Actually, screw this, I'm going to be blunt.


Looking at this from an admin point of view, this is a bloody mess and should have been dealt with six months ago at least. Robert is clearly disrupting threads, this is a problem. It's not intentional though. Equally we have people taking personal shots at him constantly. Mostly it seems because of the latter rather than any organised targeting. The second issue aggravates the first, which aggravates the second and we have a lovely feedback loop going on.

Two things need to happen:

1) Robert needs to realise that he can't continue the way he has been going because it's not in anyone's best interests. His theories are being derided and quite viciously attacked because, as far as I can see, he is being seen to try and push them into every thread. If Robert can't stop doing this, then you have a very serious problem. I would tentatively suggest that he be recommended not to bring up his personal theories or work in other people's threads. He should still be able to discuss it, just by doing it elsewhere it shouldn't grate on certain people as much as if Robert's theorising bothers them, they don't need to read his threads. He shouldn't be doing what he's currently doing and creating sister threads for current threads, because really that's not much better than disrupting from within the threads. There needs to be a firewall between them. This is draconian but I think it's necessary.

2) Many, many people need to be taken aside and instructed to stop goading him. It just makes what's annoying them worse and it's cluttering up threads left, right and centre and Robert will never be able to contribute well to the forum if this is going on. The admins need to take people aside and be polite about it. Everyone's backs are up, you just want to calm things down. If people keep goading him and he's no longer derailing threads, they should be warned and if they continue, banned for a short while. It shouldn't come to the ban.


Ideally you want Robert to be able to still discuss his theory without people getting annoyed at what they perceive as him using other people's discussions to popularise his theory. I think previous efforts were not well enough thought through as they only dealt with one side of the issue.


Just my thinking from ten years of having handled this kind of situation with many different individuals in many different contexts, feel free to ignore or whatever, I don't mind.

Boidhre, this amounts to censorship of go contents and the opposite of discussion culture. If person A has an opinion (whether a theory, a move comment or something else) and person B has a different opinion, then A's opinion is not right on the basis of prohibiting a comparison of A's and B's opinions.

dis·cus·sion
/disˈkəSHən/
Noun

* The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
* A conversation or debate about a certain topic.

Robert, since you like correct terms, I don't see in this definition a constant rebuttal of others statements, or a word-by-word correctness analysis of a sentence. And talking about definitions (taken from The Urban Dictionary, although I've seen it used in some psychology books as "conversation stealers")

Thunder stealer

A thunder stealer is a very annoying person who bursts in to your conversation and changes the topic to him/herself. Usually leaves you aggravated.

Bob: Hey guys LISTEN! You won't believe what happened today!
Jack: What?
Bob: Well i was walking down some alley when i got jumped by three guys with-
Thunder stealer: OH HEY JACK did you do yesterday's homework!?
Jack: Oh yeah, it was pretty easy
Thunder stealer: Hahaha, yeah. Hey can you show me something in the homework? It's on page 54...
Bob: Hey what about my story...

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

Robert, you will have to accept several things that (as it seems to me) you shy away from realizing:

-- Your construct of ideas is a very special (and very "technical", and "formal") one, and is -- if ever -- shared by only a few people (= "the minority").
-- The (somewhat overlapping, somewhat "common") constructs of ideas of others (= "the majority") is NOT at all shared by you, at least, because it is not "precise" enough in your eyes.

-- It seems that you are unable to accept an "opinion" that reads like "In my construct of ideas, XYZ is a valid statement.", with "In my construct of ideas" mostly hidden, but included even unsaid.
-- Your argumentation does not follow a logical line inside the construct of ideas of others, like "You have said that ABC, DEF, and XYZ are valid statements. Have you ever noticed the contradiction between B, and E, under these circumstances, which makes Y incorrect ?"
-- Instead, you choose your construct of ideas as a basis, to "prove" that Y is mistaken. Or that "your" YY is much "better".

-- Your postings do not give the feeling that someone has expressed his "opinion", but they come over that someone has put absolute "facts" into writing.
-- It seems that the basis of your construct of ideas is something like "absolute truth" for you (but remember, not for others !!!), so it is a somewhat natural development over time with you that issues that are derived from this basis, are "absolut truth" = "facts", too.
-- It is very likely to me that your construct of ideas is self-contained, and logical in itself. But only (and this is the decisive issue !!!) in itself, i.e. only for you (and a very few other people).
-- It makes me very sad to see not only that you are unable to promote your ideas "in the language" / "inside the construct of ideas" of others (with the intention of not getting so much opposition), but that you are your worst enemy with the "marketing" of your ideas, choosing counterproductive means ("Come inside my world, it's the much better one !").

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

It is all fine and well to discuss less in general, to quote less, to correct fewer details and to discuss less especially in threads started by others, but

Cassandra, that you or others represent my intentions or actions (partially) wrongly does not mean that I want to correct everything or clarify everything said about me in this thread, because

viewtopic.php?p=150621#p150621

I think that the only way that this problem will be solved is if Robert learns to modify his behaviour. But I do not think that will happen, because Robert is averse to learning from others. His basic instinct, when being corrected, is to challenge the correction and to "prove" that his own opinion is correct, even on subjects where he is obviously unskilled. For example, his skill at the English language is obviously quite limited, yet he will not accept corrections from the likes of John Fairbairn, a native speaker and obvious expert, but will challenge the correction and start endless discussions.

This, BTW, is probably also his major weakness when it comes to go. He often complains that he is unable to find a teacher that can find his major weaknesses. I think that in fact many professional have probably pointed out weaknesses, but since Robert's instinctive response would be to challenge any such notion and since he would be quite willing to debate the point until the heat death of the universe, I think all of them give up at some point.

Robert, it's not about correction / clarification. Just because it's not about "attack / defense".

Did you notice daal's reply
viewtopic.php?p=150625#p150625
to your above-mentioned posting ?

With your first posting in this threat, you again created your "own world", surely meant as a basis for further discussion.
It would have been much better (and more "open" for discussion) to have your statement restricted to something like

-- Here is my view of the problem !
-- What are your suggestions for a potential solution ?

Nobody is really able to solve a problem that he is an integral component of. Therefore, suggestions of yours were the wrong part to begin with.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

It is extremely self-serving to conflate people wanting to limit the form of your comments with suppression of your opinion.

I suppose I can think of someone on the forums who would like to censor you absolutely, but in general, no one is interested in suppressing your opinion, just your eagerness to dominate a thread with bad debating tactics.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

hyperpape, I guess I understand much better now what can be perceived as bad debating tactics, and I can try to avoid accidentally creating an impression of wishing to dominate a thread created by another OP. It is, however, not easily possible to post a high percentage of messages in a thread started by myself, if I and others find the topic interesting and so exchange a lot of interesting contents.

Pretty much the same applies for everybody, except that not every OP uses the potential of posting a high percentage of messages in a thread started by himself, maybe because his knowledge is still small and he is just seeking answers or he wants to initiate a discussion of others. An OP with the intention of inputting knowledge is much more likely to post a high percentage of messages in a thread created by himself.

As much as it may be that I used bad debating tactics, I am also affected by other bad debating tactics by a few other users, especially one-line messages thrown in to provoke, making general false statements or stating an opposite opinion without offering any reason. Avoiding bad debating tactics is not just a good aim for me, but it is a good aim for everybody.

There is a saying that there are 360 degrees in the martial arts. That is, no matter what approach or way you may have, someone somewhere has another approach that is the opposite. And just as good. (Well, maybe not just as good. )

Robert's approach to go is unique. To me it is like scaling a cliff face, slow and painstaking work, with critical attention to detail. That he has climbed as far as he has is a remarkable achievement in itself. And to top that off, he has been able to communicate his understandings to others in books that he writes in a second language.

I met Robert online in the 1990s on rec.games.go, where he was an expert on the Ing rules (another remarkable achievement, and a thankless task, to boot). His English was pitiful, and few people could or would wade through his formalizations. Yet he soldiered on bravely. Few can match Robert's devotion to go, or his devotion to the go community.

That last may surprise people, because Robert rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But he shares go knowledge that he has painstakingly acquired with others through his books. To be sure, there is ego involved. Few of us accomplish much without ego. But it is also a labor of love. As John Fairbairn has pointed out, no amateur writes go books to get rich.

My own approach to go is not diametrically opposed to Robert's, but like most of us, I guess, most of my skill at go was picked up without much conscious thought. Not so Robert, and if he can explain himself well enough, his painstakingly acquired knowledge can be valuable to others.

At the same time, the fact that his path has been so unique means that it does not mesh easily with other approaches. Therefore, I am not bothered by the idea of parallel threads, with one started by Robert to advance his own concepts and understandings. In fact, I welcome the idea. Robert gets to send his message, and others can read or debate it if they wish, without the need to take personal potshots.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Ignore trolls.


If the statement is truly false, there are plenty of people here willing to point it out. Being online a lot with a hair-trigger response mentality contributes to over-posting.


Not necessarily bad. Opinions are opinions, you do not need to justify them up front. On recurring topics, the justification may already have been given elsewhere.

It seems to me that Robert -- after walking on his very special path for so long -- is caught inside "his" world, a world that can be shared by only a few. And these few cannot share the entire world with him (because they did not walk his entire path).

It seems to me that Robert can really "accept" only arguments that derive from inside "his" world. But I wonder, whether it is evident for him that most of the arguments that he will encounter are sourced from outside "his" world. I have absolutely no idea, why, but it seems to me that Robert did not make any preparations for this situation, which was 100 per cent sure to come.

This is because I have the feeling that -- without exception, but again I have no idea, why -- Robert treats these "outside-his-world" arguments as if they would have come from "inside", i.e. from someone who shares his point of view / construct of ideas, i.e. from a "real" expert like him. This makes clear, why these arguments, if assessed "wrong" / "not correct" / "unclear", are vividly fought with means from "inside-his-world".

But the means chosen are absolutely inappropriate, because the someone in question stands "outside", and also the argument in question was from "outside". "Outside", and "inside", do not have much in common, so both sides are unable to get a common basis of understanding, and so to enter a positive discussion. Additionally, Robert seems to fear that "his" world will become badly defective, if he does not fight the "outside" argument (mistakenly assuming that it was from "inside") until the very end (and "proving" that it was "wrong"). But he does not notice that there is nothing to defend.

This manner is absolutely counter-productive, because Robert's usual behaviour does not give the feeling of a very friendly invitation to enter "his" world.

Thus, we are back on top again. Robert's world will remain a world shared by only a few.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

But Robert, it's not your opinion that is the issue at all! No one, sensible, wants to censor that. The issue isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. Don't interpret what people are saying as attacks on the former as that's not what they're doing.

RJ: What you call bad debating tactics, meta-discussion and so on by others against you is very rarely that. It is merely a symptom of irritation you have caused much higher in the tree. Few people on L19 are stupid enough to try actually to debate that way, but there are also few who can resist being provoked or (worse in many ways) being turned off the thread or forum.

As a sign of your integrity, would you please say whether you are currently under a ban, and if so have you flouted it? If there is a ban, subject to hearing the reason for the ban and its terms I would in principle be willing to argue for it being lifted or eased.



I fully endorse what Bill said prior to this, and with one exception I endorse this, too. I'd be bothered only by "parallel threads", or what someone nicely called sister threads, if these were just a way of circumventing intervention on another thread. If someone starts a thread on "The influence of noodles in go" and he either starts a parallel thread with a title along the lines of "RJ's theory of noodle influence" or uses a vaguer title and starts off with a topic reference to the main thread, I'd regard that as bad faith (not illegal: just bad faith). But if he were to start threads claiming "Why noodles have no influence in go" (they have a major influence BTW or "How to count noodles in go", that seems not just perfectly legitimate, but desirable. So, rather than sister threads I think we'd be looking at avoidance of any hint of incest - we'd want cousin threads at best, but preferably cousins thrice removed or, most preferably, fresh bloodstock altogether.

Under that scenario I wouldn't see RJ being banned from the main thread completely. He can call on his close cousins but not kiss. He'd be free to lament the weather, make jokes, make announcements, ask non-rhetorical questions, and so on.

As regards elsewhere on L19 and another habit that annoys many but not me, I continue my previous stance that he should be allowed to publicise his books freely.

I really don't know what to make about Robert's demeanour. On one hand, I find his definition/checklist approach compelling (my internal mathematician welcomes axiomatic approaches, occasionally) and in the past I've been very close to purchasing one or more of his books. But since my Go-related budget is usually constrained, I always think twice or thrice before purchasing a book, and I have always ended not doing it, because of the way he presents here, in this forum (that's the other hand, I just realised the construction was funny with just one hand).

The most recent instance was a few weeks ago, when I actually had his homepage opened in another tab, checking which book I was about to purchase. Just at that moment he sent me a PM, complaining about a comment I made, he felt it was a side attack on him. Actually the thread where this comment is written was a discussion about his books, where I agreed with the fact that the books should be valued on its own right without needing to like the author, and I added that my opinion on him was tainted after so many discussions in so many threads, and a very specific thread he created which I felt was bull***t (it was softer there, but to be clear, it's what I think). In the same comment, I added that I may be purchasing his books really soon.

I'm a mathematician, and my day-to-day job involves a lot of advertising-related stuff. Selling more, selling better and optimising everything. Even though my job involves more data crunching than actual know-how on sales, I've read most of the classic literature on advertising, as well as the most recent books on psychology of sales, prices and merchandise (it's useful when in addition to improving the numbers you know how to improve the copy and/or prizes). So the fact that he is (usually) always trying to shove us down the throat his books and at the same time alienated a customer (me) made me boil, in many levels at the same time (go, work, math research, fair play-ness to cite some).

I agree that his path is unique, and concede that his approach looks solid, and even interesting, and that I could learn something from it. But I (I guess this may extend to a we, but just in case) don't need to be reminded every 5 threads that he has written a book on positional judgment, or that he has a definition for n-empty-board. I already know, and turning the volume down 100 times will mean even newcomers will get to know it in less than a week. The fact that some people (I guess it's not only JF, but he is the more vocal) shy away from long essays here to avoid getting into the muddy term/definition debates is a total shame.

I won't suggest anything to improve his behaviour, because this is something he has to figure out and solve himself. After all he is a grown up and no-one needs to tell him how to behave. After all Go is more complex than social interaction at the forum level, even Sheldon Cooper could make a state diagram to make friends.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

It was complete news to me that he uses this tactic. I strongly disapprove and it modifies my conciliatory approach a little.

Previously I had always seen RJ as one of he potential good guys because he doesn't hide behind a pseudonym. Private PMs like this are, however a form of hiding (or is it another way of circumventing a ban?).

Can I just say I think this thread is awesome, and hopefully a positive move towards a happier discussion atmosphere, particularly in the threads that Robert's involved in (and can I just add that I also find a lot of value in the things you have to say Robert, just find the methods in which they are presented tiresome at times).

I would also like to add an extra bullet point.

* Please don't refer to other people's points as meta-discussion -- note to everybody, not just Robert.

For one thing, I don't think it's taken quite the way it might be intended. Most people actually only choose to post what they think is relevant and some form of a constructive contribution to a thread. When this is called out as meta-discussion, it is in fact worse than "you are wrong" without justification, it is "your contribution was so irrelevant and/or meaningless as to be unworthy of discussion". Funnily enough, this can end up aggravating the situation a bit

I think most people would find it more polite if their contribution was either ignored completely (rather than backhanded away), or was addressed with something along the lines of "I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion".

I don't think this should change anything, he should be perfectly free to discuss a private matter (his offense) with the other party (the alleged offender.) I didn't like it (in part this is why I make it public without giving explicit details), as I wrote, but I don't think it's a bad thing per se.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

An excellent meta-point!

Oops! Sorry.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Since I went to the trouble, I'll post this: seventeen of the top twenty five posters on these boards use pseudonyms*. Of them, I know who 7 are by name[1][2].

I am not sure if any of the high volume posters on these boards makes any effort to keep their identity secret--certainly it's common to use a handle that is well associated with your real identity.

Anonymity is like a drug for the worst kind of trolls, but it doesn't have much to do with these threads--we have a lot of well established posters hashing out old topics.

[1] Not even counting Kirby as a pseudonym--if you just showed up on the boards, you'd assume it was a pseudonym.

[2] Ok, xed_over is "whatshisname" to me more often than not, but I'm counting him because I know I've read it several times.

_________________
Occupy Babel!