1900 04' Spring

[dilip]

I say no north coast. The map was incorrect, and since the mistake hadn't affected the game, it was changed, why convert it back to the incorrect verison? and why didn't everyone complain in thread that it was first brought up, and not now when everyone has their own motives for adding the coast.

[Diplomat]

Pick your poison. The very first version of the map had no designation for Mac NC on it and, as a result, it was ambiguous at best (for those wanting a NC) and just part of the artistic appearance of the board (for those that don't want it) since it was not specifically named. The rules are clear there, if not named it is not a part of the map a unit can travel to. Clearly this fact supports Snoopy's declaration that he made an error in that first map and that there should have only been 2 coasts. After the first turn he did start naming it NC, but it was a non factor until right now. You can make arguments either way depending on what you want to see happen but, once again, the GM made the change, announced and posted it, and apparently no one 'saw it' and commented then. Its only being brought up now to cause a delay for Doc in getting into the Med.

[Snoopymate25]

Okay, to cover the whole mac issue, when I made that map, I accidentally cut off con from bul, which is why there wasn't a NC at first. It's a minor thing, and trust me, I did think about whether or not to remove or not. Now I'm going out of town tomorrow, and won't be back until Saturday. So that's when the next deadline will be. If there are any more issues, please let me know.

[raytheruler]

well. it had a role in the beginning. dr. Bbenway wouldve had to spend two turns travesring the distance from constantinople to bulgaria. now transportation suddenly gets faster? i dont think so. im pretty sure the game wouldve turned out differently if you could travel directly between the two. maybe it wouldve been take in the first year. it wasn't that way then. and that to me, is where the problem is. it wasn't then, but all of a sudden it changes.

now you bring up the fact that i want him to take more time to reach the med. that is true. but you want to speed it up for the same reason! i dont think any of the players are fit to judge this. we all have our logical reasons as to why we think we are right. i think we need to ask an truly impartial judge to settle this one; that is to say, someone who has no stake in the game at all.

[Diplomat]

Do you mean someone other than snoopy the gm of the game? Or are you saying his is biased as you seem to be implying here? Snoopy already made the call before it became important. This right here is why I did not want everyone thinking they had a vote in the last problem, its up to the GM to adjudicate these issues, not the players to vote on it.

[lotr_freak]

Snoopy is not biased, and as the GM of the game, has complete power over what goes on. But the fact remains: Because there was a north coast in Bul at the beginning, the flow of the game changed. Like ray pointed out, Turkey would have had to take two turns to move to Bul, meaning it wasn't taken in the first year. We were all playing under the impression that Mac was between Bul and Con. This was just changed last turn, and I (unfortunately) failed to notice that. I just realized this turn, looking at the map, that it was different, so I brought it up. I think it's unfair for Turkey to be able to move Bul directly to Con now, when he couldn't before. We should finish the game the way we started it.

[Doctor Benway]

Had somebody mentioned that they had a problem changing the map mid-game when it was originally brought up, I would have conceded and said fine, no big deal, let's keep the map the way it is. For it to become an issue now, when I've move a unit from Bulgaria to Constantinople I think is a little cheap. The proper time to have voiced a complaint would have been when it happened.

As for shaping the early game, I can't say that it didn't have any bearing on early decisions, but if it did it was very minor, and I don't think the game would have gone much differently from my side of the street. If anyone really wants to challenge me on that, I'll show you my early correspondence when the game is over.

Most importantly, this is a game guys, and these arguments are getting a little ridiculous. Snoopymate is doing us a favour by running this thing for us, and jumping on mistakes that have been corrected, changed maps that were announced beforehand is really contrary to the spirit of things. If there appears to be something strange on the map, by all means ask for an explanation. But insinuating that something underhanded is going on before you get that explanation is kind of rude, in my opinion.

If every phase of this game is going to be accompanied by a bunch of conflict about the game, rather than within the game, than I suggest we call it a seven-way draw right now.

[lotr_freak]

Had somebody mentioned that they had a problem changing the map mid-game when it was originally brought up, I would have conceded and said fine, no big deal, let's keep the map the way it is. For it to become an issue now, when I've move a unit from Bulgaria to Constantinople I think is a little cheap. The proper time to have voiced a complaint would have been when it happened.

I realize that, but like I said before, I didn't notice that earlier post of Snoopy's about the chance, and I just noticed it on the map.

As for shaping the early game, I can't say that it didn't have any bearing on early decisions, but if it did it was very minor, and I don't think the game would have gone much differently from my side of the street. If anyone really wants to challenge me on that, I'll show you my early correspondence when the game is over.

I'd like to see it, when the game is over. Cause I know it would have changed my game plan....

If there appears to be something strange on the map, by all means ask for an explanation. But insinuating that something underhanded is going on before you get that explanation is kind of rude, in my opinion.

I hope I haven't come across rude at all, or trying to insinuate anything about cheating or anything. But there have been a few things... The order thing with ray is over in my book, I've put it out of my mind. But Austria had an army just appear in Gal this last turn, and I still do not know how or why that could have happened. If it is explained to me logically, and there is a reasonable explanation for it, then I will accept it, and humbly rescind my opinion, with apologies. But until then... You have to admit, it's a little weird. And I understand now what all happened with Mac, but I don't think it's fair to change the map in the middle of the game, and justify it by one comment in the orders . I think a formal post would've been better, or at least have the players vote on it. Cause it definitely does change the dynamics of the game....

If every phase of this game is going to be accompanied by a bunch of conflict about the game, rather than within the game, than I suggest we call it a seven-way draw right now.

I really hope I'm not coming across really negative, or that I'm trying to dispute everything. Anyway, there's only six players left, not seven.

[Diplomat]

Ah... legaleze strikes Diplomacy again.

Because there was a north coast in Bul at the beginning, the flow of the game changed.

The link to the map is below. Please go there and then return and tell me where you see Macedonia North Coast designated anywhere on the map.

http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2635&start=0

Page 6 of the 4th ed (pub. 2000) is germane to this discussion in 2 places where it states very clearly:

Restricted movement
Any location on the mapboard that is not named cannot be occupied....

Specific Movement Clarifications
...Bulgaria, Spain, and St Petersburg: These are the only costal provinces that have two separately identified coasts . A fleet entering one of these provinces enters along one coast and can then move to a province adjacent to that coast only.

Now I think everyone will agree that the first map we were shown does not include an identified coast for Mac NC. If you don't agree do let me know please.

Once you concede that fact (as you must) then you should then concede that the change that later DID identify a Mac NC was never voted on or addressed in any way. Therefor before we vote on anything to be changed now, if voting is what needs to be done, then we need to go back and vote for that change which introduced a designated coast by mistake. Why you ask? Well clearly

I don't think it's fair to change the map in the middle of the game, and justify it by one comment in the orders

(or no comment, as occurred before).

Because there is no Mac NC designated then Mac NC is NOT a separately identified coast on the starting map and, as a result, is not a place that a fleet can move to unless it is a continuation of the designated EC (Kiel canals anyone?). Its a mistake clearly but, based on the first map, Either that entire line is Mac EC or Mac NC is not named for fleet occupation specifically and cannot be occupied.

As to

I hope I haven't come across rude at all, or trying to insinuate anything about cheating or anything.

I disagree. I think you've made several efforts to convey exactly this.

Austria had an army just appear in Gal this last turn, and I still do not know how or why that could have happened. If it is explained to me logically, and there is a reasonable explanation for it, then I will accept it, and humbly rescind my opinion, with apologies. But until then... You have to admit, it's a little weird.

Do you think I have any part at all in the making of the map, the adjudication of orders, or the posting of the map up on the site? Uh... nope. Ask Snoopy when he gets back those questions about things being 'weird' if you want, and if you think the game is rigged somehow? Please, by all means, exit the game.

I realize that, but like I said before, I didn't notice that earlier post of Snoopy's about the chance, and I just noticed it on the map.

I guess Snoopy sort of figures people will read his posts about the game. Not reading posts? Who wouldn't read the posts? It seems a basic thing to do and, seeing how a change from prior to this turn hurts your cause, well "You have to admit, it's a little weird" to be arguing to change something back by saying you did not read a post. I mean, "I still do not know how or why that could have happened (not reading a post). If it (not reading a post) is explained to me logically, and there is a reasonable explanation for it (not reading a post), then I will accept it (not reading a post), and humbly rescind my opinion, with apologies." if I've made a mistake or something of course. I guess not reading posts could be an innocent mistake, but then again claiming to have not read posts... that could be cheating!

OH NO! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!

[Doctor Benway]

Look it doesn't really matter to me what the map looks like, and I'll happily go with Snoopy's verdict, though I'm pretty sure he was clear when he changed the map.

Lotr_freak : I understand that you missed the post, and I'm not saying that your argument that the map shouldn't be changed in the middle of the game is invalid. It is a valid argument, though I would say debatable. There is no way, however, that you can convince me that it would be more fair to change the map back to its original form in a turn that has gone by, then it was to change the map for future turns. If you want to talk about the flow of the game, creating alternate timelines not only messes up the flow of the game, but it screws up the space-time continuum and then you'll have those guys from Starfleet in the 30th century give you a lecture about the temporal prime-directive.

Anyway, there's only six players left, not seven.

Six players, seven powers. I think you're forgetting the mighty England