Hi Kirby - I find this part of your posting a bit 'emotional' and unwarranted tbh...basically saying: "I can't help having this unpleasant and libellous thought because of what this person has done and I'm going to share it with everyone...Don't blame me for this unpleasant thought though! - it's the situation caused by this individual."

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I find this an extremely odd interpretation of the word "emotional". If expressing a feeling of disappointment and explaining dispassionately where it comes from is emotional, than I have to assume you consider the whole world is in a permanent state of hysterics. Including you: "I find..." and "tbh" are emotion markers by that standard. And, as Bill notes, people who live in glass houses shouldn't have a wank."

Since I caused a bit of a stir in this thread, I just wanted to clarify the following:

(I subconsciously made a list, I guess to be as clear as I can possibly be)

1) I never meant to attack anyone with my choice of words. I do have the tendency to be snarky here and there and despite my better knowledge of how much is lost in reading texts from strangers on the internet, I did hope the context or the occasional smiley would put my "snarky-ness" in the right place. I do am sorry if I offended anyone.

What happened so far...

2) My line of thought was essentially the following (mainly starting from #103 to #113):

a) It is my understanding that Kirby's main reason for the life-time-ban is to preserve the honour, prestige and value of KBA, professional go players and go in general.
b) I summarised these three (honour, prestige and value) as feelings on how things should be.
c) It is my opinion that a verdict should not be based on feelings, especially if feelings indicate just one right way. I understood Kirby's repeated call for a life-time-ban to the cheating incident as the only right way for him to resolve the situation. I called this having a bias. Bias involves unreasonableness to a certain degree and I can understand if Kirby takes issue with me presuming him to be unreasonable.
d) I clarified what was important to me to assess the whole situation with the following: "What a lot of people do is questioning whether the outcry for blood, sorry, immediate life-time-ban is proportional, adequate regarding future incidents or even justified given the "evidence" and negligence by the KBA in cheating matters." (emphasis added)
e) Therefore I saw the unreasonableness (bias) in not exploring whether a life-time-ban is proportional, adequate or justified. I generally missed seeing any indication that anything other than a life-time-ban could be the answer, so I wrote "I'm for consequences as much as you are but the choice between nothing and life-time-ban has quite some nuances inbetween." I also a added a made-up case where I could see reason for a life-time-ban.

And now the conclusion...



It was never my intention to blame you for anything. My sentence literally ends with "we are all equally discussing here". As written above, I do think you are biased in this particulary case and with that comes by definition a diminished objectivity.

I don't think like this because you have a different opinion, though. I do because - to my understanding - you only base your judgement on preserving honour, prestige and value of KBA, professional go players and go in general. (If I missed some more inputs from you, I'm sorry, I did a quick check again but couldn't find any other reason). As written before, it is my opinion that your feelings shouldn't be the basis for legally judging others, especially if you go for career-ending decisions.

These are some things that are going through my head (also written by others):
We only know of one case, where Kim Eunji cheated. We only know because she confessed. How much value can be put on this confession regarding the things John Fairbairn pointed out? Perhaps due to the large pressure there was some back channel talk that by confessing and putting the thing behind everyone she would all do a favour - the "honourable" thing so to say.
Since we only know because she confessed, she would actually have been better off not confessing if you had your way, wouldn't she? (Prove of cheating = life-time-ban, no prove, no ban) Doesn't give any incentive to come clean and repent.
She also confessed to cheat by accident, with no intent. You draw no distinction between this and premeditated cheating?
She is a minor, her brain is still under construction, most western legal systems do take this into account. You won't because she is an established pro and all pros are to be treated equally. Certainly a point of view but unjustified alone due to sciene in my opinion. Another things worth exploring: Does anything else change when you become a pro as a minor? I.e. are you allowed to drink, drive, stay out late, sign legal work...?
What if she has been pressured by i.e. her mother or trainers? Would that count for anything? Again she is a minor and certainly easier to influence than an adult.
What about the case Uberdude mentioned: Hong Seongji 9p cheating online? Life-time-ban because cheater? Or do only pro tournaments count? So then every established pro could cheat online in fun games? Doesn't sit well with "honour".
A little more philosophical: Assuming cheaters will pop up again and again. To preserve honour you life-time-ban everyone without differentiation. Some day you have to ask yourself the question whether you can actually preserve the honour of something that keeps producing cheaters...
Then there is the question of what is best to prevent further cheating, individually and collectively. Experience on a lot of other things tell us, no punishment totally prevents crime.
It also important to consider the implacations on the life of those getting a life-time-ban, especially if you don't differentiate between premedited and accidental cheating. I.e. a one year jail time would actually mean "losing less years" compared to a life-time-ban and "losing" all the years in which you devoted yourself to go.
As far as the cheated are considered: Chess tells us that "knowing" something's off and not being able to take action is the worst. Zero-tolerance-policys (i.e. electronic device in playing area) and therefore shorter bans due to the fact that you don't have to prove anything after catching a player with an electronic device seem like a good idea. Chess has no problems with sponsors or tournaments in general despite, I guess, hundreds of caught cheaters.

There are certainly more things to consider. For me though, it's not coming across that you are entertaining these or similar thoughts, that you acknowledge that life and everything in it is complex. It could certainly be me but I only see the single-mindedly call for life-time-ban.

I hope this makes things clearer. Again I have no intention to attack anyone. I do make judgements based on what I read and understand and those could very well be wrong. That's why I try my best (mostly) to make clear where I'm coming from so that others can easier point to the flaws in my reasoning ; )

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

As to prohibiting electronic devices when playing in tournaments, how to define them? Every basic digital watch, and some analogue watches, are electronic devices. If we prohibit smartphones, we must also prohibit smartwatches. So what is the difference between a basic digital watch, which might be allowed, and a smartwatch, which might be prohibited? Health tools, such as cardiac pacemakers or hearing aid devices, might be electronic devices.

A rule "Cheating is prohibited." is too ambiguous. Thus far, a typical rule is "Electronic devices are prohibited." or "Smartphones are collected at the start of the tournament.". The former overlooks that basic digital watches or health tools involve the danger of being accused of cheating for nothing. The latter overlooks that other devices, such as fitness trackers, can also be used for cheating. Furthermore, there are indirect ways of AI cheating via third persons communicating with a player by non-electronic signals. Currently, AI is the best tool for cheating but non-AI cheating software might also become strong some time. Don't forget game annotation tools.

So what is the best rule that distinguishes cheating from non-cheating and cheating tools from non-cheating tools while considering digital and analogue signals of the player and any partners in crime?

The best would be to say that all electronic devices are prohibited, except a small list like: ordinary digital watches, health tools that cannot be disactivated or removed without endangering the health of its owner. Any other electronic device must be approved by the tournament director before the tournament starts.

Recording games must be done with papers and pens.

It's also important to accept that you will never deter a totally committed cheater. They will always find loopholes.

You want to deter the majority of players, who might flirt with the idea. If acting on this idea becomes too bothersome, they will likely not spend the time and energy to come up with a solid plan.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

A bit of light relief on the cheating front: in South Africa the winning lottery numbers came up as 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Predictable claims of fraud and calls for a probe.

Apart from the fact that this sequence is just a likely as any other, there's no consideration the fact that fraudsters are hardly likely to draw attention to a fraud in this way.

Of course they may have been a prank, a hack or a technical malfunction - but should any of those disqualify a winner not responsible for such behaviour?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-55154525

In the operational rule of Korean Baduk Association, anything that can send or receive video, voice, text and other form of data is prohibited. Of course a smartwatch is not allowed. I think a basic digital watch that does nothing more than showing time is still allowed. The rule explicitly says devices for medical purposes are exempt.

In the Korean version of SAT, having a smartwatch or a phone in the pocket is treated as a cheating and the person is immediately ejected (even if it is crystal clear that the person never used them during the exam), so I guess the players know that "Yes, I happen to keep this device but I never used it for cheating" won't be an acceptable excuse.

_________________
Jaeup Kim
Professor in Physics, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
Author of the Book "Understanding the Rules of Baduk", available at https://home.unist.ac.kr/professor/jukim/bbs/board.php?bo_table=notice&wr_id=5

An interesting video from Baduk TV regarding the Kim Eunji vs Nakamura Sumire game in the Uijeongbu International Baduk Rookie Team Competition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvqQAL6fKyw
The title translates to: Not a single noticeable mistake! Kim Eun-ji's flawless Go!

Comments are turned off.

The game (my AI thinks that Black had a slight lead at some point).