Life In 19x19

While there are questions of principle, it matters a lot what the facts are. Robert was imagining that you would be prosecuted for carrying a computer that contains the bare phrase "nobel prize". That would obviously be intolerable, but it seems unlikely.

What are the actual cases of Westerners getting in trouble for literature (whether digital or physical) that they brought in to China? Of course it would be hard to distinguish cases where they intended to distribute the literature from cases where it was intended for personal use. I don't think the distinction makes much of a moral difference, but it might matter for our discussion about proper behavior for an international representative.

Of course mountains and molehills come into the equation, though that never stops trolls.

If you take everything at face value, you might assume that the English signs at the Pearl Tower in Shanghai apply generally in China, in which case western go tourists would have a tough time.

Many of them wouldn't get in under the Tower's rule that says "The ragamuffin, drunken people and psychotics are forbidden to enter the Tower."

Many others might not make it through carrying forbidden items such as swords or a "metal-made electric appliance".

The remainder would then have to sweat on the test as to whether they have "The peculiar smell of effluvium."

Of course, many might not even make it to China in the first place if they booked a flight via Heathrow

kirkmc wrote: if you were to be a representative of your country for an event, then you are, indeed, acting as a representative, a bit of a diplomat.

First of all, go players in tournaments act as go players. They have not qualified for the sake of acting as diplomats. That in practice they also perform delegation jobs is just a compromise to save costs of flight tickets.

If you can't accept that, you shouldn't represent your country.

A go player must play go. A politician must make politics. These two things are separate issues. A strong player need not be a strong politician and vice versa. Therefore one should not expect players to act as politicians automatically.

Secondly, when a player wins his right to play in an international tournament by quaifying with success on the board, his qualification should not then depend on an extra criterion of whether accidentally he happens to agree with the current politics of his association.

Thirdly, collecting points to qualify took me about 13 years. During all that time, everybody I know of talked about that qualification system as solely some where qualification is earned by the results in the national championships. That is also what their tournament rules said all the time. Never had anybody indicated to me that there would be an expectation of an additional duty. So what all the years I had assumed was to represent the German go community on the go board while it did not occur to me that there would also be politics involved, or even as possibly a necessary condition for being a player in the international tournament.

You can't separate your position as someone selected to act in the name of your country

Nah, country is an exaggeration. Not the country selects go players but the national go association does.

If your theory were right that a player can't separate, then always would the strongest players be the national representatives at EGF AGMs. Since this is not so, your theory is wrong. Very clearly, it is possible to have different persons for playing and for politics.

The same goes for any position as a representative of your go association. You may disagree with the association's decisions, but, unless you refuse to accept that (assuming this is the case, of course) these decisions were arrived at democratically, and wish to create a schism, then you simply must support the positions of that association.

No. Freedom of opinion is allowed. Yet more importantly, if an association is about to violate human rights, then an ordinary member not only has the right but even the duty to oppose.

(I'd point out that the same is the way people do things in business, or in politics.)

Politics is very different! An ordinary citizen does not have to represent his country on the diplomatic level just because the current politicians would like to enforce him their current politics.

If you disagree that much with a group, and can't sublimate your views to those of the majority, then you should leave the group.

Rather I convince the group to become reasonable (here: to abide by human rights).

Robert, it's quite simple. Things work a certain way. If you don't like it, you have two choices: change them, or drop out. The former takes a long time, and you can't simply say "Because it's me, it has to change." You ignore basic principles of democracy (for your go association). If you can't agree with what they say, then don't represent them. If that means you can't play in a tournament, it's up to you how much you value your own opinion. By entering the process that you claim took 13 years, you are accepting the rules and conditions that were established. You like doing this; saying, "Oh, I didn't know," whereas it's up to you to find out. (This was the same things you said in the drug testing thread.) You seem to have difficulties finding information, whereas, frankly, I think you're a pretty smart guy.

BTw, your explanations above are petty and incorrect. And you're naive. You say:

So what all the years I had assumed was to represent the German go community on the go board while it did not occur to me that there would also be politics involved, or even as possibly a necessary condition for being a player in the international tournament.

Seriously? Do you really think that "politics" (in the sense of relations among groups or countries, not that involving elected officials) wasn't part of this? Politics, frankly, is part of all human interactions, be they at work (office politics) or in public events. You are - whether you like it or not - representing your country. You either accept the rules, or let someone else do it.

John Fairbairn wrote:You are entitled to believe in individual human rights, of course, but that doesn't mean that you should force the IGF or its members to share your "religion".

It is not religion but law accepted by many countries as the result of thousands of years of mankind's experience that the right of the physically more powerful was a much worse alternative.

RobertJasiek wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:You are entitled to believe in individual human rights, of course, but that doesn't mean that you should force the IGF or its members to share your "religion".

It is not religion but law accepted by many countries as the result of thousands of years of mankind's experience that the right of the physically more powerful was a much worse alternative.

You know, I totally missed the ruling by an international court that WADA's out of competition testing was in violation of human rights.

RobertJasiek wrote:Thirdly, collecting points to qualify took me about 13 years. During all that time, everybody I know of talked about that qualification system as solely some where qualification is earned by the results in the national championships. That is also what their tournament rules said all the time. Never had anybody indicated to me that there would be an expectation of an additional duty. So what all the years I had assumed was to represent the German go community on the go board while it did not occur to me that there would also be politics involved, or even as possibly a necessary condition for being a player in the international tournament.

In 13 years of trying to qualify for an international tournament, it never occurred to you that you there would be an expectation to follow the laws of the host country? The expectation to follow host country laws is so obvious I wouldn't even think it needs to be explained.

kirkmc wrote: If you can't agree with what they say, then don't represent them.

That's what I offered to them: Not to represent them at the IGF meeting. However, they chose to go for a compromise with that I could agree while then also representing them.

it's up to you to find out.

Simple: There was no rule that a WAGC player must also represent his association. If anything, it was only a tradition. I.e., non-mandatory.

You seem to have difficulties finding information

Finding information is the easy part. The difficult part is to verify whether the information is relevant and correct. E.g., I still do not have reliable information which prohibited doping substances list would be the one to be applied. All I have is varying rumours. I have asked the German go association executive and an IGF director to get a definite answer but have not received one yet. Have you done likewise and already got an answer?

You either accept the rules, or let someone else do it.

Exactly, and the German rules say NOTHING about political representation or even a duty of it.

HermanHiddema wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:You are entitled to believe in individual human rights, of course, but that doesn't mean that you should force the IGF or its members to share your "religion".

It is not religion but law accepted by many countries as the result of thousands of years of mankind's experience that the right of the physically more powerful was a much worse alternative.

You know, I totally missed the ruling by an international court that WADA's out of competition testing was in violation of human rights.

Robert is a 5 dan in hyperbole.

RobertJasiek wrote:

kirkmc wrote: If you can't agree with what they say, then don't represent them.

That's what I offered to them: Not to represent them at the IGF meeting. However, they chose to go for a compromise with that I could agree while then also representing them.

it's up to you to find out.

Simple: There was no rule that a WAGC player must also represent his association. If anything, it was only a tradition. I.e., non-mandatory.

You seem to have difficulties finding information

Finding information is the easy part. The difficult part is to verify whether the information is relevant and correct. E.g., I still do not have reliable information which prohibited doping substances list would be the one to be applied. All I have is varying rumours. I have asked the German go association executive and an IGF director to get a definite answer but have not received one yet. Have you done likewise and already got an answer?

You either accept the rules, or let someone else do it.

Exactly, and the German rules say NOTHING about political representation or even a duty of it.

You're still mistaking the term "political" here.

And, above, you say it was a "tradition"; in 13 years, you didn't know that tradition? I have a feeling that you're a prominent member of the German go association, so you must have been aware the way things occurred.

HermanHiddema wrote:You know, I totally missed the ruling by an international court that WADA's out of competition testing was in violation of human rights.

I think the Belgian athletes, who have questioned the same, are still being on their national courts level. We will have to wait the usual another decade or so until matters reach high international courts. Not surprisingly, because whereabouts rules are pretty new, introduced January 2009 (or 2008?) and courts are hopelessly slow.

RobertJasiek wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:You know, I totally missed the ruling by an international court that WADA's out of competition testing was in violation of human rights.

I think the Belgian athletes, who have questioned the same, are still being on their national courts level. We will have to wait the usual another decade or so until matters reach high international courts. Not surprisingly, because whereabouts rules are pretty new, introduced January 2009 (or 2008?) and courts are hopelessly slow.

So your refusal to support democratically reached decisions of the DGoB was based on nothing but your personal opinion then?

oren wrote:it never occurred to you that you there would be an expectation to follow the laws of the host country? The expectation to follow host country laws is so obvious I wouldn't even think it needs to be explained.

I have not said so.

I follow and expect to have to follow the laws of the host country, provided they do NOT violate higher principles like human rights.

I also expect that one crime is punished only once and not twice (like by a second punishment by the IGF).

The mistake of the IGF conduct clause is not to point out the existence of national laws but the mistake is a) to ignore international law and the possibility of its conflict with thus invalid national law, b) to ignore the possibility of an oppressive country, c) to punish for the second time at all and d) possibly to give the IGF Board too much power / duties it will be able to handle in the long run.

kirkmc wrote: in 13 years, you didn't know that tradition? I have a feeling that you're a prominent member of the German go association, so you must have been aware the way things occurred.

In the past even much more than today, IGF politics were first of all mostly kept secret to us ordinary players. I think there was also a reform of the IGF from Japan-centered to world-wide and that has been comparatively recent. German go association executive members said little to ordinary players about how the IGF worked internally and WAGC participants reported, if at all, about the go tournament and their country travel experience - not or hardly anything about IGF or even its politics and internal structure. It did not occur to me that information that later might become relevant for me remained hidden and that I should surpass the general lack of information by asking suitable questions about internal IGF structures years earlier.

It is like internal EU structure. Unless you start to read laws or specialized EU literature on your own, you would not even notice that there is a difference between initiative legislature and adopting legislature and how they are shared between the EU bodies. Almost all the media and politicians leave us innocent EU citizens dull.

HermanHiddema wrote:So your refusal to support democratically reached decisions of the DGoB was based on nothing but your personal opinion then?

As I have said, not just my opinion but also my conscience.

As I have explained, I do not consider players to have a duty to support as a politician against their will an association's executive contrary to those players' will. Quite like I do not expect a national soccer team member and German citizen to have to support the German government in their, say, non-international armed conflict (informally called "war" or "war-like situation") in Afghanistan.

EDIT: Democracy involves the right to be of different opinion and of having the option to choose not to support a contrary opinion actively. This does not require having to quit democracy (the DGoB) but it suffices to choose a different representative for the IGF meeting. Not in the least would democracy be hurt if political representative and player representative were different. In fact, like this it has worked in EGC and EGF for many years.