AloneAgainstAll wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Let me expand on that. The organizers made the decision to let KGS be the official timekeeper of the event. (A lousy decision, IMO, but there you have it.) Whether that was explicitly stated, it was a condition of the contest. After playing a number of games, Surma was aware of that. Not only had that caused a problem, he was attempting to compensate for the netlag by making his plays 10 seconds early. Certainly that is excusable, if not normal for an amateur on KGS, who can ask his opponent for time if need be. But it means that Surma accepted the fact that KGS kept the time, despite netlag. If he had reported his netlag problem when he became aware of it, he could have obtained relief. But, having accepted the KGS time with netlag, he could not later go back on his decision when it mattered. He could, OC, have reported the problem, even during the game he lost, and gotten relief, until the point where KGS did not receive his intended move before his byoyomi period was up. But he did not, and paid the consequences.
All you says, can be boiled down to "Surma was obliged to report lag, did not - so paid consequences". Actually he was not , so all your argumenation, although logically correct step by step (well, one point is wrong, lack of report by Surma does not means acceptation, exactly same as lack of report of crime does not means crime didnt occured, but as you asked for, i will cut some slack), fails because of wrong principle.
The analogy is to civil law, not criminal law. Surma was not punished.
My point was that this ruling was standard, as attested to by the fact that the referee consulted other experts before making his final decision. I just spelled things out. As for failure to report meaning acceptance, there is a general principle, not only in law but in other fields, and accepted in a number of different cultures, that silence betokens assent. In general, people are expected to speak up, and people in general do.
