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.



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?

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

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



Indeed, arbitration did allow some vocalization



Perhaps we could institute some go "Miranda Rights"

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

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.



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

Rhetorics solve nothing.

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.

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.


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

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'.

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.

_________________
be immersed

"Meta-discusser" sounds like a really good battle-rap insult.

This shows a difference between those favouring much versus those favouring little use of the concept of sportsmanship. Those wishing much usage do not wish to become specific (also why my questions would be manipulative). Those wishing little usage become specific.

"Sportsmanship" has no value if somebody cries "This person is unsportsmanlike." but nobody knows the reason for such an opinion.

Also sportsmanship must be explained so that players know which behaviour will receive sportsmanlike / unsportsmanlike judgements by the arbitration bodies.

Before 2007, the standard problem was a loss on time in games with finite thinking times when ahead on the board. Some referees declared the player having run out of time but claiming a win unsportsmanlike, some other referees declared the opponent pointing out the player's run out time unsportsmanlike. For sportsmanship to work well, there must be a consensus. There is no sportsmanship consensus on being involved in a dispute when being behind on the board.

So I am not surprised that you do not dare to answer my questions.

Great, we agree. (Discussing your meta-discussion continues it as meta-discussion indeed.)

Answering flawed questions has no purpose. It is not a question of "do not dare", it is simply useless, even counter-productive, to do so.

After having failed to explain sportsmanship to you, I will not try the same with common sense.

Your choice of questions was heavily biased and highly manipulative - that's why I didn't care to answer them.