Probably my fault, no doubt about it. 
There is also probably a language gap in the word “engagement”. Not my first language, maybe another word would have been better? I am open to suggestions on that.
In this case though what is left is not a misunderstanding, because I clearly tried to solve that.
They clearly do not like the “unique and objective issues” part of the strategy they are fan-boying about. That’s all there is to it. 
Proof of this is the fact that from all the people that posted not-in-favour of mirror Go, I am the only one getting… well… “engaged” ( 
), while other people that have actively dunked on mirror Go and actually wrote (here and elsewhere) that mirror Go is “boring, lazy, trolling” and that they’d even block the opponent etc, are getting a pass. I wrote none of that, but they are fervently trying to pin those things on me, as well.
You see they can just dismiss all that stuff as “other people’s opinion/preference”, but they cannot stomach the “unique and objective issues” part because there is no getting out of that without doing some actual work.
No, not at all. Which is why I would not resign if someone told me in an unranked game for fun/experimentation “hey, I want to try this”.
That’s the polite thing to do and that’s what I mostly did when trying the SideSeki. I even gave the opponent in the chat the link to the thread so that they could look at all the ideas and feedback there
In one case someone said “you know I am not into the mood for the experimental fuseki this time. Can you play normally?” and so I scrapped the Sideseki and played a normal fuseki (my usual flailing, that is, but let’s call it fuseki hahaah). Again, the polite thing to do.
In a ranked game the issue of something being interesting or not, is immaterial. Since the game is ranked, it is automatically obvious that winning points is now a higher priority than all the other ones, else you would have been playing an unranked game.
In a ranked game, where points are at stake and are the primary goal, I’d resign if someone played mirror Go. We are both there to play our best and win and their strategy is mirror Go? Then, to me, they want the points desperately. That’s how I interpret their choice, given that there is no other chat/communication (see earlier discussions here). So, I’ll wait 20-30 moves, make sure that it is mirroring and then fine, let them have the points. The reasoning is simple:
Outsourcing your moves to the opponent is saying that “I am not playing in the first moves”.
The opponent standing up and resigning is saying “well, I am not playing the rest of them either”.
That’s all. You want the points so much so as to do that. Fine, take them.
They are my points. I can do what I like with them.
Resigning is in the rules.
Mirror Go is in the rules.
I get to do what I think is correct. The opponent gets the points, everyone is happy… well except for a couple of people here
So, no to that too.
It is an interesting idea (I like weird experiments - I have no problems with those, obviously), with some very obvious unique and objective issues.
Just like the sideseki has its own obvious objective flaws. Every strategy has those.
The difference is that in the Sideseki or the Great wall or whatever else, you are just losing points/influence here and there.
In the mirror Go, you have the added flaw of losing in the engagement with the opponent. No other fuseki does that, because no other fuseki mirrors the moves of the opponent.
Nothing really controversial about it, really.
surely must be those other people.
