AGA Rules vs. Japanese

[hyperpape]

Human rights are a much higher value than Go sponsorship.

Please leave religion out of this forum.

From someone who talks about the value of tradition, this comment reflects a sublime lack of self-awareness.

[robinz]

John, this isn't the first time I've seen you refer to human rights as a "religion" on this forum - something with which I can't agree, and hope most other forum user's don't also. There most certainly are certain basic rights which we should all have a right to expect (even if not all regimes around the world respect them). NB: I am not saying that I agree with every aspect of the so-called human rights legislation in the West - much of it does go too far. But the basic concept is surely sound.

However, on this particular issue, while I know nothing of the details of the case being discussed, I do agree with you that using "human rights" to justify insulting one's sponsors is faintly ridiculous

[hyperpape]

I would like to exercise my free speech by posting things about [an unrelated topic] on your website.

My website serves the purpose of presenting information from me or about topics I want to present there, subject to ressource restrictions. If you have information about rules, go theory, or 18xx fitting my desired standard of quality of contents, then it is possible that I give you or anybody else the chance to publish it on my website.

My website is not a forum for free access for expression of speech though, e.g., because the website's ressources are too limited for the purpose.

Is a congress go journal a forum for free speech or limited? It is limited in its scope of contents. The contents should be related to go, the congress or their participants. I guess every editor of such a journal would reject a too unrelated topic.

Moreover, the journal is limited in other ways. It is more like a publicity piece than a forum for debate. You would not talk about how badly a top player had performed, or how stupid his play was, for instance.

But even if the journal was something like a forum for debate, it would not be a free speech issue. Even if it they are intellectually dishonest or cowardly, actions by private entities don't make for violations of free speech unless they are so pervasive as to shut out alternate viewpoints, or unless they are backed by severe intimidation or threats. Free speech simply does not equal the right to be given a platform by others.

[John Fairbairn]

From someone who talks about the value of tradition, this comment reflects a sublime lack of self-awareness.

From someone who doesn't even know me or about me, this comment reflects a sublime textbook case of the frailties of amateur psychology.

[hyperpape]

From someone who talks about the value of tradition, this comment reflects a sublime lack of self-awareness.

From someone who doesn't even know me or about me, this comment reflects a sublime textbook case of the frailties of amateur psychology.

Ba-dum-tsch!

Only your comment doesn't make sense. You continually tell us that tradition ought to be respected, because well...just because. Then you say belief in human rights is just a religion. Pot, kettle.

But you're right. I don't know you. So I should say that it appears to reflect a sublime lack of self-awareness. Maybe you have a lot to say about why tradition is great and why human rights are nonsense, and you just choose not to share those thoughts, perhaps because snarking is a lot less work.

[RobertJasiek]

And apparently the comic you refer to didn't meet the standard of quality of those paying for the publication of the journal.

The decision had nothing to do with quality but only with fear of losing future sponsor money from Ing.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to speak or publish your opinions in media that do not belong to you.
The case discussed here has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Censoring specific contents violates the spirit of freedom of speech and that is bad enough.

If, however, you use the money and the resources of other people, or act on behalf of a group/organization (i.e. represent them), you are bound to their rules, their standards and their expectations. You have the freedom to not work for these groups and organizations, too.

In fact, Christoph wanted to stop editing afterwards. I do not know what made him change his mind again.

[RobertJasiek]

insulting one's sponsors

Criticising Ing rules / equipment does not mean to insult the Ing sponsorship people.

[tj86430]

I must have misread the subject of this thread.

[RobertJasiek]

the journal is limited in other ways. It is more like a publicity piece than a forum for debate. You would not talk about how badly a top player had performed, or how stupid his play was, for instance.

Such discussion occurs in congress journals.

unless they are so pervasive as to shut out alternate viewpoints,

It is more like they prohibited expression of the majority viewpoint. A simplifying statistics done at that 1996 congress counted 90% Japanese rules, 10% Ing rules (no other options being available in the choice).

[Bill Spight]

You can also make a gain under AGA rules if you can take and fill a ko after all the dame have been filled. That is something to be aware of, but, again, something that you will rarely be able to engineer.

Not that rarely. I think, it is somewhere around 1:40 that the score is affected.

Oh, the score may be affected that often, but that is not the same thing as engineering the position by your earlier choice of play.

[RobertJasiek]

that is not the same thing as engineering the position by your earlier choice of play.

It depends on which prior moment we are looking at. With a very much earlier moment, you are right, of course.

[jts]

I must have misread the subject of this thread.

It was a typo. Hailthorn meant for the topic to be "Robert Jasiek, tell me what you think about the world"

[John Fairbairn]

But you're right. I don't know you. So I should say that it appears to reflect a sublime lack of self-awareness. Maybe you have a lot to say about why tradition is great and why human rights are nonsense, and you just choose not to share those thoughts, perhaps because snarking is a lot less work.

Do please stop and analyse carefully what you are saying. If I suggest that tradition is worthy of respect in response to people who belittle it (which has been the context - though maybe you are too new to the forums to know that), I am not saying either that tradition is "great" or that change is wrong. And even in that context I haven't mentioned tradition very often anyway. You are presumably confusing the fact that I sometimes write about go history with that. More intellectual rigour, please. More attention to context - woods and trees and all that.

Suggesting that human rights/green/pc extremists behave with religious fervour (again, part of a long-running context) is likewise nowhere near saying that human rights etc is nonsense (though some of it is, and the extremism certainly is, and ditto shooting the messenger who points this out).

Further, to accuse someone who writes much more about go than most of avoiding work also seems to lack a little rigour. Maybe it's the knee-jerk reactions of smug amateur psychologists that betoken work shyness?

Naturally, I wouldn't want to write about tradition and human rights in general in this go forum. But they have had a legitimate if marginal relevance to previous go matters and so I have responded to mentions of them, peripherally.

To get back to one derived point of the thread: as I have said before, it is my belief (tempered by knowledge, in some cases, having spoken to e.g. directors of sponsoring companies, of their disapproval of certain aspects of western behaviour) that obsession with rules has badly affected western go, including the possibility that sponsorship has been lost.

If someone is happy that a few individuals have been able to exercise their "human rights" to freedom of speech (a social construct, note, not a biological given) by, for example, making a self-indulgent noise in public about Ing clocks and rules, when they could just as easily and probably more effectively have made their case in many other less offensive ways, none of them prohibited or likely to be prohibited (e.g. letters to Ing, words in the ears of influential people, motions at conferences, questions rather than assertions, etc), that person is presumably thereby happy with the possibility that many thousands of other western go players may have lost sponsorship and friends through no fault of their own. What about their "human rights"? What about the freedom of speech to speak up on behalf of them.

That is the trouble with much of human rights as actually enacted. A right for one person becomes a loss or victimisation for another. That part of it is nonsense. Freedom of speech (in its quasi-religious manifestation) can also be a dangerous concept. Even if you don't quite agree with that (for historical reasons, Americans often have a different feel for it from Europeans, who in turn my feel quite differently from, say, Japanese), it is surely inescapable that freedom of speech brings with it the freedom to be a prat, and the consequences of being a prat.

[For the sake of those who believe this is either off-topic (it isn't really) or tedious repetition (yes it is, but not speaking up loses the battle by default), this will (probably) be my last post on this thread - so feel free to get your insults in now ]

[Bill Spight]

[For the sake of those who believe this is either off-topic (it isn't really) or tedious repetition (yes it is, but not speaking up loses the battle by default), this will (probably) be my last post on this thread - so feel free to get your insults in now ]

Blimey, a Limey!

(Is that insulting enough, John? )

[RobertJasiek]

it is my belief [...] that obsession with rules has badly affected western go.

Obsession with rules started with obscurity of Japanese rules in Japan and as a consequence the centuries-lasting delay in the spreading of go to Europe and then the entire world. The obsession for obscurity badly affected western go because it made it particularly hard for Europeans to understand at first what go was at all.

The obsession of Europeans to understand the rules and the game nevertheless made it possible for go to reach Europe as a game rather than to continue to be nothing more than playing material without known function.

Then, when the game was finally played as a game in western countries at all, came the obsession by Robinson and Olmsted. It came in a time when go started to grow in the USA. If there should have been any relation, then it must have been a positive one and not, as you suggest, a negative one.

Apart from side tracks like Ikeda (in Japan!), the next rules obsession was Ing's, who is not exactly what one might call a "westener".

Western countries saw a next wave of rules obsession starting around 1990; pretty much at the same time when Ing sponsored tournaments affected also western countries. Two rules obsessions met. Now western rules freaks were faced with two serious problems: to understand Japanese rules and to understand Ing rules. What (besides the bad Ing playing material) badly affected western go was the difficulty lying in those rules.

The rules obsession (besides its rules explanations) also created a great effect for the western go: a much deeper understanding of some kinds of fundamental go theory with explanations far better than eastern descriptions.

including the possibility that sponsorship has been lost

The major reason for sponsorhip loss was the 2008 world finance crisis. There are also other reasons like the idea that westerns countries should learn to stand on their own feet.

It is very good if bad rules (both rules of play and tournament rules) are not spread any longer together with associated sponsor money because being forced to apply inapplicable and bad rules is not worth the money. Money does not make sponsors' rules any better. Bad rules must be changed also in the sponsors' countries themselves because internationalism keeps creating impacts of bad rules from one country to other countries.

a few individuals [...] making [...] noise [...] about Ing clocks and rules

It is not a few but many individuals. You would know if you attended, e.g., European congresses regularly and sought opinions about such topics.

when they could just as easily and probably more effectively have made their case in many other less offensive ways,

What is offensive about stating facts? Isn't the spreading of bad rules more offensive?

none of them prohibited or likely to be prohibited (e.g. letters to Ing, words in the ears of influential people, motions at conferences

As said many times before, all that was done.

thousands of other western go players may have lost sponsorship and friends through no fault of their own.

Money does not buy friends.

Again you like to construct your bombastic theory that openly discussing people would be responsible for stopped sponsorship. Well then, blame the majorities of participants of European tournaments, EGF politicians, the rules experts and yourself (because you make all that more and more public). I have the theory that sponsors decide about sponsorship on their own. If they want to spread go in the world, then they do it. If they want to spread go in their own countries, then they do that. If economy is worse than they can bear, then they keep their money together. Western people have always enjoyed open discussion and sponsorship has increased or declined nevertheless.