Life In 19x19

Hello all,
Please let the latest posts (see above) not refrain you from discussing go etiquette some more.

Should I make a restart?
Okay, here's one. I know, easy for me to bring it up, because I wasn't involved personally.
At an informal tournament, I witnessed something which resembled the 'nuclear tesuji'.
One player, a highly respected dan graded player, threw stones all over the floor in frustration. Well, that doesn't seem very gentleman-like. He cooled down outside.
On the other hand: we all know moments of frustration (don't we?), we all have weak moments, so, no need to hold it against him for too long or to have a grudge towards him personally.
Respect for him, as a player and as a person, for the situation at hand, should be coupled with some understanding from our side how people can act in the heat of the moment.
Well, at least that's what I think.
Your view? Other examples?

sybob wrote:Hello all,

Should I make a restart?
Okay, here's one. I know, easy for me to bring it up, because I wasn't involved personally.
At an informal tournament, I witnessed something which resembled the 'nuclear tesuji'.
One player, a highly respected dan graded player, threw stones all over the floor in frustration. Well, that doesn't seem very gentleman-like. He cooled down outside.
On the other hand: we all know moments of frustration (don't we?), we all have weak moments, so, no need to hold it against him for too long or to have a grudge towards him personally.
Respect for him, as a player and as a person, for the situation at hand, should be coupled with some understanding from our side how people can act in the heat of the moment.
Well, at least that's what I think.
Your view? Other examples?

I understand that Go is just a game, but people have lives and sometimes they have a lot of personal stuff going on. I am more than willing to forgive an occasional incident like this. It is not good, but if it just happens once, maybe there is something else going on, and it is not really about the game. Some people use go for release and relaxation, but it can be very frustrating and perhaps infuriating at times.

sybob wrote:[..] 'nuclear tesuji' [..]

If it happens, well, I know emotions and how they can overwhelm me.

Then again, if it happens often, I’d have to decide whether I want to stop playing that person or perhaps talk to them (carefully).
________

How about triumph? I believe to have noticed that it’s often the same people who tend to nuclear tesuji who also display their triumph quite ostentatiously … which, in my perception, is rude, resp. a lack of self-restraint. I don't like such behaviour. I mean, throwing stones onto the board also spoils the end situation picture for the winner, no? I cannot imagine wanting to do that to a person to which I have just lost a game. After a “normal” game I usually ask my opponent whether it’s okay to clear the board. Other thought … maybe next time I lose to them I should try doing the same and see how they react, just for once

For myself, I try to restrict myself to a smile if I win a fight or the game, and I just place two stones when I lose. (OK I admit that once I almost cried.)

________

(Well, what I write may be more about my feelings than about etiquette )

How about when somebody who just lost a game to you reviews the game and tells you about your mistakes?

Road rage, it's a thing.
Saw two incidents the past few weeks.

Go rage...

(sorry to unearth a post, but I read it only now)

Kirby wrote:Personally, I prefer someone to be genuine over some etiquette formula that they've learned from L19.

If someone feels like being a jerk and calls me something less than nice online, it's not pleasant. But that's what they were thinking anyway, so I'd be fooling myself to think that they were a nicer user for saying, "Thank you, sir, for the game", or fake phrase like that.

I understand the general feeling that we shouldn't get hung over small details (especially when they don't go well through translation), but this seems like the complete other extreme. If my opponent feels angry, bitter or frustrated but has enough self-restraint to be polite towards me, a complete stranger, then I think he is nicer than if he blows up in my face. I am not a psychoanalyst and I don't play go so that my opponent can unload his feelings over the board, especially if we don't know each other.

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but what you describe seems to me as the whole point of being polite in society.

Jhyn wrote: Maybe I misunderstand your point, but what you describe seems to me as the whole point of being polite in society.

Yes, maybe. I have conflicted feelings about this, myself. Sometimes I write in an extreme way on the forum so as to illustrate an opposing viewpoint. Reality is often between the extremes, and much more complicated. I often post in an extreme way, if you haven't noticed

Anyway, to your point, I feel that I have a unique perspective on "being polite in society", because I have experienced a few "different societies" as I've grown up. I came from a small rural town where everyone knew each other. Later, I lived in Japan for a year, and experienced a very different society. Then, I married a girl from Korea, and leaned yet another society. Then I lived in California and now in Seattle - much larger and more liberal cities than where I grew up.

Different societies have different cultural expectations. Everyone has heard of stories where Americans go to visit someone's house in Japan, and don't take their shoes off, because they didn't think anything of it. It's a cultural difference in expectation. Nowadays, a lot of Americans take shoes off in their houses, too, so maybe it's a bad example. But there are several such examples.

In Korea or Japan, if someone is older than you, it means a lot more than in America. In the USA, people still have an expectation to expect your elders, but nowhere near the extreme that you see in some parts of Asia. In Korean, there's even a concept called "jeong", which in some ways can amount to respecting and love for others in a way that defies logic. In fact, it might be "better" if you sacrifice yourself in an illogical way.

Anyway, there are many differences between cultures in what they expect (and even among individuals).

Having experienced this, I personally prefer that someone is genuine. Being genuine crosses cultural boundaries. It allows for people to know you as you are, regardless of traditional expectations or preconceptions.

Coming back to the example of wearing your shoes in a Japanese person's house... Maybe you made them mad by trampling through their house with your dirty shoes. But if the homeowner is reasonable, I think that they can explain their feelings. Maybe you can then talk with them about it, "Oh, I am so sorry. I didn't mean to offend you!" Or conversely, if you don't care, "I don't care about your house, and I'll keep wearing my shoes!"

You establish a unique relationship with that person, and not some one-size-fits-all formula.

This direct, personal communication is real, and it is genuine. It goes beyond some traditional or historical expectation that, if you don't know or understand, you're somehow an #@%. Or maybe you are an #@%. Then at least be up front with me about it

Kirby wrote: Having experienced this, I personally prefer that someone is genuine. Being genuine crosses cultural boundaries. It allows for people to know you as you are, regardless of traditional expectations or preconceptions.

Coming back to the example of wearing your shoes in a Japanese person's house... Maybe you made them mad by trampling through their house with your dirty shoes. But if the homeowner is reasonable, I think that they can explain their feelings. Maybe you can then talk with them about it, "Oh, I am so sorry. I didn't mean to offend you!" Or conversely, if you don't care, "I don't care about your house, and I'll keep wearing my shoes!"

You establish a unique relationship with that person, and not some one-size-fits-all formula.

This direct, personal communication is real, and it is genuine. It goes beyond some traditional or historical expectation that, if you don't know or understand, you're somehow an #@%. Or maybe you are an #@%. Then at least be up front with me about it

This discussion is devolving. However, I think this is basically a cop-out response. (Edit: By cop-out, I mean that it is so easy to be rude and honest, it is much harder to be polite.) I also grew up on the east coast in a suburban/urban environment, subsequently lived in Japan for more than 10 years with a family, and also lived on the west coast in one of the most liberal and friendly places in the US. All three have very different cultures and measure of what polite means. None of that reflects whether you can be genuine or not. You can express your genuine feelings without being a jerk or rude. I express my genuine feelings all the time without people thinking that I am rude. I have genuine relations because I am honest with my feelings and my perspective. Being polite or rude is not about the content of what you say, it is about HOW you say it.

If someone said to me, I don't care about your house, I am not taking my shoes off, I would kick them out. Why? Not because they have a different opinion about wearing shoes in the house, but because they are obnoxious and rude. IF that is who they are, I don't want to have anything to do with them, and probably most of society does not as well. IF they said to me, "in my culture we wear shoes in the house, and here is why. I really don't want to take my shoes off, would you mind?" I think we could still be friends and have a genuine relationship and understand each other.

There's a simpler example that I just thought of, which may partially explain my mixed feelings on the topic. Or maybe it just shows that my way of thinking is too "Westernized".

In some Asian cultures, there is a cultural expectation of gift-giving. For example, if you go to visit someone after not seeing them for a long time, you might buy them a gift. Likewise, if they come to see you, they might bring you a gift.

Great idea. Everyone likes gifts, right?

Now, it is not unheard of for people to "keep tabs" on what people have given - almost like keeping up on your checkbook. "This person bought me a $100 gift, but this guy only got me a $10 gift." Or "last year when I visited him, I gave him a $50 gift, but when he came to visit me, I only got a $20 gift".

And it is also not unheard of for people to get silently angry at one another when the "balance" doesn't line up the way they feel it should.

My perspective on this is probably "Western", so I may offend some people here. But my personal view is that this gets too complicated, and it gives me a headache. I don't want to have to remember how much money I spent on someone's gift, or to look up on Amazon to see how much the market value is for the fruit basket they gave me.

I just want to be genuine.

If I feel like buying you a fruit basket, I will buy you a fruit basket. If you feel like buying me a fruit basket, then buy me a fruit basket. If you don't want to buy me a fruit basket, that's fine. It just makes it more meaningful when you actually buy me one - it came from your heart.

It's actually genuine.

Anyway, that's where I'm getting at when I say that I prefer being genuine to some culturally-defined etiquette. I prefer people to be who they are, and for me to know them as they are. I don't want some formula.

That being said, as this is a discussion on etiquette, I hope that I did not offend anyone here.

If nothing else, I'm being genuine with you

Go_Japan wrote: If someone said to me, I don't care about your house, I am not taking my shoes off, I would kick them out. Why? Not because they have a different opinion about wearing shoes in the house, but because they are obnoxious and rude. IF that is who they are, I don't want to have anything to do with them, and probably most of society does not as well.

Sure, but is it better that they take their shoes off to appease you, but secretly have hateful feelings toward you? If they "are who they are", it doesn't change things by doing something trivial to appease you.

I am not promoting rude behavior. I am promoting being sincere.

Sincerity crosses cultural boundary. Etiquette does not.

Thinking introspectively, perhaps in some ways, I am rejecting the culture of gift giving in my example. Or coming back to the shoes example, maybe I'd be rejecting your view that I should take my shoes off in your house.

Maybe that's a problem - at least to the extent that I might offend some people.

But I think that someone's "outside" should follow their "inside". I don't want to fake it in agreeing with a cultural expectation. After time, if I come to see the merits in that cultural expectation, then I'd like my actions to reflect it.

I suppose it depends on how much your relationship with the other party matters. If you really don't want to make them mad, maybe you buy them the $100 gift. Or maybe you take your shoes off in their house.

But I don't think it universally makes you a "bad person" if you aren't aligned with their particular ideology on etiquette. By being genuine, I guess you promote your own ideology on etiquette. When that differs from others, you may offend people.

Is it worse than having a different ideology of etiquette internally, but masking it? I don't really know.

Like I said, I have conflicted viewpoints on this topic.

Kirby wrote:Thinking introspectively, perhaps in some ways, I am rejecting the culture of gift giving in my example. Or coming back to the shoes example, maybe I'd be rejecting your view that I should take my shoes off in your house.

Maybe that's a problem - at least to the extent that I might offend some people.

But I think that someone's "outside" should follow their "inside". I don't want to fake it in agreeing with a cultural expectation. After time, if I come to see the merits in that cultural expectation, then I'd like my actions to reflect it.

I suppose it depends on how much your relationship with the other party matters. If you really don't want to make them mad, maybe you buy them the $100 gift. Or maybe you take your shoes off in their house.

But I don't think it universally makes you a "bad person" if you aren't aligned with their particular ideology on etiquette. By being genuine, I guess you promote your own ideology on etiquette. When that differs from others, you may offend people.

Is it worse than having a different ideology of etiquette internally, but masking it? I don't really know.

Like I said, I have conflicted viewpoints on this topic.

Now I see how you got your post count so high in this forum...

This all started with a discussion of behavior on the internet and being genuine. I want to separate the idea of being genuine with being rude. I don't think you understood that in my post. You can express your ideas and opinions genuinely without being rude. You can express opposition to particular cultural norms honestly and with politeness.

I think you missed a part of what I was saying, too. You say that you can be genuine without being rude.

I say that "being rude" is not universal. Neither of us is a god, so neither of us gets to say what being rude means. Different cultures and individuals have different ideas of what being rude is.

The only person that you can define "rude" for is yourself.

If you are genuine, you are at least being yourself and sticking to your beliefs, even if you offend some people that have a different definition of "rude".

Kirby wrote:I think you missed a part of what I was saying, too. You say that you can be genuine without being rude.

I say that "being rude" is not universal. Neither of us is a god, so neither of us gets to say what being rude means. Different cultures and individuals have different ideas of what being rude is.

The only person that you can define "rude" for is yourself.

If you are genuine, you are at least being yourself and sticking to your beliefs, even if you offend some people that have a different definition of "rude".

Sure. Everything is in the eye of the beholder, except when its not. Most of our cultural social norms are culturally defined through interactions with other people. That's why they are called social constructions. Of course, I could define myself and what is rude in particular ways that are unique to my own personal beliefs that you have no way of knowing. However, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about things that are known to those who live within those cultures and societies. It is rude not to bow to an elder in Korea. That is not defined by the individuals, but by Korean society through interactions. If people started to disobey those norms and challenge the cultural beliefs, those norms might change over time.

I am not talking about these things as universal ideas, as you said in your post. I am talking about them bound by particular cultures and societies, particular groups. We often change our identities based on the group with which we are interacting. I am a professor, so when I am with other professors I act in a particular way to follow the rules of the group within which I belong. If I want to be "counter culture" I can act in opposition to those norms and rules and expect that others will not like it. That is the nature of our society. Likewise, there are some cultural rules or norms of playing Go in Japan that do not necessarily apply to playing go everywhere. If you violate those rules in Japan, someone might say something to you about it. You can continue to violate those rules and maybe the rules will change someday by your norm entrepreneurship. Maybe you will be ostracized from the community for continuing to violate the norms.

Kirby wrote:I think you missed a part of what I was saying, too. You say that you can be genuine without being rude.

I say that "being rude" is not universal. Neither of us is a god, so neither of us gets to say what being rude means. Different cultures and individuals have different ideas of what being rude is.

The only person that you can define "rude" for is yourself.

If you are genuine, you are at least being yourself and sticking to your beliefs, even if you offend some people that have a different definition of "rude".

I feel that you might be mixing two different kinds of rudeness, i.e.:

1. "rudeness": not respecting the cultural norms, i.e. not removing your shoes
2. "bad behaviour": not caring about the other person, i.e. "I won't remove my shoes and I don't care about your house"

Now I agree that 1. can be perceived as 2. when it's not necessarily the case, because of cultural misunderstanding or other reasons, and we should pay attention about not caring about small details.
Nevertheless there are many - most - expressions of 2. that are intercultural (in another thread, somebody mentioned throwing stones on the floor in a fit of anger) and those should in general not be tolerated.

As for the other subject, I agree that being genuine is a quality in and of itself, but another quality is to know when to keep your feelings to yourself as a matter of empathy, respect and social awareness. Here I fell I might be "a part of the problem" but I personally dislike when a person I don't know behaves with me like a best friend. I believe there is a lot of scope to express sincerity outside of blatant disrespect.

Go_Japan and Jhyn,
I can't say I strongly disagree with either of you.

OTOH, I don't really see very clearly what you disagree with in what I am saying