What form will the alleged draw rigging follow now?

First topic message reminder :

With Djokovic & Federer likely to be separated in the draws for a while now I thought it appropriate to find out how the draws will look when they are rigged for the USO, or beyond.

It's a fair question, as unless we get advance notice we won't know whether or not they actually have been!

So, is putting Murray with Djokovic giving him the tough or easy option? Does matching Nadal with Federer imply a fix to get a Fedal match, or would they be separated to make it tough for Novak and hold out the hope of a Fedal final?

I'm not a believer myself so haven't a clue but I thought the forum members who possess irrefutable proof gathered by renowned statisticians should step forward and describe the shape of the future rigged draw.

legendkillarV2 wrote:That LK I tell you. Rubbish moderator!! He needed to upgrade to evolve into a much more refined poster in setting the high standards and pushing the boundaries on this forum

I swear I was just hacked by a Wum!

OMG definitely a virus...

P.S. I do agree about laverfan and JHM - both very nice people!

(cheque's in the post, right?)

Regarding Draw Rigging...

Tom___ - the 2-sigma and 5-sigma test - Passed

University of Talinn study - Selective data to fi a hypothesis - Failed

ESPN Study - Degree of difficulty of R1/R2 opponents USO Mens and RG Womens using simulations - Summerblues's analysis indicates that names vs seeds leads to subjective interpretations. Extrapolation to SF (12v12) is debatable.

Financial incentives, broadcasters' desire for specific matchups and other aspects require massive collusion, which is still unproven. Journalists would have dug up this type of incident and exposed it a long time ago.

Where does it leave this specific incarnation of a tired subject of debate?

reckoner wrote:P.S. I do agree about laverfan and JHM - both very nice people!

(cheque's in the post, right?)

Thanks. I think JHM would agree as well.

What's a cheque? I can do an electronic bank transfer or paypal.

Oh of course....

Djokovic 2.0
Nadal 3.0
Federer 2.0

and we have our very own LK 2.0! You're in very esteemed company LK...

JuliusHMarx wrote:What's a cheque? I can do an electronic bank transfer or paypal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheque

Wasnt Ivan Lendl cheque?

Now he's Andy's cheque mate.

So was Richard Krajicheque, by heritage anyway.

To inform the other posters around who's been banned should in my view be an elementary rule of correctness and transparency to be followed, so that in a community of so called internet friends should be possible eventually to say good bye and anyway to know who is the audience of posters we are dealing with.

Personally, I find the fact I have been knowing about banned posters from other parties or from fragments of conversation strikingly annoying.

It is also important to bear in mind that the freedom of speech (a constitutional principle ( just to remind to those who did not have the fortune of studying that at school) gives everyone the right to express his/her opinion, no matter what.

Finally I would like to remind to all of those who complain incessantly about the old 606 the reason why we are in so many debating on here: the tolerant and liberal environment of the BBC has let other people "taking over" their logo and a good deal of their users, without too much anymosity.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:It is also important to bear in mind that the freedom of speech (a constitutional principle ( just to remind to those who did not have the fortune of studying that at school) gives everyone the right to express his/her opinion, no matter what.

Even John Terry?

Yes there is freedom of speech...but freedom of speech doesnt mean "freedom of consequences". Freedom does not absolve the poster of responsibilities in having to deal with the aftermath of what they have said. As they say, (freedom) power is nothing without (self) control. Sometimes we should exert self-control before saying/posting things we know are going to be very inflammatory for others, or even ourselves.

But this isnt the thought police on here...we just need to be sensible is all. Surely that's not too much for any of us to ask or follow?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:...It is also important to bear in mind that the freedom of speech (a constitutional principle ( just to remind to those who did not have the fortune of studying that at school) gives everyone the right to express his/her opinion, no matter what....

Some claim that "freedom of speech" gives some the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded indoor venue or "Bomb!" in an airport or aeroplane.

Libel, slander and incitement laws are reactions to people using "freedom of speech" to make ad hominems and to incite others to violence.

Some need to realise that "freedom of speech" requires the existance of social structures that gives others a platform for making their "speeches". Acting in antisocial and pathological manners helps to bring down those very social structures that allow the possibility of freedom of speech to occur.

I am still consoling my lemon over the 'remarks' made about comparisons. As a result I am having to put him through the juicer.

lydian wrote:Yes there is freedom of speech...but freedom of speech doesnt mean "freedom of consequences". Freedom does not absolve the poster of responsibilities in having to deal with the aftermath of what they have said. As they say, (freedom) power is nothing without (self) control. Sometimes we should exert self-control before saying/posting things we know are going to be very inflammatory for others, or even ourselves.

But this isnt the thought police on here...we just need to be sensible is all. Surely that's not too much for any of us to ask or follow?

The "no matter what" bit is misleading. Freedom of speech isn't quite that cut and dried under international law. It is subject to certain restrictions on moral grounds and to protect the rights and reputation of others ie in the case of a certain Chelsea footballer. These are just two of the possible restriction reasons but seemed the most appropriate in the circumstances................

Good points carrieg4 and NS
Agree the "no matter what" is contentious....we are all only as free as the society we live in allows us to be (to speak to Nore's point).

As a forum like this is a kind of mini-society the same kind of follows.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but IMHO this does not justify excessive abuse of other posters/people (as was the case here) and racism (as was also the case here).

The mods are doing a good job.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am still consoling my lemon over the 'remarks' made about comparisons. As a result I am having to put him through the juicer.

I'm glad no-one compared your lemon to the Kurds.
Lemon...curd...geddit? Oh, why do I bother?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am still consoling my lemon over the 'remarks' made about comparisons. As a result I am having to put him through the juicer.

I'm glad no-one compared your lemon to the Kurds.
Lemon...curd...geddit? Oh, why do I bother?

In the words of emancipator

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am still consoling my lemon over the 'remarks' made about comparisons. As a result I am having to put him through the juicer.

I'm glad no-one compared your lemon to the Kurds.
Lemon...curd...geddit? Oh, why do I bother?

Can I change my mind about the moderators??

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am still consoling my lemon over the 'remarks' made about comparisons. As a result I am having to put him through the juicer.

I'm glad no-one compared your lemon to the Kurds.
Lemon...curd...geddit? Oh, why do I bother?

JuliusHMarx wrote:... I'm glad no-one compared your lemon to the Kurds.
Lemon...curd...geddit? Oh, why do I bother?

Have you cur(e)d him of his lemons ?

DanFed wrote:Oh dear. Let me explain it to you. If I had called all africans stupid and then claimed the reason was their race, that would have been racist. If I claimed that all africans had low IQ because they are africans, that would have been racist.

It is not racist to claim that a number of African countries are low IQ (actually it is a fact if you do some research). It is not racist to claim that some african countries have stupid people in abundance and that is the reason for their troubles.

These are not racist. Racism is the belief that ones race is superior to others purely due to race (where facts are absent). It is also defined as the hatred to a race. Neither of these things are what I did. I did not claim all africans were stupid or that all african countries are stupid. Nor was I literally claiming every african person and country has low IQ.

Again, you read in what you wanted to read.

Since a country can't have an IQ because it's a plot of land not a person, yes it is stupid to say what you said. You leave nobody with any choice but to assume you mean the people collectively, which is rude beyond belief.

The only other option is to assume you really mean the plot of land which would make your IQ extremely low.

By the way, as a fan of the same player as you I must tell you that your approach to debate sucked big time. You didn't have a clue how to discuss the game and you were generally out to insult.

bogbrush wrote:

DanFed wrote:Oh dear. Let me explain it to you. If I had called all africans stupid and then claimed the reason was their race, that would have been racist. If I claimed that all africans had low IQ because they are africans, that would have been racist.

It is not racist to claim that a number of African countries are low IQ (actually it is a fact if you do some research). It is not racist to claim that some african countries have stupid people in abundance and that is the reason for their troubles.

These are not racist. Racism is the belief that ones race is superior to others purely due to race (where facts are absent). It is also defined as the hatred to a race. Neither of these things are what I did. I did not claim all africans were stupid or that all african countries are stupid. Nor was I literally claiming every african person and country has low IQ.

Again, you read in what you wanted to read.

Since a country can't have an IQ because it's a plot of land not a person, yes it is stupid to say what you said. You leave nobody with any choice but to assume you mean the people collectively, which is rude beyond belief.

The only other option is to assume you really mean the plot of land which would make your IQ extremely low.

By the way, as a fan of the same player as you I must tell you that your approach to debate sucked big time. You didn't have a clue how to discuss the game and you were generally out to insult.

BB...

carrieg4 wrote:

lydian wrote:Yes there is freedom of speech...but freedom of speech doesnt mean "freedom of consequences". Freedom does not absolve the poster of responsibilities in having to deal with the aftermath of what they have said. As they say, (freedom) power is nothing without (self) control. Sometimes we should exert self-control before saying/posting things we know are going to be very inflammatory for others, or even ourselves.

But this isnt the thought police on here...we just need to be sensible is all. Surely that's not too much for any of us to ask or follow?

The "no matter what" bit is misleading. Freedom of speech isn't quite that cut and dried under international law. It is subject to certain restrictions on moral grounds and to protect the rights and reputation of others ie in the case of a certain Chelsea footballer. These are just two of the possible restriction reasons but seemed the most appropriate in the circumstances................

What I would suggest to you and your pals is to go back to school and take a few history lessons. It's plain to see you don't really have the slightest clue of what freedom of speech is, its implications and the legal framework in which you live.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

Hope you read and interiorize the concept, which btw is especially important not only for personal enrichment, but to interact positively and construcively with others.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:What I would suggest to you and your pals is to go back to school and take a few history lessons. It's plain to see you don't really have the slightest clue of what freedom of speech is, its implications and the legal framework in which you live.

Gently, JK. "seek, receive and impart information and ideas". Indoctrination, Stalin style, has many drawbacks.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

What does this mean, JK?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Hope you read and interiorize the concept, which btw is especially important not only for personal enrichment, but to interact positively and construcively with others.

Internalise?

It's unreasonable to act against Article 1 "...human beings...should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood" but then invoke Article 19.
You can't pick and choose which Articles to believe in.

Also note Article 7 "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

Libel laws, for example, prevent a utopian free speech, and the Declaration of Human Rights recognises this.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:What I would suggest to you and your pals is to go back to school and take a few history lessons. It's plain to see you don't really have the slightest clue of what freedom of speech is, its implications and the legal framework in which you live.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

Hope you read and interiorize the concept, which btw is especially important not only for personal enrichment, but to interact positively and construcively with others.

Loving the irony between the bolded bits in the first and last paragraphs

JK, thank you for quoting Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, you will of course know being so heavily scholared in said topic that the very same Article 19 goes on to cover that "the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions when necessary or respect of the rights or reputation of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals".

What was that about "don't really have the slightest clue" again?

I had some sympathy for Seifer till he came back with a different ID and continued his arguments on the issue which he shouldn't have done at first case.

Seifer simply confirms and provides a reason with his own replies why he deserved a ban at first place. He should feel ashamed to call himself a fan of great Roger Federer who with his charity almost spends entire life for the nation he discriminated.

I am not sure whether the kid even know Roger is a half African as his mom is an African, the continent he discriminated is partially responsible for producing the greatest tennis player to have taken the racket.

So back to draw rigging.

Does anyone know of anyone in the USTA I could bribe to ensure Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are in the same half of the draw?

DanFed wrote:
It is not racist to claim that some african countries have stupid people in abundance and that is the reason for their troubles.
Again, you read in what you wanted to read.

Please elaborate. Since you have made a rather profound statement, I would like to learn more from you especially on your views on human stupidity, the geographical distribution of stupidity, the genesis of human stupidity and its ties to African Continent (of which I am assuming you are a scholar).

Also please provide references to your journal articles and publications which have established that the root cause of "trouble" in some African is the "abundance of stupid people".

And while we are at it, please provide some statisical data on the concetration of stupid people by country. I would like to know.

Thanks.

lydian wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:What I would suggest to you and your pals is to go back to school and take a few history lessons. It's plain to see you don't really have the slightest clue of what freedom of speech is, its implications and the legal framework in which you live.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

Hope you read and interiorize the concept, which btw is especially important not only for personal enrichment, but to interact positively and construcively with others.

Loving the irony between the bolded bits in the first and last paragraphs

JK, thank you for quoting Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, you will of course know being so heavily scholared in said topic that the very same Article 19 goes on to cover that "the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions when necessary or respect of the rights or reputation of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals".

What was that about "don't really have the slightest clue" again?

Now Tenez, NITB, Saifer etc. might have been a bit controversial, but to say they represent a threat to national security........

Seriously speaking, I think you understand there is a law and that the law is above me and you ( and far far above event the ubiquitous mods) and that it states there is freedom of speech and expression? it's not that you today wake up and decide to change the basic principles of the society....

This means that if someone want to say Nadal is a moonballer, this is allowed by the law, or if someone wanted to say to someone else that he was dull or boring or pretentious, it might not be nice, but guess what, it would still be within that law, and guess why? Because of the freedom of speech.

I hope you got the point: it's not by convincing yourself of something, that something becomes true: there is a law, a juridiction, principles, cases, it's a bit more complicated......

legendkillarV2 wrote:So back to draw rigging.

Does anyone know of anyone in the USTA I could bribe to ensure Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are in the same half of the draw?

Your secret ply to let Murray win the title is understood, ATP gonna be extra vigilant now

I think everyone knows that calling Rafa a moonballer is allowed. After we've seen it enough times and no-one's ever got into trouble for it AFAIK.

J_K are you suggesting that swearing and bullying be allowed on the forum?
At the moment such things are against the house rules, but should free speech take precedent? Should Article 19 take precedent over Article 1?

No, I would suggest to you and others to learn well the spirit, principles and cases of the freedom of speech law and to behave accordingly.

National security??? You're selectively picking out bits...what the statement is saying is that freedom of speech can come with certain restrictions, not just on the point of security...it does cover personal rights, public order and morals.

You seem to focus only on PART A (freedom of speech) without realising or acknowledging that PART B (restrictions) means freedom of speech can come at a price. Yes you, or anyone else is free to say what you want...just dont expect people who administer societal policy, rights and laws to necessarily take whatever is said without action. If someone on here freely calls Nadal fans "scum" then they are are infringeing the reputation of those targeted by the statement including known Nadal posters on here...and so shouldnt be surprised that the site owners impose restrictions...including temporary or permanent bans for repeated breaches. I dont see why this is so hard to understand. Are you an advocate for anarchy or something, or do you just have a problem with authority? It seems by inference you feel Seifer has been hard done to...

J_K
1. Does freedom of speech law allow swearing and bullying on internet forums in general?
2. Should any and all house rules on all internet forums be scrapped and replaced by international freedom of speech laws, or should the people who create the forum be allowed to have their own house rules?

at lydian

So who is starting getting agressive and calling names first . ......

You show in what you just say that you clealry don't have a clue of what you are talking abou,t full stop. You have no reputation to defend as a poster is a fictional charcter and it's not famous and has no material damage, full stop. Did you study at least a bit of law in your high school? My suggestion for you is: go to an attorney and report him what you just said. You will feel seriously ashamed of your ignorance.

As for me: I am happy to leave you with your ignorance.

Debate closed for me.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:No, I would suggest to you and others to learn well the spirit, principles and cases of the freedom of speech law and to behave accordingly.

'others' includes a yet unnamed class. There is a case to be made for 'civil' debate and discourse. For example hate speech is not specifically sub-classified within the class 'speech'. How would you recommend it be handled? Also, specifically, in the context of an internet forum?

Repetition of the same statement, out of context, is still under the purview freedom of speech, but is it in the 'spirit'?

JuliusHMarx wrote:J_K
1. Does freedom of speech law allow swearing and bullying on internet forums in general?
2. Should any and all house rules on all internet forums be scrapped and replaced by international freedom of speech laws, or should the people who create the forum be allowed to have their own house rules?

First of all: I don't like the tone of the questions.....Iwould like as,I have always done to debate and answer to post that I find interesting and meaningful.

In this case, because I rate the topic as important i will make an exception:

1. First point: you say that, tell me where did I say that, so I don't understand why do keep making this question.
2.Yes I think forums and media in general should have rules and interpret their rules in compliance to the spirit, the principles and the letter of the law. I really hope you are of the same idea.

J_K It is, of course, difficult for me to judge exactly what you would find interesting and meaningful and to phrase any questions in the appropriate tone

first point, you didn't say either way, hence I asked the question. I'm asking for your knowledge of freedom of speech law and what it allows/doesn't allow.

second point - I am of the same idea.

Just to draw this debate to an end as it is getting tedious.

Do you go into your workplace and shout out racist abuse? No because you would be fired for breaking the rules of the workplace.

This forum has rules that you all agreed to when joining.

You break them, you leave the site with security escorting you from the premises.

Nothing to do with freedom of speech - its all to do with the site rules that the founders and admin have put in place.

You agreed to them - if you no longer like them, vote with your feet

Yep Adam, it's club rules.

Thank goodness we can leave the semantics of free speech behind.
lol BB...the discussion somewhat deviated from your OP.

So back to said (alleged) rigging OP...surely if they were rigging in the first place to get Federer-Nadal matches...and presumably protecting Nadal in the process assuming he was vulnerable to Djokovic ...then they would just move that match down one layer to the semis....i.e. they would be drawn in the same half. I still think its a load of bunkum though...

Yes, that'd be the logic. But as that theoretically gives Djokovic the easier semi final (with all respect to Murray) I'm not sure we'll hear that outcome being called a fix, do you?

lol...no I dont think some posters would worry about that one too much!
Speaking of which, I havent seen "some" posters around for a while...presume the RF win didnt go down too well!!!

It's not been a good month.....

After the semis Socal actually came on here and congratulated Roger on beating Novak and said Roger deserved to win.

Not a great month and lets see if it gets any better the next 2 as well...otherwise 2011 will look a real oddity.