[ 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: Friday, 25 February 2011, at 2:55 a.m.

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

Rob, I'm thinking over your question, and will answer it soon. Meanwhile, two things:

1. The discussion is a bit confused, because there are several different issues that don't all necessarily have any bearing on a particular case, including the Ray/Bill position in Pittsburgh or Matt's position in this thread. So just to recap, the issues are:

a. Should certain kinds of misplays be deemed "impossible," not "illegal," and thus should always be corrected?

b. If so, at what time does that misplay become uncorrectable?

c. Should the rules allow a player to condone an illegal play, or should the rules require "legal moves only"?

d. If the rule is "legal moves only," at what time does an illegal move become uncorrectable?

e. If the rule is "legal moves only," should spectators be allowed to comment on a play that may have been illegal?

Anything else?

2. Could you clarify what, in your mind, leads you to make a different TD decision (under current U.S. rules) in the Ray/Bill position and Matt's position? Seems to me that although different (in one, Player plays 15/11*/bar instead of 15/11*/7/3, in the other Player plays 3/bar instead of 3/off), but nearly the same (your question, "did you mean to put yourself on the bar?" applies to both positions). So what's the key difference for you? Is it only the weight of precedent in such positions? Or is there something else?

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.