Imperial Dip 50: Fall 1874 Results

[RUFFHAUS 8]

Come own now people! I don't like the situation either. But Boshko announced that this was how he was handling it, and no one b!tched the last two seasons when when Dutch and Austrian units were acting under GM control. And no one b!tched when the GM made orders for A Mecca - Sudan, and F Sapporro - Kuril Trench when these units should by rule be in civil disorder because no orders were submitted for them.

I'm not agreeing with it, but there was a precendent and commentary from the GM that this how he was acting well BEFORE this deadline. And whatever you say about how Boshko's handling things, he's consistent about it. And it has been going on since Snowie was GM. You guys just haven't been dealing with it until now.

[orange]

I haven't seen the GM physically make moves for anyone. I was under the impression it was hold and support only...has this occured before?

Any order for a NMR nation other than hold or support another unit is unacceptable in my mind...

[orange]

oh...as for A Mecca I had no problem leaving it where it was (Mecca) because I didn't order it correctly. It simply was in Sudan on the map...I didn't really think about it. Can't blame me for that one, I certainly didn't ***** to get it there.

[RUFFHAUS 8]

It's not about you, orange. No one said that you did anything wrong. That unit in Sudan was on the map because Boshko as GM said it should be. I mentioned the lack of an order for the unit in the notes that I provided with the map. My point is that no one (including you) objected to it being there, since in effect it NMR'd.

And yes, the units have been moving (or trying to) for some time now.

My position/preference on civil disorder nations and NMRs is and always has been 'all units hold, retreats OTB, no builds, and disbands according to the original game. Attempts to be 'fair' always wind up irritating someone. This game and the CGN Imperial game are two landmark examples of why the NMR policy provided in the Diplomacy rule book is the best way to handle absent/missing players.

Right now we are lucky to have Boshko stepping in as a GM. Okay, I know that Britain and Turkey are not feeling lucky at all and would like this over ASAP (i have some suggestions on how to facilitate that by the way), but from the standpoint of completing the game, we are lucky to have someone to step in in take on the task. That doesn't mean that I like the way things are going with the Dutch and Austrian units, but we've all had to deal with it.

[Gerwald]

Look, I simply thought these units were in "turtle mode". I did not notice them moving until this turn. That is why I mentioned it. It simply will not matter next year because I will make a point of destroying any that are near me.

[Bosh]

The units have been moving for a couple turns if you look at the last few threads. Its not the best situation there is but its what I'm doing currently as the the best of a bad situation since things would be imbalanced rapidly if the Austrians imploded without a fight (the dutch don't really matter at this point) since they're just about dead.
What I did in the past is have random people make up orders for units on the cust and this often resulted in them making successful and tactically sound attacks, but I kept on not getting responces from people or had people telling me they were too busy, so I decided to go with this and once I started a couple turns ago I decided to continue.

If you want to grab a new GM that's fine with me, this map is a pain to adjudicate in any case.

[Defiant]

Boshko is doing a very good job and if he said it in the beginning it is nobodys fault but our own whether we agree or not, we must object when he declares his rule basis not after if finally affects some of us. I DO NOT WANT A NEW GM.
I suggest if there is a quest for a new GM this game goes DIAS.

President Ruffhaus 8th, of CSA,
If it wasn't for your little, puny, slithering taco eating ally, I would be visiting the Richmond area and eating lobster off your coast, at your expense.

[orange]

if you highlight the smileys at the end there with your cursor, they become 'Chinese'

[SnowFire]

since Snowie was GM.

I'd just like to remind you all that while I do in fact prefer Boshko's system, even without your prompting I was willing to do an "all units hold" thing. The problem we had was that I don't believe all units hold includes "dislodged units disband themselves" as that is even more disruptive, and if you attack a unit and let it retreat into your own supply center, tough. And I even conceded on that point. So I don't know where you're getting this precedent from, RUFFHAUS- all CD nations were holding when I was GM too, and their retreats ended up being boring & bland to nearby controlled SCs.

In any case, the main issue here is CONSISTENCY. The reason I was willing to do that was because that was the way MDR did it. And I changed my ruling on the retreats because Gerwald made his moves under a false assumption. I haven't been following this lately, but Boshko, did you at least tell them that these CD nations should be treated as fully-functioning, attacking entities? If they knew in advance exactly what they could do, then too bad for them, IMHO. If you didn't tell them this (and then the moves were made under bad assumptions not dispelled by the GM), then I think they have a point.

Just my two cents.

[RUFFHAUS 8]

SnowFire, the rules for civil disorder established in the game by Avalon Hill many years ago call for dislodged units to go OTB. So it's not so simple to say "tough crap, you made him retreat." And honestly, SnowFire I never knew what was to be expected from the CD nations while you had the game. I pretty much had to accept it as it came down.

I don't mean to sound ungracious towards you or Boshko at all. I am very thankfull for both of your efforts.

However, thes problems we are seeing here in Dip 50 and at CGN are the problem that I have with GMs that think they are saving the game by making up their own rules. The problem is consistency. And because the Boshko/SnowFire/CyberGnu methods aren't written down clearly anywhere, and don't consider numerous game situations as they arise, they is always confusion and inconsistency.. Rules dealing with retreats and adjustments are also ignored or ambigulous. Also these systems despite their intent are anything but fair. Somewhere someone is always getting the short straw. Maybe this is true with the Diplomacy rules too, but at least those are written down, and with static units their are no suprises. At least you can plan around what the CD nations will do.

Defiant, sorry Charlie, no DIAS either. Anyone who wants to quit can get out, but there's no no draw vote from me. Centers are still changing hands and units are still moving. Yours are moving back or to the bottom of the sea.

[RUFFHAUS 8]

I already sent this to Boshko, but since I'm the only one with a retreat:

F Bismark Sea retreats to Luzon