It seems to me that arguing over the meaning of acquittal or any other legal term is tarring ourselves with the same amateurish brush as the arbitrators who originally found Metta guilty.

I'm certain that acquittal has both different meanings and different associations in each country. In the UK, it even differs between England and Scotland. It is bound to differ even more between countries that have totally different law traditions (Europe and their Napoleonic Codes vs the UK/USA and their Common Law). There are also significant differences, in England at least, between the legal usage and the everyday usage (though the most important point remains that you cannot be charged again with the same offence).

In England, though, nolle prosequi normally means the prosecution is unwilling to pursue a case (usually because of permanent illness or insanity). It is not an acquittal (it takes place before judgement) and the accused can be re-indicted later. There are other pre-trial and pre-judgement procedures such as discontinuance or a motion to quash indictment but these likewise have no sense of acquittal and re-indictment is possible. I believe the only case beyond a full trial where acquittal takes place is when the prosecution decides to offer no evidence. In that case the jury is instructed by the judge to declare a verdict of not guilty. Now all of that sounds very different (just different, not better or worse) to "Sentenza di non doversi procedere" = the accusation was invalid or there was not enough proof of guilt. (The "translation" given here is in any case not a translation but an interpretation - the key words are that the case 'must not proceed'). The 'sentenza' here seems to imply a judgement, which cannot happen pre-trial in England.

So, to repeat, we have different codes, different laws, different procedures, different languages different interpretations, all discussed here by amateurs (including me) and used by amateurs (the panel), and all of this in a case where there was no formal law in the first place.

In short, trying to use law here is wrong and a waste of time. But, as Edmund Burke famously said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." So PGETC must do something. It seems to me that the only recourse here is the "Gentleman's Club." In the same way that a men's club can refuse admittance if you don't wear a tie, and can blackball members on the say-so of an elected committee, PGETC can treat itself as a club and require a sign-up not to cheat and can give itself powers to blackball. But what it must not do is treat itself as a court of law, using terms such as 'guilty' and 'acquittal.'

Of course, even clubs are subject to the laws of their land, so exclusion or blackball decisions can be challenged, but I'd be surprised if a non-defamatory PGETC expulsion for suspected cheating after a sign-up would be seriously challenged. In the UK, challenges to the club-rules kind of set-up seem to be almost entirely based on discrimination. But in these cases, the discrimination is against people (e.g. women) who are barred from signing up in the first place.

In contrast, PGETC players are insisting on players signing up. (Burke was very much a club man - he founded his own - but even he wouldn't survive five minutes today. He also said, "Woman is not made to be the admiration of all, but the happiness of one.")

That doesn't solve all their problems, of course. They too must accept compromise (and I think they are so disposed). A club is a kind of marriage. As Jane Austen said, "Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance. If the dispositions of the parties are ever so well known to each other or ever so similar beforehand, it does not advance their felicity in the least. They always continue to grow sufficiently unlike afterwards to have their share of vexation; and it is better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you are to pass your life."

I expect we all know marriages where a bit of cheating has gone on but the union has survived.

Hello,

yes, I can confirm that PGETC will no longer be rated in the EGD. This is valid from this season 2018/19 on.

Regards Martin

Are the results from the 2017-18 season going to be entered into EGD soon? That will affect the player order for this season; it would be nice if Chris (the strongest on our team but his rating doesn't reflect his strength as PGETC is his only recent tournament) could get his rating points and maybe they'll be enough to play on first board for UK instead of me.

I was under the impression that countries could choose any order for their players - only that they had to stay fixed for the season?

quantumf, no.

Our players (well, some of them) are only on the EGD by accident from participation in WAGC/KPMC events, and then, more recently, from PGETC games. Efforts to have our local tournament games captured on EGD met with sufficient resistance for us not to pursue that any further. So, it's hardly the ideal source of ranking our players, and we've not used it in our 3 or so seasons in the PGETC.

On a related note, my understanding is that PGETC games don't (or will not) contribute to EGD rating points - how does this relate to your original question?

The rule Uberdude quotes is not universally applied. I think at least 4 teams have had 'exceptions' for it.

_________________
North Lecale

quantumf: mmmm, makes sense that another approach is needed for South Africa with players not in EGD with quality ratings.

Java: interesting, that sounds a pragmatic approach, I'll enquire if we can get an exception.

Can you explain the resistance? If South Africa is an observer member I do not see why it can't have its tournaments entered into the system. Estonia is not a member, but has its tournaments entered into the system.

_________________
North Lecale

Is it really going to start next tuesday? No schedule has been published yet.

Maybe team captains got some unpublished info? UK is putting together a team for a league B match with Denmark on Tues 2nd.

Looking back at the actual correspondence (from three years ago), I believe I may have misrepresented the resistance. Lorenz and Aldo were very happy to accommodate us, and the resistance was mostly internal - partly because we use club games to keep our ranks up to date, in contrast to the EGD, and partly because we would have been obliged to pick an "accurate" EGD rank for our players, who are mostly slightly overrated by EGD standards. This seemed like a sufficiently contentious issue to make me reluctant to embark on this exercise. In addition, at the the time, there didn't seem to be any real benefit to capturing our tournaments on EGD, given that we had (and have) a perfectly functional rating system already in place.

I can see that it would be difficult to make a translation. Indeed if the South African system is better, why bother?
If you really wanted to do it, I guess you'd need to be able to come up with a reliable interpolation formula. What are the chances of a simplistic bodge like SA = 1.4(GoR) + 500 working though...

The PGETC schedules are up now. There is both an arbitration board and an appeals panel.

_________________
North Lecale

I saw this today https://pandanet-igs.com/communities/euroteamchamps/446


This means League A and top two teams from League B play it out. It isn't clear how many qualify though. Does anyone know the plan?

_________________
North Lecale

Four?

I think that what you're quoting there only relates to the finals which are played at the European Go Congress. The announcement on the PGETC page seems to refer to some new competition, but the format or objectives of that competition are not really explained.

_________________
North Lecale

From an email about this I received last year as PGETC team captain:

This new system means there's scope for more fluidity between leagues, and even a high place finisher in league A can get demoted if they do very badly in this real-life tournament. And by the luck of the draw both the top 2 from league B (Serbia and Austria) are in the same group so one of them is guaranteed promotion (and both could), whereas in the other group it's only league A teams and 1 is guaranteed demotion. I believe one rationale for this real life event is if teams have been cheating with AI online they might do well then but it will be much harder in this real life tournament which decides the top 4 for the finals.

Is this tournament replacing League A, or is it complimentary to League A?

_________________
North Lecale

It's complimentary. An in between phase between the online games and the finals.