Re: [eia] voluntary access

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For what it's worth, I was just going to say that I agreed with Mike's
interpretation of my access announcement.

-JJY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] voluntary access


>
> JJ wrote:
> > At 10:57 AM 8/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> > >OK, then, I'll state more specific conditions for my voluntary access
to
> > >Austria, Prussia, Spain, and Turkey:
> > >
> > >1.)  Access is to last so long as:
> > >      a.)  The power is allied to Great Britain.
> > >      b.)  The power is not allied with France.
> > >
> Then Mike wrote:
> > Since we're talking how access works, I'll chime in.  How I read this is
> > that once condition 1 is violated in either clause a or b, corps from
the
> > countries granted access would then have to ask permission anew to enter
> > British territory.  Forces already within British territory would not be
> > affected by the violation of clause one and would continue to have
access
> > until they departed British territory in such a way that rescinding
access
> > to return would not block their ability to return from whence they came.
> >
>
>     My first instinct was to say that if a player violates a condition of
> access, then they must leave immediately.  But I see why that would open a
> can of worms that would be difficult to deal with.  Let me illustrate.
> Suppose Prussia makes use of JJ's access conditions to garrison Ireland
(who
> knows why).  Then Prussia breaks its alliance with Great Britain (for some
> reason).  How exactly can we demand that the Prussian troops leave
> (especially considering that Prussia does not have a fleet)?  If we were
to
> make such a demand, what would the time-table be?  How would it be
enforced?
>     See what I mean?  Thinking that guest troops must leave immediately
when
> an access condition has been violated would force us to re-write large
> sections of the rules (as some of us were trying to do with regard to the
> limited access rules - which, as far as I know, were never completely
> resolved).
>     This train of thought leads me to believe that Mike is right.  When
> foreign troops have been invited in, nothing can make them leave.  All
JJ's
> conditions can do is restrict any new corps from entering British
territory.
>     So, basically, we're left trying to make sense of almost unworkably
> vague rules.  The rules state that a country can set conditions on access,
> that a player may set any condition he likes, and that other players
*must*
> obey the conditions set.  This cannot mean that the Prussians (in my
> previous hypothetical example) are not allowed to break their alliance
with
> GB or form an alliance with France.  Other countries' foreign policies
> cannot be held hostage to the voluntary access rules.  The only
> interpretation I can figure that makes sense is Mike's interpretation:
> namely, the condition must be satisfied at the time of entry.  After the
> troops are in your territory, all bets are off.  (Of course, if the
> conditions are something that the other power *can* abide by - like not
> entering a capital city or only entering certain provinces - then those
> conditions must be obeyed.  We might distinguish here between the latter
> type of example - what I would call "restrictions on access" - and the
> former type of example - what I would call a "condition of entry".
> According to this classification scheme, JJ's conditions 1a) and 1b) above
> would be "conditions of entry" while his condition 2) would be a
> "restriction on access".
>
>     So that's what I think we are stuck with if we stick to the rules as
> they are written.  At the end of the day, though, I find all of this
> somewhat unsatisfying.  It seems to me that there should be some mechanism
> for ejecting forces that are no longer welcome in your country.  Perhaps
if
> we can settle on a particular revision of the limited access rules, we
could
> apply that revision to this case as well.  In any case, I agree with
Mike's
> point that it would be better to resolve these questions before they
matter.
> I hope we can do so quickly.
>
> kdh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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