On 6/28/20 9:43 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Sorry, I didn't get around to reading these until now. Thanks for > going to the effort to write these! Comments inline. > >> 4. The judge is the final arbitor on matters of this tournament, and eir >> decisions can overturned if and only if a CFJ finds eir decisions were > > "can overturned"
Fixed. > >> 8. At any time, any Contestant CAN submit a Proposal to change the rules >> by announcement. Any Contestant CAN withdraw any Proposal e has >> submitted by announcement. When a Proposal has been submitted but not >> withdrawn, any Contestant other than the Proposer CAN privately send a >> vote to the Judge. When a Proposal has received at least three >> non-withdrawn votes in favor, the Judge SHALL, in a timely fashion, and >> CAN enact the proposal by publishing the new text of the regulations and >> the number of votes in favor and against. The Judge SHALL NOT reveal the >> votes of specific Contestants. > > Will this bog down the game once four players are eliminated from the > board but have majority voting power? Yes, so I've modified it. > >> 10. Contestants SHALL NOT offer favors outside of this Tournament in >> order to influence the outcome of it. Contestants CAN and SHOULD lie and >> engage in deceit for personal gain. > > I think it would be good to forbid pledges, contracts or any other > enforcable agreements too. Added. > >> 16. Each turn represents six months of time. The first turn is called a >> Spring turn and the next a Fall turn. After each Fall turn, each Great >> Power must reconcile the number of units it controls with the number of >> supply centers it controls. At this time some units are removed and new >> ones are built. After a Fall turn, if one Great Power controls 18 or >> more supply centers, all other Contestants cease to be Contestants. > > Maybe add "as specified elsewhere in these regulations" after "new > ones are built"? I was confused when I first read this regulation that > it's e.g. missing the requirement that you only build at home. Added. > > Also, I didn't realize I'm supposed to include this as conditionals in > my orders for the turn until re-reading. You might want to remind > players. I'll include a reminder. > >> 19. If two units of equal strength or which are equally supported are >> trying to occupy the same province, all remain where they began. If two >> or more units are ordered to the same province, none of them can move. > > Shouldn't the one with more support win? Yes, fixed > >> If two units are each ordered to the province that the other occupies, >> neither can move. > > Same (or is my Diplomacy knowledge rusty?) My understanding is that this is correct. > >> If an attack is successful, the attacking unit moves >> into the province to which it was ordered. If the unit that was attacked >> had no orders of its own to move elsewhere, it’s defeated and dislodged >> from the province. The dislodged unit must retreat or be disbanded. > > "Attack" isn't defined. Would it make sense to phrase more neutrally > in terms of "move"? > > - Falsifian > These changes are significant enough that I'll do a new version, my apologies for rushing this, but I'll allow more discussion first. -- ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
