[fred]

pclayton, on Oct 18 2007, 04:48 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 18 2007, 06:16 AM, said:

my shaving schedule was purely a function of itchiness.

For you? Or for Sheri?

Yes

[jtfanclub]

[quote name='ralph23' date='Oct 17 2007, 04:45 PM'] [quote name='ralph23' date='Oct 17 2007, 10:40 PM']
So I'll ask again: I think you're now saying that you WOULD support some sanction or action against the maker of the pro-Hitler statement, yes? [/quote]
And here's where the problem with this whole thread lies...

This was, in fact, the original question you asked:

[quote]So Robbie Fissure, America's greatest bridge player, wins (with his team) the BB held in Chicago, and holds up a sign stating:

"Jews are scum. Shame they were not exterminated long ago like rodents. Hitler was right."

Doesn't violate any US laws. First Amendment assures that. Doesn't call for action, immediate or later, and doesn't constitute a clear and present danger.

Assume this is OK with you, then ?[/quote]

You, and a number of people on this thread, have gone directly from "Is this OK with you" to "support some sanction". This is why I feel that Fred's question just confuses the issue. Certainly a lot of people here seem to feel that it's not OK with them personally (whatever that means) but are not in favor of sanctioning.

I, personally, feel that bridge players for the BB and similar events should be selected not just for their bridge ability but for their professionalism. If they're boorish, whether it's groping unwilling spectators, loud complaining that their opponents are cheaters, or holding up signs that could potentially be offensive to some, then the selection board should not select them. And I'm willing to let the board do its job and not feel the need for a more direct method of punish them. Them meaning the boorish players, not the board. I think.

[ralph23]

[quote name='jtfanclub' date='Oct 18 2007, 01:25 PM'] [quote name='ralph23' date='Oct 17 2007, 04:45 PM'] [quote name='ralph23' date='Oct 17 2007, 10:40 PM']
So I'll ask again: I think you're now saying that you WOULD support some sanction or action against the maker of the pro-Hitler statement, yes? [/QUOTE]
And here's where the problem with this whole thread lies...

This was, in fact, the original question you asked:

[QUOTE]So Robbie Fissure, America's greatest bridge player, wins (with his team) the BB held in Chicago, and holds up a sign stating:

"Jews are scum. Shame they were not exterminated long ago like rodents. Hitler was right."

Doesn't violate any US laws. First Amendment assures that. Doesn't call for action, immediate or later, and doesn't constitute a clear and present danger.

Assume this is OK with you, then ?[/QUOTE]

You, and a number of people on this thread, have gone directly from "Is this OK with you" to "support some sanction". [/quote]
No, you completely misinterpreted. I was trying to get a straight answer. Which I never did. So I kept trying to find a question he would answer. That's all.

[Al_U_Card]

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

I think the comments with respect to Iran are inappropriate and should be removed.

I am sure that Mahmoud I'manIsraelienatorajad would concur, as do I.

[Al_U_Card]

fred, on Oct 18 2007, 08:35 AM, said:

Salt Lake Olympic Gold

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Now why did I think that it was a photo of Motley Crüe?

[mycroft]

No matter what I think of the pro-Hitler comment - and I disapprove of it heartily, if for no other reason that many of my best friends are gay - I don't think there would need to be an official sanction for the "best U.S. bridge player". He's just killed his bridge career.

There are enough Jews in bridge, and have been since day 1, that he's never getting another contract. If he does from someone who doesn't care, then anybody on that team will be equally cut out from the rest of bridge society - if for "how can you possibly play with <x>?"

Players will say "I won't play in any event he is entered in." Now, in the ACBL, to avoid disciplinary sanctions, they would have to play that day and then not come back - and people would. In one tournament I know, I would guess that 15-20% of the attendance would. And they would convince several of their friends not to come back. And that would continue to apply to tournaments in those places until that player is uninvited. Given the choice between dropping 20% table count permanently and gently suggesting that you are unwelcome here, I know what would happen.

Actions have consequences; the consequences of that statement, or a white-supremicist polemic, or maybe a couple of other ones, would be bridge fatal. This one may be; it may not. After all, the Dixie Chicks gained a lot of followers for their stand as well as lost a lot of their traditional fanbase.

As far as the original question goes, I don't think that there should be any official sanction for signs, unless you say no political signs (of course, where do you put "get well soon, <friend>" if <friend> happens to be a dissident or a politician? How about "you're the greatest, Mom", should Chelsea Clinton become a bridge player? Given how political the U.S. Judiciary is, I can imagine the restrictions Amalya Kearse - who is much more likely to get to WBF championship level than Ms. Clinton - would be under if "no political signs" existed.

Given that Bridge Professional is such a social profession, and relies so much on your clients being willing to be associated with you, even in non-bridge life, I believe that the sanctions inherent in the system will be sufficient for me.

Plus, of course, I've done enough stupid things in my life - and, I'm sure, will continue to do so - that "You weren't thinking. We understand. We accept that you now realize the enormity of your action. Don't do it again" is all the sanction I would want to see happen.

I suggest another political sign that might be explosive - "Free Burratti - Lanzarotti".

Michael, who, remember, is Canadian, and thinks the Closing Ceremonies Flag game is more amusing than a problem.

[luke warm]

Echognome, on Oct 17 2007, 05:30 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 17 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

i think you understood everything just fine, helene... i think the point is that the word 'appropriate' (if the answer is 'some') has to be defined by someone.. you agree? if you do, who defines it? if the ones displaying the signs, then it follows that those same people will think that *some* signs are inappropriate ... see? that means that the answer "some signs" has no meaning, or is the same as "all signs"

there is an internal inconsistency with that position, imo... and i still think those who said all signs (or even some signs, since the two are interchangeable) should be allowed are being dishonest (re: jon's iran diatribe)... there a signs they'd hate and want to disallow

See, you are arguing based on a contingency with which we do not hold agreement.

You are finding an inconsistency based on an "if" statement, where in particular, I'm referring to "if the ones displaying the signs..". This doesn't make any sense. You are building in the inconsistency by making this claim. Why would those that believe in some signs think that it would be a good idea that everyone determines their own level of appropriateness? That would lead to all signs. But that is not what anyone is arguing, so it's just a straw man.

You have to have an external group, committee, whatever determine what is appropriate. This is not impossible. I mentioned about that Codes of Conduct were already prevalent. This is common enough in employment. We have a booklet at work setting out one for us. Would it be a fair argument to say that if we believe their should be some restrictions on conduct that it means we think everyone should determine for themselves what's appropriate? Why no! The firm's lawyers and executives decide. Crazy!

matt, i asked a question (which helene answered above) as to whether or not she agreed that someone has to define 'appropriate' (for those who said 'some signs are acceptable')... then i gave an example if the answer was "yes, those who display the signs define the word for themselves"... you see, fred's position that it is logically untenable to say that a 'some' answer coupled with no authority to define 'appropriate' is correct... i was just trying to show why it is correct

and if i understand you, you agree with that...

Jimmy said:

i think the point is that the word 'appropriate' (if the answer is 'some') has to be defined by someone.. you agree?

helene_t, on Oct 18 2007, 02:22 AM, said:

No. Even if one opts for the simple solution "no sign" (not unreasonable IMHO) there will be a need to draw the line somewhere else. A dress code committee? Jewelry committee? Fortunately, that is not necessary. For the most part, the ethical systems of human societies rely on common sense rather than explicit rules. On social pressure rather than formal sanctions. This thread gives the impression that WBF is an exotic society with an obsession for explicit rules and formal sanctions. I find that hard to believe.

it really has nothing to do (in my mind) with what actually happened, i am arguing philosophically... so if you think noone has to define the meaning of 'appropriate' in this context, you must see that the 'some signs' answer and the 'all signs' answer are the same

[helene_t]

Jimmy, do you agree that some clothes are appropriate and others not? If so, do you think that that makes it logically impossible for you to argue against a dress code committee? In particular if (hypothetically) you did not favor a WBF policy on this but just trusted the civic community to solve the issue by means of social pressure?

When I say that something is inappropriate I may just be referring to my personal POV. I may not see a need for any institution to establish an official POV.

[ralph23]

mycroft, on Oct 18 2007, 02:20 PM, said:

No matter what I think of the pro-Hitler comment - and I disapprove of it heartily, if for no other reason that many of my best friends are gay -

OK, I'll bite.

What does being gay or having gay friends (either) have to do with not caring so much for Hitler? Because he bumped off Ernst Roehm of the SA in connection with the Night of the Long Knives?

And .... uh .... I'm sure you didn't mean that was your best reason for not being so fond of Hitler.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Oct 18 2007, 02:06 PM, said:

Jimmy, do you agree that some clothes are appropriate and others not? If so, do you think that that makes it logically impossible for you to argue against a dress code committee? In particular if (hypothetically) you did not favor a WBF policy on this but just trusted the civic community to solve the issue by means of social pressure?

i agree that some are appropriate and some not, depending on the setting... and i also think one can't make the (logically correct) argument that there is a difference between 'some clothes are appropriate' and 'all clothes are appropriate' without someone objectively defining 'appropriate'... i trust myself to dress appropriately in most settings... i would not necessarily trust my son to dress appropriately in those same settings... but *I* would be the one defining the word for him, and he for himself

social pressure might accomplish the goal in this case or that, but then all we've done is change the defining entity from oneself to a majority of selves - with the same non-existent authority to define 'appropriate' as the individual has

[helene_t]

Jimmy, I'm just talking about my personal subjective criteria for appropriateness. I do not believe in, let alone care for, objective criteria. If the question was "which signs satisfy objective appropriateness" my answer would not have been "all", "some" or "none". It would have been "the question is meaningless to me".

Anyway, whatever such a committee would be able to decide, that would be just as subjective.

[Echognome]

luke warm, on Oct 18 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

it really has nothing to do (in my mind) with what actually happened, i am arguing philosophically... so if you think noone has to define the meaning of 'appropriate' in this context, you must see that the 'some signs' answer and the 'all signs' answer are the same

I think I see the difference here.

What seems to be argued in order to be in the "some" camp, you have to go through the painstaking process of determining exactly what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. However, I don't believe that is to be the case. I brought up earlier how we have a Code of Conduct at work. If you read it, you would see that it contained a lot of questions you have to ask yourself about whether something would be appropriate. We also had to have training on sexual harassment. Do you think that is all black and white? Of course not.

So how does one judge after-the-fact whether something was inappropriate and worthy of some disciplinary action? Well, here there is reasonableness. We were taught that you don't have to cater to the hyper-sensitive person, but you do need to cater to the reasonable person. If a reasonable person could take offense, then you should probably not take such an action.

The added complication is the very international nature of bridge. What might be fine to reasonable people in one country, might not be to reasonable people of another country. Thus, the WBF might want to make a few guidelines with additional restrictions depending on the host nation.

As an example, I can imagine that if the BB were held in Hawaii, it would be perfectly reasonable for everyone to wear shorts on the podium. It might not be reasonable at all if held in some other places. How do you address the difference?

[mycroft]

ralph23, on Oct 18 2007, 01:18 PM, said:

OK, I'll bite.

What does being gay or having gay friends (either) have to do with not caring so much for Hitler? Because he bumped off Ernst Roehm of the SA in connection with the Night of the Long Knives?

Well, I'm contrarian by nature. And while the Jews were the largest and most aggressively targeted group of the Holocaust, they weren't the only ones by any means - and I know no Roma or Jehovah's Witnesses.

And it wasn't just Roehm, it was the many many who were arrested, and somewhere between 4 and 10 thousand who died in the Holocaust.

See The Pink Triangle on Wikipedia for more of an explanation. Side note - I didn't realize until just now that that particular legacy of the Nazis wasn't repealed until the 1960s.

Quote

And .... uh .... I'm sure you didn't mean that was your best reason for not being so fond of Hitler. 

If I had meant that, I would have said it (and yes, I know that was a joke). As I said I'm a bit of a contrarian, and will happily pick a reason that makes my point that also comes out of left field.

Michael.

[Walddk]

Echognome, on Oct 18 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

So how does one judge after-the-fact whether something was inappropriate and worthy of some disciplinary action?  Well, here there is reasonableness.  We were taught that you don't have to cater to the hyper-sensitive person, but you do need to cater to the reasonable person.  If a reasonable person could take offense, then you should probably not take such an action.

Then we surely need another committee or three. The WBF Reasonableness Committee, with two sub-committees to define what a reasonable, unreasonable and hyper-sensitive person is.

This is a never ending story, my friend. Get rid of all signs and you avoid all this nonsense.

Roland

[blackshoe]

"Signs"

[Echognome]

Walddk, on Oct 18 2007, 12:11 PM, said:

Echognome, on Oct 18 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

So how does one judge after-the-fact whether something was inappropriate and worthy of some disciplinary action?  Well, here there is reasonableness.  We were taught that you don't have to cater to the hyper-sensitive person, but you do need to cater to the reasonable person.  If a reasonable person could take offense, then you should probably not take such an action.

Then we surely need another committee or three. The WBF Reasonableness Committee, with two sub-committees to define what a reasonable, unreasonable and hyper-sensitive person is.

This is a never ending story, my friend. Get rid of all signs and you avoid all this nonsense.

Roland

You are side-stepping the issue.

What are you going to do about acceptance speeches? Player's attire? How about their hygiene?

You can't make it just about signs as signs are only one aspect and our solutions are meant to be broader.

You think it needs a committee. Myself (and others) do not necessarily agree. I'm sorry, but this is a quite normal state of affairs for businesses. Some have to have groups dedicated to things like sexual harassment and codes of conducts. Smaller businesses might not. But it makes no sense to just make a blanket statement like "no signs" as it ignores the broader issues. What if the ladies had shouted out in unison during the ceremony "We didn't vote for Bush"? Are you going to treat that differently?

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Oct 18 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

Echognome, on Oct 18 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

So how does one judge after-the-fact whether something was inappropriate and worthy of some disciplinary action?  Well, here there is reasonableness.  We were taught that you don't have to cater to the hyper-sensitive person, but you do need to cater to the reasonable person.  If a reasonable person could take offense, then you should probably not take such an action.

Then we surely need another committee or three. The WBF Reasonableness Committee, with two sub-committees to define what a reasonable, unreasonable and hyper-sensitive person is.

This is a never ending story, my friend. Get rid of all signs and you avoid all this nonsense.

There is another way not to have an endless number of committees: just don't bother to form a committee unless there a serious, blatant violation of sportmanship at the event.

I suppose you are arguing that adopting my point of view, there would be an endless need for committees. Well, your point of view makes it necessary to have committee meetings right now, mine doesn't. Well, for now I am leading 1-0 in terms of number of committees (probably 2-0 in fact, as you want both a WBF and a USBF committee to consider sanctions), and I still claim that if the WBF just wouldn't bother to do anything about this "incident", there wouldn't be a need for a sign committee at any point in the next ten years. Wanna bet?

(And you keep ignoring the fact that signs or not, there may always be cases where the WBF has to draw a line about which kind of inappropriate behavior at a victory ceremony warrants punishment.)

[ralph23]

Echognome, on Oct 18 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

What are you going to do about ..... Player's attire?

We're not going to get back into Michael Moore's appearing nude again at the Oscars, are we ??

[ralph23]

Walddk, on Oct 18 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

Then we surely need another committee or three. The WBF Reasonableness Committee, with two sub-committees to define what a reasonable, unreasonable and hyper-sensitive person is.

Wait, isn't that three sub-committees? (1) Reasonable; (2) Unreasonable; (3) Hyper-sensitive?

The "reasonable man" is a common legal concept in the US and we have a simple method for figuring out what such a hypothetical person would do (or would have done) in any given set of circumstances: We get 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty, and ask them.

[Echognome]

Maybe I can put this another way for the "No" camp. Suppose that this whole discussion were not about signs. Just about "inappropriate" behavior. It seems that the proposed solution to deal with inappropriate signs is to say "no signs". But behavior is wider and there will always exist the possibility that someone will cross the line. I gave the example of the ladies shouting "We didn't vote for Bush." Then you might say "no shouting." What if they had a temporary tattoo that said "Bush" with a Ghostbusters-like slash through it? "No tattoos." This seems a very odd way to go about solving the problem. Why not just set out some guidelines that players are expected to behave themselves in accordance with? The guidelines can be determined by the WBF, their Zonal Organization, and the host country.