Well, kind of
https://intergofed.org/documents/member ... onduct.pdf

Hands up who hasn't seen these broken.

The really good thing about those conduct rules is being concise. Roughly speaking, the contents looks about reasonable, except for the following.

It remains unclear what, in IGF view, belongs to conduct and what to non-conduct tournament rules. If one puts abiding by doping tests under conduct, then why not also clock and move handling, which are more closely related to the game? Maybe because the IGF envisions also some tournament ruleset later?

Is abiding by doping tests really conduct? That is an euphemism for abiding by the doping rules, namely the IGF Anti-Doping Regulations.

Does the IGF Board really want to bother itself with complaints about single players' conduct? Maybe it should delegate such tasks to some IGF commission, which could be formed.

The most dubious clause is "a breach of the laws of the host nation [...may result in the most severe sanctions]". Why only the laws of the host nation and not also international laws? Why at all? The most easily imagined application of an IGF tournament player allegedly breaking the laws of the host nation is freedom of speech or written word with perceived criticism of the Chinese gouvernment. E.g., a pocket PC imported to China with a file in it containing a censored phrase like "Nobel Prize" or even just "democracy". I.e., applying one's human rights can be treated as if it were a breach of Chinese law. What does such a clause have to do in IGF conduct rules?! It is inappropriate! If the IGF just wants to avoid political demonstrations at IGF events, then instead it could set such a conduct rule (and that was done before). The current clause is much more far-reaching though; the IGF even claims to assume power to enhance the host nation's police and judicative powers by adding further punishment. The clause is so dangerous that it must be altered as quickly as possible, even if its current wording is just the result of carelessness.

I wonder whether "the laws of the host nation" is just a bad translation to English for what is meant to be "the rules of play and the tournament rules declared for usage by the host nation's go association".

Robert: I don't think it's a mistranslation. There are native English speakers within the IGF, it all reads naturally, and as it correctly has "fair play" instead of "sportsmanship" it clearly wasn't written by a German

Whether your alarm is justified, I'm not sure. The actual paragraph is quoted below. Any organisation needs to have some sort of sanction for cases where one of its members embarrasses it (e.g. by smuggling drugs into the country).

In the case you cite, if someone was invited to an IGF event in China and got arrested for making a noise about the Nobel Prize, although it would be easy to sympathise with their beliefs, I personally would find it hard to approve of their abuse of the invitation.

But then I think the version of Human Rights with a capital H and capital R is a load of sanctimonious hooey.


Infringements of the Code of Conduct may result in the Board of the IGF issuing a warning, verbal or
written, to the player, with a letter sent to the player's National Association. Repeated infringements
at one or more events, or a single infringement of a serious nature, or failure to pass an authorised
drug test, or a breach of the laws of the host nation, may at the discretion of the Board result in the
disqualification of the player from the current tournament, or from future IGF events for a set period
or for life.

Being a participant of a sports event does not rob him of his human rights etc. Although during the progress of a tournament he should be reasonably silent at the venue so as not to disturb the players, he does not lose his right to, e.g., freedom of religion. Suppose outside the tournament rooms and schedules he practices his religion together with others; something others have been arrested for in China. Despite his human rights, he might get a punishment by China's officials. Now the IGF conduct rules, if meaning what saying on the surface, allow further penalties by the IGF. Don't tell us that that would be just.

If other specific things (like abusing an IGF event to immigrate permamently instead of playing go) are intended, then those should be mentioned explicitly. (However, I welcome any North Korean fleeing via, e.g., China.) Actually such problems exist. E.g., some Nigerians, which could not indicate convincingly to have been Go players, tried to get to the EU by getting visas to attend EGCs.

A too general, too unspecific rule is a great mistake though.

Robert, you're painting an egregiously critical caricature of China.

Not of China in general but of the Chinese gouvernment and those fulfilling their intentions. The by far vast majority of Chinese people is as friendly as everybody else in the world. It is the Chinese gouvernment's politics, which in some respects is very contrary to human rights, that I criticise. It is not caricature at all: When entering China and / or applying for a visa, I had to sign not to import what amounts to gouvernment criticism. Crimes against humanity of the Chinese gouvernements during the past decades are well documented but off-topic for this forum. Among the likely countries where IGF events are held, only China has these problems.

If you're so against their human rights activities, why did you even go there? You implicitly support the government by going to the country and spending your money there. If you really believe what you say, you'll not only not go there, but you won't buy any Chinese goods. All the rest is hot air.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

That's news to me. I'm pretty sure that most businesses in China aren't state-owned (although many of the large ones still are, as far as I know). And even if they were, I don't think travelling to a country and spending time in it necessarily implies support for the country's current government. (There are after all many people who live in democratic countries quite happily, who don't support the current government...)

I don't wish to get involved in a long debate about politics, by the way - I just found this statement rather surprising.

There is a prime problem, whether you agree with the activities of particular governments or not, when you are invited to an international event, be it the Olympics, Asian Games or World Amateur. You are there to represent your country in someone else's country in the particular sport you practice. If you feel that you need to represent something else, be it human rights, religious freedoms or wish to protest against anything, you have to decide what your prime interest is. If you then subordinate the representation of your country to the other activities, then you break the rules under which you were invited and, possibly, the laws of the country where the event took place. Let us say, for example, that I had taken the opportunity of visiting China for the World Amateur earlier this year to unfurl a banner in Beijing criticising Chinese policy on Tibet. Naturally, it would be found that I had been invited by the Chinese Go Association, the International Go Federation and the British Go Association to take part in the World Amateur, not to take part in political actions. I would have embarrassed them all and, for the BGA at least, I would expect no further invitations to such events. Some weasel argument could be invented that I had a right, or even a duty, to do so after the WAGC was finished, but I should only do that on my own time and money. When you join an association or club, you agree to abide by the rules and by-laws, just as you do when you join a Go server or chatroom. There is the phrase "bringing into disrepute" where the parent association is embarrasssed by the activities of a member.

Best wishes.

_________________
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk

Of course, every time I enter some country with a doubtful gouvernment I consider very carefully whether it a) agrees with my conscience and b) supports human rights violations. Not buying goods or services of such a country is a two-folded sword: Usually it hurts the people much more than the gouvernment. Therefore tha latter is not as clearcut as you suggest. More details are off-topic for this thread though.

It all sounds like the Nazi Olympics discussion.

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

TMark, you mix several things that should not be mixed.

Human rights are not void because of entering a specific country or because of being invited or because of being paid a journey. Rather human rights remain valid independently of that.

Not all international tournaments are country-representation tournaments.

When a tournament is country-based, then representing the country is a somewhat artificial construction. It is more of representing the pride of a country's go association, i.e., not even the go assiciation, but only its pride. If it were about representing go assiciations, then politicians rather than strongest players should participate in such international tournaments.

Different organizations or federations can have different attitudes towards what constitutes good representation. E.g., some organizations might consider it to be good to maintain human rights quite like always doing so in non-tournament life - some other organizations might consider it to be good to remove part of their players' human rights. Likewise the IGF might prefer either way.

However, I do think that highest human right courts or highest European courts would consider the latter preference to be a disallowed violation of human rights. E.g, - to state a somewhat extreme but therefore also clear example - it is not like such courts would agree to a national go association's or the IGF's request towards players to remain silent when police enters tournament rooms to publicly torture a particular player as a punishment for his usage of freedom of speech.

OART, my conscience was tested much more when, as a WAGC participant, I was surprised to learn that traditionally this also involves the additional job of representing the German Go Association at the IGF's annual general meeting and that, on behalf of the association, I was supposed to support anti-doping in its then-designed form by remaining silent about the topic at the meeting or by leaving the room to fake my missing responsibility. Michael Marz (president of the association) and Martin Stiassny (European IGF director) put quite a lot of pressure on me but the longer I thought about the matter the clearer my conscience became: Whereabouts doping tests and related personal data collection violate UN human rights, EU human rights, KSZE human rights German basic rights and various related laws. Thus came the deal to dissolve the issue in talks between IGF directors and me before the IGF meeting (so that it then could be a peaceful meeting on the surface) and to abandon the concept of whole-year whereabouts testing and excessive whereabouts data collection. This is in agreement with my conscience, the German association was happy because there would be no fuss about a non-WAGC-player German IGF representative and presumably also the IGF is happy because excessive costs for too many and too wide-spread anti-doping tests could be avoided. - As you see, associations or the IGF do not have the power (and I also think they do not have the right) to oppress the players' human rights, not even partially. - I would have had no problem if the German go association had chosen another person to represent it at the IGF meeting but I was not willing to sacrifice my earned qualification as a WAGC player and might have defended my right to my human rights at the courts, if I had been cancelled as a player on the grounds of not agreeing to cut down my own human rights.

Human rights are a higher value than sports fairness. Also therefore I am disappointed that some go politicians try to reverse that. If they succeeded with such politics, then the tournaments would become worth nothing. So no, Kirk, it is not just hot air - instead it is at the core of mankind's civilization. Human rights must always be upheld - also in tournaments and in go associations and federations!

I'm a bit confused, Robert. You seem to have some issues about agreeing with people. It seems to me, as TMark pointed out, that if you were to be a representative of your country for an event, then you are, indeed, acting as a representative, a bit of a diplomat. If you can't accept that, you shouldn't represent your country. You can't separate your position as someone selected to act in the name of your country (be it by a go association, or other type of association) and say that, well, they selected my to represent them, but I really don't want to.

The same goes for any position as a representative of your go association. You may disagree with the association's decisions, but, unless you refuse to accept that (assuming this is the case, of course) these decisions were arrived at democratically, and wish to create a schism, then you simply must support the positions of that association. (I'd point out that the same is the way people do things in business, or in politics.) If you disagree that much with a group, and can't sublimate your views to those of the majority, then you should leave the group.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Robert, I know you think like a mathematician so you feel the need to set up an axiom and then derive everything from that.

But, apart from the fact that not everyones thinks that way, there are certain things that cannot really be axiomatic. Human rights is one. It is no more than a relatively recent and questionable belief system, like being green, which some people regard almost as a religion. But not everyone wants to be religious. I'm sure you recall Lucretius, even two thousand years ago, warning of the tyranny of religion, which shattered men's happiness, in De Rerum Natura.

In nature other species seem to get by without rights, so it is not instantly obvious why humans need them, but even if you accept that there is something within humans that impels us to aspire to something that encapsulates our feeling of being civilised, it doesn't have to be what is now classed as human rights. Every age has its fads. For a long time chivalry (sports fairness?) was regarded as the highest ideal. Even if you think rights are the summum bonum, they don't have to be individual rights. Many societies value family or tribal rights over individual ones.

You are entitled to believe in individual human rights, of course, but that doesn't mean that you should force the IGF or its members to share your "religion". And the fact that you have a preferred way of thinking does not mean that the IGF or its members have to share that, either. Their choice of a flexible and pragmatic way of operating has much to commend it. I don't think their code needs amending.

While there are questions of principle, it matters a lot what the facts are. Robert was imagining that you would be prosecuted for carrying a computer that contains the bare phrase "nobel prize". That would obviously be intolerable, but it seems unlikely.

What are the actual cases of Westerners getting in trouble for literature (whether digital or physical) that they brought in to China? Of course it would be hard to distinguish cases where they intended to distribute the literature from cases where it was intended for personal use. I don't think the distinction makes much of a moral difference, but it might matter for our discussion about proper behavior for an international representative.

_________________
When you think your opponent has made a mistake, that's when you should be the most cautious.

Of course mountains and molehills come into the equation, though that never stops trolls.

If you take everything at face value, you might assume that the English signs at the Pearl Tower in Shanghai apply generally in China, in which case western go tourists would have a tough time.

Many of them wouldn't get in under the Tower's rule that says "The ragamuffin, drunken people and psychotics are forbidden to enter the Tower."

Many others might not make it through carrying forbidden items such as swords or a "metal-made electric appliance".

The remainder would then have to sweat on the test as to whether they have "The peculiar smell of effluvium."

Of course, many might not even make it to China in the first place if they booked a flight via Heathrow

First of all, go players in tournaments act as go players. They have not qualified for the sake of acting as diplomats. That in practice they also perform delegation jobs is just a compromise to save costs of flight tickets.



A go player must play go. A politician must make politics. These two things are separate issues. A strong player need not be a strong politician and vice versa. Therefore one should not expect players to act as politicians automatically.

Secondly, when a player wins his right to play in an international tournament by quaifying with success on the board, his qualification should not then depend on an extra criterion of whether accidentally he happens to agree with the current politics of his association.

Thirdly, collecting points to qualify took me about 13 years. During all that time, everybody I know of talked about that qualification system as solely some where qualification is earned by the results in the national championships. That is also what their tournament rules said all the time. Never had anybody indicated to me that there would be an expectation of an additional duty. So what all the years I had assumed was to represent the German go community on the go board while it did not occur to me that there would also be politics involved, or even as possibly a necessary condition for being a player in the international tournament.



Nah, country is an exaggeration. Not the country selects go players but the national go association does.

If your theory were right that a player can't separate, then always would the strongest players be the national representatives at EGF AGMs. Since this is not so, your theory is wrong. Very clearly, it is possible to have different persons for playing and for politics.



No. Freedom of opinion is allowed. Yet more importantly, if an association is about to violate human rights, then an ordinary member not only has the right but even the duty to oppose.



Politics is very different! An ordinary citizen does not have to represent his country on the diplomatic level just because the current politicians would like to enforce him their current politics.



Rather I convince the group to become reasonable (here: to abide by human rights).

Robert, it's quite simple. Things work a certain way. If you don't like it, you have two choices: change them, or drop out. The former takes a long time, and you can't simply say "Because it's me, it has to change." You ignore basic principles of democracy (for your go association). If you can't agree with what they say, then don't represent them. If that means you can't play in a tournament, it's up to you how much you value your own opinion. By entering the process that you claim took 13 years, you are accepting the rules and conditions that were established. You like doing this; saying, "Oh, I didn't know," whereas it's up to you to find out. (This was the same things you said in the drug testing thread.) You seem to have difficulties finding information, whereas, frankly, I think you're a pretty smart guy.

BTw, your explanations above are petty and incorrect. And you're naive. You say:



Seriously? Do you really think that "politics" (in the sense of relations among groups or countries, not that involving elected officials) wasn't part of this? Politics, frankly, is part of all human interactions, be they at work (office politics) or in public events. You are - whether you like it or not - representing your country. You either accept the rules, or let someone else do it.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

It is not religion but law accepted by many countries as the result of thousands of years of mankind's experience that the right of the physically more powerful was a much worse alternative.