Re: Tolerant of plagiary?

[Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chen Zhixing wrote:
>    Here is an issue by the president of FOST to 'solve' the problem of
> plagiary in the 3rd and the 4th FOST Cup.  It appears so weak in front of
> the challenge against justice.  It is an extremely serious event in the
> history of computer go. 

I agree that plagiarism is extremely serious. The CG community
does not want it and effective counter-measures must be
devised. Currently the standards of laws for CG tournaments to
restrict plagiarism are low. This must be changed and affect all
CG tournaments.

An equally important matter is commercial plagiarism. This is
a highly complex issue. Nevertheless, it must be approached as
well. If plagiarism at tournaments is treated first, then it
will also be easier to extend restriction of commercial
plagiarism. Thus may I suggest that the CG community solves
plagiarism at tournaments first?

Who is interested in attacking plagiarism? Tournament organizations,
(computer) go federations, program authors, the CG community, the
go community. Therefore IMO we should not just leave all problems
for tournament organizations but discuss plagiarism here, on
newsgroups, etc. to retrieve standards as high as possible. I would
greatly appreciate your participation in discussions and your
suggestions.

Due to the CG tournament held in London and my membership in the
EGF rules and rating commission I know that jurisdiction might not
be restricted to a tournament organization. Rather an entity like
the EGF can be involved in responsibilities. However, there are no
written go tournament standards beyond a phrase about 
"unsportsman-like behaviour" that would clarify which jurisdiction
is responsible for which judgements, in which instance, with which
rights, with which consequences, etc. Currently, every go / CG court
has to resort to some vague interpretation of human rights,
international copyright laws, and their presumed validity under
given circumstances.

> I hope the justice will be upholded eventually.

As far as go / CG jurisdiction is affected, probably you cannot
expect more consequences for past events. All you should hope for
is clear tournament rules, general CG community laws, go / CG 
jurisdictions' laws in future.

I do not intend to give a complete list of requirements now, I
just would like to participate in launching wide discussions. So
let me mention only a few crucial topics that must be covered in
future:

1) Which right/duties should be given to which entity 
(organization/jurisdiction/program author)?
2) Which standards must be set for tournament participation?
3) What is CG plagiarism, how is it proven beyond doubt?
4) Which punishments must be enforced during tournaments as
well as in the long run?
5) Which information in advance can prohibit as much plagiarism
as possible?
6) How may program authors accuse?
7) Which announcements about alleged programs/authors shall be
public?
8) Who may examine which EXE-files?
9) Which standards are valid for examination and evaluation of 
accused programs?
10) Is it legal to withdraw a CG tournament participation or to
pretend non-existence of EXE-files to avoid punishment?

Yoichi Erikawa wrote:
> (3) For the future tournament:
> Through the activity of the FOST Board and the Special Investigative
> Committee in researching these issues, we have concluded that the FOST
> Cup Tournament does not have sufficiently clear regulations with respect
> to such problems as plagiary.  The FOST Board will revise its set of rules
> for participation in the tournament and will reveal these upon completion.

I am glad to see improved rules in future. However, in view of the
extreme complex matters, I predict that it might be beyond the 
abilities of just one tournament organization / federation executive
to set sufficient laws. Thus I can only repeat that broad discussions
are most useful.
 
> FOST will continue to maintain impartiality and integrity in the
> management of our Tournament.

While I appreciate such aims, I would like to express some doubts
here as well. It might be least troublesome to withhold as many
facts as possible. However, interpreting integrity as not broadly
publishing facts, names of alleged programs, and authors is of too
little general help. Such would just encourage repeated plagiarism.
The clearer consequences of plagiarism are fealt the higher the
probability is that it will not occur again easily.

> Your continued support and cooperation are highly appreciated. 

Might we go so far as to interprete this as an offer of cooperation 
within the entire CG community? IMO, international cooperation is
essential.

-- 
robert jasiek
http://www.snafu.de/~jasiek/rules.html