Life In 19x19

Bonobo wrote: ... okay to clear the board...

One can probably discuss clearing the board even more extensively as a separate topic.
How, when, too soon, too late, too noisy, clearing your own stones and/or clearing also opponent's stones, leaving the table, etc.
Ending the game properly can also be difficult.

sybob wrote:

Bonobo wrote: ... okay to clear the board...

One can probably discuss clearing the board even more extensively as a separate topic.

Of course, and almost certainly there will be skirmish about that as well

How, when, too soon, too late, too noisy, clearing your own stones and/or clearing also opponent's stones, leaving the table, etc.
Ending the game properly can also be difficult.

Yet all these are also part of etiquette, I’d say.

Are you guys meaning to imply that its considered offensive by some to help your opponent clean up his stones? You might as well be offended because your opponent said "good game."

Joelnelsonb wrote:Are you guys meaning to imply that its considered offensive by some to help your opponent clean up his stones? You might as well be offended because your opponent said "good game."

I have indeed read somewhere that it is considered bad etiquette if the losing player puts back the stones of the winner into their bowl — or was it the black player putting back the white player’s stones? Or the weaker or younger player putting back the stronger or elder player’s? I can’t remember, but there was something like this. Not really important to me, but I do notice.

But what I was talking about above was when the board with the finished game is disturbed by the resigning player by flinging a few stones on it. And then I said that I even ask whether it is okay to remove the stones after a game, I do not simply clear the board because the opponent may still want to look at some situation there.
________

And how do you folks feel about it when your opponent constantly plays around with their stones while it’s your turn, making clacking noises, etc.?
________

And after a lost game, they were clearly winning and only lost because of “that silly mistake”? (Sure I know that this happens often, but maybe you know what I mean.) Once I replied (sourly, I admit): “Yeah, of course you played better. My only ability in Go is that I can sometimes induce opponent mistakes.”

Bonobo wrote:
And how do you folks feel about it when your opponent constantly plays around with their stones while it’s your turn, making clacking noises, etc.?

For me this is the equivalent to someone clapping their hands while I am trying to make my golf swing. Not only is it distracting and rude, but if you are playing with shell stones, you shouldn't be doing that. The oil in your hands affects the stones and you shouldn't play with them. When its your turn you can do whatever you want, making noises, and clacking stones or playing with a fan or whatever.

Kirby wrote:OTOH, I don't really see very clearly what you disagree with in what I am saying

If I have to sum it up in one sentence, I feel as if you think it's preferable to be polite as long as you're genuine, while I think it's preferable to be genuine as long as you're polite. I don't think these are very different attitudes in practice, but I see a distinct difference of perspective.

On the other hands I do think that worrying about the proper way to gather stones or to start a game is way over the top for me. I'll worry about this when I'll get to play a formal televised match. A little bit of fidgeting never bothered me - to be honest, I am probably guilty of it more than the average player. Given how regularly I witness much more obnoxious behaviours - loud talking in the tournament room, phones, arrogant or bitter behaviour during review - I feel like this is sweeping a dirt road.

Jhyn wrote: If I have to sum it up in one sentence, I feel as if you think it's preferable to be polite as long as you're genuine, while I think it's preferable to be genuine as long as you're polite.

Wow, I'm impressed with how accurately and succinctly you've summed up our viewpoints! And I think you understand correctly about my preference.

Since you simplified the argument so succinctly, I can see the value in having a "polite society", so I can understand your viewpoint. I do favor being genuine, though. To me, there is something very unsettling about someone that is polite on the outside, but not-so-nice on the inside.

When it's simplified like this, I suppose that "not-so-nice" behavior might be better hidden if it is never discovered. But perhaps quite disappointing if you end up discovering it later.

I suppose another downside of being "genuine" is that a lot of people might end up not liking you, whereas they otherwise might have liked you just because they didn't know what you really thought about certain topics.

Anyway, really impressed with how succinctly you summarized the viewpoints.

Coming back to the subject of Go etiquette, though, I do feel that I am not that easily offended when it comes to what happens during actual game play.

Kirby wrote:When it's simplified like this, I suppose that "not-so-nice" behavior might be better hidden if it is never discovered. But perhaps quite disappointing if you end up discovering it later.

Thanks for the kind words - I go by the (cautious) motto that if it sounds good, it may be true.

This being said, I find the discussion a bit too abstract. What do you call a "hidden" behaviour? How can you behave badly if nobody sees it in this context? Or do you mean opinions?

Let's assume an opponent I don't know has some "not-too-nice" opinion, political or otherwise. If he sits down to play and throws his opinion to my face (maybe guided by a feeling that honesty is the best policy), I will want to shut him down immediately and not play him - maybe even if I agree with him. In on the other hand we get to know each other and later get to talk about this subject, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion or maybe we can frankly disagree and still play go without mentioning the topic. This is mostly what I mean about "be genuine, as long as you're polite".

Now, if it is about answering your phone during a game without apology or similar - well, there's nothing to hide, is it? And in that case I don't think being genuine explains anything.

Maybe my examples aren't really good, so please feel free to clarify what you mean with other ones.

Jhyn, to put it simply, if someone is being nice because they are forced to, or because of some social convention, it doesn't mean as much to me.

Having two toddlers, I can see it more clearly. Maybe my son wants a cookie. I tell him to ask nicely and say, "Please". He says "Please" and I give him a cookie. Was my son any nicer for saying please? Not really. He just said it because he wants a cookie. If I told him to say "Goglabunga", he's say that, too, as long as he got the sugar he wanted.

Other times, maybe my son acts really nice because he has a motive of getting some reward later. What I much prefer is when my son does something genuinely kind, without an apparent ulterior motive. These are times that I feel very good about his behavior. For example, if he asks how his brother is feeling, or gives me a hug spontaneously. Of course it's possible that he has a sneaky motive, but there are times when I think he's genuinely being kind.

When people get older, they are better at hiding their feelings. Maybe they are polite for certain reasons. Maybe they give me a gift like I mentioned earlier, because they are expecting something in return. Or maybe they have some other sneaky intention.

I don't like this.

I'd like for everyone to be as transparent as 2-year-olds. If they are really saying "Please" just so they can get their cookie, I'd like to know it. And if they are genuinely doing something kind, I'd like to know that, too. Because that type of kindness is something truly worth appreciating.

Hi Tom,

There’s a lot more I’d like to write in reply, but my time is limited (in micro scale, as in: I need to get some work done now, and in macro scale, as in being closer to death than to birth (-; ), therefore I’ll limit myself to this:

Kirby wrote:[..]

When people get older, they are better at hiding their feelings.

In a few days I will be 59 years old, I assume I fit in that “older” category. And yes, in some regards I have become better at hiding my feelings, and in other regards I have learnt that hiding my feelings is a bad idea, I won’t “keep calm” anymore.

Maybe they are polite for certain reasons. Maybe they give me a gift like I mentioned earlier, because they are expecting something in return. Or maybe they have some other sneaky intention.

I don't like this.

I notice a great suspicion here. Well <shrug> I can, in some part, understand, but can you also imagine that, after some experience with being oneself, one has become aware of the fact that emotions can betray oneself? That watching oneself, and one’s own emotions, instead of immediately bursting out into [whatever] (AKA “at least I’m authentic!!!11”) can be a good thing?

I'd like for everyone to be as transparent as 2-year-olds. If they are really saying "Please" just so they can get their cookie, I'd like to know it. And if they are genuinely doing something kind, I'd like to know that, too. Because that type of kindness is something truly worth appreciating.

I think appreciate “true kindness” just as you do.

And say, would you see a difference in kindness between these?

• In a certain situation, for somebody, it feels easy to be kind, and thus that person acts kindly.
• In another certain situation, for somebody, it does not feel easy to be kind, and yet that person acts kindly.

And say, would you see a difference in kindness between these?
In a certain situation, for somebody, it feels easy to be kind, and thus that person acts kindly.
In another certain situation, for somebody, it does not feel easy to be kind, and yet that person acts kindly.

Yes. In general, the latter is more impressive. I think this is somewhat orthogonal to the issue of being "genuine".

For example, it may be easy for my kid to say "please" in order to appease me, but it's not always genuine. Or it may be easy for him to hug his brother when he genuinely wants to.

I think it comes down to the source of the reason someone is polite. If it comes from that person, it's more genuine than a societal expectation. Though, admittedly, society and external factors may end up impacting what someone genuinely feels.

I am reminded of joseki. Strong go players came up with formulas of how you should play. Learning joseki can make you stronger - it's often a good way to play.

But I suppose I appreciate when people play good moves in life because they thought of them - not just because someone told them it was a good move to play.

And to your earlier question, yes, I am sometimes suspicious.

To take to an extreme example, I could talk about this concept and how it relates to religion.

I won't because it is against the TOS, but you might imagine what I would say.

Kirby wrote:[..]
I am reminded of joseki. Strong go players came up with formulas of how you should play. Learning joseki can make you stronger - it's often a good way to play.

Well, when they “came up” with Joseki these weren’t “formulas” yet … I think they just tried something new, and these patterns of the Fuseki were “canonized” as being “Joseki” by later generations of players.

But I suppose I appreciate when people play good moves in life because they thought of them - not just because someone told them it was a good move to play.

Same here. Maybe they remembered what somebody told them long ago, and they still made the same mistakes for a while after than, and then suddenly they understood what had been said to them … (I for one have experienced this often)

And to your earlier question, yes, I am sometimes suspicious.

I can relate to that, and we both probably have our own, very personal, reasons to be suspicious.

Nevertheless … I strive to be as trusting as I can be in a given situation. I know that my experiences have had an impact on me so that my emotions may lead me to stereotypical responses to some stimuli (in both “positive” and “negative” ways), and I personally want to double-check with my rational parts before responding stereotypically. Maybe we’re not that far apart, and perhaps the possible ambiguity and fuzzyness of written communication is part of what separates us.