Ruling is absolutely outside of line with standard practice as was pointed out by EGC main refree from the past (see Roman Pszonka post on FB, and i think at least one more main ref supports that view although i dont remember name). Also ruling was not made to punish Surma you say, yet it effectively punished Surma.

Basically, the only thing EGF pros can do now is quit this competition which became utterly stupid by bad ruling and bad organisation.And AFTER that move on.

I think you're getting a bit carried away there. Sure the decision sucked, but the EGF pros have already decided not to quit, to 'take the bad decision on the chin', and to carry on.

_________________
North Lecale

Let me expand on that. The organizers made the decision to let KGS be the official timekeeper of the event. (A lousy decision, IMO, but there you have it.) Whether that was explicitly stated, it was a condition of the contest. After playing a number of games, Surma was aware of that. Not only had that caused a problem, he was attempting to compensate for the netlag by making his plays 10 seconds early. Certainly that is excusable, if not normal for an amateur on KGS, who can ask his opponent for time if need be. But it means that Surma accepted the fact that KGS kept the time, despite netlag. If he had reported his netlag problem when he became aware of it, he could have obtained relief. But, having accepted the KGS time with netlag, he could not later go back on his decision when it mattered. He could, OC, have reported the problem, even during the game he lost, and gotten relief, until the point where KGS did not receive his intended move before his byoyomi period was up. But he did not, and paid the consequences.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Yes, and this decision of Mateus is based of the existing conditions of the Tournament:a server based on New-York and owned by the AGA so no effort to have fair network conditions because,as with proctors, this tournament is based on trust.
Surma accepted unfair conditions because he believed on his opponent sportmanship.
The decision of the referee is the good one. But after unsportmanship from American team,Europeans pros cannot accept unfair conditions like this anymore

All you says, can be boiled down to "Surma was obliged to report lag, did not - so paid consequences". Actually he was not , so all your argumenation, although logically correct step by step (well, one point is wrong, lack of report by Surma does not means acceptation, exactly same as lack of report of crime does not means crime didnt occured, but as you asked for, i will cut some slack), fails because of wrong principle.

Btw, if we consider in previous game when he lagged too, he didnt reported it - he was already punished for that by system - he lost one period of byo.I know that in US, law is different, but i think even there you cannot be punished more than once for a thing.In your "ruling" you want to make it a base for possible endless punishment for Surma.

@Java
I know that 10k USD is too much to quit, also EGF team will in most probability still win this, so its very easy for me to say they should quit, and its extremely hard for them to make such a decision. Still, spirit of game was harmed. Saying "we should accept harsh ruling and move on" will not change that.

By not reporting lag, he had to take the responsiblity of dealing with said lag in the face of the rules as they stood. We already agreed that the rules should've been more complete - but after the tournament game started, there is no room for debate on their matter. Comparing adherence to tournament rules with criminal law is like comparing apples and oranges.

Correction: KGS server is not in New York (last time I tracert-ed it was in Texas, I think it was in the Mid-West at one point) and isn't owned by the AGA (wms made it as a private enterprise, it has since passed to the AGF which is not the same as the AGA, though may be linked and some familiar AGA names, see https://www.gokgs.com/ownership_announcement.html).

The analogy is to civil law, not criminal law. Surma was not punished.

My point was that this ruling was standard, as attested to by the fact that the referee consulted other experts before making his final decision. I just spelled things out. As for failure to report meaning acceptance, there is a general principle, not only in law but in other fields, and accepted in a number of different cultures, that silence betokens assent. In general, people are expected to speak up, and people in general do.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Yes. He bears some blame for not explicitly pointing out to the organisers that this can happen, and hoping that they might re-write the rules or clarify what was expected to happen in such instances.
On the other hand, you cannot say "You accepted this once, you have to accept it every time in this tournament."

I played a championship final game. In game 1 my opponent ending up taking back a move after an embarrassing hallucination and getting flustered. He was lost on the board, but I didn't want to stop the clock and claim a win like that and create bad feeling. I kept playing. If he had done that a second time, or had done the same in the next game, I don't see why I wouldn't be within my rights to say that what he had done was illegal and have a penalty applied.

_________________
North Lecale

Civil not criminal huh? Ok, not reporting sth, does not means sth didnt occured.

Also fact that referee consulted others, does not makes its standard. Actually it means that he had no idea of standards so he decided to consult. No expert needs another experts consultation dealing with standard case.Btw you say it was standard, can you cit any similar case from past?

Your logic about not reporting means consent is still flawed. In past game Surma did not report thing.Game ended - case closed.In next game Surma report thing - you say because he didnt reported earlier, it means he accpeted it thouroughy.So i assume in any next game, Surma cant report any lag, cuz he didnt reported in some game in past?That is where your logic brings. As i said before - he didnt reported earlier and already paid consequences. Extending this further is beyond critique, and must be rejected. Basically his report on lag in game Lui - Surma cancels his acceptance on this matter, and its general principle not only in law but in other fields too that ppl can cancel their consent (or even testimony!).

They knew what was standard.



If you will note, that is the opposite of what I said.



Surma could have done so, but didn't, in time.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

He did, obviously.As i said before, he accepted lag in Surma-Sun game, and moved on (you like moving on).But when lag occured also in Lui- Surma game, he had full right to cancel his previous consent and he did.

So if they knew it was standard, and everybody expcet me knows it is standard pls bring on similar cases.

That was not 'in time'.


Same thing as above - he didn't claim his right to have his situation fixed when it was the time to do so.

If I may butt in: I also think the argument about not reporting earlier is flawed. Not only because of the extent of the problem is significantly different (1-2 sec earlier, >10s in the last game), but also from a legal viewpoint.

It is obvious that in criminal law, not reporting earlier has no consequences whatsoever - what is crime and what is not does not depend on this.

In civil law there IS a concept of not objecting implies consent. I actually know a legal case of a friend where this mattered. But I believe this only applies to cases where the judging is open in both directions (you may or may not object a minor breach of a contract, a small delay of execution etc. in favor of the peaceful fulfillment of the contract as a whole).

But I don't think this applies here, as there is no ("legal") option to lose on time when the move was made in time. This is not something that depends on the consent/judgeing of involved parties, this is more about actual facts.

And btw: while the board position lost most of its significance when proctor also confirmed this actual fact, it's still there to reject arguments like "days have plassed, players could have consulted bots".

It was exactly in time. Previous lag does nothing to the next exactly as in civil law, if you suffered from 2 same incidents, not reporting first before 2nd occured in most cases you can report and bring to court both (well, if you waited 10 years after 1st, it might be too late, but i am speaking on general principle).

If we assume your logic, Surma was put in worse situation because he revealed sth truth (not his fault) about earlier game. Assuming system which punish player doing that is unthinkably bad.

Surma was not punished. The referee made a mistake by not finding out what had happened before issuing the first ruling.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

No, actually he was punished. Please read Lee's post about what happened between the 2nd and 3rd rulings. That was when Surma was punished.

Surma was not punished. He was not punished for telling the truth. He is supposed to do that. Had there been no referee, he would have lost on time, according to the KGS server. The information he gave, which the referee should have found out earlier, undermined the basis for his appeal to overturn that result. Getting the result that is in accordance with the conditions of competition is not punishment.

Now, you may disagree with the ruling, and you may be right, but the referee gave a principled, reasoned ruling, even if he was mistaken. Nobody was punished.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I'm starting to believe that the long and nasty arm of the language barrier is meddling things again. Maybe the crux of the issue is that the ruling got worse for Mateusz after his own appeal which is supposedly 'wrong'? It isn't wrong though, no final ruling had been made at that time; besides, if an appeal court found more evidence against the case of the defender than the lower instance did, then it's within their power to make a stronger ruling, is it not?

I agree with this.

Not only has it been a problem in understanding what the referee knew and what he meant, it is probably undermining our ability to understand each other in this thread. We should all keep that in mind when reading this thread.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207