Life In 19x19

oren wrote:

EdLee wrote:Again, my gut feeling for the SGC's honte reply in this case is "Thank you."
This lawsuit is extremely bad shape to me.

So you say you don't know the details, but you've made a decision already. I think you should be patient and do more reading before playing a move.

Nice metaphor, but remember - we're only kibbitzers. While it's fun to shout "Resign!" we should remember that we're not the ones playing, and we don't have all the information.

What I've read is that the SGC made their decision to sue after waiting one month for the Nihon Ki-in to respond to its request for "negotiations." We don't know what form that took, and don't know why the Nihon Ki-in did not respond. While it does seem that the Nihon Ki-in at least owes the SGC an explanation, it's not clear that an explanation is what the SGC was interested in, and one month doesn't seem like a long time to wait. Aside from that, we also don't know many details of the arrangements made between any combination of: Iwamoto, the NK and the SGC. Furthermore, it is unclear to what extent the survival of the SGC, which claims to currently have "a strong financial situation with an active and vibrant membership" is dependent on the continued use of the building.

I for one agree that suing is at least bad shape, and more probably overplay, and quite possibly a blunder, but "thank you" is not honte - it's what you say when the game is over and the SGC is clearly not ready to resign.

EdLee seems to have it expressed well my feeling on the subject. The Seattle Go Centre should have dug up the title deeds and read them twice before launching this legal action. Perhaps put a copy on their website. But most importantly read and understand what it means that the Nihon-Kiin (Japan) owns their building. Changing your mind is tough. I'm sure they believe that Kaoru Iwamoto gave them the building, but clearly that is not what the title deeds say. If Kaoru Iwamoto had intended to give the ownership to them, then rather obviously, he would have given ownership to them. The Seattle Go Centre needs to understand that point. It needs ramming home with a hammer. Then they need to think about how to behave towards someone who has been giving them a free lunch for many years, and happens to not to want to anymore, because they are having trouble eating themselves.

I don't see any record of the Seattle Go Centre going the extra mile before launching legal action. Before threats, a delegation to Japan, picketing the Nihon-Kiin HQ demanding to be heard, would be nearer to the action of a friend, and far cheaper than legal action. Demonstrating how deeply you care, not making threats.

PeterHB wrote:EdLee seems to have it expressed well my feeling on the subject. The Seattle Go Centre should have dug up the title deeds and read them twice before launching this legal action. Perhaps put a copy on their website. But most importantly read and understand what it means that the Nihon-Kiin (Japan) owns their building. Changing your mind is tough. I'm sure they believe that Kaoru Iwamoto gave them the building, but clearly that is not what the title deeds say. If Kaoru Iwamoto had intended to give the ownership to them, then rather obviously, he would have given ownership to them. The Seattle Go Centre needs to understand that point. It needs ramming home with a hammer. Then they need to think about how to behave towards someone who has been giving them a free lunch for many years, and happens to not to want to anymore, because they are having trouble eating themselves.

I don't see any record of the Seattle Go Centre going the extra mile before launching legal action. Before threats, a delegation to Japan, picketing the Nihon-Kiin HQ demanding to be heard, would be nearer to the action of a friend, and far cheaper than legal action. Demonstrating how deeply you care, not making threats.

I have to believe that they're in direct contact with the Nihon Kiin, and I highly doubt they have the funds to make all those kinds of pleas (a delegation to japan and picketing the Nihon Kiin HQ are both investments of thousands of dollars). This is a small claims court issue, a lawsuit is considerably cheaper...

Also, lets not forget, this is not an issue of the Nihon Kiin selling the location to help themselves back in Japan, this is so that they can try to restart the center in New York... I'm really confused why they would want to do this.

My hunch is that there has been blowback from closing it. I'm not sure where that criticism would come from... Why would they want to reopen the center in New York?

do your parents still give you pocket money when you are big enough to support yourself? seattle has outgrown its 9x9 board and needs to fend for itself in the 19x19 the free stones could only last for so long.

kusto wrote:do your parents still give you pocket money when you are big enough to support yourself? seattle has outgrown its 9x9 board and needs to fend for itself in the 19x19 the free stones could only last for so long.

Um, I think the issue is considerably more complex than this...

shapenaji wrote:If the center IS self-sufficient, then seeing 12 people one day, and 2 people another is immaterial.

There are two aspects: 1) commercial balance (which is needed), 2) degree of go activity. The go center's intention appears of have been spreading go in Seattle (or maybe even western half of North America). If the actual go activity is as low as that of an arbitrary go club (in, say, a pub), then this can be a factor for a consideration to possibly discontinue the idea of having an SGC. I do not know if (2) has been considered by the involved bodies, but it might be an important factor in one of the involved bodies' motviation for its decisions.

daal wrote:What I've read is that the SGC made their decision to sue after waiting one month for the Nihon Ki-in to respond to its request for "negotiations." We don't know what form that took, and don't know why the Nihon Ki-in did not respond. While it does seem that the Nihon Ki-in at least owes the SGC an explanation, it's not clear that an explanation is what the SGC was interested in, and one month doesn't seem like a long time to wait.

This depends on the pace at which the Nihon Ki-In was acting. If they were clear that their own actions would take a leisurely pace, then you're right, it's a bad move to sue them after only a month. However, if they are actively seeking buyers at this moment, then you must do what you think is best immediately. We don't know that, so at most we should say "I sure hope you didn't rush this."

hyperpape wrote:If they were clear that their own actions would take a leisurely pace, then you're right, it's a bad move to sue them after only a month. However, if they are actively seeking buyers at this moment, then you must do what you think is best immediately. We don't know that, so at most we should say "I sure hope you didn't rush this."

Yes, I agree. The point I was trying to make is that while the actions of the SGC may seem rash, few of us are privy to all the relevant information, and it would probably be prudent to refrain from making a snap judgment. The SGC has indeed made some serious allegations, including "fraud" and "breach of contract." Past generosity and support does not exempt the NK from whatever present responsibilities it may have. It is a shame that it has come to this, but it's no good to blame one party or to say that someone acted wrongly without having heard the whole story.

Sigh.... silly litigious Americans.

I know! Back when that coffee lawsuit happened, I told everyone "next thing you know, we'll have ridiculous lawsuits for made up things like 'breach of contract'."

RobertJasiek wrote:When I was at the Seattle Go Center, on one day there were about a dozen, on another day two players.

I was there a few years back, and the place was crowded. It was standing room only among the people watching the high dan games.

shapenaji wrote:Again, we seem to be disagreeing on the definition of self-sufficient. If those from the SGC are correct, they have been producing enough funds to support rent for the space.

shapenaji wrote:They do not own the building, though they pay rent on it (from what I understand). So, much like the law prevents landlords from merely kicking out tenants who are not in violation of the lease, the law could also prevent the Nihon Kiin from merely kicking out the SGC.

In fact, in some regions of the country, a tenant that has been around for as long as the SGC has, has additional rights.

As far as this being the Nihon Kiin's right, owing to their benefactor status. The Nihon Kiin may have started the SGC, but they are not solely responsible for what it has accomplished.

I'm afraid your attitude is out of place. You are demonizing these people without even clarifying the rights owed to a tenant (and one that has kept to the terms of the agreement).

You are welcome to think that the SGC has no claim here (As Ed believes), but your argument that "They are biting the hand that feeds them" has no more merit than the counterclaim that "The Nihon Kiin is being an abusive parent"

oren wrote:The center has been self-sufficient as long as a tenant has been in place. There have been periods when that has not been the case, but over the long haul the SGC has done well.

Shapenaji, there's no disagreement whatsoever over the definition of self-sufficient.
Let's see: Iwamoto Sensei/Nihon Kiin let the SGC use the building "for free" for 16+ years. (Yes/No?)
Of course the SGC has to be self-sufficient. What, they want to use the building "for free"
AND they want Iwamoto Sensei/NHK to pay for SGC's expenses, too?
(Thus, my original question: what is the relevance of the self-sufficiency? )

And what did the SGC do exactly to obtain this building to begin with?
(I don't know the historical details at all, so historians please correct me.)
It seems that it was LUCK that Iwamoto Sensei picked Seattle (and New York).
He could have easily picked a different city, say Chicago or Los Angeles, instead of Seattle.
In fact, Iwamoto Sensei almost picked Santa Barbara ( ), but it did not work out.

As I understand it from oren's quote above,
the SGC is not, nor has it ever been, a renter of the SGC building. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)
If true, then the SGC did not pay any rent on it;
it's the opposite: the SGC receives rent from a tenant when they had one.

I understand it feels terrible to lose a nice Go center like the SGC.
But my feeling remains that the SGC should be grateful for their luck to have the building at all,
and grateful for the past 16+ years. Even if the NHK's decision "seems to be at odds with their charter."
The whole notion that the NHK "owes" anything to the SGC is quite strange, to me.

I am a member of the Seattle Go Center, but I do not serve on the board of the SGC so I only know what has been publicly presented about this situation. I try to refrain from speculation, especially legal matters, but as an SGC member and L19 supporter I feel the need to make my personal thoughts known in this discussion.

My understanding is that there are legally binding contracts that would be violated by the Nihon Ki-in selling the SGC building outright and this lawsuit is meant to ensure that those contracts are fulfilled. There is also a question as to the right of the Nihon Ki-in to sell the building. Again, my limited understanding is that when the Go Centers were created, a non-profit trust was established to purchase them. That trust is managed by the Nihon Ki-in, but there is a limited scope of what can be done with the assets of that trust. It is very possible that the proposed action of the Nihon Ki-in violate the terms of that trust. There are other issues at stake in this suit, but I do not have clear knowledge of them so I will not comment on them.

This situation is not pleasant for anyone. I do know that this lawsuit was not brought about on frivolous grounds and that much thought was put into it. If there were any other way to ensure that the founding goals of The Seattle Go Center could be preserved, the SGC board would be taking it. I trust the board is working in the best interested of the Seattle Go Center, Iwamoto's trust, and all of the remaining Go Centers. All I can ask is that the Go community at large reserve judgment on both sides of this issue until all of the facts are clearly presented in the course of this unfortunate court case.

I always thought that the money from Iwamoto was given to the Nihon Ki-in to manage in setting up the various go centers, it was not donated or lent to the go centers by Iwamoto. If that's true it would have a bearing on what the Nihon Ki-in does with the go centers.

Finally, NHK is not an abbreviation for Nihon Ki-in. NHK is the Japanese equivalent of Public Broadcasting in the USA.

Ed, my brother got a scholarship to go to college. It was lucky of him that a private donor had specifically endowed a scholarship, and also lucky that this scholarship was earmarked to North Carolina residents. He was even more lucky, because despite being a great student in high school, doing various extracurriculars, etc, he was still only second in line. At the last minute, the kid in front of him won a scholarship to go to his father's alma mater and my brother was given the scholarship. But for all that luck, once he accepted it, he was entitled to that scholarship for the next four years.

I think this is a case where it really does all come down to the law. If Iwamoto's bequest creates an obligation to use it for the sake of the Seattle Go Center that isn't cancelled by the current circumstances, then it doesn't matter how lucky Seattle is. I only hope the SGC isn't being rash and pressing a dubious case, but if the law favors them, they shouldn't sit back and think "gosh, we were so lucky, shame it's over".