[news] European Professional Go System established.

[paK0]

One of the EGF positions was also "I don't want half of Europe discussing this with a quarter knowledge." Like in politics, where important things are negotiated behind closed doors.

As opposed to a democracy, where people get to vote.

Don't get me wrong, I favor the idea. I just don't understand the secrecy. If it's truly a good idea, why not announce it, brag about it, debate it, and vote on it?

If half of Europe has insufficient knowledge, why not publicize the proposed agreement? Isn't that better than excluding them from the debate?

The political equivalent is a treaty. Certainly those are negotiated behind closed doors. But then the legislature is invited to debate and vote on it. They are also usually privy to the knowledge that a treaty is being negotiated, too.

It sounds like a process that was regretfully kept unnecessarily secret to me. Must make the EGF elite feel important, though.

They are an organization in which membership is voluntary, so you essentially get to vote by participating or not.


And they might not have announced more because they might not know themselves. This thing seems to be set up pretty long term, I don't think anything has to happen before 2015, so maybe they wanted to wait until their plans have taken a more solid form.


I'd say they can feel important, seems to me like they brought quite a bit of money towards the go players in Europe, great job on that.

[wineandgolover]

Must make the EGF elite feel important, though.

These people spent years building contacts, talking to people, negotiating, much of it in their own time and on their own dime. They manage to negotiate a contract that is a huge win for the EGF. They let the legislative representatives from the member organisations know months in advance and let them vote on the proposal.

And then you have the temerity to put all of that down with a trite "Must make the EGF elite feel important"?

Yeah. F*ck you too.

ADMIN: Please refrain from personal attacks on this forum.

Please re-read the post i was replying to, and how it described the decision to keep things hushed. I may have characterized the few making decisions for the many as the elite, but that post explained that it was because the subject was "important," not my word-choice.

I appreciate Javaness' clarification that the mandate was appropriate and look forward to learning more. His contribution was helpful and appreciated.

Unlike yours. Your personal attack adds nothing to the dialog. Though I am far from gravely insulted.

[tapir]

I opened a thread in the german go forum as well, Martin Stiassny answered directly to several questions there. See: http://www.dgob.de/yabbse/index.php?topic=5048.0 for those who read German.

Sleeping a night over the plan I believe a crucial part is the official association of Go and Chinese Culture Centers. This might actually be what gets potential European partners / sponsors interested. Strengthening European Go by making it a go-between between China and Europe, that might work. I am much more sceptical about other parts, why should tournaments that opted out of the European Cup in 2013 suddenly spent not some hundred but several thousand Euro to attract a very small amount of top players (unless they already got new sponsors in the process). Especially, when you could attract the very same players when you put such an amount of money into prize money directly. I don't yet see people embracing the amateur diploma scheme. etc.

Unlike politics it is completely in the power of ordinary players to ruin even the already signed treaty by stirring trouble in their local association etc. - yet I don't see why one should do so, after all it can be at best a breakthrough for the EGF and at worst it won't do any harm.

I do, however, take offence at comments that normalize secrecy. According to recent news it is also normal in politics that MPs are spied on, government policy is written by private companies, parliaments vote on decisions they weren't properly informed about, constitutions are just an obstacle for daily government business, but this certainly doesn't mean, that I want one of the few organizations that I joined by my own decision to follow this lead.

The signed contract is a 10-year plan that certainly would have survived and may even have benefitted from half a year of due process.

[HermanHiddema]

Please re-read the post i was replying to, and how it described the decision to keep things hushed. I may have characterized the few making decisions for the many as the elite, but that post explained that it was because the subject was "important," not my word-choice.

I appreciate Javaness' clarification that the mandate was appropriate and look forward to learning more. His contribution was helpful and appreciated.

Unlike yours. Your personal attack adds nothing to the dialog. Though I am far from gravely insulted.

My post was not meant as a personal attack against you, and I apologize if you perceived it that way. The language I used was used to underscore how strongly I felt about the issue in general.

I also do not mind at all if you criticize how the negotiations were conducted or disclosed, even if I do not agree with that criticism. My post pertained specifically and only to your last sentence "Must make the EGF elite feel important, though", which was also the only thing I quoted from your post.

I consider that sentence a direct personal attack against the people involved, implying that the main reason they had for the amount and time of disclosure was to make themselves appear important. If it was not meant that way, then please explain how it was meant.

[billywoods]

If it was not meant that way, then please explain how it was meant.

You said:

These people spent years building contacts, talking to people, negotiating, much of it in their own time and on their own dime. They manage to negotiate a contract that is a huge win for the EGF. They let the legislative representatives from the member organisations know months in advance and let them vote on the proposal.

And then you have the temerity to put all of that down with a trite "Must make the EGF elite feel important"?

(emphasis mine)
whereas it seems fairly clear to me that wineandgolover was putting none of that down, and was admonishing them only for the months of secrecy. It's perfectly reasonable to respect someone for one thing they've done and be annoyed with them for another, and I don't know why you're deliberately blurring the boundaries.

Faintly back on topic: I admit, I'm curious too. And if this thread isn't the official announcement (which I presume it's not), then it seems someone fairly high up on the BGA is also fed up with the secrecy.

[wineandgolover]

I consider that sentence a direct personal attack against the people involved, implying that the main reason they had for the amount and time of disclosure was to make themselves appear important. If it was not meant that way, then please explain how it was meant.

Herman, you swear at people then justify your actions by falsely assigning motivations to their writing. That may be the way you roll, but this approach is not worthy of a reply. Nevertheless...

I, and others here, are just skeptical about excessive organizational secrecy. I am completely in favor of a European pro system. I just believe that good ideas can and would survive scrutiny. "Fellow EGF members, we have here a proposal to partner with some benevolent Chinese go lovers and develop a pro-go system. Lets discuss it, then vote on it." That seems far preferable than talking to selected national leaders, secretly getting enough of their buy-in, then signing a binding agreement without a public review period. If this mischaracterizes the process, then I will gladly modify my position and tenor.

Come on, don't you think that it's bizarre that this was Wiki-leaked? Isn't it even more odd that it needed to be?

[HermanHiddema]

If it was not meant that way, then please explain how it was meant.

You said:

These people spent years building contacts, talking to people, negotiating, much of it in their own time and on their own dime. They manage to negotiate a contract that is a huge win for the EGF. They let the legislative representatives from the member organisations know months in advance and let them vote on the proposal.

And then you have the temerity to put all of that down with a trite "Must make the EGF elite feel important"?

(emphasis mine)
whereas it seems fairly clear to me that wineandgolover was putting none of that down, and was admonishing them only for the months of secrecy. It's perfectly reasonable to respect someone for one thing they've done and be annoyed with them for another, and I don't know why you're deliberately blurring the boundaries.

You're right, wineandgolover's remark was only aimed at the perceived secrecy, not at the proposal in general, so I worded that badly. As I explained, my response only dealt specifically with what I considered an unwarranted personal attack made against the people involved.

[HermanHiddema]

Herman, you swear at people then justify your actions by falsely assigning motivations to their writing. That may be the way you roll, but this approach is not worthy of a reply. Nevertheless...

I, and others here, are just skeptical about excessive organizational secrecy. I am completely in favor of a European pro system. I just believe that good ideas can and would survive scrutiny. "Fellow EGF members, we have here a proposal to partner with some benevolent Chinese go lovers and develop a pro-go system. Lets discuss it, then vote on it." That seems far preferable than talking to selected national leaders, secretly getting enough of their buy-in, then signing a binding agreement without a public review period. If this mischaracterizes the process, then I will gladly modify my position and tenor.

Come on, don't you think that it's bizarre that this was Wiki-leaked? Isn't it even more odd that it needed to be?

I assigned motivations, and perhaps I did so falsely, which is why I asked you to clarify your point of view in my last post. But to me, this is not at all about the procedure, this is about the EGF volunteers involved. So I'll ask again. Do you, or do you not, think that the people who brokered this deal kept it a secret just to make themselves feel important?

[tapir]

Too much discussion about semantics in this thread. Can we stop this, please! I believe there is plenty to discuss about the content of the treaty (and the way it was communicated).

[wineandgolover]

So I'll ask again. Do you, or do you not, think that the people who brokered this deal kept it a secret just to make themselves feel important?

My post was not meant as a personal attack against you, and I apologize

I haven't and won't make your mistake of assigning, or even guessing at, other people's motivations. And I accept your apology.

[tapir]

To summarize what I could gather from the german thread on the DGoB forum, where both Martin Stiassny and Michael Marz (president of the DGoB) responded:

* The haste is apparently due to the sponsors pressing for a swift decision.
* The EGF contacted all members (presidents/boards) explicitly asking for confidential treatment. To me it isn't clear why this was done, but EGF might have seen confidential treatment as the only way to guarantee a swift decision.
* The EGF requested consultation not a vote and people privy to the information interpreted this the same way and apparently complied with the demanded confidentiality (e.g. in Germany not informing the state-level associations) regardless of personal reservations about the procedure. (The Q&A shown in this thread are in the same spirit.)
* Several strong players within the envisioned age limit were already contacted (without full disclosure) to probe their intentions regarding an European insei school. There already are five candidates (from five countries) for 2013, who will be present at the EGC.
* [sl=LiTing]Li Ting[/sl] will be present in Beijing for the first phase of the insei school, so apparently she is closely involved.
* Quite a few articles of the signed treaty don't represent detailed proposals but more or less vague ideas.
* More information soon at the EGC / AGM. The CEGO representative will be present there as well.

[mumps]

The BGA would like to clarify a few things:

* the (signed) China contract document was not made public deliberately by the BGA
* the draft contract was circulated to EGF members with a (reasonable) request for limited circulation and for voting
* the final contract was distributed with some additional covering comments as part of the EGF information pack for the forthcoming AGM, but without any request for restricting circulation further

Regards

Jon Diamond
President

[johnkelly]

A short comment to this Agreement:
- I do not like the style in which it occurred, it is not a commercial contract (unless ;>), only a contract for sponsorship, so I don't see justification for secrecy and speed with which it occurred - what does it mean that the sponsor wanted to speed? No kidding.
- Part of record is unclear what that make feeling that will not be realized becouse of the " objective difficulties";
- The first time I meet with a sponsor who enters so deeply into the matter sponsored. It is not sponsoring a tournament, but the whole federation.
- I do not know how to achieve this agreement to the legal system in my country. "Amateur diploma" is a complete abstraction, especially if someone is expected signature of the competent ministry in my country, here it works differently. First - on the basis of local sports clubs we have to set up the national sport association, then we can think obout. In my country professional sportsmen is who has signed a contract with his club, not brought a certificate from abroad.
- What can change several or even tens professionals? IMO our discipline must be relatively massive, then we can think about the professional player. Even if professionals would like to pass his knowledge to others (which I doubt), but in my country do not really have a place to do it - there is a little clubs without the resources to pay for a professional. Again, there is the local legal system - in my country, to teach, you need to have the title of instructor or coach, so even if a national professional would like to make the legal teach, it still would have to comply certain conditions.

Of course we can ignore such details, I do not think anything has changed in the proverbial "pits" (small local club and community) because hardly anyone will want to spar with adversity - I run local club and I have no idea how I would pay profesional player legally. I think that instead of moving Asian methods we should focus on the similar method like in other disciplines like chess etc.

It is possible that my concerns are exaggerated, but I have not found anywhere a trace suggesting that someone analyze it from this angle. IMO the worst thing we can do is to create a hybrid of bad acting that, in fact, they will struggle activists from the local club.

[mohsart]

I am wholeheartedly positive to this agreement and I sencerely hope and think that it will be good for European go.

However, there are a number of questions...
Democracy:
Was there enough time given to the people voting to fully understand what they were agreeing to?
Was there enough time given to get the information distributed to even the few people intended to receive it, e.g. the boards of the national associations? (Due to circumstances not worth getting into here, none of the board members of the Swedish go association knew anything before the deal was signed.)
Would it perhaps have been been a good idea to seek other ways of contacting the boards that did not vote? (I'll admit I don't know if other countries had similar logistic problems as Sweden or for othere reasons didn't vote. Perhaps all other countries voted?)
Some individuals ("strong players") were contacted personally. I suspect that their say had some kind of impact on the decision?
While I think it's a good idea to have a OK from the potential future professionals, I'm not sure if their votes should have the biggest impact, (Not saying that it had.) nor that more effort should have been put into contacting them than the national boards. (Not saying that it was.)
The haste:
While it may be perfectly understandable reasons behind it, e.g. other actors (such as the Chinese Government) may be supplying funds with such demands, not explaining the reasons will get people speculating which never is a good thing.
The content of the agreement:
I have big problems comprehending the details of what has been agreed upon, specifically regarding the "credit", "EGF income", and "reducion sum".
For instance

So in the calculation for the reduction-sum the amount used as "sum of 6)" in 7) is the all over income of the EGF reduced by 1), 3) and the income just here explained under b).

Is it obvious that "b" is excluded?
It seems to me that e.g. "amount used as 'sum of 6'" is a bit strange, one may argue that it's a way of obfuscating the content. (Perhaps it's just me, being a non native English speaker, but then again most people agreeing to the terms are too.)
Legal aspects:
I have heard a speculation that this deal is a menas of money laundry or a way of transferring money out of the country, which is quite hard for Chinese companies.
While this may be hard to know, it may be good to know of such speculations and to be extra careful.

I hope that these, and other, questions will be answered at the AGM at EGC, so that we can make the best out of the situation without people speculating that there is some kind of faul play...

Also, we now have this agreement signed and done. I don't see how we could terminate it prematurely, so let's make the best out of it regardless of opinions on e.g. Chinese rules!

/Mats

[tchan001]

If the deal is about money laudering, what would the Chinese company get back monetarily for their sponsorship?