 |
|
|
|
[History of MAHJONG - Front page] History of MAHJONG - Newsgroup archives 2001-11-06
The following archived messages may be searched from the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) with the following text strings: "The Ongoing Debate (long)".
[Below is a reproduction of messages posted in the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) - 1 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Tues, Nov 6 2001 4:47 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author I have wanted to jump into the ongoing debate between Cofa and Alan. It has driven me crazy to let the opposing point of view go unchallenged by me. Standing by and watching Alan fight on, without a tap on the shoulder from me, has been maddening. But I've also recognized that participating in the debate has been largely futile. And that is why I've merely "lurked." Now that I've gone and replied as I have to Kevin's post about "ur-mah-jongg," fuel has undoubtedly been thrown on the embers yet again. The debate is likely to heat up again; if not today, then next week or the week after. But then there's that futility thing. Isn't there anything that can be done about that? Isn't there a way that our debates can be enjoyable discussions for poster and reader alike? So please bear with me as I step back to view the larger picture. To suggest some ground rules. Or at least establish some ground rules that I will apply to myself, and to my own participation in the debate. OUTLINE OF THIS POST: 1. Rules of Debate. 2. Topic(s) Being Debated. 3. How to Measure Success (i.e., Definition of One's Goals) in the Debate 4. The Groundwork Having Been Laid, Here's My Salvo - "CC Predates HKOS." This will be a long post. Ready? Here goes... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PART ONE. RULES OF DEBATE. I've never studied debate, but I know this much: If parties are arguing two sides of a topic, and one fights fair and the other does not, it's unsatisfying for the onlookers, and it can be difficult to determine a winner. When party A raises a point of fact that enforces his argument and is germane to the topic, party B ought to address it. When party B raises a logical argument in favor of his point of view, party A ought to address it. Both parties should back up their arguments with facts and sound logic. Logic should be used in a logical manner. Words and ideas should not be twisted or exaggerated. Name-calling is not useful. I have found a useful online source for rules of debate. Note: I'm not saying "we all have to abide by parliamentarian rules," I'm just saying "there has to be a way of quantifying what's been wrong with the debate up to this point, and to make it enjoyable and useful going forward." The website I've found (I'm sure there are many others as well) is: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~cj3m-lbky/rulesofdebate.html. I'll refer henceforth to this site as "The Rules Of Debate site" (shortened as "TRODS," at the risk that some readers will quickly forget what the heck "TRODS" stands for). This "Rules Of Debate" site makes some interesting points. THE RESOLUTION AND CASE The "resolution" is the general vague topic being discussed between the two sides. The "case" is the topic, with specific definitions. The transition from the resolution to the case is then called the link or the definition. TRODS goes on to say: "The case must be clear, debatable and from the resolution. If the case is clear, debatable, and from the resolution, it becomes the topic of the debate. The opposition must oppose the case, not the resolution." In the case of our specific ongoing debate, I don't know what the resolution is, but the case being proposed by our side (the side of Alan and myself) is: "CC predates HKOS." If someone can determine what the resolution is, that might be useful in knowing how best to proceed with conducting the debate. ARGUING THE CASES In a debate, a proponent for a case presents his case, then the opponent must argue against that case. Then, depending on the format of the debate, the opponent presents HIS case, and the proponent of the first case then argues against the opponent's case. TRODS goes on to say: "5. If the opposition believes that the case is not clear, debatable, or from the resolution, they may reject the case at the beginning of the [...] speech. After rejecting the case, they should [state] a new case, and oppose the new case. Giving [...] a new definition is called redefining the case or conditionalising." "6. The opposition should redefine the case only as a last resort, and must give very good reasons to the [newsgroup] for doing so." I modified TRODS' words to suit our situation. We are a freeform newsgroup, not a debate competition with judges or moderators. However, this raises an interesting point: in addition to the participants in the debate (mainly, Cofa, Alan, and myself), there are also all those who read the postings on this newsgroup. Because this is not a formal debate, readers may from time to time offer their 2 cents as to anything that has been said. POINTS OF INFORMATION TRODS offers several guidelines regarding "points of information," but these guidelines seem mainly applicable to a formal spoken debate. The main aspect of this concept that applies to our debate is, "Debaters should offer information as much as they can." Lastly, TRODS suggests some behavioral guidelines, as well: 1. Please be as constructive as possible. If you raise a problem, suggest a solution. 2. Please stay on topic. If you wish to supply additional information off topic, offer a mail or cyber address where others can locate it. 3. Please avoid abusive comments directed at groups or individuals. To which I add: the proper place to fling a gauntlet is on the ground, not in the face. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PART TWO. TOPIC(S) BEING DEBATED. In the freeform world of unmoderated newsgroups, folks can get all excited and transmogrify a topic (a "case") into other topics altogether, and then argue those despite those topics not having been raised in the first place. In our particular debate, we have several cases being argued. These cases all come in pairs. No offense intended if I have misinterpreted anyone's stance on a case (just let me know I've misinterpreted it, and I'll either retract or dredge up previous posts to use in support of my interpretation). FIRST PAIR OF CASES: A VS. B A. CC predates HKOS. (The case held by Alan and myself, and refuted by Cofa.) B. HKOS predates CC. (I'm not sure if Cofa has stated this as a case.) 2ND PAIR OF CASES: C VS. D C. CC are "the original rules" (AKA ur-mah-jongg or proto-mah-jongg). (Neither Alan nor myself has stated this as a case, but Cofa hotly refutes it as if we had.) D. What the exact "original rules" were is unknown, and cannot be known unless some literature turns up. (I presume that all of us would agree with this as a case, and would not bother arguing against it.) 3RD PAIR OF CASES: E VS. F E. The absence of evidence for the existence of HKOS in the 1920s (the absence of 1920s books on HKOS) does not mean, in and of itself, that HKOS did not exist in the 1920s. (If Cofa has not stated this as a case precisely, I gather that is in agreement with his overall position.) F. When strong evidence is piled up on side A, and there is very little evidence for side B, then side A looks better than side B. (This is a case that I have stated, and which Cofa has not addressed.) There may be other cases which I have missed. One problem we have been experiencing in our ongoing debate is that sometimes when a case is stated, the subsequent argument addresses a different case altogether. I propose that, in order for a debate to work, points must be argued point for point. WHERE I STAND ON THESE 6 CASES: To me, the main issue is A versus B. I am ready to debate (in a fair debate) in favor of A, and against B. I am not prepared to argue for C, because I espouse view D. And I am not interested in spending time arguing it. And I do not argue against case E, but would like to shine a spotlight on case F. Anybody want to dispute case F? It should be a truism. Maybe just restate or redefine the case? Anybody? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PART THREE. HOW TO MEASURE SUCCESS (I.E., DEFINITION OF ONE'S GOALS) IN THE DEBATE I cannot speak for any of the other parties in this debate. But I can offer up my guesses. I mean no insult if I offer a guess as to how an opponent would gauge his own success. There are no judges here, but we do have an "audience" - those who read the posts on the newsgroup. So we have three parties involved: - The proponent of a case (or point of view). - The opponent of a case. - The audience. Whether or not a debater has succeeded can be measured, I suppose, in terms of how each of these parties judges the debate. I propose that for each case (and for each side arguing around that case), there may be several "levels" of success, as follows (in descending order): i. The opponent is totally won over. He drops his previous view, and switches to your view. AND the audience (the onlookers, the lurkers) pipe up and agree that your view is now universally held. ii. The opponent sticks with his view, BUT the audience or onlookers are swayed to your view (or espouse it already). iii. The opponent is swayed to your view, but the audience is not. iv. The opponent acknowledges that it is POSSIBLE (even if UNLIKELY) that your view has merit. v. The opponent acknowledges that your view "has a right to exist" (whatever that means). vi. Neither the opponent nor the audience are swayed by your arguments. vii. Not only are neither the opponent nor the audience swayed by your arguments, but you yourself are now doubtful of them. There may even be additional levels of success in there somewhere. Let's apply these to the ongoing debate in question. As stated above, I believe that the main debate centers around Case A. How can we define success for Alan and myself in arguing for Case A? CASE A: CC predates HKOS. Success in arguing FOR this case might consist of some or all of the following: 1. Cofa agrees that CC probably did predate HKOS, given the weight of evidence, AND some group regulars post in support of this view. This would be the ultimate success. But it is extremely unlikely ever to happen (or so it seems to me). 2. Cofa sticks to his guns, BUT some group regulars express their support of Case A, due to the weight of evidence. This would be a "level 2 success." 3. Cofa agrees that CC probably did predate HKOS after all, but other posts indicate that the group now believes that HKOS predated CC. If this outcome were to occur, well, at least we swayed Cofa. (Highly unlikely outcome.) 4. Cofa acknowledges the possibility that CC may have predated HKOS (even if he holds that it is unlikely). This might be a small success, given the course of the debate so far. 5. Cofa acknowledges that Case A "has a right to exist" (whatever that means). Now let's take a look at what might determine success in arguing Case B: CASE B: HKOS predates CC. Success in arguing FOR this case might consist of some or all of the following: 1. Alan and Tom cave in, and agree that HKOS probably did predate CC, given the weight of Cofa's logic, AND some group regulars post in support of this view. This would be Cofa's ultimate success. But it is extremely unlikely to happen (unless some evidence comes to light). 2. Alan and Tom stick to their guns, BUT some group regulars express their support of Case B, due to the weight of Cofa's logic. This (winning over public opinion) would be a "level 2 success" for Cofa. 3. Alan and Tom agree that HKOS probably did predate CC after all, but other posts indicate that the group believes that CC predated HKOS. If this outcome were to occur, well, at least Cofa swayed Alan and Tom. 4. Alan and Tom acknowledge that it's possible that HKOS may have predated CC (even if they hold that it is unlikely). Unknown if Cofa would see this as a success. (If so, there is room for negotiation. ** ) 5. Alan and Tom acknowledge that Case B "has a right to exist" (whatever that means). ** For what it's worth, I grant Cofa that it is POSSIBLE (albeit unlikely) that HKOS predated CC. Probably weakening the value of this concession, I also grant that it is POSSIBLE that mah-jongg was a gift to the earth from green outer space aliens! In the absence of anyone stating what would constitute success, and in the absence of judges, it is difficult to gauge success. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PART FOUR. THE GROUNDWORK HAS BEEN LAID; HERE'S MY SALVO - "CC PREDATES HKOS." POINT 1 - PRINTED EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF CASE A: There are dozens of English-language books about mah-jongg from the 1920s, and they all describe CC and CC alone. True, they describe 3 variants of CC: the Mixed-Hand Game (what we call today "chicken" or "KFC" -- rules that allow going out with a minimal-scoring hand), the Cleared-Hand Game (in which the hand must be clean or pure; no chicken hands allowed), and the One-Double Game (in which the hand does not qualify to go out unless it scores at least 1 fan; no chicken hands allowed). All of these are nothing more than different table rules that all fall under the CC umbrella. All these games use the same scoring system (the CC scoring system). I request either acknowledgment of, or an argument against, point 1 raised above. POINT 2 - FURTHER PRINTED EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF CASE A: These 1920s books also mention that, in Hong Kong, the basic score for going mah-jongg is 10 points, as opposed to the 20 points awarded in the north (IOW, around Shanghai). In mentioning Hong Kong, and in NOT mentioning that the HK scoring is VASTLY different from CC, these books offer convincing (albeit circumstantial) proof that CC existed, and that HKOS (with its vastly different scoring system) did not, in the 1920s. I request either acknowledgment of, or an argument against, point 2 raised above. POINT 3 - LOGICAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CASE A: The main difference between CC and HKOS is, of course, the scoring system. ALL [non-American] variants of mah-jongg are basically the same, the main differences being in (1) which patterns are recognized, (2) which scoring system is used, and (recently) (3) how many tiles are held in the hand. In CC one first calculates the base points, then doubles appropriately. In HKOS the base points are ignored; one merely counts the doubles (and applies them to the base number, which is 2). Alan points out that this logically shows that the HKOS system is a simplification of the CC system (and not the other way around; CC could not logically be a more-complicated derivative of HKOS). Cofa never showed any logical way that it could have been the other way around. He argues instead that the absence of books describing HKOS, in English, dating back to the 1920s, is not proof that HKOS did not predate CC (this being Case E). That is true, but so what? We have dozens of books that prove that CC DID, in fact, exist in the 1920s. There is NO proof that HKOS existed at that time. I request either acknowledgment of, or an argument against, point 3 raised above. Your turn, Cofa. (Any other parties are also invited to join in.) If you want to present your arguments for Case B or D or E, or against Case C or F, please present those after arguing the points I have presented regarding Case A. The challenge I present you at present is to argue "on point." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As I stated in the beginning, the main problem with the debate up until now is that it has not been waged in a useful manner. Some weeks ago, I stated that I did not have the energy for the debate, for that exact reason. Going forward, I reserve the right to let ill-formed arguments or non-useful posts on the topic fly right on by, without responding. I suppose that will result in accusations of unfairness (or cowardliness, as has already occurred). In this post, I have stated my case for my actions in this regard. My apologies that it was such a long post. I hope that this provides a useful groundwork that will help make future debates enjoyable for all. Tom Sloper http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 2 From: Julian Bradfield - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 7 2001 5:52 am Email: Julian Bradfield <j...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> writes: > POINT 3 - LOGICAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CASE A: > The main difference between CC and HKOS is, of course, the scoring system. > ALL [non-American] variants of mah-jongg are basically the same, the main > differences being in (1) which patterns are recognized, (2) which scoring > system is used, and (recently) (3) how many tiles are held in the hand. In > CC one first calculates the base points, then doubles appropriately. In > HKOS the base points are ignored; one merely counts the doubles (and applies > them to the base number, which is 2). > Alan points out that this logically shows that the HKOS system is a > simplification of the CC system (and not the other way around; CC could not > logically be a more-complicated derivative of HKOS). I'd like to see this "logical" argument spelt out in more detail. What are your premises here? What are your rules of inference? I can't myself see a reasonable set of premises from which you can derive your conclusion. In particular, why "could CC not logically be a more-complicated derivative of HKOS"? (This is also a part of debate: when people claim to derive propositions logically, make them declare their premises, which might be open to attack!) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 3 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 7 2001 7:18 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On 07 Nov 2001 13:52:36 +0000, Julian Bradfield <j...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >"Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> writes: >> POINT 3 - LOGICAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CASE A: >> The main difference between CC and HKOS is, of course, the scoring system. >> ALL [non-American] variants of mah-jongg are basically the same, the main >> differences being in (1) which patterns are recognized, (2) which scoring >> system is used, and (recently) (3) how many tiles are held in the hand. In >> CC one first calculates the base points, then doubles appropriately. In >> HKOS the base points are ignored; one merely counts the doubles (and applies >> them to the base number, which is 2). >> Alan points out that this logically shows that the HKOS system is a >> simplification of the CC system (and not the other way around; CC could not >> logically be a more-complicated derivative of HKOS). >I'd like to see this "logical" argument spelt out in more detail. What >are your premises here? What are your rules of inference? >I can't myself see a reasonable set of premises from which you can >derive your conclusion. In particular, why "could CC not >logically be a more-complicated derivative of HKOS"? The premise is that HKOS has evolved from CC starting with two changes: 1. Eliminate triplet-point counting; 2. Apply discarder-doubling instead of East-doubling. I have shown (or can show) that if you take CC and start with applying these two changes, and then make other changes necessiated by these two (and so on), you'll end up with HKOS. It is pretty inconceivable to do it the other way round, in addition to the point that we can't find a good reason why one would want to do that. Why would one want to take the faan-laak system in HKOS and add triplet-point counting to it? And if one were to do that, why would one want to reduce the faan value of the patterns? And if mahjong is originally designed with a large self-draw bonus, why is it diminished in CC? "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 4 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 7 2001 10:49 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author From: Julian Bradfield <j...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> >I'd like to see this "logical" argument spelt out in more detail. >I can't myself see a reasonable set of premises from which you can >derive your conclusion. In particular, why "could CC not >logically be a more-complicated derivative of HKOS"? I retract and withdraw my Point #3 entirely. I may have overstepped (I may have put words in Alan's mouth). And I don't care to debate the logical argument anyway. Alan has made a more eloquent case than I could. I embrace mainly points 1 and 2 in favor of case A (and await acknowledgment or argument on those, and am prepared to debate those). I don't care to go to the trouble of distilling Alan's previous posts on point 3 and I wouldn't blame Alan if he also didn't care to restate his arguments on this point. In place of my Point #3, then, I substitute the following language: "In addition to these two points, I refer the reader to Alan's eloquent logical arguments for CC preceding HKOS, here on this newsgroup. There have been numerous posts by Alan in this regard, but most recently in the thread entitled 'Nine Tiles Warning.' This thread began Oct. 2 and extended into November. Archived newsgroup posts may be found at http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&group=rec.games.ma...." >What >are your premises here? What are your rules of inference? Could you tell me more about "rules of inference"? I'm not familiar with this aspect of debate, nor is the phrase entirely self-explanatory. I only learned a little about rules of debate yesterday, in my research preparatory to writing this "Ongoing Debate" post. And I am a product of America's admittedly awful public school system of the 1950s and 1960s, whereas your British education probably prepared you better for debates. So help me out here (even if I don't still need "rules of inference" to argue my two points of fact, it would be good to know about this principle). Speaking of my two points of fact, I suppose I should ferret out those old posts where I provided specific references from the literature. So I will. Cheers, Tom Tom Sloper http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 5 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 7 2001 8:55 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Although I am of the opinion that Tom's proposed cases (including A and B) are not debatable (see my other posting), I wish to join Julian Bradfield in arguing the case... >Tom Sloper wrote: POINT 1 - PRINTED EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF CASE A: There are dozens of English-language books about mah-jongg from the 1920s, and they all describe CC and CC alone. True, they describe 3 variants of CC: the Mixed-Hand Game (what we call today "chicken" or "KFC" -- rules that allow going out with a minimal-scoring hand), the Cleared-Hand Game (in which the hand must be clean or pure; no chicken hands allowed), and the One-Double Game (in which the hand does not qualify to go out unless it scores at least 1 fan; no chicken hands allowed). All of these are nothing more than different table rules that all fall under the CC umbrella. All these games use the same scoring system (the CC scoring system). I request either acknowledgment of, or an argument against, point 1 raised above. Cofa's reply: This is true those books provided evidence that CC existed in 1920's, but nothing more to support Case A. I don't have those books but the Millington's book. In Millington's books he clearly admitted that there were many forms of mahjong existing at that time - What were those existing styles I could not tell (nor could Millington either, I guess), as people there all called the game (or games) by one name only, which was "MAHJONG". That was also the reason why Millington had to create the name "Chinese Classical" for the style he particularly described on in that book. Those "no-name styles" could include OS, and such statement also indicates that CC was not the only mahjong style that was existing in 1920's. (OS means "Old Style", rather than HKOS. In the old days - prior to those writers visiting China in/around 1920's - mahjong in general didn't have other name by any specific style. OS is used to distinguish it from CC in this discussion.) I also doubt if all books in your collection call the game by the name CC. Also, the small piece of information you have revealed above also provided the fact that even the very well established and the "one and only" mahjong game then existing had different styles, how could I be convinced there shouldn't be other styles in existence together with CC at that very moment, if CC was not an invented game? >Tom Sloper wrote: POINT 2 - FURTHER PRINTED EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF CASE A: These 1920s books also mention that, in Hong Kong, the basic score for going mah-jongg is 10 points, as opposed to the 20 points awarded in the north (IOW, around Shanghai). In mentioning Hong Kong, and in NOT mentioning that the HK scoring is VASTLY different from CC, these books offer convincing (albeit circumstantial) proof that CC existed, and that HKOS (with its vastly different scoring system) did not, in the 1920s. I request either acknowledgment of, or an argument against, point 2 raised above. Cofa's reply: This point is basically the same argument of Point 1 - Again, it proves that CC existed in 1920's, but not good enough to support Case A. And again, I doubt that the terms CC and HKOS, or any terms specifically point to any specific styles by its names, were quoted in those books. "Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message news:3be950c6.1129575@news.netvigator.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On 07 Nov 2001 13:52:36 +0000, Julian Bradfield <j...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> > wrote: > >"Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> writes: > >> POINT 3 - LOGICAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CASE A: > >> The main difference between CC and HKOS is, of course, the scoring system. > >> ALL [non-American] variants of mah-jongg are basically the same, the main > >> differences being in (1) which patterns are recognized, (2) which scoring > >> system is used, and (recently) (3) how many tiles are held in the hand. In > >> CC one first calculates the base points, then doubles appropriately. In > >> HKOS the base points are ignored; one merely counts the doubles (and applies > >> them to the base number, which is 2). > >> Alan points out that this logically shows that the HKOS system is a > >> simplification of the CC system (and not the other way around; CC could not > >> logically be a more-complicated derivative of HKOS). > >I'd like to see this "logical" argument spelt out in more detail. What > >are your premises here? What are your rules of inference? > >I can't myself see a reasonable set of premises from which you can > >derive your conclusion. In particular, why "could CC not > >logically be a more-complicated derivative of HKOS"? > The premise is that HKOS has evolved from CC starting with two > changes: > 1. Eliminate triplet-point counting; > 2. Apply discarder-doubling instead of East-doubling. A serious problem with this suggestion is the ignorance of the fact that "CC and OS could have been evolved, developed from the SAME prototype of mahjong, OR from different prototypes of mahjong, AND have been co-existing ever since." OS could have been born without "triplet-point counting" and "east-doubling". This could have been born the way you see it today! > I have shown (or can show) that if you take CC and start with applying > these two changes, and then make other changes necessiated by these > two (and so on), you'll end up with HKOS. > It is pretty inconceivable to do it the other way round, in addition > to the point that we can't find a good reason why one would want to do > that. Why would one want to take the faan-laak system in HKOS and add > triplet-point counting to it? And if one were to do that, why would > one want to reduce the faan value of the patterns? And if mahjong is > originally designed with a large self-draw bonus, why is it diminished > in CC? Another problem with this suggestion is that it is based on assumption. And since it is based on assumption, the "development" it suggested could also occur the other way around - Although this is arguable, but not impossible. Any and all questions raised above can be asked in the "reverse" direction, and any and all such questions can be answered "Why not?" - Although I personally do not support this argument either way. Argument of this type (based on assumption) is itself arguable. One must also understand the degree of difficulty in changing the fundamental elements of an established game style. If CC was already well established in the 1920's, and was the ONLY established game of mahjong at that time, it should not be so easy for OS to develop, and to develop into another style with so many apparent differences. With and without triplet-point counting, settlement of scores between all players and with the winning player alone, and many other small differences - These all add up to be major differences that could be found in these two different game styles, and itself prove these game styles to be developed individually in different directions. Finally, should OS be created out of CC, and be created after 1920's, shouldn't such "creation" be well documented? When was it created? How? By whom? I would have claimed the credit if I were to create OS out of CC brand new! In fact, no books since 1920's ever mentioned this "creation", or even those possible "changes", except statements that could only be seen in this newsgroup! -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 6 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Thurs, Nov 8 2001 7:48 pm Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 04:55:34 GMT, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my-deja.com> wrote: >"Alan Kwan" <t...@notmenetvigator.com> wrote in message >news:3be950c6.1129575@news.netvigator.com... >> The premise is that HKOS has evolved from CC starting with two >> changes: >> 1. Eliminate triplet-point counting; >> 2. Apply discarder-doubling instead of East-doubling. >A serious problem with this suggestion is the ignorance of the fact that >"CC and OS could have been evolved, developed from the SAME prototype of >mahjong, OR from different prototypes of mahjong, AND have been >co-existing ever since." That's not a "fact", but a remote possibility. By (previously) offering a detailed explanation of how and why HKOS has evolved out of CC, I have made my case very plausible. It's now up to you to make your case. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >> I have shown (or can show) that if you take CC and start with applying >> these two changes, and then make other changes necessiated by these >> two (and so on), you'll end up with HKOS. >> It is pretty inconceivable to do it the other way round, in addition >> to the point that we can't find a good reason why one would want to do >> that. Why would one want to take the faan-laak system in HKOS and add >> triplet-point counting to it? And if one were to do that, why would >> one want to reduce the faan value of the patterns? And if mahjong is >> originally designed with a large self-draw bonus, why is it diminished >> in CC? >Another problem with this suggestion is that it is based on assumption. >And since it is based on assumption, the "development" it suggested >could also occur the other way around - Although this is arguable, but >not impossible. This is very unlikely, unless someone can give reasons and courses of that development in the same detail and soundness as mine. >Any and all questions raised above can be asked in the >"reverse" direction I asked them because I already have the answers for the reverse questions. And those answers were not 'forced' or dreamt up; they were rather obvious and intuitive answers, once one has understood the different scoring systems and has some insights. 1. Why eliminate the triplet-point counting in CC? A: For the sake of rules simplicity, and hence better propagation. 2. Why the increased faan values in HKOS? A: With triplet-points eliminated, the system quickly becomes monotonous (all hands are of one of a few possible values) and also somewhat unbalanced (if Mixed One-Suit is 1 faan and No-Point hand is 1 faan, Mixed One-Suit seems much more difficult in comparison), so the faan values are increased to bring in more excitement and variation. (Note: P&C p.56 has documented that, in HKOS the 3-faan patterns were once 2 faan.) 3. Why has HKOS got the self-draw bonus? A: This has been elaborated in another earlier posting of mine. I can re-post it if requested. >and any and all such questions can be answered "Why >not?" - Although I personally do not support this argument either way. >Argument of this type (based on assumption) is itself arguable. You either give similarly convincing and detailed explanations of why's and how's in the reverse direction, or you'll have to concede that I have a very plausible (albeit unproven) case. >One must also understand the degree of difficulty in changing the >fundamental elements of an established game style. If CC was already >well established in the 1920's, and was the ONLY established game of >mahjong at that time, it should not be so easy for OS to develop, and to >develop into another style with so many apparent differences. This is why HKOS (and not some other style) could have born: all the "so many apparent differences" originated as just two changes. The likely situation was that CC was well-established among the more learned classes of society, while its complexity left it out of grasp of the less sophiscated masses. Thus when HKOS was introduced, it was able to propagate among those people with little resistance, because CC was too complex for them to learn, to begin with. When exposed to a new version of mahjong, most people will tend to defend whatever version they already know against the new version. But one can't do that when coming across the first version /accessible/ to him. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 7 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Thurs, Nov 8 2001 11:31 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa's claim that Cases A through F are "not debatable" has been obviated by Cofa's subsequent post, in which he proceeded to debate against Case A. Therefore all 6 cases are still open for debate. In addition, Cofa has helpfully suggested what our "resolution" should be, and has added some more cases to the debate. In the interest of keeping the debate "on point" (which I believe will help make the debate more enjoyable for all), I respond by synopsizing and tracking the status of each of the cases (old and new). I find Cofa's style of debate confusing, so I need to do this for my own benefit - I hope the group will also find it useful if I proceed in this manner. +++++++++++++++++ RESOLUTION (from which the cases are derived) Cofa proposed that the resolution should be: "How the game of MAHJONG was evolved and developed?" RESOLUTION STATUS: A resolution must be a statement, not a question, and one in which both parties can agree. Thus I propose this wording instead of Cofa's: "The parties are interested in learning how the game of mah-jongg evolved and developed." Furthermore, this resolution is acceptable to me. I would like to propose that that is the amended resolution. RESOLUTION OPEN FOR AGREEMENT. +++++++++++++++++ CASE A Synopsis: "CC predates HKOS; HKOS evolved from CC." Case status: Under debate by Cofa. See the two points below. Point 1 Synopsis: There are dozens of English-language books about mah-jongg from the 1920s, and they all describe CC and CC alone. Point 1 status: Cofa concedes that this is (or may be) true. Point resolved. POINT 2 Synopsis: These 1920s books also mention that, in Hong Kong, the basic score for going mah-jongg is 10 points. In NOT mentioning that the HK scoring is VASTLY different from CC, these books offer convincing evidence that CC existed, and that HKOS did not, in the 1920s. Point 2 status: Cofa does not concede the point; he raises case G (below) by inference; he references only Millington. I need to restate my references (stated in previous posts) on this. BALL IS IN MY COURT. +++++++++++++++++ CASE B Synopsis: "HKOS predates CC. (Counterpoint to case A)." Case status: No evidence has been presented for this case. CASE STILL OPEN FOR DEBATE. +++++++++++++++++ CASE C Synopsis. CC is "the original rules" (AKA ur-mah-jongg or proto-mah-jongg). Status: I'm not going to argue for this one. Cofa says Alan has argued for this one. Perhaps Cofa needs to defend that statement with specific references? If Alan wishes to keep this case open for debate, that is fine by me. Perhaps we need to define "CC?" IMO, Millington's CC and Foster's CC and the Ning Po CC posted by Alan, while not identical in every respect, all fall well enough under "the CC umbrella." If I need to define CC for the purposes of this debate, let me know. But I think Alan has already defined it. On the other hand, I think that case C is not particularly germane to the main topic (case A vs. case B). Arguing against case C does not constitute defense of case B. And like that there. +++++++++++++++++ CASE D Synopsis. What the exact "original rules" were is unknown, and cannot be known definitively unless some literature turns up. Status: I presume that all of us would agree with this as a case, and would not bother arguing against it. If we all do so agree, then it could be simply dropped. Or perhaps Alan would like to restate this case? Perhaps Alan believes that proto-MJ can be deduced from the currently available evidence? Then again, as above, case D is not particularly germane to the main question (case A being the main theory under debate). I propose that this case be dropped accordingly. +++++++++++++++++ CASE E Synopsis. The absence of evidence for the existence of HKOS in the 1920s (the absence of 1920s books on HKOS) does not NECESSARILY mean, in and of itself, that HKOS did not exist in the 1920s. Case status: I believe that Cofa espouses this case. I am prepared to concede this point. Alan? +++++++++++++++++ CASE F Synopsis. When strong evidence is piled up on side A, and there is very little evidence for side B, then side A looks better than side B. Case F status: Cofa disputes it, but does not offer any convincing arguments against it. Anybody else want to dispute case F or restate it? Case still open, but IMO it's kind of silly (it should be a truism). +++++++++++++++++ New cases presented by Cofa (below): +++++++++++++++++ In Cofa's latest article in the debate, he implied yet another case, even though he did not specifically state it: CASE G: TERMINOLOGY Case synopsis: What a mah-jongg variant is called (what name one ascribes to a variant) has tremendous impact upon any arguments that can be made about that variant. Case status: I propose that this case is specious and should be nullified or ignored. At most, we could define "CC" and "HKOS" and agree that these terms are just working terms that we use for the purposes of this debate. I don't want to spend much time on this case since it takes too much attention away from the main point (Case A). +++++++++++++++++ Cofa also specifically proposed: CASE H. One style only was invented as the origin of the game. Case status: I am prepared to concede that this is most likely true. I'm a game designer myself. That's how games are designed. However, I acknowledge that there is room for debate (see Case I). +++++++++++++++++ CASE I. More than one styles of mahjong were originally invented. Case status: I acknowledge that it is possible. As a game designer, I know and understand that the designer can sometimes build in variants to suit different the tastes of different players. +++++++++++++++++ CASE J. One origin of the game was invented; it then evolved and developed into different game styles over time. Case status: This too is not germane to arguing for or against case A, but I'll concede that this is possible (I don't care to argue against it). Alan? +++++++++++++++++ CASE K. "What game style(s) we see today are those directly evolved or developed from the one origin or prototype of mahjong, if such one origin or prototype did exist." Case status: this is identical to Case J. It should be declared null, in my opinion. +++++++++++++++++ CASE L. Synopsis: "How game styles we see today are evolved from, or affected by, one another? And how?" Status: I object - a case cannot be worded as a question. This has to be stated as a statement. But it looks to me like this is merely the resolution itself, worded as a question. Case rejected by opponent (Tom says: "this is not a case"). +++++++++++++++++ And another case implied by Cofa (final paragraph of the post in which he engaged in debate): CASE M. Synopsis: "It is odd that there is no documentation of the creation of HKOS." Case status: I am prepared to concede that it is indeed odd. Unclear what purpose Cofa has in making this case. Case open for debate until all parties agree that it is resolved. +++++++++++++++++ This is already a very long post, and it's late at night, so I need to close now. I still have to provide specific references in support of Point 2 (Case A). Regards to all, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 8 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Nov 9 2001 1:09 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote in message news:WCLG7.75532$xe.19947459@typhoon.we.rr.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cofa's claim that Cases A through F are "not debatable" has been obviated by > Cofa's subsequent post, in which he proceeded to debate against Case A. > Therefore all 6 cases are still open for debate. > In addition, Cofa has helpfully suggested what our "resolution" should be, > and has added some more cases to the debate. > In the interest of keeping the debate "on point" (which I believe will help > make the debate more enjoyable for all), I respond by synopsizing and > tracking the status of each of the cases (old and new). I find Cofa's style > of debate confusing, so I need to do this for my own benefit - I hope the > group will also find it useful if I proceed in this manner. [...] Tom, thanks for "putting your thought in my mind" ^_^ You have made, or are actually making a great "game" in this newsgroup (What a game designer!) - Unfortunately I would rather be watching than participating! You probably still don't see my point, if all your six cases (and more new cases) could come to any conclusions through the debate in this newsgroup, why such conclusions couldn't have been reached in all previous researches of numerous writers and organizations while such researches should have been more extensive and intensive (a reasonable conjecture, IMO) than the debate in this newsgroup? Before answering to Alan's posting, I had already made my opinion on the debate clear - Those cases are not debatable. I had given reasons why they are not debatable. You have the freedom to argue those reasons, and continue to set up the debate as you wish - And I will support such debate to be established and would like to see the results and more new findings! If my participation in arguing Case A would have interrupted your debate (should it have been established as desired), I could withdraw my posting and cease to participate. From my perspective, my answering to postings related to Case A is the ongoing argument of that particular case, which has been existing long before your proposal for setting up the debate. I will continue to answer to those postings unless you, or Alan, or anyone else, expressly indicate that your proposed debate has in fact been established as desired, and that those postings are in fact part of the debate. I would wait for two days to see a clear indication. In the absence of such indication, I will continue to answer to those postings again. Again, I wish you good luck in setting up the debate you desired, although I don't see it could be helpful for reaching certain positive results related to the topics chosen. But still, good luck! -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 9 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Fri, Nov 9 2001 6:50 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa wrote: >You have made, or are actually making a great "game" in this newsgroup >(What a game designer!) Cute. However, "Let's try to formalize this argument and follow rules of debate" is less game-like than "Let's say it's not debatable, yet continue to debate it." A "debate" as such is NOT intended to resolve an issue (to declare a theory to now have been determined to be fact). A debate is nothing more than a civilized and reasonable format in which to conduct an argument. We have already been conducting an argument, and the argument has continued after I suggested turning it into a civilized debate. As I pointed out before, I assume that it is difficult to measure success in a debate. Especially since I have had no training in debate. >From my perspective, my answering to >postings related to Case A is the ongoing argument of that particular >case, which has been existing long before your proposal for setting up >the debate. Then we are in agreement on this. Case A IS "debatable" since "debatable" means the same thing as "arguable." "Debate" and "argument" are semantically very close in meaning. One is merely more civil (and organized) than the other. I propose that we be civil in conducting the ongoing "discussion" (yet another word that is close in meaning to "debate"). Furthermore, as new points are raised, it gets confusing to sort them out. Thus I find it useful and helpful to separate them, identify them, and rate their relevance to the main topic under debate (the theory that HKOS evolved from CC, aka "Case A"). The debate (the argument, the discussion, the controversy, the war, whatever you want to call it) will not go away. We will NOT be reaching a conclusion that definitively, to each individual's satisfaction, turns theory A (case A) into fact. I would like to see the argument (the controversy, the battle, the conflict, call it what you will) conducted in a manner that does not do collateral damage to the newsgroup itself. And I see "debate" as the best way to do so. As to "how to measure success in a debate," I think there's one more "level of success" to be added: "Neither party sways the other, and neither party sways the onlookers, but both parties presented persuasive arguments, and the onlookers enjoyed the debate." Were such an outcome to occur, ALL parties win. That is what I would like to see. I wish I could moderate the debate, but I am and have been a participant. So there may be some appearance of conflict of interest as I try my best to keep the argument civil. It would probably be good if some other party (not heretofore a participant in the argument, the debate, the controversy, the fight, the free-for-all, the brouhaha, whatever you want to call it) would moderate it. Until such time as someone uninvolved can take over as moderator, we have to police ourselves - and conduct ourselves in a civil debate. That is my proposal. I open the floor now for dissenting opinion on whether the argument should (1) be allowed to continue on as it was going before, or (2) be conducted in a more civil, organized way. Cofa, does this seem reasonable? And does anyone besides Cofa wish to offer an opinion in this regard? Cheers, Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 10 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Nov 9 2001 7:16 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote in message news:ZB0H7.81421$xe.20618440@typhoon.we.rr.com... > Cofa wrote: > >You have made, or are actually making a great "game" in this newsgroup > >(What a game designer!) > Cute. However, "Let's try to formalize this argument and follow rules of > debate" is less game-like than "Let's say it's not debatable, yet continue > to debate it." Interesting! [...] > That is my proposal. > I open the floor now for dissenting opinion on whether the argument should > (1) be allowed to continue on as it was going before, or (2) be conducted in > a more civil, organized way. > Cofa, does this seem reasonable? And does anyone besides Cofa wish to offer > an opinion in this regard? I have voiced my opinions already (in previous two posts). My position has not changed, so are those opinions not answered. Cheers! -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 11 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Sat, Nov 10 2001 9:35 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Understood. Cofa refuses to engage in the "HKOS evolved from CC" argument under any "rules of debate." Disappointing, but not surprising. Tom Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 12 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sat, Nov 10 2001 10:51 am Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote in message news:czdH7.83746$xe.21214375@typhoon.we.rr.com... > Understood. Cofa refuses to engage in the "HKOS evolved from CC" argument > under any "rules of debate." Disappointing, but not surprising. Tom, why would you want to kick me into the debate which is obviously unfair to participants in support (or against) of several cases raised by you? Not only me would like this type of debate to proceed, I guess other readers neither. If other readers don't agree with my points (opinions), the debate could still proceed without me being a participant. And I would love to see the results and more new findings! If you would answer to my opinions on why those cases are not debatable, you'll know this is not about "my refusal" - These are not words from my mouth ^_^ Cheers, -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 13 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Mon, Nov 12 2001 10:35 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 02:50:33 GMT, "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote: >"Neither party sways the other, and neither party sways the onlookers, but >both parties presented persuasive arguments, and the onlookers enjoyed the >debate." >Were such an outcome to occur, ALL parties win. That is what I would like >to see. Me too. What I do NOT want to see is, one side presents persuasive arguments, while the other side keeps yelling "no!" but babbles nothing useful, persuasive, or meaningful. >I open the floor now for dissenting opinion on whether the argument should >(1) be allowed to continue on as it was going before, or (2) be conducted in >a more civil, organized way. >Cofa, does this seem reasonable? And does anyone besides Cofa wish to offer >an opinion in this regard? Definitely (2) for me. (1) is a waste of time and bandwidth. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 14 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Wed, Nov 7 2001 6:03 pm Email: "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote in message news:%w%F7.70751$xe.17629356@typhoon.we.rr.com... - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > I have wanted to jump into the ongoing debate between Cofa and Alan. It has > driven me crazy to let the opposing point of view go unchallenged by me. > Standing by and watching Alan fight on, without a tap on the shoulder from > me, has been maddening. But I've also recognized that participating in the > debate has been largely futile. And that is why I've merely "lurked." > Now that I've gone and replied as I have to Kevin's post about > "ur-mah-jongg," fuel has undoubtedly been thrown on the embers yet again. > The debate is likely to heat up again; if not today, then next week or the > week after. But then there's that futility thing. Isn't there anything that > can be done about that? Isn't there a way that our debates can be enjoyable > discussions for poster and reader alike? [...] First thing first: In case Tom (or any other) has any bad feeling about my postings in this newsgroup, I wish to express my view. I always find reading and posting to this newsgroup enjoying, as I see that the atmosphere here is always friendly. I must emphasize that my postings are meant to deal with matters, not individual persons, although exchange of ideas has to be between people. Any bad feeling if caused is unfortunate, and is unnecessary. About the proposed debate... It is obvious that Tom has put a great deal of effort and time in setting up this proposal on the debate of certain "cases" related to mahjong. I guess I also understand why Tom should have put me in a group that is opposite to his, although some "cases" he has assigned to me are not necessarily supported by me. Although I don't see the debate, if it could ever be set up as desired by Tom, could be helpful for reaching certain positive results related to the topics chosen, for the sake of "enjoyable discussions" in this newsgroup I would like to join and help to develop such an environment for the "possible" debate, and for any future debates. So let me get to the point... (A) ALL SIX CASES PROPOSED BY TOM ARE NOT DEBATABLE Cases A, B and C are not debatable, because insufficient data being available and too much uncertainty being reasonably possible. I know Tom does have a great collection of books on mahjong because of his profession on this field. It is obvious many writers (in, around and after, the 1920's) wrote books about mahjong and certain organizations with national funding (or other funding) in different countries did conduct extensive research on mahjong. None of these writers or researches suggested any conclusions that could lead to any final answers that would support any of these three cases (at least as of today). The only book I have is Millington's "The Complete Book of Mah-Jongg". One could easily see that he did have conducted extensive research on matters related to mahjong, but he still did not say anything that could confirm any of the three cases. I don't know what other books in Tom's collection said. I believe none of these books tell anything that could conclude the position of these three cases, either. By "insufficient data being available", I also mean that very few data about styles other than CC was available that is in writing (as expressed in Case E). It definitely is an argument that is in support of Case B, but I guess it is excluded in the debate on Cases A and B. This will leave Case B in an unfair position. If Case E stands, there should not have debate for Cases A & B at all. (Or Case E should be debated first, before debate on Cases A & B shall begin.) The uncertainty behind almost all findings expressed in those books is the vast possibilities that were undocumented, or even lost in history. Given the nature of the game of mahjong and the time it being evolved and developed, one must not ignore the existence of these possibilities. Given the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that Cases A, B and C are not debatable. As to my understanding of the position of Tom and Alan regarding Case C, namely, "CC are "the original rules" (AKA ur-mah-jongg or proto-mah-jongg). (Neither Alan nor myself has stated this as a case, but Cofa hotly refutes it as if we had.)" Without digging into the texts, I can quickly recall that Tom's FAQ on "Mahjong History" has a section that implies the meaning that CC is the origin of mahjong or is the proto-mah-jongg; and in several postings Alan did imply that CC is the mother/parent of other forms of mahjong. Well, if neither of you supports this case, are you against it? If you are against it, we don't need to debate Cases C and D. And, please then don't quote or imply terms that so suggests in the future, unless new evidences are found to support such statement. In fact, Cases D & E are readily acceptable facts, rather than being suitable for being set as cases for debate. As to Case F, my reasoning is implied in those outlined for Cases A & B above. (B) THE RESOLUTION AND CASE - NEW PROPOSAL I am interested in seeing some results, or new findings, and therefore propose the following suggestions for the purpose of setting up a new debate (if there are participants): The Resolution: How the game of MAHJONG was evolved and developed? By the term "mahjong", it shall be referred to as the mahjong in general, not any specific style of play. The (possible) Cases: a. One style only was invented as the origin of the game. b. More than one styles of mahjong were originally invented. c. One origin of the game was invented; it then evolved and developed into different game styles over time. d. What game style(s) we see today are those directly evolved or developed from the one origin or prototype of mahjong, if such one origin or prototype did exist. e. How game styles we see today are evolved from, or affected by, one another? And how? (The list can go on, or the above list may be altered...) I might not be actively participating in the debate, due to its foreseeable involvement of time that I might not be able to afford. Also, I am not particularly in favour of (or against) any of these cases, I just want to know the results or any new findings. I believe that only if any of these cases could come out with a conclusion, some of Tom's six cases may then be suitable for debate (or none will then be necessary for a debate at all). -- Cofa Tsui International Mahjong Official Website www.iMahjong.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== |
|
|
||
|
^ | Home | |