"Kat, you're the one who started the adhoms."

Let's see. "Do you have an answer that doesn't simply amount to "that's the way we want it"?" I don't speak for the people or myself. I was speaking in logic, but you straw manned my argument. To me, that's an insult of the highest order, but let's put that aside.

I suggested you learn to read arguments properly. You then accused me of having delicate emotional needs (again making it personal). That's definitely an ad hominem even if the first one wasn't so much.

You started the ad hominems, you started the shoddy arguing tactics, you started being unnecessarily rude, and I responded as I should have done for that kind of reception my reasoned logic was getting.

What Idrut has said was what I was referring to when I said that it makes no sense to have instantaneous retreats online. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but I figured it was common sense that easily arose from if you played both FtF and online. Clearly that assumption was a mistake on my part.

I'm still waiting for your apology on the refusal to take my arguments seriously and on the initiation of ad hominem responses by you.

A few points
1. THE Rulebook, the rules have been rewritten or were reviewed about 6 times by the original designer as well as hobby people over the course of its 50 years. The rules are geared toward Face to Face play. The idea of no discussion during adjustments and retreats is MOSTLY to speed up the game and also the view that in the case of the retreats the action is taken more as a matter of on the spot choices.

2. The rules were written to cover BOTH the case where the player leaves the table and where a player totally screws up his order.

3. In face to face, world class tournaments, there have been numerous variations on the Removal Rule in CD, and a few attempts at the retreat rule just to cover player screw ups in orders, as well as the CD situation.
We almost had a complete revision of the removal rules in the 1999 board game rulebook but an unfortunate internal issue in editing by Hasbro messed it up. The new rules were a direct copy and a NON-reviewed version at that.

4. In the net world, there are places that use a different approach to the removal of units that have not been ordered. One such place is www.Stabbeurfou.org and I think the other is 18Centres.com(but I do not recall exactly what this one does). These variations tend to be in the House Rules

For those that care, this is my approach

1. In FtF games: no discussion 20 seconds and time runs out.
No build if not written, retreats: off the board, for removals the sequence is:
a. Non owned space
b. Non owned space not adjacent to an owned center
c. fleets before armies
d. then alphabetical

2. For email: short deadline between moves, negotiations allowed and in deed encouraged. If no orders in a build I prefer an AI build or a sequence such as For England and Italy: Fleet then army then fleet starting at London and Naples, for all others Army-Army-Fleet starting at capital.
Removals as above.
It should also be pointed out that I am in a very small minority on the views on builds and most overwhelmingly prefer miss order=no builds, though most prefer the removal sequence of adjustments as I outlined above.

"I'm still waiting for your apology on the refusal to take my arguments seriously and on the initiation of ad hominem responses by you."

I guess I didn't understand the point you were trying to make, Kat, and I did not choose my words carefully enough.

I'm sorry if you felt slighted or offended.

DD

...Thanks. I apologize for overreacting.

in the sequence above... non owned- meant to say non-supply center space

On the same topic- why does a country with no valid retreats just have its units destroyed?
Other sites follow this rule.
Same goes for a country that has no sc's but still must disband...
Annoying!