schrody wrote:I would think that whether the decision body has the willingness and ability to deliberate carefully would be at the crux of the matter.[...]
The crux of the matter is that cheating is incompatible with Go.
You don't appear to understand what happens during the Annual General Meeting. There wasn't going to be any vote on anything non-trivial. Talking about a possibility of voting, when that was not going to happen, and then raise something about a vote on lapsed members is something of a red herring.
There is some truth to it that decisions on lapsed members have sometimes been problematic. You could raise those concerns without referring to the discussion on cheating but as I said it is apples and oranges.
I think that you are still implying that we have asked for something very improper. That there was going to be a sneaky vote, even though EGF constitution is fairly clear on introducing proposals in 'other discussions' and EGF practice is also fairly consistent.
schrody wrote:I don't regret the lack of a vote but I do regret that no discussion took place since cases of cheating continue to be very hush hush and quickly swept under the rug (as would this one be if Iceland didn't take such a strong stance). Of course I don't condone cheating and I agree that the EGF should take a firm and public stance against it, we just disagree regarding the sanctions.
The request is that EGF consider sanctions. We should not have everyone decide first what sanctions they prefer and then have a big argument. In our request we propose to have the meeting at the end of the disciplinary procedure, and in the meeting we would plan to confirm the finding that there was cheating and then decide appropriate sanctions. It is not unreasonable to discuss to have other hearings, nominate committees and discuss important matters along the way. I still think that it is necessary to get the Special General Meeting involved and the Executive too, these bodies are meant to define the responsibilities of the EGF and make meaningful decisions to get things done when there is risk that EGF is unable to live up to its role in the world of Go.
There were two proposals for what those sanctions could be. I think it was important to signal the seriousness of the matter, and not including proposed sanctions would make it unclear what the decision on sanctions was. Importantly, it should be possible to propose new and amended sanctions in the course of the disciplinary procedure.
schrody wrote:There's something I'm really curious about: Which factors should contribute towards the severity of the punishment:
Maybe I will reply more carefully later but for now.
I think there are three elements that need to be considered:
- Corrective
- Protective
- Punitive
The corrective element is if we can correct the behavior, for example by instructing players about how to use the clock or teaching a child that cheating is wrong. There are many aspects to how to correct behavior and many less severe problems only have a corrective solution. More severe problems will often also benefit from considering corrective measures.
The protective element is that we should take steps to prevent the behavior. Many sanctions would be due to this element, especially sanctions against children that unfortunately can be instructed and directed by adults to cheat. We should protect against cheating and other integrity violations as long as we expect it to be necessary, and be fully aware that we do not do this as punishment or because we expect this will lead to correction (thought time may lead to change in behavior).
The punitive element is everything in the sanctions that goes beyond what is needed for correction or protection. In many cases there is no punitive element beyond what is considered necessary to protect against the behavior. We should consider how the behavior affected others for the punitive element. Preventing others from winning prize money, earning rating points or titles, taking qualification spots and invitations, taking away the competition or other experience, and so on are all factors that need not be considered to be all equal but should be considered together. It is also important to consider how many people were affected, if some of the damage could be repaired, and if we should set higher standards for some people (officials, what is called elite athletes, anyone receiving invitations,...)
It is also important to realize that disciplinary matters are never hypothetical, we shouldn't be reductionist and always say 'if A then B', which is tempting with hypotheticals, and something that is important to realize is that the protective element can be the most severe.