RE: [eia] Turkish land phase, July '05

["Nate Ellefson" <nellefson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Michael Gorman
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:29 PM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> Subject: RE: [eia] Turkish land phase, July '05
> 
> 
> At 07:40 PM 7/13/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >My opinion:  In cases where a player isn't at war there should be a 
> >great deal of leniency extended to revising orders in the event of a 
> >legitimate error.  In cases where two sides are at war, and 
> an error is 
> >both a legal move and has been acted upon by the opposing 
> player, the 
> >error should stand as submitted to the list.  This case 
> would include 
> >any movement of forces within any reasonable proximity to the error. 
> >People in this situation will need to be very careful.  In 
> cases where 
> >a player is at war, errors that are well away from areas where there 
> >are opposing forces, or where opposing forces can't make a meaninful 
> >response to the error, changes should be permissible.  
> Though I'm aware 
> >that the decision has already been made, I would have come down in 
> >favor of letting Joel correct his error, as there clearly is 
> precident 
> >for letting that happen.  But in future, this standard is 
> what I would 
> >vote on applying.
> >
> >As to reusing rolls, I don't believe that should ever be 
> permissible. 
> >In addition to creating circumstances where the player will 
> know what 
> >the result of an action will be before he takes it, it will also be 
> >true that players will only seek to reuse rolls that are 
> favorable to 
> >him. Though again I would have voted to let Kyle keep this rolls, in 
> >future I would strongly advocate a strict policy against 
> ever reusing 
> >rolls.
> >
> >Any chance we can forge consensus on these issues before the August 
> >moves?
> >
> >Nate
> 
>          My biggest concern with holding people to first 
> drafts of orders 
> is that I'm pretty sure we have never had a turn without an 
> error.  Everyone has made them and we all do it with some 
> frequency.  Unless we are also going to put in some kind of 
> checking system 
> to give some chance to notice those errors, I'm hesitant to 
> apply a once 
> you send the orders they are set in stone policy.
>          The you can only change them if it is important standard is 
> impractical since everyones standards of what is important 
> will never be 
> the same.  So I think if we're going to be less lenient, it 
> pretty much 
> needs to be across the board to prevent more arguments over 
> what makes a 
> move important.

I'm not sure I made myself clear.  I agree completely that we should be
allowed to correct errors in most cases.  My preference is that moves
can be taken back when

1) A player isn't at war or
2) a player is at war, but the player's opponent hasn't gone yet.

And even then, if the group concludes that the opponent's moves wouldn't
have been affected by making a correction, then a correction would still
be allowed.  We could base the judgement on if a move can be taken back
either with the consent of the opponent, or, if consent is not given, a
majority vote by the five uninvolved players.  

This is only asking a few players at any given time, under fairly
specific circumstances, to risk any consequences at all if their orders
aren't submitted as they intended them to be.  I don't think we'll ever
find ourselves in a position such that someone who is already crafting
their orders with great care, since they are in a war, couldn't spend
five minutes double checking that they wrote their orders the way that
they intended.

Thoughts?

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia