<story><title>Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines</title><url>https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>orsenthil</author><text>&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;
Rather than trying to have the last word, look for the times when there is no need to reply, perhaps because you already made the relevant point clear enough. If you know something about the game of Go, this analogy might clarify that: when the opponent&amp;#x27;s move is not strong enough to require a direct response, it is advantageous to give it none and instead move elsewhere.
&amp;lt;&amp;#x2F;pre&amp;gt;&lt;p&gt;I had to deal with someone who thought that having the last word is &amp;quot;a thing&amp;quot;. So, he will never give up on any discussion without adding a last reply. It is hard to deal with such people.&lt;p&gt;On the game of go, can someone illustrate how it is advantageous to not have the last word?&lt;p&gt;Also, I am not sure if this example will convince a last-word-wrong-doer, they are in for an emotional satisfaction, not a rational one.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>fusiongyro</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m a beginner at Go but I think it is fascinating and full of real-life lessons like this.&lt;p&gt;In general, strong play has a lot of forcing moves that demand responses. Being obsessed with having the last word is akin to allowing the other player to dictate when and where you will play, which is a substantial advantage for the other player. Go is won by area, not capture, so often a weak-looking sketch of territory is more effective than a lot of direct squabbling over little stones.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s also easy to overplay. Being greedy is a good way to lose everything in Go. So a good game can have the flavor of a negotiation. There are even a lot of standard trades that aim for equality between the players.</text></comment>
<story><title>Richard Stallman Has Announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines</title><url>https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>orsenthil</author><text>&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;
Rather than trying to have the last word, look for the times when there is no need to reply, perhaps because you already made the relevant point clear enough. If you know something about the game of Go, this analogy might clarify that: when the opponent&amp;#x27;s move is not strong enough to require a direct response, it is advantageous to give it none and instead move elsewhere.
&amp;lt;&amp;#x2F;pre&amp;gt;&lt;p&gt;I had to deal with someone who thought that having the last word is &amp;quot;a thing&amp;quot;. So, he will never give up on any discussion without adding a last reply. It is hard to deal with such people.&lt;p&gt;On the game of go, can someone illustrate how it is advantageous to not have the last word?&lt;p&gt;Also, I am not sure if this example will convince a last-word-wrong-doer, they are in for an emotional satisfaction, not a rational one.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nrobinaubertin</author><text>In the game of go, if your opponent plays a weak attack move that you can ignore, you basically have won a turn (by playing elsewhere).
If he tries to invade your territory and doesn&amp;#x27;t realize that he cannot create a living group inside it, it&amp;#x27;s just like he gave you a prisoner.</text></comment>