The backfire effect is the result of motivated reasoning, for which there is a great deal of evidence.

By contrast there is the modern, scientific attitude, which is to put your own ideas to the test. And the ancient, Buddhist attitude, cease to cherish opinions.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
----
Many are cold, but few are frozen.

We have had almost sixty pages of debate. It is probably time to get the facts correct.

Great, now I am even more sure that the backfire effect is real.

including this one

33 pages for me, with my settings … so … do facts depend on our respective perspective and settings?
________________

/me runs away quickly

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

KGS was keeping time, but does this make it THE "official" timekeeper? Isn't the whole problem that there was NO official timekeeper, thus no clear answers when things broke? Besides, "KGS" means three different entities here (server, client1 and client2), with different time data (with the players only seeing their own client's one). Things went wrong exactly when KGS failed to synchronize it's three parts with tolerable accuracy.

OC, you may construe things that way, but that is really a severe critique of the tournament. A timed event without an official timekeeper? That's really bad. And that critique is not just about the failure of the tournament organizers, but also about the failure of the players, who agreed to play without an official timekeeper.



You may know more about KGS software than I, but if Surma's client kept a record of his time usage, where is it? And, BTW, how do you synchronize three different timers? Take their average? My guess is that KGS simply resolves any difference in favor of the server's time. (Edit: Assuming the question even arises. ) If you know different, that would be interesting information.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
----
Many are cold, but few are frozen.

I know only english basics - so I will only speculate what 'timekeeper' may stand for:
'Timekeeper' maybe an instrument (a clock) or a person (for example a guy who announces remaining time in japanese pro tournaments).
'Official timekeeper' - for me it is a person who handles counting completely: for example a guy who announces remaining time in japanese pro tournaments, he must stop counting if a player leaves the playing room during byoyomi time.
Please correct me if this is not true.

A tournament clock is never the 'official timekeeper'. For example if a clock gets broken, an organizer comes and brings a new clock; if tournament rules allow that player's time is stopped when he goes to toilet, then the clock is stopped by players.
If Surma had used the classic clock and the flag had fallen 15 minutes prematurely, you wouldn't had said "how did Surma, know he lost on time? Because the clock told him so."
A clock is a tool only.

IMO common sense says the kgs-clock may be also in a position of a tool only: It cannot take over the role of the 'official timekeeper', because it cannot handle counting completely: for example it cannot handle situations when kgs is broken (server down, packets lost, lag, program bug).

KGS may be considered a person, even if not human. Another such use of person is when you play against a bot. The bot may be called a person, even if not human. Edit: A team may also be considered a person, even though made up of more than one human.



Actually, that statement is good English. For example, in the song lyrics, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so," even though the Bible is not animate.



The role of the official human timekeeper, if there is one, is not to overrule the clock. That role falls to the TD or referee. I does not matter whether the official timekeeper is human or not.

In your example of the clock's flag falling prematurely, you are assuming that the clock is broken. That is a matter for the TD to determine. First, ascertain what happened. The human timekeeper may be a witness, OC.

And there is an important difference in this case. No one is claiming that the KGS server's clock was broken. A better analogy, perhaps, would be that the human timekeeper had a petit mal seizure and failed to press the clock in time. And that he or she had been having seizures all along.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
----
Many are cold, but few are frozen.

KGS essentially has two timekeeping systems.
The official tournament system, which does not allow any adjustments or interruptions. If you lag, or have a disconnection, the clock keeps ticking.
The normal system, which does allow adjustments.
By using the second one for this tournament, they were implicitly introducing the possibility to allow adjustments, or interruptions, to the clock's timing. No indication was given to the contrary.

_________________
North Lecale

So you are saying that the tournament was run on KGS without using the tournament timekeeping system? Très amusant!

Edit: Are you saying that Surma could have asked his opponent to give him more time? Well, he didn't did he?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
----
Many are cold, but few are frozen.

I don't see what is amusing about it.
(Meaning that, why would you want to use the official tournament system. It's so inflexible as to be ruinous.)

_________________
North Lecale

In this case, would it have given a different result?

Besides, is anyone claiming that the referee could not overrule either the loss on time or the loss of a byoyomi period?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
----
Many are cold, but few are frozen.

No reason for him to do so, because his only harmfull lag was during the last period, and you can't ask for more time when the game has already finished. But he asked to resume the game, and that's as close to this as what he could have asked.

We don't know whether it was
- a lag like in previous situations
- or completely lost packets

The point I am making is that some people have been posing the narrative that we should assume that the server's decision is final. Clearly the spirit of the situation the tournament placed itself is one in which adjustments and interruptions are permissible. If they wished that not to be the case, the organisers had a second option available to them. I don't see anything remotely amusing about that.

_________________
North Lecale

I am one who does not suffer fools lightly. That is ridiculous.



Such as giving your opponent extra time when requested, as Knotwilg indicated is normal. Right?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
----
Many are cold, but few are frozen.

And you are saying that the KGS timekeeping system would have done that?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
----
Many are cold, but few are frozen.

In a probably futile attempt to reduce the cross-purpose wittering, Java is referring to a special 'Tournament' KGS game mode used for KGS+ tournaments where, IIRC undos aren't allowed and possibly other stricter differences from regular games like no resume after disconnect. Normal users can't make them. The automated KGS tournament system can, maybe KGS admins can too (Java used to be one). It wouldn't surprise me if Hajin/Natalia and whoever else from the Transatlantic match organisers didn't know about this. But the line of reasoning "because they didn't use KGS tournament mode which disallows undo/resume, this implies that that undo/resume are condoned in this event, and so lag out shouldn't result in time loss" seems just about as valid to me as "let's blame Mateusz for not reporting prior lag so he loses because players have a duty to protect themselves", i.e. pretty crap but good enough for lawyer-style reasoning to justify a decision you want to pick.

Indeed. Yet, I think it's an important piece of information for those wishing to argue about what the official rules were. In actuality, I don't think anyone involved had any idea what the rules minutiae actually were [perhaps were not is better], nor did they care what they were. Explaining what the two systems are in detail is very unhelpful though. Shame on you.

_________________
North Lecale