not "abandon"

Why should we refrain from criticising a person when we feel that that person has behaved in a morally objectionable way? If we never tell anybody that we feel they did something wrong, how do they ever learn to do things right? If a child calls someone names, do we tell the child that it is wrong to do so? If a person cuts in line, do we tell them that they should wait their turn? If someone is rude to a waiter, do we tell them to be polite? Or do we remain silent, and say "Well, we should amend the law to make that illegal, and then call the police when it happens again".

We shouldn't of course, and we do criticise those who we feel are doing wrong (I commented in my bigger post that Robert will clearly receive criticism for his behaviour), but that doesn't mean they are doing something wrong. Morality is a fundamentally subjective thing - I find it really strange that Robert doesn't consider his behaviour here unsportsmanlike, but he has a different definition of sportsmanship to me, and I really do believe he genuinely sees nothing wrong in his behaviour. We can tell him we think he's wrong, but unlike a child, he's got X decades of life experience behind his reason for feeling the way he does, and I think it's unlikely that we're going to change his world view (or even necessarily should change it).

Rudeness is a good example - what's rude to some isn't rude to others. Whether you cite differences in international post-meal etiquette, rudeness is entirely subjective and cultural, and it is no more intrinsically right for me to expect someone else to conform to my cultural expectations than it is the other way around. If I'm visiting someone else's house, I believe it's fundamentally polite to observe and respect the way they feel people should conduct themselves, but it's within their rights to be offended by me doing this, feeling that I'm compromising my own principles just to fit in.

The whole area of morality around this is very grey indeed. I do think it's fair to raise the point that Robert may find conversations and interactions with other Go players worse as a result of his behaviour, as he may be unaware of it and care enough to change what he does - in this case, I think he's fully aware of it and is happy enough that his actions and behaviour are appropriate, and is quite happy to accept any consequences that arise as a result.

Robert, I do apologise about putting words in your mouth like this, correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere.

("we feel" is rheorics. You should know in the meantime that not everybody considers it an issue of morality.)

1) Expressing opinion about morality is not out of the question, but why must it be a higher level of concept (moral), why can it not rest at the already difficult level of sportsmanship (having good sports)?

2) Some opinion about morality expressed here is out of proportion when emphasising it much but emphasising rules interpretation little.

3) Some opinion about morality expressed here is out of proportion when it becomes a never-ending deeper and yet deeper exploration of conscience.

4) Some opinion about morality expressed here is unfair by not applying the same standards and amount of discussion to both players equally and to players, organisers and go politicians in general.

5) Some discussion style used here does not comply to a same person's expressed opinion on morality.

6) Some opinion about morality expressed here lacks reasons or conclusive explanations and so makes it hard to apply it in future games.

7) Some opinion about morality expressed here violates other fundamental principles such as "players are expected to apply the rules" without convincingly explaining why such violation would be justified.

I don't know, if you are from Europe not. The dispute was in Europe. We have the rules of play, which define the game and we have tournament rules. They are used to distinguish the skill of go from other skills, and the effect of other skills should be minimized. Other skills include social skills, verbal skills, physical skills etc. A player with basic social skills should be able to manage in a go tournament. In my opinion sportsmanship is in the dimension of social skills more than a go skill. If players act sportsmanlike, it is fine by me. However, if my opponent breaks the rules, sometimes I feel I cannot choose the way of sportsmanship. I usually ignore minor rules breaches, because the game gets disturbed by the dispute. However, if the breaches get repeated or more serious I would call the referee. If I don't stop my opponent, maybe he continues breaking the rules in his next games also.

Once my opponent played a stone, lifted his finger and after one or two seconds moved the stone to the adjanced intersection. I complained and referee was called. We had to play a new game with our remaining thinking times. I had 6 minutes and my opponent 9. Byoyomi was 30 seconds. While waiting the referee I thought that the new place of the stone would have better for me, but I stayed with my claim.

This is a generic we. I could have written "one feels" with the same meaning.

I am well aware that Robert has a different definition of sportsmanship (and by extension, morality), than me. I am also well aware that I am unlikely to change Robert's mind on this issue (or any issue, for that matter). And yes, morality is a grey area, and every social group has different ideas on it.

But what I find very important, and what really is the only reason I give the issue any attention at all, is that Robert is a member of the rules commission, and as such attempts to force his view on others. And I think that with respect to tournament rules, the group's idea of morality should override that of the individual. The individual is, of course, then free to apply his own ideas of morality, regardless of what the group has written in the rules. That is every person's prerogative.

Usually, the rules commission makes proposals of rules changes to the Annual General Meeting. This is not "forcing" my view and it is not "forcing" the rules commission's view on anybody - it is PROPOSING rules changes to the Annual General Meeting (once every couple of years).

As a player, I am a player. As a referee (when I am), I am a referee. As a participant in discussion, I am a participant in discussion. As a rules expert, I am a rules expert. In none of these functions, I try to "force" my view on anybody. Instead, I try to CONVINCE.



The what? We have, I guess, Christians, Muslims and others with presumably varying ideas of morality. Assuming an already known morality of the group (which group?) is rash.



You think so in contrast to the emphasis of the individual in human rights and various nations' basic rights?

There is not even a uniform understanding of sportsmanship in "the group". Why assume something much mightier - a uniform understanding of morality?

And you think that's ok?

And you think it’s OK to quote only a part of what Robert wrote, thus changing its meaning to the opposite?

_________________
“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?

No, I do not. It was an example in response to Robert doing the exact same thing to my post.

Then, IMHO, it would have been sportsmanlike to point Robert towards the misquoted part, which I assume is this:so, probably, towards the “with respect to tournament rules” part which he left out.

Doing the same as what one criticizes in ones opponent doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me.

_________________
“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?

Yes, I agree. Experience, however, shows that trying to explain to Robert that he did something wrong is not a fruitful course of action. This was just a flippant way of giving up in disgust. I did deliberately misquote Robert in the most obvious way I could, in the hope that anyone could see it was not serious. Apparently that didn't work.

Even when applied only to tournament rules, morality is almost as mighty as when applied to a general thing. Speak about sportsmanship instead of morality, and we do not need to consider millenia of development of morality, but we can then restrict ourselves to considering sports and mental sports. Even better, let us consider only go tournaments.

1) If what I did was right, then trying to explain to me that it would have been wrong is probably not fruitful.

2) If what I did was wrong, then convincing arguments are probably fruitful.

3) If different value systems lead to different judgements, then more convincing arguments can be fruitful. (Example: I argued about J1989 application, but was then convinced that WAGC Rules applied and therefore changed my opinion.)

4) If different value systems lead to different judgements, then not convincing arguments are probably not fruitful. (Example: The argument that [too] strict rules application would be sportsmanlike with a positive positional judgement score but unsportsmanlike with a negative positional judgement score I find not convincing because it is inconsistent. I find my view that rules application is in principle the same regardless of the positional judgement score more convincing because of the general nature of the players' duty to abide by the rules.)

You are apparently oblivious to the logical issue overlooked in these. "Convincing" is reliant the different value systems mentioned in 3) and 4). You won't be convinced by the arguments people are making with respect to sportsmanship because their arguments are based on (and convincing with respect to) their value judgements, and therefore automatically unconvincing with your values.

You can't expect someone to have any fruitful progress convincing you to change your value system by creating an argument based on their own, and if their argument is well tuned to your value system, it's going to provide extra evidence that your value system is worth keeping, so it's a catch 22.

No. My value system allows input. (It is possible that some others' value systems don't.)

Over the years, evidence has pointed to the contrary.

Sounds perfectly reasonable.


Given that this was a tournament and that there is no reason to believe that this is allowed or common under any ruleset, I would find it understandable for you to declare immediate defeat upon your opponent (if supported by the rules). You could also offer him to take back the stone to its original position, depending on how serious you are taking the tournament.
So don't get me wrong and think that my view of sportsmanship supports rulebreaches.

But we're mixing rules and sportsmanship to much again. Going back to the initial dispute - what is so questionable and unsportsmanlike for many was Roberts attempted way of winning. The ruleset made it possible, but other than that, rules had nothing to do with it.
Imho the only reasonable explanation for his behaviour was offered by you earlier in this thread: That he only wanted to create an original precedent using a dispute in order to create base for a rulechange.

Because you perceive one and only one dispute and nothing but disputes?