A General Definition of Ko / Discussion

RobertJasiek: You use the indefinite article in the new page title. Is there any second and correct general definition besides mine?

tapir: I can assure I did this on purpose.

RobertJasiek: I do not doubt that you did it on purpose but the question about existence of a second and correct general definition remains.

tapir: The indefinite article is a shortcut for "Robert Jasiek's".

If even unkx80 has trouble parsing your ko paper, let alone understand it, I can't offer opinion on the content. I merely try to find a place for it, where it doesn't come along as generally accepted terminology, while not making you too unhappy at the same time. Attribution at the start of the page and not linking it from the top of the ko page is part of that.

But as a whole, I believe you can only gain by attribution and a page like Go Terms by Robert Jasiek, as it forces you to give short abstracts of your terms and make people see the relations between them.

RobertJasiek: I lack time to fill your Go Terms by Robert Jasiek page. Instead some time I will write some books on ko, some books on go terms and some books on rules, explaining everything for everybody. This is a project for years though.

RobertJasiek: My introductory comment on the parent page has nothing to do with my wish for the use of my created terminology. It has to do with factual correctness, respect towards individuals, in this case me, appearance and purpose of a wiki.

The page title A General Definition of Ko is factually incorrect because the title suggests an all-inclusive treatment by RobertJasiek of what he has to say on ko. Contrarily the page contents is about extraordinarily less: only about the specification and definition of what is a ko in general. Factually correct page titles would be KoInGeneral?, which was the previous page title, or KoGeneralDefinition? or KoGeneralDefinitionIntroduction?.

Using a person's name in a page title disrespects the person e.g. when these conditions occur:

• It is discrimination if some pages conveying that person's inventions have his name in the page title while the by far vast majority of pages conveying other persons' inventions do not carry their names in the page title.
• If a page title carries a person's name and a very broad topic while the page contents has only a tiny fraction of what the person can say on the topic, then this creates the false impression that that little were all the person had to say on the topic. This feels like assassination of the person's contribution or ability of contribution. A page title like RobertJasiekOnGeneralKoDefinitionIntroduction? would not have this kind of disrespect but still show the previous kind.
• A person who is an active SL user should be asked in advance whether he would agree on a particular page carrying his name.

Acceptance of go terms is not only a matter of usage by others but also a matter of appearance in literature (books, PDFs published on the web etc.).

A wiki should be fact-orientated and not person-orientated (unless where the wiki describes (say, biographical) facts about a person, of course).

You hint at a possible general discussion of my terminology. Of course, such a discussion is possible. But it should be done at an appropriate page such as a discussion subpage of GoTermsByRobertJasiek.

Hyperpape: Robert Jasiek On General Ko Definition? seems like a better title than the current one. I'd leave out "introduction" and put that disclaimer in the page contents, but that's a small difference of opinion.

I can't speculate as to the reasons this was moved in the first place, but I think "Ko in General" isn't the best title. It actually suffers from the same defect as "Robert Jasiek on Ko" that it doesn't distinguish between definitions and other topics.

The greater problem, though is that the definitions are still poorly understood by sensei's editors not named Robert Jasiek.

tapir: My take: no "introduction" in the page name, "definition" in the page name and "general" attribute added in a way it isn't misunderstood as sth. similar to General Opening Principles (where general means sth. similar to basic). I have no trouble with RobertJasiekOnGeneralKoDefinition? or similar terms and I am not even committed to add names to page titles, we can find one without mentioning your name for this page too (sth. like "AGeneralDefinitionOfKo" would be ok with me). But "Ko in General" is a title which I would on first sight expect to have accessible information, especially when it is linked prominently as it was. And while I believe you don't want to use only your terminology, it is obvious that you felt obliged to do so and when you "answer-force" sth. you are really not using common accessible language. No comment on what a wiki should be or whether this is discrimination.

Nobody denies your right to invent terminology and to present it on Sensei's Library, I personally made pages on some of your terms if I recall correctly. And I made the Go Terms by Robert Jasiek page to make them more accessible to SL readers and myself and to give an obvious place to present them aside the individual pages as a system, as I strongly believe they all belong together = your terminology is by necessity not modular. I even found myself talking about direct connection recently.

But nothing entitles a page to a certain position by prominent linking and a misleading page name. Admittedly "Robert Jasiek on Ko" is too generic as well.

I approve of moving general terminology discussion to GoTermsByRobertJasiek.

RobertJasiek: In the prior context of J2003-style terminology, it would not have made sense to refer to other researchers' (such as go-unrelated mathematics) terminology to avoid answer-force. Rather it did make very much sense to invent that term so that it can be used together with force / prevent. Commonly accessible language would have been a word like "answer" or "reply" but a) nobody would perceive it as a term and b) it has a too restricted meaning. A word was missing, so I needed to invent some. If I had referred to other researchers' terminology (and worse: their annotation), then you would have understood even less than nothing...

tapir: I am not suggesting you should have written it differently, but I rather not call the page "Ko in General". "Robert Jasiek on Ko" is more of a question mark rename until sth. better comes along. As said before, for me A general definition of Ko as page name and a disclaimer, that you refer to some of your terminology in it, would be sufficient.

Herman: In my opinion, "Ko In General" is far too generic a page name, as it suggests a broad treatment of the subject of ko and things related to it, while this page discusses mostly a narrow, rules related, part of ko. A treatment of ko in general should include such topics as:

• Playing so as to maximize ko threats for a potential future ko.
• Psychological effects of ko fighting on players.
• Famous kos throughout history, and their effects on ko rules

Also, at the moment, the referred research is not widely applied in actual play, and mainly of interest to rules researchers. For those reasons, a more specific page title is appropriate.

RobertJasiek: If one perceives the previous page title like you do, then your implication on it having been too general makes sense. I perceived it as a page title referring to a (general) explanation of what the term "ko" means. Likewise I perceive the Ko page title and consider the current contents there pretty misplaced; that page is more like a KoStartingPage?. - I do not think that my general ko definition is in a narrow sense rules-related. Rather 1) I raise the ko definition on a higher level accepting every go ruleset as a possible presupposition, i.e., I have made the ko term independent of the ruleset (more researchers should do likewise!) and 2) my paper tries to separate different abstraction levels a) rules, b) strategy / force, c) ko intersection / ko.

Herman By the way, in reference to the following: It is discrimination if some pages conveying that person's inventions have his name in the page title while the by far vast majority of pages conveying other persons' inventions do not carry their names in the page title. It seems to me that many pages are in fact named after their authors/inventors (e.g. spight rules, tromp-taylor rules, ikeda rules, ing rules, lasker-maas rules, kee rules of go).

Anon User: Unfortunately it is a fact that 'to discriminate' now has a negative connotation, despite the fact that if I were to send Robert Jasiek £100 (for example) he is unlikely to complain of discrimination, although I have indeed discriminated him from those that I did not send £100 to. My point is that if one goes into any bookshop or library, it is immediately obvious that a book's author is prominently displayed alongside its title on a book's cover. Is Robert embarrassed about being given such an accolade? Elsewhere I suggested that all Robert's pages be renamed by appending "-(RJ)" to them (and agreed that the same respect should be awarded to James Davies, Ing and others). I think this is appropriate given that they are 100% original content peculiar to, and generated by RJ and nobody else. If that is not the case, let those collaborators step forward and be recognised too!

RobertJasiek: When an object (such as a ruleset) carries a name with an inventor name in it, then in this exceptional type of case of course an SL page title can carry the object's name and thus also the inventor name. - Concerning the second paragraph, of which I am not sure if it is also from Herman, usually wiki pages were edited by several people; when there were major contributors then some pages state them. My disagreeing opinion on letting many pages carry name tages I have already stated elsewhere.

It wasn't Herman, afaik. It was ip 2.221 or something like that, which I think might be isd, but I'm not sure about that. -- Hyperpape

tapir: It is unfortunate that discussions on pages concerning terms of Robert tend to go on forever without closure. As I started it with renaming action, I just continue with one more which might be some kind of compromise. (I would like to see a part of the time spent for these discussions on pages itself.) Less misleading in the name, but not attributing it to Robert in the page name, though a disclaimer on the page seems mandatory to me.