Sportsmanship/legitimacy

[Geoff Bannister]

No: HPFGUIDX 151897

Geoff:
> This thread is degenerating into one of those "table tennis"
> exchanges where those of us looking in merely switch our 
> bemused attention from one contributor to the other - and it is
> plain daft.

>a_svirn:
> And here I thought you deprecate abrasive comments. Why not 
> turn your attention to other threads, if this one exasperates 
> you?

Geoff:
I do dislike abrasive comments. I don't consider what I said was 
abrasive – merely mildly critical.

I have to admit that I was feeling wicked last night and wrote this 
message very tongue-in-cheek. I set out to try to tickle at least a 
couple of sleeping dragons and I think I partially succeeded. 
:-)

I have no wish to turn to other threads; this one interests me far 
more than the interminable considerations about Snape's motives. 
It is just that, having been credited with inventing the phrase "table 
tennis" - where two or more contributors indulge in a flurry of posts 
along the line of "Yes you do"/"No I don't" - I know, from off-group 
discussions with other members that we often wish such messages 
would just reach a "let's agree to disagree" position of stasis.

I am not exasperated; I used the word "daft" deliberately. Perhaps I 
should explain. Although I have lived fro most of my life in the South 
of England – 45 years in London and currently 12 years in the West of 
England – I am a North countryman and spent a lot of my childhood 
there so I have a North country sense of humour. One interpretation 
of the use of "daft" is that it is used to express "amused irritation" 
which may seem a contradiction in terms. It is the sort of approach I 
would have used in teaching when a pupil persistently broke my flow 
by asking questions designed to interrupt and would have received a 
diplomatic put down after a while.

> a_svirn:
> Anyway. Because of this "culture of the game", as you put it, the
> rules simply aren't working. There is a rule that no underage wizard
> can participate; a bit of cheating - et voila! a fourteen year old
> enters the lists (and stays there). 

Geoff:
A fourteen year-old who did not put his name into the competition. His 
name was placed there as part of a carefully camouflaged plot for his k
idnap, torture and assassination.

a_svirn:
> The hosts gain an unfair advantage (an extra champion), the guests 
> understandably outraged, but there is nothing to be done about it. 

Geoff:
Consider the 1936 Berlin Olympics
.

a_svirn:
> Harry, the second Hogwarts champion, has *no* de jure standing 
> whatsoever - he simply shouldn't be there, but it doesn't deter him
> from participating and winning the tournament. What exists de 
> facto is eventually legitimised. And the rules in effect loose their 
> meaning and cease to be.

Geoff:
Again, he didn't want to participate; he was told by Crouch that he 
had to because he had (unknowingly) been drawn into a binding 
magical contract. He didn't want to take part or win.

> a_svirn:
> Incidentally, is it possible to be "de facto legitimate"? I though 
> legitimacy implies conformity to rule or law, in other words, being 
> *de jure*.

> Magpie:
> I have to agree with a_svirn here.  We're talking about the practical 
> meaning, not semantics. If one lives in an area where there is no one 

> to enforce the law,  or for whatever reason people are allowed to break 

> the laws without any consequences, for instance, it is usually called a
> "lawless" place. If you're "allowed" to cheat the rules might as well not
> exist.  There's a difference between "rules" and "what you can get away 
> with on a given day."

Geoff:
I agree there is a problem, certainly in the real world, in this area. 
Situations arise where a de facto event tends to become de jure. Take the 
Russian Communist régime which existed for over 70 years from 1918. 
This was the result of an armed uprising and struggle. It was a de facto s
tructure. Yet, over the years. Its existence was recognised by other countries, 
partly because they couldn't do anything about it, and ultimately its actions 
and laws etc. were recognised which made them de jure. The same 
argument could be applied for a régime such as Castro's Cuba since its 
inception. 

In this sort of scenario, Magpie's "lawless" place becomes a place where 
the rulers set the laws to suit themselves. Look for example at Mugabe's 
Zimbabwe, where the government ignores rulings made by its own Supreme 
Court because it doesn't please the head of state and "what you can get 
away with" /does/ become the "rules". And that ain't semantics.