The opposite of soft penalty would be a stonewall penalty

[Kontol]

To be honest, I'm still baffled and don't understand what jutfrank explains in post #8. Could you explain it more succintly once more? Because "would" in this case has no implied conditional.

 

[5jj]

A. What's the capital city of Indonesia?
B: That is Jakarta.

B presents this as a fact.

C: What's the capital city of Indonesia?
D: Um, that will be Jakarta.

D is slightly less committed to the factuality of the information. They are, nonetheless, pretty certain.

E: What's the capital city of Indonesia?
F: Um, that would be Jakarta.

F is even less committed to the factuality of the information.

G: What's the capital city of Indonesia?
H: Um, that might be Jakarta.

H is not sure what the capital of Indonesia is. They give the information as possibility.

 

[jutfrank]

Well, from what I have read, I'm wondering why is the word "is" in bold in post #8? What do you mean by that?

I was trying to make it clear that 'would be' practically just means 'is'.

 

[emsr2d2]

@Kontol - I think you're flogging a dead horse. Some things just can't be explained. I don't recommend that you try to use the construction yourself. Just be aware that native speakers sometimes use "would be" to mean "is/are".

The example in post in an earlier post is good.

Who's the manager?
That would be me.