Life In 19x19

Javaness wrote:The rules commission does not have any published contact details

My email address is easily found. An email address (I hope it works) of Matti is found here: http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/executive.htm

If you contact one rules commission member, then the whole rules commission will know your email.

the role "Executive Officer: Rules"

I guess it is somewhat informal. Apparently the executive distributes its work among its members.

As I have stated here already, I believe appearances are important.

For the EGF webpage, its webmaster(s) are responsible. Contact them for that... and be patient...

Therefore I offer to improve it, in the interests of improving the EGF. You reject this offer, which is your choice of course. I am surprised that you would reject this offer, since it would be a very small task and would require very little work to approve.

Already adopted documents cannot be just changed. Even I or the rules commission do not have a right to just change them. It involves a process of getting the right from (at least) the EGF committee (or the AGM) and, after correction, the EGF committee will then have to vote again whether the altered text is to be adopted.

Correcting language may be a matter of a few hours for you but it would keep the EGF busy for weeks or even a few months until the adoption cycle would be done again. Presumably because the EGF committee has lots of other tasks with higher priority.

So it would not make sense if I suggested "please do". To avoid work in vain, it is necessary that you contact us directly and not indirectly like via L19.

As I have already mentioned, your sense of language skill might or might not be perceived as better because everybody prefers a different writing style. So even if a new text adoption cycle were opened, your work might be entirely in vain.

It is similar to my attempt of improving the contents-related aspects of language of the WMSG 2008 Rules in my proposed revision. The IGF is not interested, although before the 2008 event promises were made that after the event there would be sufficient time for revision.

It is not my fault that the Rules commission has published rules

Actually the EGF (not just a member of the rules commission) has published them. (I had to wait with copying them on my site until then.)

You say that the text must be opened for discussion at AGM.

No. I say "either AGM or EGF Committee". Especially concerning this ruleset, the EGF Committee was granted the right and duty by the AGM to work out and adopt the necessary details until the EGC 2011. In case of other rulesets, the EGF Committee should be more cautious because it would have to justify its legislative work afterwards during a following AGM. (In theory there is more room for legislation according to the EGF General Tournament Rules but IMO this should not be abused but used only as far as and if necessary. In practice, some new tournament series pop up and urgently need a set of tournament conditions. Then committee and commission set such as soon as necessary rather than not starting the tournaments.)

This is correct, and the AGM has still not discussed or approved this rules document in its current format.

See above. It is being meant to be applied already for the EGC 2011, i.e., before the next AGM. (Of course, the AGM keeps the right to vote on keeping, changing etc.)

Javaness wrote:Did those present at the AGM of 2010 vote for this system?

The AGM tried hard to shorten discussion as much as possible and restricted itself to voting on only the very basics (7 rounds McMahon, 3 rounds KO Europeans only for EC title, started usage from EGC 2011) and details to be worked out by a commission.

mumps wrote:- some players refuse to play their allotted games in the Relegation system

They have signed to play all their games. The rules say "as a minimal consequence this leads to suspension from the supergroup for the next time in three years." but I guess that the rules commission would issue a harsher penalty for more important games. (If a player is ill and proves his visit of a doctor etc., then there is no problem.)

That both you and Matti can be contacted individually does not change the factual accuracy of my earlier statement. The Rules Commission has no published contact details. Their appears to be a Rules officer who has published details, but this leads to more puzzlement. Does the EGF executive find the Rules Commission so inept that it replaced it with an officer?

The rules are badly written and badly worded, this is not just my opinion. You resist changing them by most of your standard diversion arguments. None of them have any merit. When pressed on relevant points you simply ignore them, as per usual.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Javaness wrote:The rules commission does not have any published contact details

My email address is easily found. An email address (I hope it works) of Matti is found here: http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/executive.htm

If you contact one rules commission member, then the whole rules commission will know your email.

the role "Executive Officer: Rules"

I guess it is somewhat informal. Apparently the executive distributes its work among its members.

As I have stated here already, I believe appearances are important.

For the EGF webpage, its webmaster(s) are responsible. Contact them for that... and be patient...

Therefore I offer to improve it, in the interests of improving the EGF. You reject this offer, which is your choice of course. I am surprised that you would reject this offer, since it would be a very small task and would require very little work to approve.

Already adopted documents cannot be just changed. Even I or the rules commission do not have a right to just change them. It involves a process of getting the right from (at least) the EGF committee (or the AGM) and, after correction, the EGF committee will then have to vote again whether the altered text is to be adopted.

Correcting language may be a matter of a few hours for you but it would keep the EGF busy for weeks or even a few months until the adoption cycle would be done again. Presumably because the EGF committee has lots of other tasks with higher priority.

So it would not make sense if I suggested "please do". To avoid work in vain, it is necessary that you contact us directly and not indirectly like via L19.

As I have already mentioned, your sense of language skill might or might not be perceived as better because everybody prefers a different writing style. So even if a new text adoption cycle were opened, your work might be entirely in vain.

It is similar to my attempt of improving the contents-related aspects of language of the WMSG 2008 Rules in my proposed revision. The IGF is not interested, although before the 2008 event promises were made that after the event there would be sufficient time for revision.

It is not my fault that the Rules commission has published rules

Actually the EGF (not just a member of the rules commission) has published them. (I had to wait with copying them on my site until then.)

You say that the text must be opened for discussion at AGM.

No. I say "either AGM or EGF Committee". Especially concerning this ruleset, the EGF Committee was granted the right and duty by the AGM to work out and adopt the necessary details until the EGC 2011. In case of other rulesets, the EGF Committee should be more cautious because it would have to justify its legislative work afterwards during a following AGM. (In theory there is more room for legislation according to the EGF General Tournament Rules but IMO this should not be abused but used only as far as and if necessary. In practice, some new tournament series pop up and urgently need a set of tournament conditions. Then committee and commission set such as soon as necessary rather than not starting the tournaments.)

This is correct, and the AGM has still not discussed or approved this rules document in its current format.

See above. It is being meant to be applied already for the EGC 2011, i.e., before the next AGM. (Of course, the AGM keeps the right to vote on keeping, changing etc.)

Javaness wrote:The Rules Commission has no published contact details.

Contact it here: jasiek@snafu.de

Their appears to be a Rules officer who has published details, but this leads to more puzzlement.

Contact the EGF Committee and ask it what this description means.

Does the EGF executive find the Rules Commission so inept that it replaced it with an officer?

No.

The rules are badly written and badly worded, this is not just my opinion.

By shouting into the public, you do not change the rules. You need to contact the EGF to get a chance to change them. If you contact the EGF privately, then the EGF Rules Commission is the most suitable. If you represent your national association, then I guess you might contact the EGF Rules Commission or the EGF Committee.

You resist changing them by most of your standard diversion arguments. None of them have any merit. When pressed on relevant points you simply ignore them, as per usual.

If you want meta-discussion instead of rules text change, then you get the former but not the latter.

mumps wrote:The following was sent to the EGF by the British Go Association today:

The English is pretty difficult to understand, so we think that a rewrite by a native English speaker is advisable.

(...)

1) drop the Relegation system

(...)

2) drop the rule that the European Open Champion must be a non-European

(...)

3) Eliminate the play-off for 3rd place

(...)

Jon Diamond
President

* I agree with the BGA suggestions 1-3. We need more internal discussion before
we can make any official commitment by the Swedish association, but if the rules
can be improved without too much work it seems to me that it would make sense to
do it as soon as possible.

* I also agree more or less with Jons arguments around each point.

* I haven't studied the rules document carefully, but I don't feel that it's difficult
to interpret the intention anywhere, can you give more concrete examples of where the
language would need improvement?

* I notice that already in the previous rules document there are lots of details specified
for the whole congress, e.g. that there should be 9x9, 13x13, computer go, rengo, pairs,
team, blitz, rapid and that the thinking time in the blitz should be 10 minutes.
When was all this decided? When organising the 2008 congress I was under the impression
that the congress organiser had more freedom to choose side events, and there haven't always
been all these particular side events. I believe that organisers might come up with new
ideas for side events that could be tried and that it's unnecessary to stipulate all these
details in rules. The participants are used to some things of course, and they have their
expectations, but every congress organiser knows that and every congress organiser wants
satisfied participants. Consequently there is hardly any danger in leaving the choice to the
organiser. But a more free format gives some space for possible development, improvement and change.

best regards,
Henric

henric wrote: [side tournaments]
When was all this decided?

At first there were no written rules for main tournament or side tournaments. Then there were a very few rules for the main tournament but the related documents lost relevance. So mostly all the rules for main tournament and side tournaments were a big heap of earlier EGF decisions, congress tradition etc. This heap was then transformed for its greater part into the old version of EGC tournament rules. Congress tradition and already that old version included the side tournament rules contained also in the current version.

Pre-old version heap contents was based on AGM decisions, EGF committee decisions, tournament supervisor decisions, rules commission decisions, congress tradition. The old version of EGC tournament rules was compiled by the rules commission and semi-formally adopted by the EGF committee. The EOpenC tiebreaker change revision was initiated and contents-decided by the EGF committee, put into words by the rules commission and then with full conscience adopted by the EGF committee. The current version was initiated by the AGM, worded and details worked out by the rules commission, then adopted by the EGF committee.

Congress organizations (or active congress participants) are free to add further side tournaments as they like. They should not omit those side tournaments listed in the rules though. E.g., if they want a 15x15 tournament, they can have it but should also offer the 13x13 tournament. E.g., if they want a grandma's lightning with 15 minutes, they can have it but should also offer the 10 minutes lightning tournament.

Viewed from another perspective, the AGM mostly failed to set sufficient rules (also the very old Fujitsu GP Guidelines / Regulations had been very insufficient, especially after the GP ended while the EGchampionship continued and the prior rulesets were just used by the rules commission as a continued source of traditional law) and therefore EGF committee, rules commission, tournament supervisors or else congress organizers filled in the gaps. E.g., that the congress starts in July and ends in August was a verbal, traditional rule that regularly the EGF committee wanted to enforce; at some time I as a rules commission member wrote it down and the commission agreed and added it to the above mentioned heap.

Awareness of the rules increased from regular tournament supervisors via rules commission via EGF committee to the EGF as a whole. It is the advantage of written form in only a few documents: Awareness is made much easier!

***

If Sweden dislikes relegations, then maybe, in contrast to GB, Sweden is able and willing to provide (slightly more convincing) reasons why SOS lottery for 4 wins in 7 rounds players is any better (not to say more meaningful) than relegations. Which of SOS or relegations determines the stronger selection of 4 wins in 7 rounds players and why can one be sure that they are stronger? What and in which sense would make SOS more meaningful than 1 extra relegation round win?! Is maybe the following strength criterion useful: Each (former) supergroup player's winning percentage in all his earlier EGC occurrences; possibly weighted linearly with greater time (later year)? Such an approach would avoid the awkward problems of SOS quality or rating quality arguments.

That's a lot of words to say: The AGM never decided that, the Rules Commission added it to the rules unilaterally.

It is misleading to say that only the rules commission added side tournament rules. The rules commission was the by far most active body in managing related rules. (Naturally!) Involved were all the bodies and persons as I described.

RobertJasiek wrote:It is misleading to say that only the rules commission added side tournament rules. The rules commission was the by far most active body in managing related rules. (Naturally!) Involved were all the bodies and persons as I described.

Did the AGM approve this list of mandatory side tournaments?

Did the AGM ask the rules commission to add side tournaments to the rules?

HermanHiddema wrote:Did the AGM approve this list of mandatory side tournaments?

Passively yes, IIRC actively no or not yet.

Did the AGM ask the rules commission to add side tournaments to the rules?

No. If AGM requirements were the standard and EGF committee and rules commission were not allowed to work at all beyond AGM requirements, then even the McMahon nature of the main tournament would not have existed but the system would have been undefined from ca. AGM 1996 (end of Fujitsu GP series) to AGM 2010 (adoption of McMahon + KO for top 8 Europeans).

I don't mind if the rules commission and/or the EGF executive make decisions and take initiative, nothing would get done otherwise. I just want you to be honest about it. My summary of "The AGM never decided that, the Rules Commission added it to the rules unilaterally" is short, correct and to the point. No need for hemming an hawing, no need to tiptoe around the issue.

Using a so short summary, I would not be honest because it would misrepresent the more complicated reality. I am being honest by explaining reality even though it is complicated. It is your choice to describe reality as simpler than it is.

There is a difference between being honest and being complete.

Your post just added needless detail and mostly useless context, and in the end you didn't even answer Henric's simple five word question: When was all this decided?

You speak at length of "at first", "then", "old version", "pre-old version", "tradition", "current version", "was", "were", etc, etc, etc.

But not a single date is mentioned in all those hundreds of words. All of it could have been 1, 5, 10 or 20 years ago.

Of course, there is a difference between honest and complete. In this case, being honest while being open requires being at least reasonably complete.

You are getting the gist of it: It was 1, 5, 10 or 20 years ago, depending on which piece of rules information we are studying! For the newest additions, we know the dates of adoption because the rules documents carry it. Before there was the heap of rules. Part of that heap was created during my time as a rules commission member and for that I might have a chance to identify the date for each detail, if I should invest too much time for history research and am lucky to find related local files. The other part of that heap was created yet earlier and requires general historians to find years of creation.

Therefore I (and probably everyone) cannot answer the question "When was all this decided?" in general more precisely than "During the previous decades.".

From my memory, I can tell you though about when the process of transformation from the heap to the written EGC rules took place: mainly ca. 1996 - now. The side tournaments part was transformed mainly between 2002 and 2007. Concerning European championships outside the congress, the process is still ongoing.

If you seek the truth about the history, you can find it only in more and more detailed research in dates - not in your wish for a single date. There was no single date but a process. Quite like Japanese rules as a whole were not invented at a single date but during a centuries long process.