Life In 19x19

Bill Spight wrote: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.

hyperpape wrote: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.

pwaldron wrote:If Christoph was speaking for himself then he can say whatever he likes. If he is producing an official congress journal then he is publishing on behalf of the European Go Congress organizing committee and should expect to represent their positions on what they consider important policy issues. If he doesn't like it then he shouldn't accept the editorial position.

Christoph acting as the editor was ensuring the comic author's right of expression of freedom of speech while fulfilling his duty to ensure that the comic's topic was not too unrelated. When he is performing as an editor, it is his own job of doing good editing. If his job should have been bound before by guidelines of the congress organizers, then he should apply them. AFAIK, relevant guidelines did not exist before but after publication (or intended publication, I don't recall) the EGF (not the congress organizers, AFAIK) tried to set new guidelines. I do not know if they were in a position to do so because normally it is the congress organizers who demand a journal.

Supposing the EGF was in a position to set mandatory guidelines. Then if the EGF was in a position to fire the editor, the EGF could have done so. Otherwise the editor might have quit because of disliking the new guidelines.

Procedurally, an editor can be fired or motivated to quit. The question remains whether the EGF should set a guideline that prohibits further Ing Rules critical comics or statements. The EGF ought not to do so because of violating the spirit of human and basic rights.

Rather the EGF might have expressed its possibly different opinion on Ing Rules and comics about them. Every good editor would happily include that in the journal and enjoy the continued discussion. A congress journal is also for such discussions, as much as the congress area is for such verbal discussions.

RobertJasiek wrote:fitting my desired standard of quality of contents

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

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to speak or publish your opinions in media that do not belong to you. If you doubt this, please contact a TV station and demand that you are allowed to express your opinion in a topic-related show (e.g. a political talkshow). This won't even be successful if it's a public TV station, let alone a private one. What it basically does mean is that you can voice your opinion freely on the street. It also means you don't get imprisoned or otherwise punished for speaking your mind (within limits).

If the editor had published (and paid for) his own journal, he probably could have put in whatever he wanted (as long as it's legal). 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.

The case discussed here has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Human rights are a much higher value than Go sponsorship.

Please leave religion out of this forum.

John Fairbairn wrote:

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.

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

RobertJasiek wrote:

hyperpape wrote: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.

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.

John Fairbairn wrote:

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.

Mivo wrote: 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.

robinz wrote: insulting one's sponsors

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

I must have misread the subject of this thread.

hyperpape wrote: 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).

RobertJasiek wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: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.