[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

KIbitzers should STFU unless asked or appointed as monitor

Posted By: Daniel Murphy
Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2011, at 10:03 p.m.

In Response To: KIbitzers should STFU unless asked or appointed as monitor (Robert Maier)

I think kibitzing is rarely a problem. And it's rarely a problem because we (most tourney kibitzers are tourney participants) all know kibitzers should be silent.

I also think illegal moves are rarely a problem. I think they're made infrequently. I think they're rarely made intentionally, and I think they're rarely made unnoticed by either the opponent or by the player, usually right after picking up the dice ;- I think that with a legal moves rule, nearly all instances would be resolved immediately, unconfusingly and undisputably by the players themselves without the assistance of monitor or spectators. Especially wrong color on the bar or off the board type situations.

I'm not sure I follow some of your questions. If our rule is "no talking," our rule doesn't "resolve" the problem of spectating rule breakers. Does it have to? And does changing the rule to "no talking except about illegal moves" resolve the problem any better?

What exactly is the penalty incurred when a spectator speaks out of turn?

Ban the spectator ;- But you mean "penalty" to a player who possibly benefits from the spectator's intrusion, right?

if Joe Schmo yells out that an illegal play has been made, are we saying that I am not now, as a player, allowed to point that out, and have a ruling made?

From past discussions, I know there are some people who would feel morally obligated to ignore the comment (or some other attention-directing comment or gesture) -- or try to -- since they hadn't yet thought of some other move themselves. But I'm not one of them.

As far as I know I'm not prohibited from pointing out something that wasn't first noticed by me, or immediately noticed by me.

I agree. Joe Spectator spoke out of turn, he shouldn't have, but since he has, I don't think you should be prohibited from using whatever information you have gained from his intrusion, or feel compelled to ignore it, or try to, or rationalize that you have. Even if I felt that you should ignore it, I wouldn't think a rule could be easily written that would prevent it from influencing you (or your opponent!) in all imaginable circumstances.

I don't see how you resolve this issue.

Not sure why it needs to be.

I just don't see how the risk of them disrupting proceedings is so high that it outweighs the desire to see illegal moves prevented.

My scale leans the other way, I guess. Perhaps paragraph 2 above explains partly why.

I also don't see how I can avoid contemplating what to do when they do speak.

Offhand I can't think of any past discussions of problems caused by spectators. Maybe this is because they don't happen often. Or maybe it's because they tend not to be a big issue -- the kibitzer has irritated, he's banned or admonished, his comment maybe has had some minor influence on the match (often he'll have been wrong, a nonplayer, with lesser judgment and worse eyesight than yours), and the players get on with their match. But I'd be interested in hearing about any actual occurrences of spectator interference and what problem they caused, if any, for players or directors.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.