Since I caused a bit of a stir in this thread, I just wanted to clarify the following:
(I subconsciously made a list, I guess to be as clear as I can possibly be)1) I never meant to attack anyone with my choice of words. I do have the tendency to be snarky here and there and despite my better knowledge of how much is lost in reading texts from strangers on the internet, I did hope the context or the occasional smiley would put my "snarky-ness" in the right place. I do am sorry if I offended anyone.
What happened so far...
2) My line of thought was essentially the following (mainly starting from
#103 to
#113):
a) It is my understanding that Kirby's main reason for the life-time-ban is to preserve the honour, prestige and value of KBA, professional go players and go in general.
b) I summarised these three (honour, prestige and value) as feelings on how things should be.
c) It is my opinion that a verdict should not be based on feelings, especially if feelings indicate just one right way. I understood Kirby's repeated call for a life-time-ban to the cheating incident as the only right way for him to resolve the situation. I called this having a bias. Bias involves unreasonableness to a certain degree and I can understand if Kirby takes issue with me presuming him to be unreasonable.
d) I clarified what was important to me to assess the whole situation with the following: "What a lot of people do is questioning whether the outcry for blood, sorry, immediate life-time-ban is proportional, adequate regarding future incidents or even justified given the "evidence" and negligence by the KBA in cheating matters." (emphasis added)
e) Therefore I saw the unreasonableness (bias) in not exploring whether a life-time-ban is proportional, adequate or justified. I generally missed seeing any indication that anything other than a life-time-ban could be the answer, so I wrote "I'm for consequences as much as you are but the choice between nothing and life-time-ban has quite some nuances inbetween." I also a added a made-up case where I could see reason for a life-time-ban.
And now the conclusion...
Kirby wrote:
SoDesuNe wrote:
I would split hairs by saying everyone here is expressing opinions and some are more influenced by emotions but, yes, we are all equally discussing here.
I don't think it's fair to blame me for being "influenced by emotions", if that's your implication, just because I have a different opinion than you. While it's true that I have passion for this topic, I feel that my opinion is based on evidence that I've researched, read, and heard from other people. Compared to folks who haven't read the various online Korean resources, I've probably in fact researched this topic more than the average guy in this discussion.
It was never my intention to blame you for anything. My sentence literally ends with "
we are all equally discussing here". As written above, I do think you are biased in this particulary case and with that comes by definition a diminished objectivity.
I don't think like this because you have a different opinion, though. I do because - to my understanding - you only base your judgement on preserving honour, prestige and value of KBA, professional go players and go in general. (If I missed some more inputs from you, I'm sorry, I did a quick check again but couldn't find any other reason). As written before, it is my opinion that your feelings shouldn't be the basis for legally judging others, especially if you go for career-ending decisions.
These are some things that are going through my head (also written by others):
We only know of one case, where Kim Eunji cheated. We only know because she confessed. How much value can be put on this confession regarding the things John Fairbairn pointed out? Perhaps due to the large pressure there was some back channel talk that by confessing and putting the thing behind everyone she would all do a favour - the "honourable" thing so to say.
Since we only know because she confessed, she would actually have been better off not confessing if you had your way, wouldn't she? (Prove of cheating = life-time-ban, no prove, no ban) Doesn't give any incentive to come clean and repent.
She also confessed to cheat by accident, with no intent. You draw no distinction between this and premeditated cheating?
She is a minor, her brain is still under construction, most western legal systems do take this into account. You won't because she is an established pro and all pros are to be treated equally. Certainly a point of view but unjustified alone due to sciene in my opinion. Another things worth exploring: Does anything else change when you become a pro as a minor? I.e. are you allowed to drink, drive, stay out late, sign legal work...?
What if she has been pressured by i.e. her mother or trainers? Would that count for anything? Again she is a minor and certainly easier to influence than an adult.
What about the case Uberdude mentioned: Hong Seongji 9p cheating online? Life-time-ban because cheater? Or do only pro tournaments count? So then every established pro could cheat online in fun games? Doesn't sit well with "honour".
A little more philosophical: Assuming cheaters will pop up again and again. To preserve honour you life-time-ban everyone without differentiation. Some day you have to ask yourself the question whether you can actually preserve the honour of something that keeps producing cheaters...
Then there is the question of what is best to prevent further cheating, individually and collectively. Experience on a lot of other things tell us, no punishment totally prevents crime.
It also important to consider the implacations on the life of those getting a life-time-ban, especially if you don't differentiate between premedited and accidental cheating. I.e. a one year jail time would actually mean "losing less years" compared to a life-time-ban and "losing" all the years in which you devoted yourself to go.
As far as the cheated are considered: Chess tells us that "knowing" something's off and not being able to take action is the worst. Zero-tolerance-policys (i.e. electronic device in playing area) and therefore shorter bans due to the fact that you don't have to prove anything after catching a player with an electronic device seem like a good idea. Chess has no problems with sponsors or tournaments in general despite, I guess, hundreds of caught cheaters.
There are certainly more things to consider. For me though, it's not coming across that you are entertaining these or similar thoughts, that you acknowledge that life and everything in it is complex. It could certainly be me but I only see the single-mindedly call for life-time-ban.
I hope this makes things clearer. Again I have no intention to attack anyone. I do make judgements based on what I read and understand and those could very well be wrong. That's why I try my best (mostly) to make clear where I'm coming from so that others can easier point to the flaws in my reasoning ; )