This is nothing but conjecture. You have no examples of such abuse, despite the fact that there are plenty of tournaments that have used Ing clocks without using EGF GTR (or other rules with specific pass/clock clauses).

Abuse of the current rule, on the other hand, is a fact.

Furthermore, if there were in fact deliberate abuse, rather than honest mistakes, the referee would still be free to rule against the abusing player under other clauses about disturbance or player behaviour.

Only you would say this. It has been common practice to point towards the move played while you were away at all tournaments I have played in.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

You are of course free to refuse such sportsmanship by your opponent if you consider it "being treated like a stupid child". That does not change the fact that it is good sportsmanship to offer to undo a simple mistake.

I have lost track of the context. Which rule? Which evidence of fact?

This is a pure guess.



Which tournaments, where were they? Why is "while you were away" relevant? Have you watched all my tournament games non-stop, in those tournaments you have also played in? (Whoever you are, you have not because nobody has. Therefore, I do not understand what you want to express by inserting the phrase.)

In the overwhelming occurrence (rough guess over 90%) of tournament games (EGF, Germany, a few others) I have played or watched, the practice has NOT been common but has been infrequent. If anything, it is slightly less infrequent in casual games.

This suggestion is by far too strong; it sounds as if allowing taking back stupid plays would be any good. It is also not "the fact" but YOUR opinion.

There are plenty of things in this thread that are my opinion, but this is not one of them.

Read these examples of what sportsmanship is:

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/ten-exa ... 28038.html

Pretty much all these examples have the following in common: Refusing an advantage, or giving an advantage to your opponent, when you are not technically required to do so, because you consider it more fair, or more reasonable, to do so.

That is what sportsmanship is about. That is not my opinion, that is a fact.

What is my opinion is that sportsmanship should always be the foremost consideration when playing go. Personally, if my opponent plays a move, realises immediately that it is a mistake, and wishes to take it back, then I will let them. Note that this does not mean that I expect my opponents to do the same for me. I will not think less of them if they don't.

Perception of what sportsmanship is vary for different activities and from group consensus to a different group's consensus.



It is not a matter of fact; you overlook
1) the extra dimension of existing valid rules,
2) the varying rule settings for and opinions on the relative order of priority of (1) and a concept of sportsmanship,
3) the interests of third persons (e.g., deliberately losing a game fitting your understanding of sportsmanship can hurt third persons' opponent scores).

Therefore, sportsmanship must be seen in a broader context. E.g., the EGF General Tournament Rules set its priority below existing valid rules because predictability due to clarity is worth more than unpredictability.



What matters is which consideration and relative priority is APPLIED in a given context of rules application. I like the greater priority of written rules, as far as they can describe things, for especially the reason stated above.

We all know that disputes occurred in history. What do you want to express by referring to this particular dispute?

I just wanted to show how ridiculous a discussion with you about sportsmanship is.

Nothing in that post had any relevance to sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is not defined by rules. Sportsmanship is about ignoring the rules in favour of the morally superior course of action. It is about doing what is right, regardless of whether it is required by the rules that you do so.

But really, this discussion is pointless. You do not understand sportsmanship, and you never have understood sportsmanship. You are widely known for your complete lack of sportsmanship. Because the very concept is alien to you. Ignore the rules? The very thought does not fit into your core way of thinking.

A discussion with me about sportsmanship does not become ridiculous by upholding and having (also in that dispute) upheld the greater priority of rules of play. Maybe you have a different opinion, but different opinions are a possible basis for discussion - not a basis for replacing discussion by opinions of some opinion being ridiculous.

I disagree with your perception of sportsmanship. My perception is:
- It must, before the start of a tournament, be clear which priority sportsmanship has relative to rules.
- If sportsmanship is below the rules, then an implication is that sportsmanship does not violate but respects the rules and that intentional rules violation violates sportsmanship.



I am aware of something you do not perceive about sportsmanship: the priority and the possibility for different tournaments / sports using different priorities. Your conclusion from this my awareness and possibly from your absent awareness of this variety of sportsmanship concepts does not justify at all your stated, cited opinion.

I do not share your preference for greater priority of sportsmanship, but having a different opinion does not at all justify your statement.

Your statement is, eh, unsportsmanlike (to choose a softer characterisation than "personal attack").



I am widely known for favouring validity of clear rules above sportsmanship. This preference is something entirely different from a complete lack of sportsmanship.



Wrong. Ethically wrong rules (e.g., "Conquer the world!") must be ignored (in the sense of not applied). However, rules of play have a tendency of being ethically right. So in case of Go, there is no strong moral incentive for violating rules.

Literally, you are right. But it is not a mere guess that your opinion is quite different from what common courtesy dictates.

It's the generic "you" of idiomatic English, so what I said might be rewritten as

Edit: removed an unimportant and uninteresting comment.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

My post was not a personal attack, it was a statement of fact.

Saying that you do not understand sportsmanship when that is true is no more a personal attack than saying that you do not understand quantum mechanics when that is true. Plenty of people lack understanding on plenty of subjects.

Similarly, mentioning your lack of sportsmanship is not a personal attack, any more than mentioning your lack of ability to speak Japanese is. Again, it is a simple statement of fact.

You choose to prefer a strict application of the rules over sportsmanship. That's fine. There's plenty of people who do that. I really do not understand why you feel the need to try and redefine sportsmanship just so the definition covers yourself too. What next? Will you redefine "Japanese" to include the German language, just so you can say you speak Japanese?

There is no commonly agreed courtesy WRT to pointing out the last move. An alternative view is not disturbing the opponent unnecessarily.



Ok, thanks.

Sure, opinions are divided about common courtesy: http://www.theonion.com/articles/report ... opl,29610/.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

It is false. (To give just a counter-example, when having set a mechanical clock and my opponent is present, I (almost) always show him the clock so that he can check. Can we now end my person as a subtopic in this thread?)



Can we now end my person as a subtopic in this thread?

Well, that is quite hard. When you disagree with facts, what is left but to say "This person does not understand"?

I have made claims. I have backed them up with evidence. What more can I do?