Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:

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.

Still your choice. You could have simply responded to that with something like "I do not think that is relevant to this thread". Creating a new thread means that you choose that the issue should be debated.

He created the original dispute.

It requires two to create a dispute.

Only in the sense that the alternative is that a player accepts any and all behaviour by his opponent. If one player acts unreasonably, then the other player is left no choice but to involve a referee.

Top players have spent countless hours in playing through professional games, studying joseki, tsume go end game etc. To learn, how a new rule set differs from the old, which one is familiar with, requires less than an hour. When a player does not know the rules, he risks in getting a dispute or losing. Why to blame the players who knows the rules instead of the player who does not?

shapenaji wrote:Robert's way of winning specifically aimed to prevent Mero's "voice" from being heard.

1) It is still an open question whether the Ing 1991 Rules deny, allow or require VERBAL agreements on removals. The rule "After the dead stones have been taken away, both players pass again" does not specify HOW removals are supposed to occur.

2) My "way of winning"? Rather my "attempted way of winning":) It allowed my opponent to express his voice a) after the fourth successive pass and before the referee appeared and b) after the referee appeared.

3) By making the third pass in succession at all and quickly, my opponent himself made it impossible for him to express his voice in between the second and the third successive passes.

4) If, in between the second and the third successive passes, either of us had had the intention to let his voice being heard, either of us could have done so. We both CHOSE to be silent at that moment.

So why would you think that --- I --- would have prevented my opponent from expressing his voice?!

I think you should rather suggest that I, after the fourth successive pass, expressed my opinion and rules interpretation that THEN my opponent did not have any more right to remove any of my stones. This has nothing to do with expressing a voice.

HermanHiddema wrote:Creating a new thread means that you choose that the issue should be debated.

Of course, but this is something else than suggesting that I should not start a new thread.

Matti wrote:Why to blame the players who knows the rules instead of the player who does not?

Good question in principle, but, to be fair, in this case, it is "has made a greater versus smaller attempt to know and understand the rules".

Matti wrote:Top players have spent countless hours in playing through professional games, studying joseki, tsume go end game etc. To learn, how a new rule set differs from the old, which one is familiar with, requires less than an hour. When a player does not know the rules, he risks in getting a dispute or losing. Why to blame the players who knows the rules instead of the player who does not?

Sportsmanship. Why is that concept so incomprehensible to both of you? (which I find alarming, given your positions in the EGF)

Again, this is not about rules. Robert did nothing wrong according to the rules.

Matti wrote:Top players have spent countless hours in playing through professional games, studying joseki, tsume go end game etc. To learn, how a new rule set differs from the old, which one is familiar with, requires less than an hour. When a player does not know the rules, he risks in getting a dispute or losing. Why to blame the players who knows the rules instead of the player who does not?

Because one of the two players was playing go, and the other was playing something else, and it was advertised as a "go tournament".

Of course, by Robert's own logic, Mero's administrative solution to the game result was equally valid. So perhaps the rules still approximate to the rules of a game of go.

RobertJasiek wrote:1) It is still an open question whether the Ing 1991 Rules deny, allow or require VERBAL agreements on removals. The rule "After the dead stones have been taken away, both players pass again" does not specify HOW removals are supposed to occur.

Hmm, so perhaps the passes made by each player were illegal moves. If the dead stones have not been removed, how can you pass?

2) My "way of winning"? Rather my "attempted way of winning":) It allowed my opponent to express his voice a) after the fourth successive pass and before the referee appeared and b) after the referee appeared.

Indeed, arbitration did allow some vocalization

3) By making the third pass in succession at all and quickly, my opponent himself made it impossible for him to express his voice in between the second and the third successive passes.

Perhaps we could institute some go "Miranda Rights"

p2501 wrote:Sportsmanship. Why is that concept so incomprehensible to both of you? (which I find alarming, given your positions in the EGF)

We follow the view that sportsmanship has a LOWER priority than written rules, and - a few years after the dispute - it has been made clearer than it had been before: EGF General Tournament Rules §1.5.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/egfgtr.html

The concept of sportsmanship is not incomprehensible to us but we have a different opinion on what its priority related to written rules should be. Alarming is rather that by far most of those preferring a greater relevance of sportsmanship do not even mention that they want it to override all written rules or interpret all with the additional criterion of "applicable if sportsmanlike versus inapplicable if unsportsmanlike".

There is also a practical reason to prefer a low priority for sportsmanship: the number of disputes is reduced. Since the 2007 EGF rules reform towards fewer rules, clearer rules and explicit low priority of sportsmanship, there have been fewer serious disputes. Now by far most of the disputes are of a trivial nature (wrongly set clock, malfunctioning clock etc.), disputes that can be avoided with better tournament organisation, but do not require better rules.

Robert did nothing wrong according to the rules.

Ah, so you have a different opinion than the arbitration's?

shapenaji wrote:the other was playing something else

Rhetorics solve nothing.

shapenaji wrote:If the dead stones have not been removed, how can you pass?

My interpretation of the Ing 1991 Rules: Only breathless (i.e. libertyless) stones are 'dead' (according to the rules) and may be removed.

I saw no indication of verbal agreements on removals, so making the fourth pass was the natural option. (I had already removed all opposing stones that I could remove by making them breathless.)

Rather than asking how I can pass, you should ask how either of us two players could pass, first my opponent, then I.

RobertJasiek wrote:

p2501 wrote:Sportsmanship. Why is that concept so incomprehensible to both of you? (which I find alarming, given your positions in the EGF)

We follow the view that sportsmanship has a LOWER priority than written rules, and - a few years after the dispute - it has been made clearer than it had been before: EGF General Tournament Rules §1.5.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/egfgtr.html

The concept of sportsmanship is not incomprehensible to us but we have a different opinion on what its priority related to written rules should be. Alarming is rather that by far most of those preferring a greater relevance of sportsmanship do not even mention that they want it to override all written rules or interpret all with the additional criterion of "applicable if sportsmanlike versus inapplicable if unsportsmanlike".

There is also a practical reason to prefer a low priority for sportsmanship: the number of disputes is reduced. Since the 2007 EGF rules reform towards fewer rules, clearer rules and explicit low priority of sportsmanship, there have been fewer serious disputes. Now by far most of the disputes are of a trivial nature (wrongly set clock, malfunctioning clock etc.), disputes that can be avoided with better tournament organisation, but do not require better rules.

Aaaand back to zero.
Imho everything rulewise was functioning perfect. There was a dispute about some ambiguity in the rules. The referee was called and made a ruling (and so on). So again: This is not about the rules.

Rules and sportsmanship can coexists perfectly. Rules are binding. Sportsmanship is up to the players. Some things are allowed according to the rules, but are conflicting with sportsmanship.

edit: Before thats going to get misunderstood again: No I don't argue that sportsmanship should have priority over the rules. In fact the complete opposite.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Robert did nothing wrong according to the rules.

Ah, so you have a different opinion than the arbitration's?

I don't really know who you mean, but I sense the answer might be no.

p2501 wrote:Rules and sportsmanship can coexists perfectly. Rules are binding. Sportsmanship is up to the players. Some things are allowed according to the rules, but are conflicting with sportsmanship. [...] No I don't argue that sportsmanship should have priority over the rules. In fact the complete opposite.

Supposing your description of sportsmanship in this citation and that all actions of both players were legal and according to the rules, which of the following would you consider sportsmanlike and which unsportsmanlike?

1) not resigning when being aware of being 30 points behind
2) my opponent's preference of averbal to verbal actions until the fourth successive pass
3) my preference of averbal to verbal actions until the fourth successive pass
4) my opponent's third successive pass
5) my fourth successive pass
6) my opponent's rules interpretation that he might remove stones after the fourth successive pass
7) my rules interpretation that my opponent might not remove stones after the fourth successive pass
8) the appeal committee's use or abuse of power to the effect of declaring (by the assumption above) legal moves (the third and fourth pass) by the players invalid
9) bending the rules contrary to my interpretation for the sake of getting a game result that agrees to positional judgement (by allowing my opponent to remove stones after the fourth successive pass)
10) applying the rules according to my interpretation with the consequence of creating a result contrary to positional judgement
11) careless, presumably wrong application of the rules by many other players

I will not take the bait and answer that strongly manipulative questionaire.

And since you don't seem to seek a reasonable discussion, I will (again) stop argueing with you.

You are 'impossible'.

RobertJasiek wrote:

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

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 40#p112640
http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 90#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.

I'm sorry, are you discussing my methods of discussion? I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider this meta-discussion, and won't be able to process the rest of your argument. Just because you use bulleted lists does not mean that your techniques are different than my own.