Life In 19x19

Pangolino wrote:

bugsti wrote:So what the Panel Board is going to do if he will play like last year (when he was acquitted at the end)? They agree with that acquittal?

He was not acquitted.

"We do not think that it was proven without a reasonable doubt that Carlo Metta broke any rules" means that the first accusation was not solid enough, not that he was proven innocent.
The fact that it was presented in your way in the italian go world was sketchy at best.

Really ? Usually, when the accusation don't find you guilty, you're acquitted. How does it works here?

Tryss wrote: Really ? Usually, when the accusation don't find you guilty, you're acquitted. How does it works here?

When someone is acquitted (with a "Sentenza di proscioglimento") in Italy there are two possible results:

You can have a "Sentenza di non doversi procedere" = the accusation was invalid or there was not enough proof of guilt.
Or you can have a "Sentenza di assoluzione" = the accused was proven innocent.

Prosciolto & proven innocent -> assolto

I am not entirely sure how it works in other legal systems and if there is a clear cut difference in terminology, considering the online sources I checked on the fly.

In the official news on the FIGG website (archived version) Carlo was presented as "assolto" in the title, of course, giving the idea that he was proven innocent by the appeal commission.
The proper way to translate the news was to say that Carlo was "prosciolto", that is more generic. The accusation is not up anymore but we can't say anything about his guilty/not guilty status.

Maybe it was in good faith and whoever wrote the news is not very good with words. Maybe. I doubt it, because those are terms that we hear regularly, on tv, on the newspapers. Those are not technical terms anymore.
The point is that that page was circulated and quoted in that form, leading most of the italian players to believe that Carlo was proven innocent after the appeal.
From the context it was quite clear to me that bugsti was thinking about this version of what happened, where Carlo was declared innocent just to be accused again next year by the new commission.

The only italian source to report what happened in the proper way was is the Go Club Milano, here (archived version).

L'appello di Metta è stato vinto in quanto non è stato possibile provare senza ragionevole dubbio l'uso del programma.

The Metta appeal was won because it wasn't possibile to prove beyond reasonable doubt the use of the software.

Pangolino wrote:
He was not acquitted.

"We do not think that it was proven without a reasonable doubt that Carlo Metta broke any rules" means that the first accusation was not solid enough, not that he was proven innocent.

But here a big issue arises: in such a case it is impossible to prove one innocence! How can a referee possibly find a prove of "not cheating" for any possible move? It is clear to me that every possible form of absolution can be written only in the form you mentioned.

Fun fact: also the opposite claim is impossible to prove. How can one prove that cheating occurred? One can think that cheating occured, another can say that it is unlike, another that it is suspicious, another that is fifty-fifty, but nobody can prove it (unless showing some physical evidence).

Am I right?

bugsti wrote:I think It is interesting to ask to the Panel Board what do they think about Metta case last year. He will probably play at the same level also this year and I bet every one of his moves will be scanned with every AI at our disposal.

Curiously, ben David's plays agreed with Leela Zero's (at the 100k setting) more often than Metta's. How now, brown cow!

Pangolino wrote:

bugsti wrote:So what the Panel Board is going to do if he will play like last year (when he was acquitted at the end)? They agree with that acquittal?

He was not acquitted.

"We do not think that it was proven without a reasonable doubt that Carlo Metta broke any rules" means that the first accusation was not solid enough, not that he was proven innocent.
The fact that it was presented in your way in the italian go world was sketchy at best.

Acquittal is not the same as exoneration or exculpation.

It seems to me that arguing over the meaning of acquittal or any other legal term is tarring ourselves with the same amateurish brush as the arbitrators who originally found Metta guilty.

I'm certain that acquittal has both different meanings and different associations in each country. In the UK, it even differs between England and Scotland. It is bound to differ even more between countries that have totally different law traditions (Europe and their Napoleonic Codes vs the UK/USA and their Common Law). There are also significant differences, in England at least, between the legal usage and the everyday usage (though the most important point remains that you cannot be charged again with the same offence).

In England, though, nolle prosequi normally means the prosecution is unwilling to pursue a case (usually because of permanent illness or insanity). It is not an acquittal (it takes place before judgement) and the accused can be re-indicted later. There are other pre-trial and pre-judgement procedures such as discontinuance or a motion to quash indictment but these likewise have no sense of acquittal and re-indictment is possible. I believe the only case beyond a full trial where acquittal takes place is when the prosecution decides to offer no evidence. In that case the jury is instructed by the judge to declare a verdict of not guilty. Now all of that sounds very different (just different, not better or worse) to "Sentenza di non doversi procedere" = the accusation was invalid or there was not enough proof of guilt. (The "translation" given here is in any case not a translation but an interpretation - the key words are that the case 'must not proceed'). The 'sentenza' here seems to imply a judgement, which cannot happen pre-trial in England.

So, to repeat, we have different codes, different laws, different procedures, different languages different interpretations, all discussed here by amateurs (including me) and used by amateurs (the panel), and all of this in a case where there was no formal law in the first place.

In short, trying to use law here is wrong and a waste of time. But, as Edmund Burke famously said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." So PGETC must do something. It seems to me that the only recourse here is the "Gentleman's Club." In the same way that a men's club can refuse admittance if you don't wear a tie, and can blackball members on the say-so of an elected committee, PGETC can treat itself as a club and require a sign-up not to cheat and can give itself powers to blackball. But what it must not do is treat itself as a court of law, using terms such as 'guilty' and 'acquittal.'

Of course, even clubs are subject to the laws of their land, so exclusion or blackball decisions can be challenged, but I'd be surprised if a non-defamatory PGETC expulsion for suspected cheating after a sign-up would be seriously challenged. In the UK, challenges to the club-rules kind of set-up seem to be almost entirely based on discrimination. But in these cases, the discrimination is against people (e.g. women) who are barred from signing up in the first place.

In contrast, PGETC players are insisting on players signing up. (Burke was very much a club man - he founded his own - but even he wouldn't survive five minutes today. He also said, "Woman is not made to be the admiration of all, but the happiness of one.")

That doesn't solve all their problems, of course. They too must accept compromise (and I think they are so disposed). A club is a kind of marriage. As Jane Austen said, "Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance. If the dispositions of the parties are ever so well known to each other or ever so similar beforehand, it does not advance their felicity in the least. They always continue to grow sufficiently unlike afterwards to have their share of vexation; and it is better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you are to pass your life."

I expect we all know marriages where a bit of cheating has gone on but the union has survived.

Javaness2 wrote:Thanks Vesa - Can you confirm if the pgetc leagues are no longer rated?

Hello,

yes, I can confirm that PGETC will no longer be rated in the EGD. This is valid from this season 2018/19 on.

Regards Martin

Are the results from the 2017-18 season going to be entered into EGD soon? That will affect the player order for this season; it would be nice if Chris (the strongest on our team but his rating doesn't reflect his strength as PGETC is his only recent tournament) could get his rating points and maybe they'll be enough to play on first board for UK instead of me.

Uberdude wrote:Are the results from the 2017-18 season going to be entered into EGD soon? That will affect the player order for this season; it would be nice if Chris (the strongest on our team but his rating doesn't reflect his strength as PGETC is his only recent tournament) could get his rating points and maybe they'll be enough to play on first board for UK instead of me.

I was under the impression that countries could choose any order for their players - only that they had to stay fixed for the season?

quantumf, no.

section 4.7 @ https://pandanet-igs.com/communities/euroteamchamps/4 wrote:The players of a team must be ordered (from 1 to 12) according to the rating list of the European Go Database available at the beginning of the season. The strongest player gets number one. The exact date of the list to be used is published by the project leaders

Uberdude wrote:quantumf, no.

section 4.7 @ https://pandanet-igs.com/communities/euroteamchamps/4 wrote:The players of a team must be ordered (from 1 to 12) according to the rating list of the European Go Database available at the beginning of the season. The strongest player gets number one. The exact date of the list to be used is published by the project leaders

Our players (well, some of them) are only on the EGD by accident from participation in WAGC/KPMC events, and then, more recently, from PGETC games. Efforts to have our local tournament games captured on EGD met with sufficient resistance for us not to pursue that any further. So, it's hardly the ideal source of ranking our players, and we've not used it in our 3 or so seasons in the PGETC.

On a related note, my understanding is that PGETC games don't (or will not) contribute to EGD rating points - how does this relate to your original question?

The rule Uberdude quotes is not universally applied. I think at least 4 teams have had 'exceptions' for it.

quantumf: mmmm, makes sense that another approach is needed for South Africa with players not in EGD with quality ratings.

Java: interesting, that sounds a pragmatic approach, I'll enquire if we can get an exception.

quantumf wrote:
Our players (well, some of them) are only on the EGD by accident from participation in WAGC/KPMC events, and then, more recently, from PGETC games. Efforts to have our local tournament games captured on EGD met with sufficient resistance for us not to pursue that any further.

Can you explain the resistance? If South Africa is an observer member I do not see why it can't have its tournaments entered into the system. Estonia is not a member, but has its tournaments entered into the system.

Is it really going to start next tuesday? No schedule has been published yet.