|
|
Post by Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger on Feb 7, 2020 3:15:18 GMT
Oh yeah, it's all coming together...
|
|
|
|
Post by Santa Anna on Feb 7, 2020 3:22:44 GMT
Hold on... didn't I send that PM for the Shawnee build? All I got from you was the disband for Denmark. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Feb 7, 2020 3:45:12 GMT
Hold on... didn't I send that PM for the Shawnee build? All I got from you was the disband for Denmark. You kidding me? There was supposed to be A Wap. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Feb 7, 2020 5:28:06 GMT
I'll be honest, I don't know if this is too underhanded. Here goes... Santa Anna, Victor Katz, Frederick the Great, Carlos III, Dr. Hendrei GromsingerHm, is it ok to request an override from the GM? I would understand that during the movement phases, a missed unit is simply NMRed because every movement is all too capable of affecting the other moves in the very same phase. However, winter builds are all stationary, and normally a build order would only be affected by other players' choices (like: if he builds this army, then I will build that army, but if he builds this fleet then I will build that fleet instead), right? But here, Build A Wap has no way of affecting anyone else's build orders and nobody's builds are affecting my decision to place a new army in Wap anyway. Neither Spain nor Russia has a build or disband, so my build order decisions was made in a literal vacuum. Nothing in the winter phase was effecting it from the outside and nothing in the winter phase was being affected by the new army. The revealed orders of Winter 1815 didn't have any effect, so there's no harm done, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger on Feb 7, 2020 5:35:06 GMT
I'll be honest, I don't know if this is too underhanded. Here goes... Santa Anna , Victor Katz , Frederick the Great , Carlos III , Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger Hm, is it ok to request an override from the GM? I would understand that during the movement phases, a missed unit is simply NMRed because every movement is all too capable of affecting the other moves in the very same phase. However, winter builds are all stationary, and normally a build order would only be affected by other players' choices (like: if he builds this army, then I will build that army, but if he builds this fleet then I will build that fleet instead), right? But here, Build A Wap has no way of affecting anyone else's build orders and nobody's builds are affecting my decision to place a new army in Wap anyway. Neither Spain nor Russia has a build or disband, so my build order decisions was made in a literal vacuum. Nothing in the winter phase was effecting it from the outside and nothing in the winter phase was being affected by the new army. The revealed orders of Winter 1815 didn't have any effect, so there's no harm done, right? Well, the Canuck orders though, so it's not a total vacuum on building in Wap vs. the equally allowed Iln. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Feb 7, 2020 5:39:59 GMT
Well, the Canuck orders though, so it's not a total vacuum on building in Wap vs. the equally allowed Iln. I was already made aware full in advance of Govorov's planned builds before the deadline. Although I can see the point in the faint possibility of the Canada's betrayal whether be coming into existence or not... You do have a valid point. And it's a bit unfair to ask for a poll, considering the extremely likely results being skewered toward the coalition's view of things against yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger on Feb 7, 2020 5:41:28 GMT
Well, the Canuck orders though, so it's not a total vacuum on building in Wap vs. the equally allowed Iln. I was already made aware full in advance of Govorov's planned builds before the deadline. Although I can see the point in the faint possibility of the Canada's betrayal whether be coming into existence or not... And it's a bit unfair to ask for a poll, considering the extremely likely results being skewered toward the coalition's view of things against yours. Yeah, a poll seems wrong. I think this needs to be either unanimous consent or GM decree. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Feb 7, 2020 5:46:37 GMT
I knew this was going to be pretty sketchy, so I wanted to be totally above-board about this, and the slippery slope is INSANELY dangerous because it can set a precedent for the future Dippy games.
Alt-Hist RPs, while suffering from a ridiculous amount of potential liabilities, doesn't have this problem, being much more adaptable without causing excessive damages.
It's still a good discussion to bring up so we can settle it for the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Feb 7, 2020 5:47:03 GMT
I think the GM should decide
|
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Feb 7, 2020 6:32:32 GMT
Oh yeah, it's all coming together... Hey that's my line! |
|
|
|
Post by Santa Anna on Feb 7, 2020 17:01:51 GMT
Honestly, I'm leaning towards no. No offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Feb 7, 2020 18:41:58 GMT
Honestly, I'm leaning towards no. No offense. You still haven't made a final decision yet? |
|
|
|
Post by nopunin10did on Feb 7, 2020 18:56:25 GMT
From one Diplomacy GM to another, if you've already posted results, unless you discover a situation where *you* made the mistake rather than the player, the adjudication should stand.
Now what I tend to do is have more back-and-forth with my players to try and identify mistakes or omissions when they are made. I can't/don't always catch them before it's too late, but I try to make sure the player has a chance to correct them. Some Dip GMs tend to be much more hands-off, but that's just my style.
But I don't think I've ever met a GM that would let somebody come back and say "I meant to say X" after results were posted. Inadvertent blunders, and coping with them, are part of Diplomacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Santa Anna on Feb 7, 2020 19:55:05 GMT
Honestly, I'm leaning towards no. No offense. You still haven't made a final decision yet? I was convinced of my decision when I posted that. But now that Alex has spoken, I'm even more sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Tolbethessar on Feb 7, 2020 21:01:13 GMT
From one Diplomacy GM to another, if you've already posted results, unless you discover a situation where *you* made the mistake rather than the player, the adjudication should stand. Now what I tend to do is have more back-and-forth with my players to try and identify mistakes or omissions when they are made. I can't/don't always catch them before it's too late, but I try to make sure the player has a chance to correct them. Some Dip GMs tend to be much more hands-off, but that's just my style. But I don't think I've ever met a GM that would let somebody come back and say "I meant to say X" after results were posted. Inadvertent blunders, and coping with them, are part of Diplomacy. I hope you already realized that I normally do not commit this sort of "blunders" before you said that, right? I certainly can cope with this, thank you. Maybe I'm projecting, but that felt borderline condescending, a little too close to the line. It did feel uncalled for and wasn't necessary. |
|
