Positional Judgement 2 / Dynamics - Review by the Author

[Knotwilg]

[admin]
There are a handful of posts in this thread that are violating or at least skirting the TOS's admonition about not criticizing other members.
Please keep the TOS in mind.
Thanks,
JB
[/admin]

Because I care about RJ and his fantastic efforts to fill gaps in the English Go literature, I wanted to help him understand why his self reviews are counterproductive to his cause. That's really all. But after a while you remember again why you gave up on such attempts many times in the past and go back to "who cares" mode.

Merry Christmas, Robert and all other members!

[Bill Spight]

Third person reference to the writer: apparently not everybody is aware of the meaning of this style of de-emphasising(!) the writer for the sake of emphasising the contents. Maybe it is more common in formal texts (of science).

Caesar dixit.

[RobertJasiek]

Since the author has learnt much while exploring and writing the contents, ...

no other reviewer will be able to devolop the conclusion cited above

Of course, but this misses the point. In the book, I have included everything that I have learnt, is relevant and is on-topic. Therefore the reader (up to ca. 5 dan) can learn essentially the same of everything new (and everything on-topic I knew before). Other reviewers would not express what I have learnt but what they can learn.

[Vesa]

Of course, but this misses the point. In the book, I have included everything that I have learnt, is relevant and is on-topic. Therefore the reader (up to ca. 5 dan) can learn essentially the same of everything new (and everything on-topic I knew before). Other reviewers would not express what I have learnt but what they can learn.

I have a wish that you would learn something from the feedback in this thread. It's not all about go, after all.

Holiday greetings,

Vesa

[Cassandra]

In the book, I have included everything that I have learnt, is relevant and is on-topic. Therefore the reader (up to ca. 5 dan) can learn essentially the same of everything new (and everything on-topic I knew before). Other reviewers would not express what I have learnt but what they can learn.

Dear Robert,

You perfectly hit the point, but still do not understand at all.

NOBODY (please apologise for the exaggeration) is really interested in WHAT YOU (as the author) have learnt during WRITING your books. Learning during writing a book might be a positive side-effect to the WRITER, but this is nothing extraordinary. I am very sure that you know the "saying" (may be that it is life wisdom) that it helps understanding an issue for your own to try explaining this issue to others.

NOBODY is really interested in whether WHAT can be found in your books
-- has been learnt by YOU,
-- is based on one of YOUR insights,
-- is based on one of someone else's insights,
-- has been taken from other sources.

But EVERY potential reader of one of your books would like to know someone else's experiences from READING your books. Because THEY would like to be quite sure (before buying one of your books) that you managed successfully to break down a difficult matter to the level of THEIR current understanding, so that THEY will be able to grasp it, so getting sufficient equivalent for the money to be paid.

THEY are interested to know whether someone who has really READ your book has learnt anything from READING your book, and if so, to which extent, and WHAT in detail, and based on which effort, and how smoothly guided by your texts.

Usually, all these information can be found in a "review" from one or several READERS of your book. If the reviewer is well-known, also "assumptions" (e.g. for which level of players your book is suitable / ideal) will be taken for granted, even is the reviewer has not learnt anything from the book just READ / reviewed for their own play (e.g. because their playing strength is far above the level of the target audience).

You will also know the Chinese saying that tells us that -- if we wanted to get to know something -- it would be much better for us to ask someone experienced, but not a scholar !

In the case of YOUR books, the "scholar" is YOU !

+ + + + +

"Who cares ?"

+ + + + +

EOT

[RobertJasiek]

Cassandra, in the ideal world, soon we would be having many reviews from players of different strengths so that other players know about the early readers' experiences. In reality, potential readers, for whom the book title does not say enough, need (TOC, sample and) a description written by the author (or publisher, if different). You suppose that everybody would assume an author to have created a good work suitable for good learning, and as optimists we can make this assumption of every book. However, this overly simplifies because, you know, different books are different. Different in quality (e.g., on how well or how much one can learn), different in suitable playing strengths of readers and different in how much strong readers can expect to learn from the book. Until there are reviews by readers that are strong players, such potential readers (if they do not get physical access to the book before) need some information telling them to which extent the book might be worth reading for themselves. The information by me that I have learnt a lot from the contents of the book can help such dan players, if they trust my description.

You seem to suggest that I (or other authors) would learn much while writing each of my (their) books. No! When writing beginner books, I learn almost nothing. When having written Volume 1, I have learnt only little because I knew almost all of the contents before starting to write it. Volume 2 is different: I have learnt much while writing it because much is new (or new in its explicit, clear description).

While you dismiss new, or newly described, theory as immaterial, I think that it is essential to know this because it is not the usual book that just restricts itself to previously common knowledge.

[Cassandra]

Cited from viewtopic.php?p=196909#p196909

This thread appears to be simply a distilled continuation of a thread that was sliding into a violation of the TOS.

Jasiek-bashing is not a wintertime sport on L19.

Such a discussion might be better continued by PM.

Dear Admin,

The "distillation" cost me about two hours of thinking time !!

Robert understood nearly every of my latest statements wrong, and replaced the intended meaning with own, but inaccurate, assumptions.

I am sure that Robert knows that the closed thread was not intended to do any "Jasiek-bashing".
However, as was already written earlier:

Because I care about RJ and his fantastic efforts to fill gaps in the English Go literature, I wanted to help him understand why his self reviews are counterproductive to his cause. That's really all. But after a while you remember again why you gave up on such attempts many times in the past and go back to "who cares" mode.

I can only hope that Robert will learn a bit from that text in the closed thread. No further reply in this subject. Absolutely none.

[Sennahoj]

Great review, I'll buy the book

[Darrell]

I, too, once thought a 'self-review' was ridiculous. Then one time I was researching books on a particular topic and remembered that Robert wrote one. I searched for a review and found only his self-review.

Of course, being a self-review I was entirely aware of the lack of objectivity. Of course, I would have preferred one from an outsider, but still his was a whole lot better than nothing. Please notice that I searched on 'review', not 'blurb' or 'summary' or whatever other terms were proposed.

GoDiscussions.com had a nice products area where the reviews were neatly organized by the product. This site doesn't. There are probably ways I could have searched better, but why should I have to be an expert user just to find information on a book.

I don't understand all this criticism about a post that was meant to provide helpful information and clearly noted the conflict of interest. The battle to keep the internet clean and pure was lost a long time ago.

[Charles Matthews]

I don't understand all this criticism about a post that was meant to provide helpful information and clearly noted the conflict of interest. The battle to keep the internet clean and pure was lost a long time ago.

The fact that "conflict of interest" in its multifarious forms bleeds over into sectors where the voluntary ethic is supposed to predominate is no small thing.

[belikewater]

I don't understand all this criticism about a post that was meant to provide helpful information and clearly noted the conflict of interest. The battle to keep the internet clean and pure was lost a long time ago.

I find it ironic that you would weigh in on the discussion after stating the above. Your statement about the battle being lost amounts to saying that critical discussion is pointless, regardless of the medium.

[Darrell]

The fact that "conflict of interest" in its multifarious forms bleeds over into sectors where the voluntary ethic is supposed to predominate is no small thing.

Which is the greater danger to our go forum: conflict of interest by creators or bullying by the self-righteous?

The admin has no problem with the original post, nor do I, nor do several others who have spoken up in this thread. What is really going on here? Perhaps the first few posts were honest attempts to persuade Robert but the later ones are pure hounding.

As a lurker, I prefer positivity over negativity and want to encourage our creators as much as possible. I am willing to give them some leeway.

If you think the TOS needs to cover conflicts of interest, please start another thread about it. If you think the admin was wrong to allow the original post, take it up with the admin.

If you think you are 'helping' Robert understand the error of his ways, you are delusional.

[Joaz Banbeck]

..

The admin has no problem with the original post, nor do I, nor do several others who have spoken up in this thread. What is really going on here? Perhaps the first few posts were honest attempts to persuade Robert but the later ones are pure hounding.

...

If you think the TOS needs to cover conflicts of interest, please start another thread about it. If you think the admin was wrong to allow the original post, take it up with the admin.
...

[admin]
Darrell has some good advice here. Please follow it or I may lock the thread.
[/admin]

[belikewater]

I am confused by the warning to others about the TOS, yet the post above is described as good advice, but contains personal attacks of “bullying by the self-righteous” and “you are delusional”. Charles was addressing the ideas being discussed and I do not see how the comment would lead to locking the thread.

[Darrell]

I am confused by the warning to others about the TOS... Charles was addressing the ideas being discussed and I do not see how the comment would lead to locking the thread.

I know you are fairly new to this board so I hope you will take my suggestion as constructive. When the original poster rejected your advice and the admin says clearly that he sees no problem with the post, you need to let the issue go. While you may think you are participating in a free-wheeling debate, online no one can hear your tone of voice or see your facial expressions nor can you see ours. You may imagine us all sitting around chewing the fat, but you can't see the frowns on some of our faces as we think the continued harping on the issue has moved firmly into harassment. Charles' argument on strict elimination of conflict of interest is weak. There are no orphans or widows here to protect. Robert is not getting rich writing his books. The sudden interest looks more like an excuse to badger.

I don't want this post to be seen as an attack on you or to initiate one. I am hoping you take the time to see my point of view - this thread has devolved into uncivility that I don't want to see in this place that I go to relax in my free time.

I hope everyone can accept the issue as closed and move on to more interesting and positive discussions. Just yesterday the AGA's eJournal had a Kaz lesson about the table shape that made me think back to Charles' excellent Shape Up book where I first learned of it.