OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Words of warning:

1. This is a blog. I'm not known for my brevity: my posts are often long and here will be no different. In fact I see the blog format as offering the opportunity to follow an idea to its conclusion, and thus I may need all of those 60,000 characters.

2. I will use this space to write about the things that interest me, and I will also want to express my personal feelings on those things. It's unlikely that everyone will agree with my opinions, and I'm quite happy for people to comment and disagree. But it's my blog and if you're reading this then you know what to expect.

3. I will write about TT matters, but there is (believe it or not) more to life than just TT. So... I may well write other stuff. I will try to make it clear at the beginning of each post just what has my attention at that moment, which hopefully give you some idea of where I'm heading. I don't expect you to read it, let alone like it. But you're welcome to try.

Why "Two heads are better than one"? It's a Tasmanian thing.

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this" Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

Good on you Tassie! I look forward to reading your blog. I will respect that it is your blog and if I disgree with anything you say I'll give you the opportunity to know it, but as your blog I don't think anyone's opinion has the right to over-shadow your own. I think this is what a good blog is about. And I certainly get the Two Heads bit (perhaps need to be Aussie for it tho)

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.

Who decides what is right and what is wrong?

Obviously, I'm going to come back to TT on this one, but I really want to think about this in broader terms. Who does decide what is right and what is wrong? Is it a democratic process? A cultural thing? Are there some issues which cross cultural boundaries and are universally understood to be right or wrong?

I've been part of too may communal decision making processes to have any great faith in democracy to decide what is right. When 51% of a group vote "Yes" and 49% "No", the decision leaves a huge number of people disenfranchised. I've been in places where the decision is made one week, the "losers" then go out and round up all their mates, reconvene the meeting, and then reverse the decision, again 51% to 49%. Guess what happens the following week?

A much better process for decision making is by consensus, where everyone comes to a common view on the issue. But... that doesn't necessarily determine that something is "right" or "wrong". It may be a very good guide, but I'm not convinced that it's foolproof. Once upon a time it was universally believed that the sun orbited the earth. Consensus, but entirely erroneous.

When it comes to moral issues there are certainly cultural factors: I once lived in a community where it was completely scandalous to see a woman's leg from below the knee to the waist. Any woman who dared reveal her legs was considered to be quite immoral. Bare breasts were fine, but legs not. After just a few short months I became so enculturated that I almost died of embarrassment when I returned to mainland Aust. and saw women in mini-skirts.

But there are also moral norms which transcend culture, e.g. incest is taboo in all cultures, both geographically and historically. Where there have been exceptions to that rule, they have been true exceptions, e.g. Roman emperors who married their sisters.

Somehow or other decisions are made which then govern the behaviour of a whole people or a group of people within the whole. Compliance to the rules which then result is, obviously enough, voluntary - even when the rules are part of a legal system. For example, driving my car at the speed limit is a voluntary thing: even though there are consequences to being caught exceeding the limit, it's still a choice I make to obey or disobey the road rules.

But does this mean that I can pick and choose which rules I follow and which ones I don't? Do I have the right to decide that a rule is not "fair" or "honorable" or "sensible" or "meaningful"? I suspect that Western culture has now reached a point where many people - perhaps even a majority - would say that the individual is the ultimate arbiter of what rules to follow and which to ignore. But that does not make any sense to me.

Not only do we live in a highly individualistic age, we also live in a highly specialised and professionalised one. No longer do the majority of people design and build their own houses; we employ people called architects and builders and we implicitly trust them to know more about house building than we do. When we get sick we go to a doctor (or a naturopath or an acupuncturist, depending upon the model of medicine we believe in); we don't treat ourselves - or at least we don't if we have any brains.

If we reach a point where we believe that we know better than the experts then we are more likely to decide that "the rules" don't apply to us. But I think that too is an untenable position to take. Take another driving example: on my way to work each morning I notice that there are two lanes of gridlocked traffic and an empty bus lane (apart from the very occasional bus, given how crap Australia's public transport generally is). I decide that "it makes no sense" for me to be stationary when there is an empty lane, so I drive in the bus lane. I get to work 30 minutes faster than I normally do! Hooray! And what's more, no-one has been harmed by me using the bus lane. A victimless crime! The next day, others see me using the bus lane and join in the fun. Within a week the bus lane is now carrying as much trafffic as the other two. Buses are now also gridlocked and the whole system is in disarray. And if I get booked for driving in the bus lane, my defence is the pathetic, "But everyone else is doing it!" So much for me deciding what is right.

What does any of this have to do with TT?

Do we have the right to decide which rules to follow and which to break? Following the rules is an entirely voluntary thing and the consequences of getting caught breaking the rules are so trivial as to be meaningless. After all, getting kicked out of the Hicksville Table Tennis Championships is hardly going to alter the course of anyone's life. And there are lots of ways that the rules can be broken in undetectable ways - I think most forum members know what I mean here.

But is there no moral compunction to abide by rules decided by someone else? Am I really free to pick and choose? Is breaking the rules of TT an example of a victimless crime?

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this" Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

Interesting blog, Tassie, I enjoyed reading it.

You have matured thinking and good writing skills, what a fool I was thinking you are just a frustrated young man when you PMed me a short while ago.

There are all manner of ways to view this sort of issue to decide on what's right. Comparing rules in TT to other laws in life is not always helpful to proving a point. Your bus example seems to be an analogy which shows breaking the rules can end up with worse consequence than first thought. But I can paint a different analogy to sway the argument in the opposite direction by thinking about a society where the dictator has declared all people of a certain race or color are to report to a central area for gassing or other execution. So do those people trust that the dictator is the expert and follow his decree? Those who do, get murdered. Those who don't have a chance to survive. An extreme analogy? Yes. But it shows how you can make comparisons to things to demonstrate toward the outcome you want to show.

As you say, the consequences in TT are much less serious. However, for those who wish to be law-abiding citizens when rules are changed frequently and without consideration of those whom the changes effect, there is a situation of conflict created. And the so-called experts "expertise" is called into question. And when these "experts" keep themselves "above the people" and unapproachable all they do is create contempt.

Let me draw another analogy. Most people rely on a car for various things. If the government came out tomorrow and said "no car on the road shall be more than 2 years old and cars can no longer be traded second-hand as of December 2011" what would the impact be? Most people couldn't afford a brand new car every 2 years, especially when the "old" one had no trade value. Would we find a lot of people driving older cars hoping not to get caught? Would people feel angst and contempt for the government? There would be protests galore! Of course there would.

Now change that scenario to where the new law only put a small minority of cars off the road and it was only people who had little or no voice that were discriminated against. Would there be a backlash on the government. Probably not. Would the government listen to the dispersed minority. Not of they could help it. Would it be just and right? No. Would the minority people be tempted to drive the cars that were legal yesterday, today? Of course many would.

Governments that make autocratic decisions without any consideration for who they affect generally get tossed out at election. The ITTF doesn't get elected by all those they rule over, which means there is a system in place that is heavily open to corruption. And it would seem there has been some corrupt decisions made.

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.

Here's a passage from the U.S. Declaration of Independence (from Great Britain in 1776) that is considered by many historians to be a ground-breaking statement making the case for a universal morality concerning human rights (a rare thing in 1776):


Something to consider when discussing the topic of where morality and rights originate.

 

_________________
Giant Dragon Kris Special : RITC 802 w/Dawei 2.2 35d fh : : Donic Blue Fire M3 2.0 black bh
Member of Charlotte Table Tennis Club, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
Visit Charlotte Table Tennis Club on Facebook

Excellent! This is what I was hoping for: discussion which has some depth to it rather than throw-away comments.

You're correct: my analogies are not universally applicable, and they do reflect a bias on my part.

So let's use your analogies to build upon what my points: Let's begin by assuming that both of us are correct and that the truth of the situation regarding the ITTF and rule changes fits neither of our assumptions perfectly.

Can we agree that the rules of sport are not decided democratically, as in: one player, one vote? No professionally organised sport does its business that way - my comparison with Rugby League is just one example among hundreds of rule changes imposed by a governing body by a process which is not democratic.* Even if we thought that democracy was the way to go, with all TT players having a vote, it would be physically impossible to manage such a process. How would you even decide who was eligible to vote? If it was only registered players, then it would disenfranchise the majority of people who pick up a TT bat. (Remember, USA 8 million recreational players, 30,000 registered players = 7,970,000 without a vote.)

If the rules are not decided democratically, then how? You point to Government (meaning, political government of a state or geographical territory) for your examples and they are perfect examples of how politics works. But, again, I don't think that it is a neat fit with sport. For a start, government (at least in Australia) is increasingly an interminable series of election campaigns. Take our current debate about a "carbon tax": the elected government is not willing to move on this issue because (my opinion) they are worried that this will affect their chances of being re-elected. The next election is still months and months away but the government is paralysed by its fear of losing office. The simple fact that a politician's future depends upon the votes of their constituents means that politics becomes popularity rather than good government. NO government would ban 2+ year old cars - not because it was a bad idea, but because they would lose office. What if it was discovered that all cars over 2 years old contained a highly carcinogenic material and they had to be scrapped for the physical health of all people, drivers and non-drivers alike? In Australia we'd still be driving death-traps because the government would be too afraid of making an unpalatable decision.**

In sport, government is democratic insofar as the governing body is made up of officials elected from its member associations. In turn, the associations are made up of elected officials from the still smaller bodies. For example, the football club I used to play for is governed by people elected at an AGM of members. We have representation at the level of our competition. In turn, people from that association are part of the State body, which sends members to the national body, who represent all Australian interests at FIFA. (Fat lot of good that did us when bidding for the World Cup! ) "It is democracy, just not as we know," to mangle Mr Spock. It's not direct representation but indirect.

So, if we want to change things at the ITTF, we have to change them at our local TT club!

*Interesting side note (interesting to me, that is): the Greeks, inventors of democracy, did not do so on the premise of one person, one vote. It was, in fact, only the elite who participated in the parliamentary process. If we applied that thinking to TT, what would that look like?
** Yes, I know I'm overstating my case here, but I think that as an analysis of Australian politics it does give us some insight into why long-term problems are so difficult to deal with. "Yes, it may benefit us all it 20 years, but I won't be in government tomorrow!"

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this" Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

What would happen if only "Elite Players" voted? Say the top 2000 in the world?

This is really interesting because it does 2 things: 1. it gives us something to think about in terms of government for the common good, and 2. it opens up a can of worms!

This statement truly is an extraordinary thing, with much that is as relevant today as it was 235 years ago. But we do need to recognise that much has changed in that period of time and we need to read more into it than just the "rights" we have. What we have here is a manifesto for political change: when government is bad it must be replaced. What this doesn't tell us, however, is how we decide if the current government is breaching people's rights to "Safety and Happiness". Remember, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".

One of the most significant changes in the last 235 years has been a move away from a communal understanding of who we are to an individualistic one. It used to be "we", but now it's "I". When those who drafted the Declaration did so, they did it with a firm understanding that this was all about "the common good", and with no modern understanding of "individual rights". When they speak of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", they do so meaning "Life for all, Liberty for all, and the pursuit of Happiness for all".

What has developed since then is an increasing focus on "my life, my liberty, my happiness (not even its 'pursuit')" as though these things should be given to us as individuals without any reference to the well-being of others. This is evident in a number of ways. Two examples: 1. Politics is now about the manipulation of government by self-interest groups. Look at the gazillions of dollars spent by lobby groups. Each of those groups has only the interests of their members at heart. The tobacco industry, the petroleum industry, the Christian Right, all focussed on their own agendas, and each trying to convince government that their rights to Life, Liberty and Happiness are somehow more important than anyone else's. (Keep this in mind because it has much to say to the TT community.) 2. We determine our morality only with reference to ourselves. Recently a poster on another thread boasted (my subjective assessment) of how he avoided speeding fines - NOT because he wasn't speeding, but because he had a good attorney. The fact that he was speeding appeared to be irrelevant. Because "everyone else was doing it" he saw no reason to apply the laws of the land to himself. Not the common good, but the individual's decision for their own happiness.

If we apply all of this to TT, we need to ask a significant question: How do we determine what is for "the common good"? There is much discussion about how decisions of the ITTF affect one particular group of players, but are their concerns in fact in the best interest of everyone? And before you jump on me, I'm NOT saying that the concerns of some are not valid, NOR am I saying that they are not in the interest of the common good. I'm just asking the question, "How do we determine if the needs of some are compatible with the needs of the whole?"

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this" Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

Perhaps the answer to all of this lies in the non-discrimination against minorities principle that most society values rather than a democractic process which is agreeably difficult to orchestrate in a world-wide sport. To discriminate against age for example in modern society is a risky thing to do when say employing someone. Yet the ITTF banning FLP's was a pretty clear discrimination against elderly players. I still don't like there being something akin to a dictatorship existing in the ruling of our sport, but if they had some form of "non-discrimination policy" they had to work under it may improve the situation. I think there needs to be some channel that allows feedback into their process which is more accessible than the detached local to national to international associations linkage which is tenuous to the common player. Forums like this would potentially be an ideal channel. We had Adham here for a while, and it was a step in the right direction, but he was mainly doing a PR role. If they (the ITTF) had representatives always available to take feedback from the people who obviously care about the sport - the people on the forums - it would be a good start. Of course, such a situation would have to do more than pay us lip service (which is about all Adham did). Not saying they have to take everything onboard. But if they demonstrated they considered what they were being fed from the forums, then they wouldn't appear to be the ignorant dictator they currently seem to be.

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.

I've highlighted a section which I believe is overlooked a lot by many people. Have a look.

Now who decides what are sufficient causes for a rebellion against a government? Sticking to the ITTF nothing they have ever changed is reason enough for me to rebel against them. I don't agree with several rule changes (larger ball, ban flp), but they're not important enough for me to rebel. For somebody else so of these changes are important enough to rebel. So who is right? With the declaration of indepence in their hand anybody anywhere could say that they have the right to rebel because they feel seriously abused and harmed by their governing body. And the level of 'abuse' could only be determined by that person's own definition of what is sufferable enough and what isn't.

The thing of course is that if a large part of a population feels the same way then they can let their opinion way in in a meaningful way. Coming back to the ITTF it's sadly clear that a large part of the players and more importantly the associations do not feel that their are being abused and do not feel the need to rebel. So if people want to oppose or even reverse some of these changes I believe their best course of action is to get enough people together to influence their own national association and if enough (important) national associations rise up against some of these changes a difference can be made.

On a side note when the founding fathers wrote that all men are created equally, at that time they actually did mean all (land owning, white and religious) men, not women, not people of colour, atheist or poor people naturally. For the Americans an improvement of course because they had no vote at all in the British parlement.

_________________
New darkside setup: lion absolute impact - dragon dragon talon (ox) - palio CJ 8000 premium (max)
Frame: Andro Super Core Cell All+ - forehand: Thibar Nimbus Sound 2.2 mm (red) - backhand: LKT Pro XT 2.2 mm (black)

While I agree with most of what you say, I think the National asso are too scared of the ITTF to do anything. Many small asso are given equipment and do not want to lose the donations. The attitude of the ITTF was shown clearly by thier reaction to "Ping Pong". They will take action against anything seen as a threat to them.

I'm glad that my posting of that historical snippet has prompted some interesting comments. The U.S. Declaration of Independence was a statement of mutual understanding by a group of men sent to a conference from each of the 13 original States. These States were all actually quite independent colonies in their own right. It was quite an achievement to get any kind of agreement from such a disparate assembly. It would be like 13 European or 13 Middle Eastern countries making a pact to declare their "independence" and form a single united nation-state. Of course, distance and a common foe (Great Britain) gave the colonies the commonality necessary for such an adventure. But it was close call (militarily) and if not for the help of Britain's archenemy France, the attempt to gain independence would have failed.

Now I didn't intend to hijack this thread and turn it into a history discussion but I want to make just a few comments. It's interesting to me that two posters noted the phrase "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." That was one of the points I hoped would come from that passage. It was asked "how can we know when it's time make the decision that's it's time to make a revolutionary change?" (my summation of several comments above). In the case of the historical Declaration, I recommend that those interested read the entire document (it's not very long) and you will see that the American revolutionaries gave a detailed and tedious list of the offenses they felt had led them to demand their own and separate government.

I also want to respond to the point that the founders of the United States were "just white men." To revisionist historians this is the modern point-of-view. Unfortunately, people who lived in the 1770s weren't "modern" in our sense of the word. In my opinion it is just plain wrong to try to interpret history using the terms of a different culture or era in time. These men were just living LIKE ALL OTHERS in a time of paternalism and a society based on class. I'm not trying to justify, for example, slavery or the second (or third) class status of women, but that's just the way it was and everyone understood that. That has been the order of things throughout history and is still so today in much of the world. So we can put on our primrose glasses and judge these men by modern standards, but that is unfair. In fact, the Declaration takes an astoundingly modern point-of-view (in 18th Century terms) that cracked open the age-old class system.

Without getting overly long, I'd like to say that a study of the individual American "Founding Fathers" will show that many of them were quite sympathetic to women's rights and totally opposed to slavery (John Adams, the 2nd American President for example). The anti-slavery movement had been started in England, most prominently by MP William Wilberforce. By the time of the American Revolution, that movement had jumped the Atlantic and was gaining strength. An example of that which is nowadays usually turned completely upside-down for political reasons was a later agreement called the 3/5ths Compromise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise). Basically, that compromise declared that for purposes of representation a slave would only be counted as "3/5ths of a person" during each Census. Now, in 2011, the charge that slaves were considered only 3/5ths of a person is used to "prove" how racist the American Founders were. But that was not the case. This compromise was necessary because the United States was a compact between 13 different newly-founded States. The colonies in the southern region had in some cases more slaves than free citizens. So of course those States wanted to count all of the slaves. And of course, the rest of the States didn't want to count them at all! Consider that anomaly: the States with most of the slaves (and against abolition of course) wanted to elevate their status to full citizen; meanwhile, the States with few slaves and those favoring abolition of slavery didn't want them counted at all! In the end, the agreement was made as the only way to get all 13 States on board with the new government. In other words, the non-slave States conceded to the 3/5ths clause to get the Southern States to sign on, but the clause actually reduced the political power of those States. That just demonstrates that modern interpretations about the 3/5ths compromise are biased and wrong. And in addition, as a counter-point to the 3/5ths Compromise, the Northern States were able to include their own clause that abolished the slave trade altogether 20 years hence (i.e., 1808). Ultimately, it wasn't until 1861 and the American Civil War (appx 620,000 dead) that the issue was finally decided, though societal acceptance of the political reality didn't really take hold until the mid-Twentieth Century.

Sorry this post is so long. If you made it this far and are still interested in American history, I congratulate you for remaining awake. If you want to discuss this or other related topics, since this is Tassie's blog, feel free to PM me.

 

_________________
Giant Dragon Kris Special : RITC 802 w/Dawei 2.2 35d fh : : Donic Blue Fire M3 2.0 black bh
Member of Charlotte Table Tennis Club, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
Visit Charlotte Table Tennis Club on Facebook

Great post!

My previous post was quite long, so to address a point about the Declaration of Independence to TT and the ITTF, I'm making a separate post.

It seems somewhat disrespectful to equate a sports association with the travails of human events. After all, as far as I know, no one has ever died fighting a war with the ITTF or any other sports association. Nevertheless, I think it's possible to draw some parallels. In the U.S., there are many examples of sports associations getting too heavy-handed leading to significant blowback by the athletes involved. Perhaps the greatest example was our National Football League in the 1960s. The NFL was a very closely controlled entity that was run with an iron fist. So some investors created an entirely new league to compete with the first. The new league (the American Football League) came up with significant innovations that started to draw star players (and fans) to the new enterprise. They expanded rapidly and were quite successful. This put a real bind on the NFL which was eventually forced to accept an offer to merge with the upstart AFL. For those of you who follow the American NFL, you know that many of those old AFL teams have become dominant members of the merged league.

Another example was golf. Golf in Britain and the U.S. was once so totally bigoted against professionalism that the players themselves banded together and (in the U.S.) formed the Professional Golfers Association (PGA). That proved to make amateur golf irrelevant among top players.

And so it was with the Olympics. Once the tyrannical Avery Brundage no longer controlled every jot and tittle of the Olympics, things finally started to change to make it more open to all athletes. Without such change, it's likely some other World-level event may have toppled the Olympics.

So as far as TT goes, I think if the ITTF goes too far (such as perhaps going to an 8" net and/or 44mm ball) that at some point the athletes are going to rebel. Now given the political situation in China and Chinese influence in professional TT, the Chinese government would likely have to be on board. But if that ever happens, the ITTF is burnt toast.

_________________
Giant Dragon Kris Special : RITC 802 w/Dawei 2.2 35d fh : : Donic Blue Fire M3 2.0 black bh
Member of Charlotte Table Tennis Club, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
Visit Charlotte Table Tennis Club on Facebook