Life In 19x19

lemmata wrote:People who try to win within the rules are also doing what they think is right and polite.

I think the discussion would go better if people didn't so casually say things like this. Surely some folks really do have a perverse sense of what is polite, but I think many more players are quite clear about what is and isn't polite and simply think that it doesn't matter, so long as impolite behavior gains them an advantage.

Kirby wrote:Is it possible that there's a reason he has the tendency of being "singled out"? :-)

There are reasons including these:
- People like you choose every possibility to have a meta-discussion about me.
- Some people are very unfair in their view. E.g., a) they discuss and judge for decades my failure to call a referee as soon as my opponent made the third pass in succession to find out if it was legal or if first removals must occur or be agreed upon and then occur but b) do not discuss and judge my opponent's earlier(!) mistake of making the third pass in succession instead of first removing, trying to agreeing on removing or, if unsure about the procedure, calling a referee and c) do not discuss and judge about the same failure of every(!) player from 1994 to 2002 in EGF tournaments with Ing rules.
- It is so much easier to criticise only one person for his difficulty with applying a particular ruleset than to criticise both involved players for their difficulty or than to criticise all players in EGF tournaments with Ing rules for their difficulty or than to criticise many people responsible for choosing but not explaining well a too difficult ruleset while pretending its simplicity.
- I do not just have opinions or disputes but sometimes such with revolutionary potential. Every revolution meets opposition.

Kirby wrote:Is it possible that there's a reason he has the tendency of being "singled out"?

“he has the tendency”—this way of stating it is unfair, IMNHSO. Whose tendency is this? Who is behaving how?

One could state that Robert’s communication has a tendency to lack humility and that certain members of this forum, in response, have a tendency to single him out.

There probably are causal relations between the first and the latter, but don’t make the mistake to attribute the behaviour of a mob to the singled out person, no matter what behaviour of the singled out person was the reason for the mobbing.

I’d have thought that the days of lynch justice are over.

Bonobo wrote:“he has the tendency”—this way of stating it is unfair, IMNHSO. Whose tendency is this? Who is behaving how?

I was responding to this:

However, it also feels like Robert Jasiek is being singled out...

The only word I added was "tendency," which I thought was implied by the text. I can restate it as asking if there's a potential reason that he's singled out periodically, for example, but I don't think my point changes.

Bonobo wrote:...
There probably are causal relations between the first and the latter, but don’t make the mistake to attribute the behaviour of a mob to the singled out person, no matter what behaviour of the singled out person was the reason for the mobbing...

The behavior of the mob? Give me a break. Who is the one that calls other people "meta-discussers"? Who is the person that calls his very own ideas ones that have "revolutionary potential"?

All I am doing is disagreeing with Robert's behavior. Am I not allowed to do this? Why do you think he should be exempt from my criticism of his behavior "no matter what behavior" he has? If you want a group of people to "be nice" to you, it might be a good idea to "be nice" to those people yourself.

RobertJasiek wrote:...
- People like you choose every possibility to have a meta-discussion about me.
...

1.) Not "every possibility"; I choose only to respond when my patience threshold has been exceeded.
2.) Let's not call it meta-discussion. Let's call it discussion that you don't want to take the time to respond to.

If you want to discuss something quoted from the information you've given, let's just take this easy example:

b) do not discuss and judge my opponent's earlier(!) mistake of making the third pass in succession instead of first removing, trying to agreeing on removing or, if unsure about the procedure, calling a referee.

This is not a true statement. People have discussed this, and generally agree that it was obvious that you had lost the game, and were looking for a loophole to get a win based on rule semantics. If you call this "meta-discussion," go ahead and make a poll if you want actual numbers.

Is talking about a poll meta-discussion? Maybe talking about talking about a poll is. Ah well.

Bonobo wrote:I’d have thought that the days of lynch justice are over.

They are. We're using words.

ref made a call based on some reasoning.
from what i read that reason is very reasonable. (infact i agree with ref)
if someone trys to argue about rules after ref made a decision then he is wrong.

isnt life simple as 1 2 3?

Kirby wrote:Who is the one that calls other people "meta-discussers"?

Various users are doing so at various times. Here, I have done so WRT your messages

viewtopic.php?p=112640#p112640
viewtopic.php?p=112690#p112690

because, in those messages, you do not discuss the dispute but you try to replace discussion of the dispute with discussion of whether discussion on this dispute is occurring again and with discussion about my person and whether or why I might be "singled out". Thereby you are moving discussion to a meta-topic about a discussing person - this is a form of meta-discussion. You are not pleased, and next you introduce another meta-discussion about whether it indeed is a meta-discussion while saying you would prefer not to call it meta-discussion. Do you realise just how far you are moving from the thread subject? You do even "better" than that and use rhetorics to deny your meta-discussion.

Who is the person that calls his very own ideas ones that have "revolutionary potential"?

First you start asking for reasons why I might be "singled out", then you try to blame me for providing reasons by rhetorically asking whether indeed it is me to have suggested this particular reason. Instead of discussing this particular reason, you start yet another meta-discussion whether indeed it is me to have suggested the reason.

(It would be interesting to discuss, in possibly a new thread, whether some of my ideas indeed have revolutionary potential, but, as long as you are interested only in meta-discussion whether indeed it is me to have suggested this possible reason, there is no fun yet with discussing whether some of my ideas indeed have revolutionary potential.)

All I am doing is disagreeing with Robert's behavior.

If only this would be all you were doing. You are also starting meta-discussion after meta-discussion (see above) and you do not specify what of my behaviour you are disagreeing with.

Am I not allowed to do this?

This is the wrong question. Ask yourself: Isn't it better to explain(!) your criticism of my behaviour (which?) than to just mention your opinion and than to have meta-discussions instead.

Kirby wrote:1.) Not "every possibility"; I choose only to respond when my patience threshold has been exceeded.

I do not mean that YOU would use every possibility but I mean that SOMEBODY would use every possibility. The group trick is to change the users of possibilities.

b) do not discuss and judge my opponent's earlier(!) mistake of making the third pass in succession instead of first removing, trying to agreeing on removing or, if unsure about the procedure, calling a referee.

This is not a true statement. People have discussed this, and generally agree that it was obvious that you had lost the game, and were looking for a loophole to get a win based on rule semantics.

1) What people have extensively discussed is related to "it was obvious that you had lost the game, and were looking for a loophole to get a win based on rule semantics".

2) What, in relation, people have hardly discussed at all is "my opponent's earlier mistake of making the third pass in succession instead of first removing, trying to agreeing on removing or, if unsure about the procedure, calling a referee".

3) In the citation, I have claimed that people have hardly discussed - in particular - (2). And this - that people have hardly discussed that - is a true statement.

4) Did my opponent's third pass in succession precede the possibility of my reaction to my opponent's third pass in succession? Yes.

5) People criticising me for

- not fetching the referee immediately after my opponent's third pass in succession and for instead immediately making my fourth pass in succession

- suggest or seem to suggest that it would have been right of me to fetch the referee, let him declare my opponent's third pass in succession illegal / invalid and let the referee declare to do something of the following
-- my opponent removes those of my stones that can be removed,
-- I remove those of my stones that can be removed,
-- we cooperate to remove those of my stones that can be removed,
-- we must verbally discuss and may agree on removing those stones and remove them,
-- we must verbally discuss and may disagree on removing those stones, in which case presumably alternate moving would resume and my opponent must approach liberties of my stones,
-- we must verbally discuss and are required to agree correctly, according to perfect play, on removing those stones and remove them.

This implies that - not only I - but also my opponent has to accept that his third pass in succession is illegal / invalid and that also he must ensure removal of those stones preferably BEFORE a legal and valid third pass by him in succession can occur.

Almost all people have criticised ME but have NOT also criticised MY OPPONENT
- for having done the third pass in succession at all before completing obvious removals,
- for having done it so quickly that I had no chance of removing (my) or agreeing on removing stones and
- for failing to do removals (before his third pass in succession)
what - following the appeals committee's decision - apparently was a duty of BOTH OF US at that time. (And have not also criticised everybody else for the same failure in their games and have not criticised those setting the rules with their extreme difficulty of understanding this - still guessed as possibly correct - interpretation.)

6) By using a) positional judgement and b) my (too?) strict rule text interpretation as overriding considerations, most people forgot about (5). Nevertheless, none of the arbitration instances made either (a) or (b) an explanation for their decision. Rather they made our (the players') failure to complete obvious removals before my opponent's third pass in succession the apparent basis of their decisions, that is, they implied that it was BOTH players' task to participate in achieving those removals instead of preventing them by means of continued successive passes. (The exact right procedure remains a mystery, see (5) for the still possible variation of interpretation even within the basic implied task of achieving the removals, provided they are obvious. (In case of non-obvious removals, the third pass in succession has another function of relieving ko bans. Difficult life and death would, IMO, still allow the players' disagreement and resolution by means of alternate plays after the second successive pass.))

If you call this "meta-discussion,"

No, this is not meta-discussion, but discussion about the tread subject. It is not meta-discussion about my forum discussion behaviour but is discussion about rules application behaviour related to the thread subject's dispute.

Magicwand wrote:if someone trys to argue about rules after ref made a decision then he is wrong.

Such as in the 2010 Germany - England soccer game where England shot the ball 50 cm behind the goal line but the referee judged "no goal" to compensate for the wrong 1966 decision?;)

lemmata wrote:However, it also feels like Robert Jasiek is being singled out (once again), and that just doesn't sit well with my own moral views on ganging up on people.

How is Robert being singled out? If he is being singled out, he is doing it himself.

He started this thread.

He created the original dispute.

And even then, most people probably wouldn't care except for the fact that Robert is a member of the EGF rules commission, and his ideas about tournament rules impact thousands of go players.

HermanHiddema wrote:If he is being singled out, he is doing it himself.

He started this thread.

No, this is absolutely not the way "singling out" occurred.

In a different thread, there was the danger of off-topic derailment when p2501 started with

viewtopic.php?p=112352#p112352

As experience shows, this forum's administrators dislike thread derailment and expect starting new threads when new topics make another thread too off-topic.

So I have done what was expected (and what p2501 should have done immediately): to start this new thread.

Starting new threads is not "singling out". It is just basic forum usage.

He created the original dispute.

It requires two to create a dispute.

RobertJasiek wrote:In a different thread, there was the danger of off-topic derailment when p2501 started with

viewtopic.php?p=112352#p112352

...

So I have done what was expected (and what p2501 should have done immediately): to start this new thread.

I still think this post was a valid contribution to the thread, providing context on the current topic of sportsmanship. Since you basically represented one side of the argument, I felt it would shed some light into your understanding of the topic, so others might follow your argumentation better.

RobertJasiek wrote:

He created the original dispute.

It requires two to create a dispute.

It may take two people for a difference in opinion, but only one to pick a fight.

lemmata wrote:
Don't you think that it is extremely unfair to burden tournament players with the task of determining which legal lines of winning play are moral (and in the spirit of good sportsmanship) and which ones are contemptuous? Are some moves moral depending on the level of the participants involved? How do we decide that? Do you want to ask players to make such decisions on top of reading out variations?

No I don't think it's unfair. The distinction is simply that, at the end of a game of go, two players must resolve both of their disparate views of a game into one final result. If one player has a different view at the end of the game, he should be able to voice that view. Robert's way of winning specifically aimed to prevent Mero's "voice" from being heard. That's what I find distasteful.

That being said, I can't help but think "Well, that's what you get for making convoluted rules"

p2501 wrote:It may take two people for a difference in opinion, but only one to pick a fight.

My opponent fought for his win, I fought for my win. Count: two persons.