Re: Equity - some questions

See below.

Matthias Berghaus wrote:
> Am 01.08.2016 um 16:49 schrieb Herman De Wael:
>> Sven Pran wrote:
>>>> Herman De Wael
>>>> Yes, it is - a compensation for not being allowed to play this board.
>>>> Seen like that, a score of A- is actually a penalty of 20%.
>>> [Sven Pran]
>>> Interesting "invention" by you.
>>>
>>> Now please tell us how you consider A- or A+ given to an inferior pair for
>>> which the expected score would be 40% and to a superior pair for which the
>>> expected score would be 60%.
>>>
>>> No penalty with A- to the inferior pair, no bonus with A+ to the superior
>>> pair, 20% penalty with A- to the superior pair and 20% bonus to the inferior
>>> pair?
>>>
>>> To me this just doesn't make sense at all.
>>>
>>> And how does that correspond with the same penalty for the same offence when
>>> both pairs are at fault?
>>>
>>> I think we should stick to the definition that adjusted scores (whether
>>> artificial or assigned) are rectifications, not penalties.
>>>
>> And what has a definition got to do with a player complainig that he's
>> been penalized more than his opponent who made exactly the same mistake?
>> "that's not a penalty, that's a rectification" you'll say.
>> "Well, I still have less points than him" will be his answer.
>> Over to you.
>
> So he feels penalized. Tough. What do I care? Should I pay for a
> psychotherapy session? Ever seen a sports interview? There is this guy
> who nearly cost his opp the use of a leg or two and got sent off. Guess
> what? He feels penalized. That is the idea, sending someone off is meant
> to be a penalty. But he feels treated unjustly. He had a tough
> childhood, the opp is still in one piece (ok, barely maybe, but is it
> his fault?), the other team was much more brutal and so on and so forth.
> There are certain hand gestures I usually employ when I hear such
> bullshit, but it does not really work in an email. Millions of German
> cardrivers feel treated unjustly, positively ripped off, by radar guns
> and other speed traps. Ever seen a gunman threating them with a Colt 45
> and forcing them to ignore speed limits? No? Well, neither have I. But
> they whine and moan no end. Again: what do I care? Depending on
> situation one gets A- or A+ vs. Meckwell or vs. Mister 25%onagoodday. I
> don`t know about you, but I would not feel penalized by a 40% round vs
> Meckwell, while A+ vs the worst players in the club may feel different..
> So what? Shit happens. Get a life...
>
>> No you might feel that this is equitable, which is your right. BUt don't
>> defend against those with a different view by using definitions.
>
> Herman, everything needs definitions. And the people in the driver`s
> seat, the people who make the rules, have defined what a penalty is and
> what is not, and they do not care about hurt feelings either. In the
> Bridge universe there are rectifiactions, and there are penalties, and
> they are different animals, and what anybody thinks about that isn`t
> worth the sheet of paper we would cover with scribbles here if we didn`t
> use email. I asked Robert, and I ask you: ever played Diplomacy or
> Junta? Ever tried to complain to someone that your opp didn`t honour
> your agreements in Diplomacy? Now _that_ is something I would like to
> see.... You may be familiar (at least in theory) with Skat. For those
> who aren`t: it is a card game, less complex than Bridge. Very popular in
> Germany. Mow Skat players think bridgers are the most soft and pampered
> lot on Earth. If you revoke in Skat, you _lost_ . Period. No tricks
> transferred, no 64C, nothing. You lost. Hand over the money. I have not
> seen a Skat player complain about that. It is the way the game is
> played. And in Bridge, when you are unable to play certain boards you
> are going to receive a fixed artifical score. That is the the way the
> game is played. And I don`t give a d... if someone does not understand
> or accept that. I prefer the first case, because I can try to explain.
> The second case usually is hopeless. The want the victim role, and they
> are going to assume it no matter what. Fine. Good riddance. Just don`t
> hope for sympathy...
>
>> Pair B got less points than pair A. Call it a rectification rather than
>> a penalty, they still have less points.
>> Understand my point, Sven?
>
> I suspect he understands what you try to say, but disagrees violently,
> as do I, by the way.
>

It's not the sentiment I have a problem with, it's the argument that 
Sven uses.
What he's saying boils down to this:

"Yes, I notice that to people are treated differently, but they should 
not worry, because according to the definitions, the second one did not 
recieve a penalty."

Well, that's a faulty argument. Because I'm not discussing whether 
there's a penalty or not, but whether one pair has been treated unfairly.

OTOH, you are saying, "That's the laws folks, deal with it."
Which is also a valid point, but not against my argument, which is "the 
law is bad and should be changed."

See what I'm getting at?
When we're discussing whether a law is fair or not, and whether or not 
it should be changed, there's no use saying "the law's the law and 
that's that."

Herman.

>>
>> Herman.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12722 - Release Date: 08/01/16
>
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml