Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:

balistic wrote:...Bin laden, Muammar Al-Gaddafi...

No. Hitler.

Exactly.

shapenaji, the kiin might be being destructive, but SGC is only being more destructive in the response.

First, the lawsuit won't accomplish anything. If the trust is running low on money, then there is nothing the Kiin can do. Even if SGC wins the lawsuit, the building can still probably be sold through different means.

Second, SGC's actions are destructive to baduk for everyone in north america. Japanese orgs react very badly to being sued. This will jeopardize the Kiin's support to anyone else, and make any other professional extremely reluctant to donate to baduk related activities outside of Japan.

I understand how frustrating it can be when communications break down. I deal with intercompany relationships between the US and Japan on a daily basis. Unfortuantely the American side sometimes expects the Japan side to come to the table without any information provided in advance from the Americans. If the Americans get impatient and take drastic action, it NEVER works out.

There are literally hundreds of places worldwide to put a center like this. Nobody (Kiin, KBC,etc) will choose Seattle after this. I'm not saying this to ruffle feathers, I'm just being dead honest here. Its hard for me to express in words how bad this looks in the business culture there.

shapenaji wrote:

@Jedo and shapenaji: The SGC is not self-sufficient then, if is is reliant on the building it doesnt hold ownership over.

by this logic, neither is any small business that has a landlord. I would hope you believe that small businesses have rights and cannot be simply tossed out because the landlord heard about this really sweet deal involving selling the land to make room for a strip mall. Tenants have rights.
.

Well, I have tried to stay out of this, but I suppose, now that "Hitler" is being thrown around, this thread's days may be numbered.

It seems to me that I stand between Ed Lee and Shapenaji on this situation. For what the Nihon Kiin has done, and for Iwamoto as well, I lean towards Ed, and I share his sense of ingratitude that it has come to this.

However, since I also sympathize with what it must be like to lose a successful, daily go club, knowing how it feels to lose an unsuccessful daily go club here in Baltmore - I want to understand the other point of view.

However, Shapenaji statements are way too emotional on the other side, and are really quite biased. A good example is his statement above. A small business pays the landlord money for the of the property. It makes enough money to pay all of its other bills and obligations, and makes some profit for its owner. The landlord is compensated for the present value of the property by the rent - in an arms length transaction. That is self sufficient, the Seattle Go Center is only self suffient if it is the de facto owner of the property.

I believe the relevant facts are as follows:

1. Iwamoto presented the world with a pile of money to spread go.
2. He gave the Nihon Kiin the power to manage this effort.
3. During his life, Go Centers in New York, Seattle, Amsterdam and Sao Paulo were founded.
4. The Seattle Center was planned to make money from first floor commercial rents in order to support the Center and the fees associated with the building.
5. Despite struggles, Seattle has managed to survive, if not thrive, without additional funds from the Nihon Kiin.
6. Amsterdam has "succeeded" as well, New York failed and I have no info on Sao Paulo.
7. The Nihon Kiin has decided to sell the building in Seattle, and use the funds to make NY viable.
8. Attempts to discuss this have not been successful, as far as the Seattle Go Center is concerned.
9. Seattle has filed suit.

Feel free to quibble, but these are the facts as I understand it. The value of this gift to American Go, both in NY and Seattle has been enormous, and demands our thanks. I do not believe Seattle can rely on generic "tenant's rights", they simply do not have the legal status of rent paying tenants.

But perhaps they do have some equitable rights along the lines judicata theorized. They have been carrying out the work, the mission, of the original grant, with reasonable, fairly stable success.

The big missing piece for me is the exact nature of the bequest from Honinbo Kunwa and how much latitude does the Nihon Kiin have in fulfilling his goals. This is the black box we are dealing with.

I hope I am wrong, but I find it hard to believe that the Nihon Kiin is hard wired, explicitly demanded to commit resources and assets permanently at each location. I find it hard to believe that it would not be rational, and in the spirit of their instructions, that having a thriving Go Center in the great metropolitan city (I would never want to live there - I would choose Seattle anyday) of New York is more important than a successful one in Seattle. If the assets of the bequest support only one location, then from an international point of view, New York seems a rational choice - so good they named it twice. So long as the funds from the sale of the building in Seattle are used to serve the purposes of the bequest - demonizing the Nihon Kiin is unfair.

But this is undeniably a bitter pill for Seattle, who can rightly claim, even if all circumstances might not have been equal, that they succeeded, and NY failed.

It is easy to honor the Honinbo for his generosity, and the Seattle folks for their hard work, but I see all manner of bad aji in demonizing the Nihon Kiin for this decision. I simply do not believe that the "black box" in this equation is going reveal that this call is outside of their authority.

Again, I hope I am wrong, and that the bequest states that assets, once placed and once established, belong to the Go community of that place, somehow forever. I am afraid this is unlikely however, and I do not welcome the bad aji of this development.

Probably it's always a bad idea to mention Hitler, but I hope it's clear that the intent of the comment was to be a bizarre non-sequitur, since I thought the previous post's mention of Bin-Laden was a bizarre non-sequitur.

balistic wrote:

shapenaji wrote: If I save 1000 people, it doesn't give me the right to kill 1.

Yet your country believes otherwise. Bin laden, Muammar Al-Gaddafi ...

I am done with parroting against your repitious points. If it entertains you so much just keep re-reading my old posts.

The rest of us will happily wait for the information we need.

The size of this logical fallacy is so enormous I'm not sure you're not trolling.

Cheers.

HKA wrote:
Well, I have tried to stay out of this, but I suppose, now that "Hitler" is being thrown around, this thread's days may be numbered.

Godwin's Law, bound to happen. An honorable mention for balistic's "Well you may think that, but your COUNTRY thinks otherwise: <insert various red herrings>"

It seems to me that I stand between Ed Lee and Shapenaji on this situation. For what the Nihon Kiin has done, and for Iwamoto as well, I lean towards Ed, and I share his sense of ingratitude that it has come to this.

However, since I also sympathize with what it must be like to lose a successful, daily go club, knowing how it feels to lose an unsuccessful daily go club here in Baltmore - I want to understand the other point of view.

However, Shapenaji statements are way too emotional on the other side, and are really quite biased. A good example is his statement above. A small business pays the landlord money for the of the property. It makes enough money to pay all of its other bills and obligations, and makes some profit for its owner. The landlord is compensated for the present value of the property by the rent - in an arms length transaction. That is self sufficient, the Seattle Go Center is only self suffient if it is the de facto owner of the property.

I'm not sure how you can claim that I'm being biased. As I said, there has been no official statement from the Nihon Kiin. The only thing I'm defending here is SGC's right to litigate (If they have evidence of contract breach, which they say they do). Since the Nihon Kiin has not come out on this issue and we only have the releases of one side to consider, I think it is biased to assume they are biting the hand that feeds them.

I don't think emotional describes my comments at all

I hope I am wrong, but I find it hard to believe that the Nihon Kiin is hard wired, explicitly demanded to commit resources and assets permanently at each location. I find it hard to believe that it would not be rational, and in the spirit of their instructions, that having a thriving Go Center in the great metropolitan city (I would never want to live there - I would choose Seattle anyday) of New York is more important than a successful one in Seattle. If the assets of the bequest support only one location, then from an international point of view, New York seems a rational choice - so good they named it twice. So long as the funds from the sale of the building in Seattle are used to serve the purposes of the bequest - demonizing the Nihon Kiin is unfair.

One could very easily argue that the sale is at odds with the bequest and this may be the legal grounds that SGC is pursuing. (For starters, the rent on a center in Seattle is considerably less than the rent on a spot in midtown)

But this is undeniably a bitter pill for Seattle, who can rightly claim, even if all circumstances might not have been equal, that they succeeded, and NY failed.

It is easy to honor the Honinbo for his generosity, and the Seattle folks for their hard work, but I see all manner of bad aji in demonizing the Nihon Kiin for this decision. I simply do not believe that the "black box" in this equation is going reveal that this call is outside of their authority.

I see nothing wrong with a legal remedy to a contract dispute. People hear the phrase "X is suing Y" and suddenly see the sides through "McDonald's Second-degree-burn style Coffee"-glasses. Even the Nihon Kiin can be remiss in their obligations, so I'm not sure that the results of the black box are so predictable.

Again, I hope I am wrong, and that the bequest states that assets, once placed and once established, belong to the Go community of that place, somehow forever. I am afraid this is unlikely however, and I do not welcome the bad aji of this development.

Iwamoto sensei planted a seed, that seed has grown and put down roots. I believe it is reasonable for the Nihon Kiin to suggest that the SGC should begin to stand on its own. Selling the building out from under them is not this kind of transitional step.

badukJr wrote:shapenaji, the kiin might be being destructive, but SGC is only being more destructive in the response.

First, the lawsuit won't accomplish anything. If the trust is running low on money, then there is nothing the Kiin can do. Even if SGC wins the lawsuit, the building can still probably be sold through different means.

Second, SGC's actions are destructive to baduk for everyone in north america. Japanese orgs react very badly to being sued. This will jeopardize the Kiin's support to anyone else, and make any other professional extremely reluctant to donate to baduk related activities outside of Japan.

I understand how frustrating it can be when communications break down. I deal with intercompany relationships between the US and Japan on a daily basis. Unfortuantely the American side sometimes expects the Japan side to come to the table without any information provided in advance from the Americans. If the Americans get impatient and take drastic action, it NEVER works out.

There are literally hundreds of places worldwide to put a center like this. Nobody (Kiin, KBC,etc) will choose Seattle after this. I'm not saying this to ruffle feathers, I'm just being dead honest here. Its hard for me to express in words how bad this looks in the business culture there.

You have a good point about Japanese organizations response to lawsuits.

That being said, I believe this is the exception, the SGC gets exactly one thing out of their relationship with the Nihon Kiin: the space they use (Which they maintain).

In other cases I would agree with you, I would say that this is going to make its way around and bite them on the way back.

In this case, there's only one thing at stake, the SGC has nothing else to be bitten off.

shapenaji wrote:I see nothing wrong with a legal remedy to a contract dispute. People hear the phrase "X is suing Y" and suddenly see the sides through "McDonald's Second-degree-burn style Coffee"-glasses. Even the Nihon Kiin can be remiss in their obligations, so I'm not sure that the results of the black box are so predictable.

This is slightly off-topic, but worth mentioning because many people have a smug, Panglossian attitude towards the silly lawsuits they learn about in Reader's Digest: "In this best of all possible worlds, isn't it awful that some silly people sue other people over coffee? Ho, ho, ho!"

In fact, at the time McDonald's required its restaurants to serve coffee at 180-190 deg. F (82-88 deg. C), which is extremely close to boiling, as a corporate policy. An old woman suffered severe burns (third degree, actually) when she spilled the near-boiling coffee on her sweat pants. She originally asked McDonald's to cover the medical costs of her skin grafts, but they refused, and in the course of the trial it came out that McDonald's was well aware of the dangers involved, and had settled 700 cases of people burned by their coffee, but refused to serve it at a safe temperature. The jury decided to award one day of coffee revenues as punitive damages, which the judge immediately reduced.

People have legal and moral obligations. People have legal and moral rights. Lawsuits can be expensive and time-consuming, but having legal rights and the ability to exercise them is a valuable part of modern civilization.

jts wrote:People have legal and moral obligations. People have legal and moral rights. Lawsuits can be expensive and time-consuming, but having legal rights and the ability to exercise them is a valuable part of modern civilization.

Thanks for this. I thought about responding to this sentiment earlier, but thought it might appear self-interested. For the record, I happen to represent defendants almost exclusively, and therefore seek to defeat meritless claims. But the defense bar still benefits from the filing of lawsuits--we have to defend against something. But the real point is that stories of outrageously frivolous lawsuits are almost always overblown and leave out significant details--the McDonald's suit among them. In other stories, they focus on the fact someone sued, which means nothing--judges throw out meritless claims all the time. That said, crazy verdicts/decisions do happen, though they are usually (but not always) corrected at some point (e.g. on appeal).

And this isn't entirely off-topic; it also goes to my earlier comment about withholding judgment until you have the facts.

balistic wrote:

shapenaji wrote: If I save 1000 people, it doesn't give me the right to kill 1.

Yet your country believes otherwise. Bin laden, Muammar Al-Gaddafi ...

I am done with parroting against your repitious points. If it entertains you so much just keep re-reading my old posts.

The rest of us will happily wait for the information we need.

This quote generally refers to innocent people... but even so, the US doesn't follow it

To me, the facts about who owns the building, merits of the case etc. are largely irrelevant. All that matters is THE SEATTLE GO CENTRE IS SUING THE NIHON KI-IN. Step back for a moment and reflect on the ridiculousness of it all. Suing is something you do to your enemies, not your friends. If the Ki-in aren't enemies of the SGC yet, they likely will be by the end of it all. Any victory will likely be Pyrrhic. Or is this just my weird anti-litigous British culture talking? I'm no expert on Japanese culture, but I am aware it is quite different to "Western" so is likely more different from American than British is and they will likely view this action even worse than I do.

P.S. not that litigious Americans are all bad: making software to help them endlessly sue each other keeps me in a job

Uberdude wrote: Suing is something you do to your enemies, not your friends. If the Ki-in aren't enemies of the SGC yet, they likely will be by the end of it all. Any victory will likely be Pyrrhic

Same feeling here. This will make any asian sponsor think twice, before helping the go community in the western part of the world again.

And there is a third party involved: What games is the NYGC playing?

The thing I am wondering is how this got to this point? Some money and a building was given to SGC. This is not a string free thing though. There is some expectation. I feel reluctant to say anything because to me its hard to believe nobody at the SGC was acquainted with dealing with this situation.

To have a successful relationship over the pacific, in my experience, the minimum is:
1. Weekly reporting of activities (short, 1 or 2 page summary - mostly diagrams)
2. Once a month video meeting (skyping, whatever)
3. Someone in the Japan org to push your interest during the numerous meetings that you have no idea about

I would be astonished if SGC wasn't doing 1., because this is really a de-facto standard. 2. probably doesn't have to EVERY month. My gut feeling is there wasn't a 3., and that maybe NYGC has a 3. Nobody previously involved with NYGC may even know about their 3., just might be someone who likes NY as a city, or someone previously affiliated with the Kiin has moved to NY. It is difficult to understand the situation dynamics of what goes on.

bayu wrote:And there is a third party involved: What games is the NYGC playing?

Please understand I'm being sincere, and have the go community's interests at heart with the following request: I respectfully urge people to refrain from speculation without facts. This is obviously an emotionally charged situation (and understandably so), which calls for even greater caution in our discussions.

It is fair to ask what knowledge the NYGC has about this situation. But it is not productive to suggest bad faith without a basis for doing so. I can assure you that the NYGC is not playing any games (well, except go on ocassion). I'm also quite confident that the NYGC (those people involved in the organization) has very little knowledge about what is going on.

badukJr wrote:The thing I am wondering is how this got to this point? Some money and a building was given to SGC. This is not a string free thing though. There is some expectation. I feel reluctant to say anything because to me its hard to believe nobody at the SGC was acquainted with dealing with this situation.

To have a successful relationship over the pacific, in my experience, the minimum is:
1. Weekly reporting of activities (short, 1 or 2 page summary - mostly diagrams)
2. Once a month video meeting (skyping, whatever)
3. Someone in the Japan org to push your interest during the numerous meetings that you have no idea about

I would be astonished if SGC wasn't doing 1., because this is really a de-facto standard. 2. probably doesn't have to EVERY month. My gut feeling is there wasn't a 3., and that maybe NYGC has a 3. Nobody previously involved with NYGC may even know about their 3., just might be someone who likes NY as a city, or someone previously affiliated with the Kiin has moved to NY. It is difficult to understand the situation dynamics of what goes on.

This is the really confusing piece to me. Because if NYGC DID have a 3, you'd think they wouldn't have closed in the first place.

So what changed?

EDIT:

Thinking about this a bit more, I wonder if the issue was that it was difficult to sell the location in midtown. So they figure it might be easier to sell the Seattle location...