE supply centers whereas he had no supply centers in danger. Thus, there was no risk involved in going for a win. MN I was discussing a more general situation illustrating why people sometime accept draws when they could get better results. I'm sorry if you were unable to realize this. MN But to take this specific game. Perhaps the player who could win is playing in another game with his ally and doesn't want to stab him in this game in case it effects the other game. Perhaps they've had such a good time playing together that they don't wont to spoil it by a stab. I can provide (postal) games where both of these situations have arisen. MN The bottom line is that if the players are happy with the result the GM has no business telling them to continue playing. The name of the game is *diplomacy*. It's good diplomacy by the player who would come 2nd to convince the other player to settle for the draw. >MN We also have to recognize that games are not played in isolation. What happens in one game can (and often does) effect what happens in other games. Many players bare this in mind when they accept results. DL This may possibly be an explanation of why the draw was accepted. Are these players in any other games together? If so, then they should be accused of CROSS-GAME PLAY. They are clearly allowing play in one game directly influence play in another game. This is ILLEGAL according to EP house rules. If what Mark suggests is found to be true, then the players should be suspended. MN This is drivel and utter nonsense. The players might be allied in two games, the circumstance might be right. Players who *enter* a game with the intention of *allying* should be suspended, but you would have to prove that they had entered the game with that purpose. MN It is inevitable that people who play in many games will play opponents in more than one game. Is it CROSS-GAMING to say that "I know that abc is a reliable ally" or that "def never writes letters" or "ghj is good tactically"? MN It is a poor diplomacy player who does not use information in one game to his benefit in another game. Do you know what an ARMOURED DUCK is? MN Consider this case. Suppose these players are allied in 3 games. By showing that he can be trusted by accepting a 2=draw in game A Player P gains the trust of Player Q in the other two games. He then stabs Q in these games and wins them both. Net result is 2 wins and one draw. Is this good play or poor play? MN In my view it is an acceptable tactic to accept a worse result in one game if you expect to gain better results elsewhere. Purists may object to this. >MN Ken talks about "ruining the game for the others". This is rubbish, if the other players object then they can force the players to continue with the game by vetoing the draw and forcing the potential drawees to eliminate the non-drawees. It is, and has always been, a legitimate tactic to play for the draw. DL Here, Mark is referring to non-DIAS draws. In the game OUNCE, this question did not come up. >MN If Russia wants to accept a 2=draw rather than a win that it is up to him. I would ask Ken to read the demo-game in Avalon Hill's Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy? Does he consider that goofy player? Isn't it, in fact, extremely good diplomacy by one player to convince Russia to accept a 2= rather than to go for the win. Why should this player's good diplomacy be ignored because Ken thinks Russia should accept the win rather than the draw. DL When I read the player's guide, I really thought the German player was a fool. (He allowed the game to continue years after collecting his 18th supply center by refusing to build his 18th unit. At that time, victory was based on units rather than SC's.) Obviously, his ally did a good job of negotiation. His ally is therefore a good player. It is Germany in the demo game who would be accused of "Goofy Play." MN I don't consider it Goofy play. MN SO let's get this right. Suppose we have a RG draw which Russia can win. Suppose I am Russia and Danny, or Ken, is GMing. I realize that stabbing allies creates a bad reputation. I tell my ally that I will accept a draw. Then Ken/Danny overturns the result and declares it a WIN. Hence I get the credit for the win and I don't stab my ally. Maybe I should play a game with Danny gming it... >MN In the last game of postal diplomacy I played in I agreed a 2= draw as France. I had 15, Germany had 16 and Turkey had 3. If the game had continued all the way then he would probably have ended in a win. I thought that Germany had the better chances of a win so I was happy for a 2=, Germany thought I had better chances for the win so he was happy for the draw and we both convinced Turkey that we were not going to stab each other and that he might as well agree to the 2= and save us wasting time playing it out. Does Ken think that there was bad play here? DL I think you and Germany played well, and that Turkey may have played poorly. Nevertheless, I wouldn't classify Turkey's play as goofy since he probably wouldn't have won in any case. MN But if you had been the GM you may have thought that Germany had a forced win. In that case you would have declared it a German win because it was goofy play by Germany not to get his certain win. Excellent Gming...NOT! >MN Probable why none of the players has complained about Ken's poor ruling is that none of them know the EP houserules. DL This is another problem. Eric keeps on writing longer and longer rules, but I would bet that the majority of players do not even know that they exist.... DL Perhaps the 2 players should be sent copies of this discussion....? *** DIPL-L MATERIAL IN EP *** There has been some discussion of the appropriateness of DIPL-L material being reprinted in EP Chapters 1 and 2. LHM It is, of course, very nice of you to distribute your zines on DIPL-L, but when two issues with nothing but a cute joke and last week's news are reissued to this same list where they were taken from, I begin to feel a little concerned for my archive disk. (Chapter 2 has not been that bad, but it does include some matter from on here.) DL I have already complained about this to Eric Klien. As ex-editor of Chapter 2, he would reprint material from my chapter and from DIPL-L itself. In his response, he said he was unaware of such duplication that perhaps the authors had submitted the material to both of us. Now I think this is an insufficient excuse. Eric should read DIPL-L and EPC2 and remove any duplicate material in EPC1 or at least replace it with the briefest of summaries and information on how to find out more. LHM Perhaps you could invent a chapter of EP that would digest DIPL-L, and then distribute that to all interested parties, but not back to us? DL I don't see why anyone would prefer to get that instead of DIPL-L itself. NF Mostly due to the E-mail load. It can be really frustrating if one has a primitive E-mail system (such as the one our undergraduates get here at Waterloo). NF Also, if the traffic on DIPL-L grows, even I would hesitate to subscribe to it, and would monitor it through Usenet (or through the @#$% error messages). NF By the way, I archive almost everything that comes through DIPL-L, it is available from me (by month, since about April) or from the Marburg FTP site. ***** PART TWO ***** **** LIST OF GAME OPENINGS **** Moderated Replacement Openings include: tick, infinite, mindanao Unmoderated games openings include: zoom, bali, and zen. (belch is proceeding NMR for 'interests sake') Unmoderated Australian judge openings: bing, twinkles, surgeon Signups available for the following moderated games in formation: shuppan, senlac, ulm, trafalga, boyne and sinister. hall92, if your name is andre :-) baldric at Australian judge. (krauts for german speakers only) **** LIST OF EP GAMES ON THE DA **** --- EXPLANATION --- Here is the monthly update on games played on Judge. Each game is represented by a line of data (followed possibly by a line of comments --- please send me comments I can use if you are a GM!). The games are sorted according the variant rules which are used. Also if you have an EP number, and I don't, please send it to me. Column Explanation ------ ----------- (1) Name of game including a "#" if game is "private" or "unlisted" (2) Electronic Protocol number (and Chapter) if available. (3) Name of the GM (see list of GMs below). (4-10) Updates on game in chronological order (most recent on the right) The updates for a game in formation indicate the number of players needed to start. For example, -5. The updates for a game in progress indicate the season (F for Fall or S for Spring), the last 2 digits of the year, and the phase (M for movement, B for builds, and R for retreats). All this is possibly followed by the indication of the number of replacement players (-1), temporary replacements (T1) needed, or needed later on (*1). --- LIST --- Name EP# GM Feb04 Apr03 Jun30 Aug26 Sep15 Sep29 Oct 6 ------- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- STANDARD RULES dram 159 jdr S01M F03M ? F10M S12M F12M Over furlong 164 jdr F02M ? S08R-2 F09M S10M Over infinite 166 jdr F02M ? F08M F09M F10M S11M-1 karat 185 jdr S01M ? S05M F06M F07M F07B meter 187 jdr S01M ? S08M S09M S10M F10M newton 188 jdr S01M ? S07M S08M F08B F08M pint 190 jdr ? S06M-1 S07M S08M F08M quart 191 jdr ? F06M-2 S07M F07M F07M rad 205 jdr ? F04B-1 F05R F06M F06R second 206 jdr ? S06M F06M S07M S07M ton 207 jdr ? S03M-2 F04M S05M F05M unit 208 jdr ? S05M F05M F06M F06B volt 209 jdr ? S04M F04M S05M F05M watt 210 jdr ? F02M-3 F02B S03M F03R ant 211 jdr ? S04R S05M F05M S06M beetle 212 jdr ? F04M F04B S05R F05M cicada 213 jdr -3 F03M S04M F04R S05M dragnfly 214 jdr S03M S03R-1 F03B S04M earwig 215 jdr F02M F03M F04M S05M fly 216 jdr S02M F02B S03M F03M gnat 217 jdr F02M S03M F03B S04M hornet 218 jdr S01M S02M S02R F02M inchworm 219 jdr S01M F01M F02M S03M junebug 220 jdr S01M S01M S02M S02M locust 221 jdr -1 F01M F02B S03M moth 224 jdr S01M S02M F02M pillbug 227 jdr S01M F01M S02M spider 228 jdr S01M-1 F01M-1 S02M tick 229 jdr S01M S01M S01M-3 wasp 230 jdr S01M S01M F01M antelope 232 jdr -5 S01M F01M beaver 233 jdr F01M S02M cow 234 jdr S01M F01M dog 237 jdr S01M F01M elk 240 jdr -7 S01M ferret jdr -3 baldrick Bob -7 -6 This game is on the Australian judge, players are asked to list the game before joining. (ie has grey press, etc) cheetah 225 desper S01M F05M F06B F08M S09M Nasty stab by Italy of Austria croatia 148 Nick F03M F06M F10M F12M F13R F14B S15M Most advanced standard game on judge (with marengo) diablos j_oregan -5 S01M F01M F02M F02M fall Gummi ? S02M S03M F03M grass karl S01M S04M S06M-2 S07M F07B S08M German language game hall92 Nick -1 Hall of Fame game, unlisted, but observers are welcome! kaiser karl -3 F05M F07B S08M S09M S09M marengo 129 scottb S09M F11B S14M S14M S14M-2 F14R S15M Oldest standard EP # in Chapter 2. peregrin 236 Casmacin -6 S01M S01M ulm 235 Marty -6 S01M S01M womble n0kernic F02M F03B F04M Only Adelaide University Comp. Sci!!! wren 223 Casmacin F01B S03M S04M F04M STANDARD GUNBOAT - Identities of players unknown. dppd 238 loeb F09M S13M Over FT blocked E win! First standard gunboat draw in history of judge! dppe 239 loeb S01M F05B S08M S09M S10M F10B Last remaining game against the Bordeaux Diplomat. Turkey is heading towards victory. New DPP games near the end of the year? eldritch j_oregan S02M S04M S05M F05B S06M sarajevo 195 desper F03B F04M S06M F06B Big year for Russia this time! sinister Starkey -7 -7 S01M An Evil game for Evil Players *Please* read press help! trafalga Marty -7 -5 -2 STANDARD GUNBOAT ROUND-ROBIN - Each player plays all 7 powers in 7 games. game 2 174 Jamie F05M F06M F07M F07B game 3 175 Jamie F07R F08R F09M F09R game 4 176 Jamie F02B S03R S04R S05M game 5 177 Jamie F01M F02M F03M YOUNGSTOWN RULES (10 players) Extended map including Asia and Africa. dien 124 jdr S11M F11M F15M F18M S19R S19R S20M giggles dwisemanF08B S10M S12M F13M S14M S14M S14M-2 Local ERIM game krauts karl -9 -9 -10 -10 -11 (-: Press to be written in German. Long signon period anticipated.z timor 160 nick -10 F01M S05M F07M F08M F09M S10M YOUNGSTOWN GUNBOAT GAMES celebes 197 nick -8 F03M S04M F05M S06M Super warp 36h deadline, 72h grace, 7 days a week. luzon 192 Marty F04M-2 S05M F05M F06M F06B Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace. mindanao 231 Marty -6 -4 S01M S01M F01M-1 shuppan Josh -8 -5 -4 A White Press Gunboat!! sumatra 182 nick F05B F07M F08M F09M F09B Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace. sunda 171 nick F05M S07M-1 S08M-2 F09M F09M Warp speed. 24h deadline, 72h grace. CHAOS RULES (34 players) Regular map. Each SC is owned by a different player. fontenoy 114 jdr F09M F10M F15M F17B F18R F19M First Chaos game. 6 remaining players in a wide open position. iona 169 jdr S01M F02M S06M F08M S09M S10M F10M UV3 northern alliance faces AG18 southern alliance. (U and 1 lead) zenith NONE -11 F00B*2 F01M F01B S02M GREAT BRITAIN RULES (7 players) Britain starts with 6 SC's but all armies! hastings 139 loeb S05R F07B S16M F19M F20M F21B F22M England (with 6 fleets!), France, Turkey push back G. senlac Matt -7 -6 -6 1898 RULES / GUNBOAT GAME corsica 222 dmb S00M F00M-1 S01M F01M F01B boyne Marty -6 -6 -4 MACHIAVELLI RULES - An economic variant of Diplomacy marketed by Avalon Hill. sober andre F54M F55M S56M U56M-1 F56M A gunboat Machiavelli Variant without Loans and special units. **** FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THE JUDGE**** For X: Send Y to JUDGE@U.WASHINGTON.EDU: ------ --------------------------------- (*QUESTIONS ABOUT A CERTAIN GAME*) More detailed information about a game: LIST <name-of-game> History of a game: SUMMARY <name-of-game> Detailed Recent History of a game: HISTORY <name-of-game> <options> Regular updates for a certain game: OBSERVE <name-of-game> <password> Copy of variant rules: GET INFO.<name-of-variant> or GET PRESS or GET GUNBOAT (*GENERAL QUESTIONS*) General information HELP Update of the list of games above LIST More detailed list LIST FULL To be informed of all game changes OBSERVE CONTROL <password> Default house rules GET EP.HOUSE.RULES Other information: Contact me (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca) or Ken Lowe (jdr@u.washington.edu) or your game master (see list below) **** FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL **** To solve Email problems, contact one of the email wizards: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, andre@hern.stonemarche.org eisen@cs.jhu.edu, eisen@jhuigf.BITNET, or wcw27974@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Other information: Contact Eric Klien (eric_s_klien@cup.portal.com) **** FOR ARCHIVES **** 1) Use the HISTORY command for recent game result. Use the GET command (especially GET FLIST) to receive JUDGE related files. 2) Contact the archivists, jlitvin@hfglobe.intel.com/John Litvin, 3) Anonymous FTP Machine: Directory: Contents: Milton.U.Washington.Edu /public/misc judge source, postscript maps FTP.FU-Berlin.DE /pub/misc/diplomacy variants, hall of fame, postscript maps, articles, judge source 137.248.151.12 /pub/incoming/ep-chapter Old issues of EP. **** LIST OF DIPLOMACY ADJUDICATORS **** USA judge@u.washington.edu Australia judge@gu.uwa.edu.au South Africa judge@shrike.und.ac.za **** LIST OF GAME MASTERS **** David M Bowen dmb@bigd.cray.com dmb@sequoia.cray.com Dave Cebula cebulad@physics.orst.edu Karl Dotzek karl@adler.ims.uni-stuttgart.de Jamie Dreier pl436000@brownvm.brown.edu Nicholas Fitzpatrick nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca Danny Loeb loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr Ken Lowe jdr@u.washington.edu Michael Luft scottb@cs.utexas.edu Sean MacIntosh casmacin@atlas.cs.upei.ca John Aidan O'Regan J_Oregan%csvax1@iruccvax.UCC.IE Andre Verweij andre@duteina.tudelft.nl andre@hlniob.uucp. Gudmundur Bjarni Josepsson gummi@rhi.hi.is Rick Desper desper@mat.rutgers.edu Matt McLeod C9106225@cc.newcastle.edu.au Josh Smith irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu Sean Starkey starkey@netcom.com Bob Blanchett s1029708@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au Marty Brumm marty@pc1504.Chemie-Uni.Marburg.de ***** PART THREE ***** *** DRAM EOG REPORT *** Summary of game dram through F1912R. Master: Ken Lowe jdr@u.washington.edu Austria: Martin Brumm marty@pc1504.Chemie.Uni-Marburg.DE from F1908M: Eddie Melton melton@mc1.wes.army.mil England: Jonas Andersson t89jan@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se France: Johnathaen Schmitt jss0235@dijkstra.UnivNorthCo.EDU from F1904M: Kirk Randall cheng@u.washington.edu from F1907B: James A. Dare jdare@math.rutgers.edu Germany: Zachary Hendsch styx@Athena.MIT.EDU from F1906B: Kevin Quinlan quinlan@erim.org Italy: Gregory Bean bean@ucsu.Colorado.EDU from S1904M: angles gary angels_gary@merlin.nmhu.edu from F1905M: John O'Regan J_ORegan@csvax1.ucc.IE from F1910B: Martin Brumm marty@pc1504.Chemie.Uni-Marburg.DE Russia: Kevin Reynolds S9GK7@starburst.uscolo.edu from F1901B: Justin Knoll U8155653@NMSUVM1.BITNET Turkey: Igor D. Divjak 91056703@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca from S1904M: Don St.Germain S5200011@NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA from S1905M: Chris Naughton NAUGHTONC@crl.aecl.ca from F1906B: Chris Naughton NAUGHTONC@crl.aecl.ca Game parameters are/were as follows: Move clock 1410 min 12.00 next 72.00 grace 168.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF- Retreat clock -1 min 0.00 next 24.00 grace 72.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF- Adjust clock -1 min 0.00 next 24.00 grace 72.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF- Access: Different-site, Level: Any, Moderated. Variant: Standard. Flags: NoNMR, NoProxy. Press: White, No Fake Broadcast. EP 159, game completed October 1992, German win Historical Supply Center Summary -------------------------------- Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie Year Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri 1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A 1901 I I I I E E E F F F F F E G G G G G . E R R R R T T T T T A A A A I 1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F E G G G G G G E R R R R T T T T T A A A A I 1903 I I I I E E E F F G F F G G G G G G G G R R R T T T T T T A A R A A 1904 I I I I G E E F F G F F G G G G G G G G R R R R T T T T T A A A A A 1905 A I I I G E G F G G F F G G G G G G G G R R R R T T T T T A R A A A 1906 I I I A G G G F F G G F G G G G G G G G R R R T T T T T T T R A A A 1907 I I I A G G G G F I G G G G G G G G G G G R R R T T T T T T R A A A 1908 I I I A G G G G G I G G I G G G G G G G G R R R T T T T T T A A A A 1909 I I I A G G G G G I G G G G A G G G G G G R R R T T T T T T A A A A 1910 A I I T G G G G I I G A G G A G G G G G G R R R T T T T A T A A A A 1911 I I I T G G G G G I G A G G A G G G G G G G R R A T T A A T A A A A 1912 A I A G G G G G G A G G G G G G G G G G G G G A A T T A A A A A A A History of Supply Center Counts ------------------------------- Power 1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 Player Austria 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 \ Martin Brumm 5 6 Eddie Melton England 3 5 5 3 2 1 Jonas Andersson France 3 5 5 4 \ Johnathaen Schmitt 4 3 3 1 \ Kirk Randall James A. Dare Germany 3 5 6 9 10 12 13*\ Zachary Hendsch 15& 15* 15* Kevin Quinlan Italy 3 5 5 4 \ Gregory Bean 4 \ angles gary 3 3 4 5 4 John O'Regan Russia 4 4 \ Kevin Reynolds 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 3 Justin Knoll Turkey 3 5 5 6 \ Igor D. Divjak 5 \ Don St.Germain 5 7 \ Chris Naughton 6 6 6 Chris Naughton Index: 10 22 24 27 28 34 38 44 45 46 Power 1910 '11 '12 Player Austria 8 9 12 Eddie Melton Germany 13 15 19 Kevin Quinlan Italy 4 \ John O'Regan 4 1 Martin Brumm Russia 3 2 Justin Knoll Turkey 6 4 2 Chris Naughton Index: 42 48 72 * = 1 unused build. & = 2 unused builds. Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the number of players. It is a measure of how far the game has progressed. Broadcast message from melton@mc1.wes.army.mil as Austria in dram: Greetings to all! To Italy/Russia: When I joined the game it was a 4-way alliance between you, Turkey and I. It was working well until I joined with Germany. Because I do not carry my "revenge" from one game to the next, I have to get it in the current game. This was an attack on Turkey and not on either of you. To Turkey: The attack on you was not personal, I have nothing against you. The reason I "backstabbed" you and the others, was because of the treats you made to Italy (John O'Regan) and I, your allies. This is a game of DIPLOMACY, you do not treaten to take supply centers from you allies if you plan to keep them as your allies. Yes, I gave the game to the German, he is a good player and a very easy person to work with (and he didn't convince me to join with him, I went to him). I hope I haven't made a permenant enemy, I play to win and I am as loyal as a Diplomacy player can be, but do not treaten me! I throw the game to get my revenge. To Germany: Good Game! As I told you before, I have no hard feelings toward you for breaking our alliance. You played well and I would do the same thing again. You were very honest with me even to the end. As you know, I am also a honest player (even though Turkey doesn't think so) I never lied to him, if he remembers, I said I would leave Rumainia, and I did, I never said where I was going. (anyway what game are we playing, lieing is part of the game) Thanks for a good game. Again Congradulations to Germany! Eddie Broadcast message from quinlan@erim.org as Germany in dram: Greetings, Powers! Thanks for the Congratulations, although I did take Germany over in pretty good shape. Thus, credit should be shared with my predecessor. Thanks for a rather enjoyable game, as the moves went rather timely with minimal delays... Hope to see you all in future Campaigns! Kevin Quinlan Germany Up