Michael Gorman on Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:29:00 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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


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. In general, I'm also pretty unhappy with reusing rolls when you can change your orders. In this case, however, I think Kyle is quite justified. He made his moves and made his rolls and then the placement of the opposing force changed. If he had made his rolls and then he wanted to just change his moves, I would agree that that is not reasonable.


eia mailing list