DAA Rag #4

Contents

• Forum
• Forthcoming Tournaments
• NSW Accommodation
• Australian Clubs
• DAA Tournament Results
• Letter from the DCOC Secretary
• Report from AGM
• Financial Statements (1995)
• Financial Statements (1996)
• DAA Cash Flow (from 1 Jan 1997)
• 1997 Vic Champs
• VDC Slush Fund
• Australian Diplomacy Mailing List Server
• DAA Web Page
• DAA Membership Cards
• 1997 Bismark Cup
• Master Points
• Editor's Contact Details

Forum

Some of the articles herein are reprints or summaries of discussions occurring on the mail server set up by Bob Blanchett (see later article).

Too Many Tournaments

I believe that we have ended up with quantity (many of tournaments each with a low turnout) instead of quality (fewer tournaments each with a good turnout). The simple fact is that back in what we might call the "good old days" (late 1980s to early 1990s) when we routinely got five to seven boards at tournaments (35 to 50 players). During that period we only had four diplomacy tournaments: The Australian Champs in Canberra over the Australia Day weekend, the Victorian Champs in Melbourne at Easter, the NSW Champs in Sydney over the Queen's Birthday weekend, and the South Australian Champs in October. These events achieved good turnouts, were a lot of fun, and were not a financial strain on the organisers. They were widely dispersed both geographically and throughout the year. Organisers back then would have laughed at the thought of a three board tournament, which is now the normal turnout!

Unfortunately, I think that these successful tournaments went to the head of the hobby, and by the mid-1990s it seems every man and his dog were rushing around, organising tournaments all over the place, whenever and wherever it suited them and their local interests. The great tournament circuit, or perhaps circus is a better description, was up and running. With up to ten tournaments being held during the year at the peak, attendance at each tournament was bound to drop off -- we all (well, except Craig Sedgwick perhaps) only have so many tournaments in us each year and it is easier to attend the local tournaments.

Now, there were other factors in the decline of tournaments, not least the collapse of the postal diplomacy hobby. However, I also feel that this plethora of tournaments may have contributed to that as well. Instead perhaps of launching a zine, aspiring Diplomatic organisers became caught up in the frenzy of tournament organisation. And the widespread availability of tournaments probably led to a drop-off in interest in postal diplomacy too -- resulting in the fracturing and decline of the diplomacy hobby overall.

So, it is my feeling that the hobby needs to go on a "diet" and return To the tried and true formula of yesteryear. We should limit our tournaments to a maximum of just four each year, as widely dispersed geographically and time wise as possible. Tournaments should be special and something to look forward too, not a dime a dozen as they have been for the past few years. Anything beyond this should be strongly discouraged in the overall interests of the hobby. Of course, people can still have house cons, like Ken is organising for the Labour Day weekend, or club functions, such as the regular or irregular VDC meetings.

I would argue that the Aust Champs (Australia Day), Vic Champs (Easter) and NSW Champs (Queen's Birthday) are clear candidates for three of the four tournaments. That leaves room for one more tournament latter in the year, in October/November -- where such a tournament should be is something that requires discussion. There seem to me to be two possible candidates based on recent history: Canberra and Jan Juc. If both tournaments still wish to run, perhaps they could be run on alternate years?

Finally, back in the mid-1980s the hobby was perhaps in a somewhat similar state to its current situation, with just a few zines, and a fairly small number of players. If we look at how the hobby was built up back then, we can learn lessons which should show us how to re-invigorate the hobby a decade later. The overall good of the hobby will be best served by concentrating on just a few events and devoting our energies to those.

I'd be very happy to hear comments on this matter, both by email, phone and regular mail as well.
John Cain
email: j.cain@unimelb.edu.au
phone: 03-98985783 (home)
postal: PO Box 4317, Melbourne University, 3052.

Colonial Diplomacy

I raise this because one of the purposes of the DAA (I have now read the constitution!) is to encourage variants of the game. I do not believe it will cost us anything, and it will bring more people into the one group.

I believe we should approach people who play and organise tournaments and make a suggestion along these lines.
Ian van der Werff

I won't be a supporter of tainting the Bismark Cup (for Australia's Premier DIPLOMACY player) by including a variant. If anyone wants to promote Colonial Dip then let them run a tournament (which the DAA can support) and provide an award for Australia's Premier VARIANT player (which I would happily compile). Variants such as Machiavelli, WWII etc could also be included.

I just don't know why people want to associate a variant such as Colonial with DIPLOMACY tournaments and with a DIPLOMACY award in the first place??? Would Wimbledon include Royal Tennis as part of their tournament to increase numbers? Is lightning chess part of normal chess tournaments?
Bill Brown

Let me second Bill's comments. The Bismark Cup was purchased as a perpetual trophy for the best DIPLOMACY player, not the best diplomacy and variants player. It was paid for by a group of eight (I think) hobby members, including myself and maybe Bill and/or Ken -- I cannot remember anymore - the donors names are on the Cup. Our intention was quite clearly that the Cup was to be awarded to the best Diplomacy player. I was and am a great supporter of diplomacy variants, but I never considered including them in the Bismark.
John Cain

World Dip Con

Lets get the hobby running properly before we have a go at this. We are a long way off doing it.
Ken Sproat

It was not really the DAA that hosted World DipCon II, it was just a group of individuals. Andrew England and myself were mainly responsible for bring WDC2 to Australia, with the support of many other members of the hobby, and I think Luke Clutterbuck was heavily involved in the organisation of the con itself. We may have used the DAA as a "flag of convenience" but in fact it really had nothing to do with it.

2002 sounds far enough away to me -- we would need to do a lot of work rebuilding the Australian hobby beforehand to ensure a reasonable turnout.
John Cain

Although I'm only new to Dip, I reckon a World Dip Con is a great idea... I mean, it's a great way to get more local interest... 2002 gives us plenty of time to get it organised too.
Micha Wotton

2-round Tournaments

DAA Tournament Rules

A few comments. Firstly, most of what Shane calls for is already the case. Most GMs will not interfere in the internal running of each game unless the players cannot agree, and GM involvement is required. However, conceded centres are able to affect the result of the entire tournament, and therefore I believe should not be allowed. Players are certainly allowed to play through to an agreed result, but in fairness to all players in the tournament, the game should not be allowed to finish ahead of time because of an agreement that has not been played through to in the proper manner. This is especially important in tournaments where a Time Draw might occur.
Editor

But relevant though my last comment is, a number of other people have commented upon the bureaucratic nature of the tournament rules. It has therefore been decided that the tournament rules produced by the DAA are now recommended for tournaments, but that the GM can amend the rules as seen fit. However, the rules that the GM wishes to use must be displayed at the tournament venue (as is the case with the scoring system).
Ian van der Werff

Bismark Cup

• All I can say is that the Bismark Cup was not originally established as being part of, or related to, the DAA. The Cup itself was donated by 10 individuals (including myself) whose intention was to establish some recognition for the best tournament Diplomacy player in Australia throughout the year. For this reason I have viewed the question of tournament affiliation with the DAA as being a separate matter (though perhaps related) to the eligibility of a tournament for inclusion in the Bismark Cup points for the year.
  John Cain

  • John is one of the first people I met upon arriving on the Dip scene. On megadip issues I have found myself almost always in agreement with John on all matters (no doubt it must be a surprise even to the opinionated John himself). But with respect John (I mean that), I cannot agree with you on this one.

    It is not so much that the Bismark Cup should come under the DAA umbrella. Rather, it should be seen that the Bismark Cup has now gained the respect and faith of players Australia-wide (including those who heard of it last week) such that it has become the standard gauge of a tournament player's performance.

    True, it was originally a conception of a core group of keen people. But alongside the Masterpoints system (longterm), it has become the most important rating (short term/annual) which everyone follows. No one cares about the Geraghty Cup or the Acme Rating! Only their Bismark points. Sane adults spend $$hundreds on travelling and accommodation to win the damn thing. Surely that is the ultimate accolade for those who conceived it. And the Cup screams out with JOHN CAIN's name on it - are you not a proud parent?

    If we are to promote (and to accept) the DAA as the well-organised, professional central body for the Dip hobby in Australia, then an important rating such as the Bismark must come within DAA jurisdiction.
    Tristan Lee

• Given that the Bismark Cup is supposed to acknowledge the best tournament player throughout the year, the hobby may wish to impose more stringent rules on inclusion of tournaments in it than we might for DAA affiliation. I think the DAA should be an "inclusive church", striving to bring as many tournaments as possible under its umbrella (within reason). But the Bismark Cup points might for example exclude tournaments where time draws are called very early (I do not believe 1905 is sufficient and would argue for a minium of at least 1908).
  John Cain

  • I'm not convinced by that argument. I think if a "tournament" is fair dinkum enough to be affiliated with the DAA, then it is good enough to be included for Bismark points. And vice-versa. I ask you to give examples where this may not be the case. I think the issue that you are alluding to is: whether an event is fair dinkum enough to be considered as a "tournament" or just a backyard games weekend. (i.e. 2 or 3 or 4 days? 2-round minimum or 3-round? 2-board minimum or 3-board?) Those are a different issue.
    Tristan Lee

    • Very well, some examples. I would argue that the DAA should affiliate a purely Colonial Diplomacy tournament if someone decided to organise one. I do not believe that the results of such a tournament should be included in the Bismark Cup. Likewise, what of a mixed tournament, where players could choose whether to play Diplomacy, Colonial or Machiavelli (the last two both being Diplomacy variants) each round? Or perhaps a tournament where only Diplomacy is played, but six player games are allowed? What about an "invitational" tournament, where entry is only available to invited players, not the "open" format currently in vogue? Quite apart from the early time draw issue, I do not accept the notion that DAA Affiliation equals Bismark Cup eligibility and vice versa. The normal goal of the DAA should be to affiliate all tournaments (within reason) but this should NOT equate to automatic Bismark Cup eligibility.
      John Cain

• Should all hobby matters go through and be run by the DAA? Or should we instead use a Custodianship model -- with certain parts of the hobby being the responsibility of one person (or a small committee) who takes responsibility for getting them done.
  John Cain
  • Not all matters should go thru DAA John, but an important one such as the Bismark Cup should.

    A custodianship model may work very well from time to time (as in the past and at present), but it is open to challenge. For instance, what if a significant hobby figure said to Bill (current Bismark custodian): "Who appointed you? Hand over so I can do it better!" But if Bill is the DAA Ratings Custodian (either voted in or appointed by the President), then the authority is formal.

    In practical terms, it makes no difference to current practice. But it is safer from the "hijacking" that you are worried about. (The reverse is worse. What if Bill turns to the Dark Side of the Force and, as Custodian, does things that you would never dream about? How will you stop him from changing the system as he feels like?)
    Tristan Lee

    • Ratings and other such functions are as good and as respected as the effort put into them by the person running them. If a hopeless or biased job is done, people will downgrade their opinion of them. Let us say for example that Harry Kolotas started a new CTPRS (Current Tournament Player Rating System) designed to measure current tournament performance over the past three years, rather than lifetime performance since 1988 as the Master Points do. People would take as much or as little notice of CTPRS as they felt like (I think they would take quite a bit of notice). Harry Kolotas would be the custodian because he thought the idea up and does the work required to maintain these ratings. If he hands them over to someone else then they become custodian. If someone sets up a competing system, good for them. Would you argue that if CTPRS became a success the DAA should take it over?

      Rolling everything into the DAA just adds a layer of bureaucratic nonsense to it all - why bother? Work, responsibility and power are better spread around, not centralised where some power mad maniac can wreak havoc, or (more likely) some apathetic future DAA Officers can allow it all to slide into nothing.
      John Cain

• What if the DAA returns to its normal state of apathy and inactivity? Or what if a "hobby faction" takes control of it and runs off in its own direction against the wishes of the majority of the hobby.
  John Cain
  • That's an unfair comment on the DAA. There were times of apathy & inactivity, but at any point of time it was by definition run by people who cared the most (even if they cared very little) and were chosen by the members to do it. Anyone else could have replaced the ineffective officers, but no one wanted to at the time.
    Tristan Lee
    • Actually, "apathy and inactivity" is a fair and accurate assessment of the DAA through most of its history in my opinion. The DAA was not normally run by the people who cared the most about the hobby - most of them believed there were better ways to serve the hobby - by publishing zines, running tournaments, looking after the Bismark Cup points, and so forth. Do not forget that the DAA was established simply as a figurehead.

      I fail to see any good reason for institutionalising the Bismark Cup (and even more so the Master Points) as part of the DAA. The DAA and its officers should stick to the core mission of the DAA: publicising and promoting the hobby. It should not become involved in, and distracted by, administration of a wide variety of hobby functions. The DAA has had two periods of some success, under Ken Sproat and under Ian van der Werff. They were successful because in practice they stuck to this core mission, rather than sticking their DAA fingers into every hobby pie in range.
      John Cain

  • DAA leadership cannot possibly impose things. If they act against wishes of majority of hobby, the members can simply FIRE them and reverse their decisions. It is that simple.

    John, no one will run away with the Bismark Cup!! No one will need to, because any 10 people can buy a silver cup and devise a rating system. But it will not gain the same respect as the Bismark Cup, especially if it is an official DAA rating.

    Hence I argue that the Bismark Cup (and the Masterpoints) should be officially administered by a DAA committee comprising:

    1. the DAA President
    2. the Ratings Custodian
    3. a third person appointed by the DAA.
    and in practice administered by the Custodian.
    Tristan Lee

A Seven Round Diplomacy Tournament?

Over Easter at the 1997 Victorian Diplomacy Championships, there was some discussion of the possibility of holding a seven round Diplomacy tournament. This would allow all players at the tournament to play each of the 7 nations once. The only real prospect for holding such a tournament would be over Easter (at some future VicDipChamps) as this is the only time of the year when there is a realistic possibility of playing for four days in a row.

The format of such a tournament would involve two games per day on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, with one game on the Monday. Time draws would of course be necessary, probably at around 1910 as a guide. With play starting at 9:00 am each day, a 30 minute lunch break would see a time draw at about 3:00 pm. The second round for the day would commence at 4:00 pm, with a 30 minute tea break seeing a time draw at about 9:30 pm.

Such a format would be somewhat tiring, with a maximum playing time of 10 hours each day for the first 3 days. However most tournament games end in an agreed draw at some stage around 1907 by my estimate, so actual playing time would probably average 7 hours per day. Obviously, this could not be something that occurred every year, but it might be feasible as a one-off event.

My reason for raising this is to gauge the reaction of potential players to such a tournament. Would you consider playing? Would it make you more likely to attend the tournament? Less likely to attend the tournament? Have no affect on your attendance? Any comments on the format? Or the desirability of such a tournament in the first place? Any other comments?

Feedback on this issue is most welcome, and can be sent to this zine, or to:
John Cain
email: j.cain@unimelb.edu.au
postal: PO Box 4317, Melbourne University, 3052.

Sure I'd play. From the time Ken Sproat first proposed it I have been in favour of the idea:

1. It's a unique experience (never been done in Australia)
2. Can be promoted as a DIPLOMACY EXTRAVAGANZA or AUSTRALIA'S PREMIER DIPLOMACY EVENT, etc
3. Will attract more players than the normal Easter Convention
4. Hopefully, by the time it will be held (the year 2000?), the hobby will be bigger and we can have the optimum number of players i.e. 49! It is possible to run with less, but wouldn't be worthwhile
5. It will be hard yakka, but as a one-off experience, everyone should try it
6. Will confirm (if we don't it know already) that Victoria is the centre of all things important in the hobby in Australia.

An excellent list of advantages. I also like the idea of staging it in the year 2000 -- that gives us plenty of time to plan, build up the hobby, and gives people (especially interstate people) plenty of notice so that they can plan to attend this one-off extravaganza. If we are going to do this, we should do it properly.

What I would hope is that we can discuss the possibilities of such a tournament during this year, not only on OZDIP-L but also in the zines, such as the DAA Rag. Then a decision on whether and when it should be staged can be made at the 1998 Victorian Diplomacy Championships next Easter. If it is decided to hold the extravaganza in 2000, that would give us 2 years to publicise the event and building up people's expectations.
John Cain

The idea of a 7-round tournament sounds great to me. Consider me in if it gets a favourable reaction from enough players (would 14 be enough?).

As for Easter being the only available time, why couldn't the tournament be split over two weekends? Obviously this eliminates travellers from interstate who have work commitments, but if any one city has enough interested players it could work over two weekends.
Jason Whitby

Well, as Bill has pointed out, ideally you would need at least 49 players, which would mean you would not play any other player twice (as well as getting to play all seven countries).

Such a tournament would be a major effort, and I certainly think it should be available to interstate players -- so it would really have to be Easter. It would be great if we could get some players from WA, Queensland and even overseas (especially New Zealand) too. With plenty of notice this should be possible.
John Cain

Tournament Numbers

Contents

Forthcoming Tournaments

1997 NSW Diplomacy Championship

Location:	with SAGA '97
		Canterbury Girls High School
		Church Road
		Canterbury
Date:		7-9 June, 1997
Liaison:	Craig Sedgwick
		02 9661 3926,  015 894 670
		Harry Kolotas
		02 9975 1538
GM:		tba
Format:		3 rounds over 3 days
Scoring System:	tba
Cost:		$30

1997 QUGS Diplomacy Championship

Location:	University of Queensland
		Union complex
Date:		26-27 July, 1997
Liaison:	Gary Johnson
		12 Montrose Road
		Taringa   QLD   4068
		07 3371 4325
		Gary.J@mailbox.uq.edu.au
GM:		Gary Johnson
Format:		4 rounds over 2 days
Cost:		$15

1. Games of fixed duration (Fall 1906)
2. Entries close 11 July - only preregistrations accepted, no registrations on the day!
3. Prizes for first 3 places

1997 ACT Diplomacy Championship

Location:	Slovenian-Australian Assoc.
Date:		4-6 October, 1997
Liaison:	Doug Stewart
GM:		tba
Format:		3 rounds over 2 days
		Colonial on day 3
Scoring System:	tba
Cost:		$5 for Colonial only
		$10 for a single round
		$20 for the full tournament

1997 Don Challenge Cup

Location:	Melbourne Chess Club?
Date:		Nov/Dec
Liaison:	Tristan Lee
GM:		tba
Format:		3 rounds over 2 days
Scoring System:	tba
Cost:		tba

1998 NT Diplomacy Championship

Location:	Alice Springs
Date:		mid-January (during the week)
Liaison:	Andy Turner
GM:		John Cain
Format:		3 rounds over 4 days (rest day)
Scoring System:	tba
Cost:		tba

1998 Australian Diplomacy Championship

Location:	CanCon '98
		Canberra
Date:		24-26 January 1998
Liaison:	Ken Sproat
GM:		tba
Format:		3 rounds over 3 days
Scoring System:	tba
Cost:		tba

World Dip Con VIII

Location:	Chapel Hill
		North Carolina, USA
Date:		22-24 May  1998

Contents

NSW Accommodation

• Palm Court Motel, 17 Parramatta Rd, $105 twin, 3 1/2 star, (02) 9797-6111
• Marco Polo Motor Inn, 42 Parramatta Rd, $80 twin, 3 star, (02) 9798-4311
• Metro Motor Inn, 63 Liverpool Rd (Hume Hwy), $76 twin, 2 1/2 star, (02) 9798-0333
• Westside Inn - 85 Liverpool Rd (Hume Hwy), $65 twin, 2 star, (02) 9797-7711

There is also Backpacker style at Orana Lodge, 407 Marrickville Rd, Dulwich Hill, for $20 night. Buses can be caught from across the road to the venue. Ph (02) 9550-0054

Craig & Harry have also offered to run a shuttle service to the tournament if it is required, but they will need to know in advance.

Contents

Australian Clubs

MIDDSOC

For those Sydneysiders who want to check out the club, rock up at any time on any Friday evening to Rear 53 Tavistock Ave, Hurstville. There's always about three or four one-turn-per-week games of Diplomacy there, with new ones starting every month or two.

The Diplomacy Club of Canberra (DCOC).

The Perth Diplomacy Club.

Queensland University Games Society.

Also "traditional" boardgames (Chess, Draughts, Scrabble, etc) every Friday night (7-10pm) in the Philosophy Common Room in the Forgan Smith Building.

Victorian Diplomacy Club (VDC).

Contents

DAA Tournament Results

1997 Victorian Championship

				      Points
1st place:	Jason Whitby		58
2nd place:	Rohan Keane		40
3rd place:	Bill Brown		40
4th place:	Rob Stephenson		33
5th place:	Gary Bekker		32
6th place:	Ken Sproat		31
7th place:	Richard Orme		31

Best Countries:
Austria:	Craig Sedgwick		16
Italy:		Bill Brown		14
France:		David Currell		14
England:	Rohan Keane		14
Germany:	Rohan Keane		10
Russia:		Stephen Muzzatti	13
Turkey:		Jason Whitby		18

Best Novice:	David Blom
Best Newcomer:	Daniel Jacobs

Contents

Letter from the DCOC Secretary

The tournament organiser will be Doug Stewart. The Venue will be the Slovenian-Australian Association, 19 Irving Street, Philip.

In an Email you acknowledged that non-DAA members could organise tournaments. However there is currently no way for non-members to keep up to date (eg. Doug has received no DAA newsletters) with rule changes and therefore it is unclear how they may be eligible to run a DAA sanctioned event.

On the subject of monies allegedly owed to the DAA, firstly in regard to the Nationals in 1996 run by Andrew Goff, there was NIL profit from this (for DCOC). However Andrew Goff assured both of us that all liabilities including DAA fees would be covered. Secondly in relation to October 1996, DCOC calculated it owed $3 per full time player, a total of $48 for the 16 full time players attending. The club withheld $18 because no advertising by the DAA was forthcoming. Promotion of the hobby is the first stated aim of the DAA in its Articles, and this must include advertising outside the converted. Consequently DCOC is forwarding $30 in full payment of its October 1996 fees.

In addition we wish to point out that in 1996 we paid $60 to Gareth Collins to offset his losses for the Maroubra Classic. As it was the then DAA President's stated intention that the DAA should run tournaments nationally, receiving income and paying liabilities, Gareth's $180 loss is a DAA liability. To date we unaware of any further funds being forwarded from the DAA or any of the other member clubs. Also in March 1994, DCOC donated $50 to help establish the DAA, for which we have a signed letter acknowledging receipt (refer K. Sproat). Suffice to say this clearly demonstrates DCOC's generous support of the DAA.

If the current intention of the DAA remains to not include advertising of the hobby and upcoming tournaments, then DCOC is adamant that no DAA fees shall be due. Advertising is a necessity - the DAA rag is a luxury.

Personal opinion
The intentions of the DAA were threefold: (a) to promote the hobby, (b) to provide liability protection for the organisers and (c) to organise the hobby on a National basis to remove tournament clashes and ensure consistency of rules.

The DAA has finally achieved liability protection, but now proposes to ditch it. The other two items have not been achieved, nor largely attempted.

Failing any attempt to actively achieve the stated aims of the DAA, Andrew and I propose the immediate disbandment of the DAA. We propose that an informal collective of interested parties, including organisers, run the hobby instead.
Doug Stewart & Andrew Geraghty
NOTE: This article may be reproduced, but must not be edited in any manner.

While the provision of liability insurance may have been one of the driving forces behind the creation of the DAA, it is not one of the purposes (as identified in the constitution) of the DAA.
Editor

Contents

Report from AGM

There were two notified remits to be voted on:

1. That the DAA not renew its public liability tournament insurance covering tournament organisers, given that there are currently only 2 tournaments that require this coverage (ACT and Don Challenge)
   PASSED
2. Given that the first remit is successful, that the $1/player/game Tournament Affiliation Fee still be charged in order to fund any possible promotional activities that the DAA may want to engage in.
   PASSED

President:		Stephen Muzzatti
Secretary:		Ian van der Werff
Returning Officer:	Andrew Goff

Two other issues were raised from the floor, and discussed and voted on:

DAA strongly recommends that organisers publish financial statements for tournament (as a guide for future tournament organisers)
PASSED

That the DAA promote the Diplomacy tournament at Dwarfcon (on the same weekend as the NSW tournament)
DEFEATED

Contents

Financial Statements (1995)

Income
	Tournaments		348.00
	Subscriptions		 95.00
	Donations		180.00
Total Income			623.00

Expenses
	Filing Fee		 32.00
	Mailing Costs		144.45
	Insurance		346.50
Total Expenses			522.95

Excess Income over Expenditure $100.05

Assets
	Cash on Hand	       $232.90

Equity
	At start		132.85
	Income over Expenditure	100.05
Total Equity		       $232.90

Contents

Financial Statements (1996)

Income
	Tournaments (Note 1)	261.00
	Subscriptions (Note 2)	 34.00
Total Income			295.00

Expenses
	Mailing Costs		  4.50
	Stationery		 10.85
	Newsletter (Note 3)	 36.75
	Toll Calls (Note 4)	 45.75
	Insurance		363.85
Total Expenses			461.70

Excess Expenditure over Income $166.70

Assets
	Cash on Hand		$66.20

Equity
	At start		232.90
	Expenditure over Income 166.70
Total Equity			$66.20

Notes:

1. Affiliation fee for ACT tournament not received by 31/12/96.
2. 17 members at $2.
3. Issues #1 and #2. Negligible costs for #1 due to co-operation of zines.
4. To Andrew Goff, for toll calls as President of DAA.

Contents

DAA Cash Flow (from 1 Jan 1997)

Item					 $	  $
Initial Cash Balance (1/1/97)			 66.20

Income
  Subscriptions, '97		       125.00
  Affiliation Fees:
    ACT Championships '96		30.00
    Australian Championship '97		63.00
    Victorian Championships '97		82.00
Total Income					300.00

Expenses
  DAA Rag #3				41.20
  Stamps				 6.40
  Photocopies (for AGM)			 3.85
  Filing Fee (Inc. Assoc) (x2)		64.00
Total Expenses					115.45

Cash Balance as at     30/4/97		       $250.75

• Andrew Cheevers repaid all money owing.
• All tournaments have paid their affiliation fees.

Contents

1997 Vic Champs

Financial Statement

Income			       $252.00

Expenses
  Trophies			145.00
  Trophy tokens			 13.50
  GM Expenses			 23.95
  DAA Affiliation Fee		 82.00
  Publicity			 29.75
  50% of assistant GMs dinners	 12.00
Total Expenses		       $306.20

Net Result		       -$54.20

The deficit has been absorbed by the Victorian Diplomacy Slushfund.
John Cain, VDC97 Organiser, 9 April 1997

Contents

VDC Slush Fund

Financial Statement

Opening balance (pre-Conquest)	$110.00
Conquest 97 loss		-$55.00
Closing balance as at 09.04.97	 $55.00

Contents

Australian Diplomacy Mailing List Server

In summary, by signing onto the mail server, you will receive all mail sent to the server by anyone else who is also signed on, and similarly you will be able to send mail. The advantage of a mail server is that you only have to send mail to one address in order for it to be read (and commented on?) by everyone else on the list.

To sign on to the mail list, send an email to:

• Majordomo@thingy.apana.org.au

Include the following line in the body of the message:

• subscribe ozdip-l (ie, L, not "one")

You will soon receive a reply. About 6 or 7 lines down you will see a similar line to this:

• auth 8028032f subscribe ozdip-l
• kenspr@euphoria.bay.net.au

Cut and paste this line to the body of a new message to:

• Majordomo@thingy.apana.org.au.

You will then receive a reply which says:

• >>>> auth 8028032f subscribe ozdip-l
• kenspr@euphoria.bay.net.au
• Succeeded.
• >>>>

To send you own messages, email your thoughts to:

• ozdip-L@thingy.apana.org.au

Of course, all the above assumes that you have access to the internet! Happy reading.
Editor (with thanks to Ken Sproat)

Contents

DAA Web Page

• http://www.triode.net.au/~muz/ozdip.htm

Tell me how it looks, tell me what to write about the DAA, and what I should do about telling people what Diplomacy is (ie, should I put in a link to another dip page that tells people what diplomacy is? Or should I put in a version on this page??) Any other advice or comments are welcome.
Thanks, Stephen Muzzatti

Contents

DAA Membership Cards

Contents

1997 Bismark Cup

• Australian Diplomacy Championship
• Victorian Diplomacy Championship

     Placing	State			      Total
	1	VIC	Jason Whitby		98
	2	VIC	Bill Brown		93
	3	NSW	Harry Kolotas		87
	4	VIC	Rohan Keane		60
	5	VIC	Garry Bekker		55
	6	ACT	Tri Vo			53
	7	NSW	Craig Sedgwick		51
	8	ACT	David Gould		46
	9	VIC	Rob Stephenson		45
	10	VIC	Ian van der Werff	36
	11	VIC	Ken Sproat		35
		VIC	Tristan Lee		35
	13	ACT	Andrew Goff		32
		NSW	Stephen Muzzatti	32
	15	VIC	Richard Orme		30
	16	NSW	Geoff Kerr		27
	17	VIC	David Currell		20
		VIC	Frank Meerbach		20
	19	VIC	Shane Beck		17
	20	ACT	Luc Gentet		15
		NSW	Alwyn Patterson		15
	22	VIC	David Blom		14
		SA/NT	Andy Turner		14
	24	ACT	Troy Anderton		13

11 points:
Andrew Bushby, Daniel Jacobs, Phil Orme, Dugal Ure

8 points:
Bob Blanchett, Chris Goff, Leigh Gold, Paul Goldie, Shaun Gunn, Andrew Harding, Simon Morton, Gareth Schofield, Pedro Silva, Roland Wallander

5 points:
David Astley, Robert de Graaf, Paul Drake, Gavan Lim-Joon, Joshua Martin, Ian McAlpine, Richard Nolan, Frank Tarcasio

Notes:

• 49 players have attended Tournaments in 1997 and played 21 games
• Australian title was rated a 3+1 board tournament
• Victorian convention was rated a 4+1 board tournament

Contents

Master Points

Contents

The "DAA Rag"

Editor:	Ian van der Werff   (DAA Secretary)
	GPO Box 170B
	Melbourne  VIC   3001

	Phone/Fax: 	(03) 9663 8572
	Mobile:		(0419) 329 766
	email:		ivdw@acslink.net.au