| |
BGonline.org Forums
three sides to every story
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: ruling in the Nordic Open SJ (Jason Pack)
Date: Thursday, 9 April 2015, at 4:00 p.m.
Now we have heard Steen's side and Jason's side, and it would be interesting to hear Victor's. Further, if there is a person who can directly testify to Jason's trying to keep a bystander from saying anything, that would be a 4th side.
But there are other issues and bigger issues. First, I do disagree with one thing that Jason said, and that is he believes it is proper conduct not to go back on your word. Of course that statement, by itself is correct. But if someone says or does something that is explicitly against the rules of the game, such as resigning, either knowingly or by mistake, when he is not allowed to do that, the rules of the game must be respected and enforced. So saying that Victor should have lived up to his resignation of the match, if indeed he knowingly did that, is not a valid stance when the rules state he cannot do this. He should, and must, rescind his resignation. To suggest that Victor was not a man of his word by rescinding his resignation is completely out of line when he is forced to do that to follow the rules.
Second, is there anyone in the world who believes that one of the top players in the world would intentionally resign a match knowing that the match is not over? No way. If Victor did resign the match instead of the game, it was obviously a mistake. People make mistakes, and in this case, there is a rule that this kind of mistake can and should be corrected. This is not Victor's or Jason choice based on what they believe a "gentleman" should do. A gentleman agrees to follow the rules, whether they like the rules or not. (For example, I don't believe it is gentlemanly to allow my opponent to accidentally put his own checker on the bar and leave it there, but if I am playing in a tournament where the rules say I can let that stand, and I know that he can let that stand if I do it, and I know I am supposed to do all I can to win within the rules, I believe I have an obligation to follow the rules and the spirit of the game by making him leave that checker on the bar. I know others don't agree with me, and that is their right, but I have a great respect for the rules and I expect my opponent to show me no mercy if I break them either intentionally or otherwise.)
I wrote in an earlier post, before hearing Jason's side, that it is wrong to condemn someone on hearsay and without getting the facts, and I stand by that. I would be the first to say Jason should be penalized if he truly was found to be clearly, intentionally, taking a win he didn't deserve. The fact that he asked for the ruling and there is no testimony to show he did it intentionally, EVEN IF MANY THINK HE DID, requires giving him the benefit of the doubt (in this case).
What creates a problem for Jason, and for others when there is a doubt, is the reputation of the person. Your reputation does color what people think of your actions. Why was Carter so quick to assume the worst of Jason? Why were others so quick? If the situation were reversed, and Victor had claimed the win, you would not have seen these assumptions. Victor, and many others, including myself, I hope, have had many years of proving they don't take shots at people, are not out to take undue advantage of people, and have earned a reputation for fairness and respect for the rules and their fellow opponents.
Jason, whether you like it or not, your actions in the past have given people reason to suspect that you are not necessarily the fairest or kindest or most considerate guy on the tournament circuit. You consider yourself to be a most ethical and honorable person, and I have no doubt you have that image of yourself. But maybe you don't project that to others as well as you think you do. Before this incident your name has come up with specific instances of not being particularly reasonable or fair, though I have not heard anyone call you a cheater or liar...just not very easy to deal with or particularly fair. So some of the fault may lie in your people skills or maybe your perception of yourself is not entirely as accurate as you think. (I am sure Hitler did not think he was a bad person...he believed he was doing what was best for his people and the world.)
Now to another point you raised. Yes, it is right to call the director rather than to try to work things out with the other player when you are in doubt. But if someone calls the director often, and on petty things, that suggest either pettiness or someone who hasn't taken the time to read the rules. I only call the director when I have a disagreement or question between myself and my opponent and I know my opponent is wrong, or if I sense he would not like my telling him that he must double for touching the cube or must keep his checker on the bar etc. and I would rather he knows that I am not just being a prick, I am following the rules that he has violated and should have known better. I feel I have every right to call the director because I have studied the rules carefully. Any Open player should have full knowledge of the rules. Do you? If so, when you call the director you should be getting a ruling in your favor 90 percent of the time, or you are abusing the privilege (and the director).
Okay, I have to say it before one of my enemies does (I am as proud of who my enemies are as I am who my friends are.) So who am I to talk about ethics and say that someone's reputation is at least partially caused by their own actions? Am I the most perfect sportsman in the world? Hell no. I have gotten angry and upset at a few people in my time and voiced my opinion, not always quietly, when I think someone was trying to screw me or take a shot at me or was unkind and unfair. I am guilty of having a temper, and a mouth, and I don't always say the right thing. But I am not guilty of being a liar or a bad sport or someone who doesn't follow the rules, and even if I do make mistakes in that area from time to time (we all do), it is not valid to attack the messenger when the message is valid.
And now to one last point: Carter. I can understand why you take offense to Carter's remarks and a few others). They are clearly degrading to you and your reputation. And he might not have had all the facts correct and he might not have been completely justified in posting all he said. But Carter is also one who, like me, might be loud and shoot off his mouth and say and do some things that people don't like, but everyone knows he is honest, and he loves the game, and he brings great joy and passion to the game, and even though he pisses me off sometime to a great degree, he brings a lot to the game and to the table that add fun, and when you need a friend, he is someone who is there for you. If he is pissed at you and doesn't like you for this and other behaviors in the past, enough that he felt compelled to share it with the world, yes, you can be angry with him, but again, you might think of why one of the most well-traveled and experienced players in the world who is liked by many would find you offensive. Maybe your actions are not always as clearly honorable and gentlemanly as you think they have been?
Bottom line, it is wrong to "try" someone publicly in the court of public opinion. It is wrong to condemn someone without all the facts. All of the facts in this case, even if you did shush someone, based on Steen and your account, suggest that action against you is not warranted. But privately, people have and will talk about people who are on your side of this situation as being sleazy, at best, and people do talk to each other and people do get a reputation. Maybe you should give more thought to your reputation, and why people where quick to think the worst of you, not just because of this incident.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.