[jocdelevat]

What happens with the ones that has visible tatoos if no sign is appropriate

[Winstonm]

And no religious medallions of any kind, as someone somewhere may find this offensive. And women cannot wear makeup, unless there is Muslim team, in which case women must be veiled.

In fact, just to make certain no one anywhere on the planet is offended, all medal winners must appear on stage covered by a body-sized brown paper sack - unless, of course, this offends the tree-hugging environmentalists, the plastic sack lobby, or is in Bora Bora considered a religious rite.

On second thought, let's just forget it and call off the whole damned thing - it's simply too fraught with slights, and who knows, Bush may find a reason to start another war if a Muslim team psyches with bids of mass destruction.

Put me in the 4th camp: everything yet nothing is appropriate.

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on Oct 16 2007, 08:13 PM, said:

Oh, and another thing. When you are on the podium, DRESS ACCORDINGLY. Wear a tie and keep your damn jacket buttoned.

Can I leave my fly open though?

[jikl]

Another sign which people would have real problems ever objecting to...

Get well soon abc

abc being the 6th team member not on the podium having suffered a heart attack during the final and currently in hospital.

Let's see objections to that one

Sean

[jonottawa]

I voted most signs are appropriate. Anything I wouldn't get arrested for sticking on a sign I'd carry down to the Capitol or sticking on a T-shirt is fine.

The poll itself is biased however, since it assumes that 'appropriateness' is the relevant value at issue. It's not. But as far as appropriateness goes, it's always appropriate for a citizen who wishes to criticize his own government to do so, but particularly at this moment in history.

What is certainly NOT appropriate is to sit idly by while the greatest country in the history of the world gets infected by a bunch of neo-conservatives with a decidedly theocratic, fascist agenda who want nothing more than to see America become a banana republic, who have already successfully implemented several policies to facilitate that conversion and who have a realistic shot of achieving their goal if not enough people speak out against them.

When my grandchildren ask me what I did when America lost its way, I won't have to answer 'I did nothing, because I didn't want to offend anyone.'

Undoubtedly the concern trolls outnumber the patriots on this issue and the USBF will feel differently than I do. I just hope they come up with a common-sense punishment, such as barring offenders from future VICTORY BANQUETS.

[jonottawa]

If no political statements are to be allowed, let's get rid of the flags and the silly pompous religiously motivated hymns/anthems as well.

I nominate 'The Winner Takes it All' by ABBA as the theme song for the victors, regardless of nationality.

[TimG]

Don't you just wish they'd had a flag burning ceremony in the parking lot?

[jocdelevat]

maybe better an empty cofin at the winning ceremony so everyone can cry and be sober .


I really do not understand this debate. We see at Oscar ceremony same kind of things. I remember when was the Katrina event a singer at the ceremony of amy awards complain about goverment doing nothing to help the people overthere.

[nickf]

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

<snip>
What is certainly NOT appropriate is to sit idly by while the greatest country in the history of the world gets infected by a bunch of
<end snip>

Did I miss something? When was Australia mentioned in any of the posts over the past few days?

EDIT: Oh I get it now, Jon must be from Ottawa, Illinois. Silly me.

nickf
sydney

[BillHiggin]

Those who lump jewlrey sized religious emblems or small symbolic ribbons in with signs that can be read at a significant distance (further than personal conversation spacing) are simply trying to cloud the issue. You either have good sense or you don't.

NO SIGNS!

[helene_t]

Agree with Han. Some signs I would personally find tasteless but I don't think any official should take position against it. Some signs should not violate the rules for the ceremony (as stipulated by the host country and/or WBF) but could still be a valid reason for the Team Oranje management (or USBF in the American case) to have some strong words with the players. Think of the popular Dutch sticker with a canabis symbol. Hardly an issue for WBF but obviously not a message the Dutch Bridge Federation wants to be associated with. "We did not vote for Bush" may belong to the same category.

Everyting could be a sign with political undertones. Whether female players from Moslem countries wear a scarf or not. The length of the beard of the male players.
To me it's utter ridicolous that this is an issue at all. Participants are grown-ups, I think they can be trusted to behave well. On occasion some will err, so what? But obviously it's dead serious to some. {sarcasm on}So maybe the ceremoni should be split up in two parts:
- A completely neutral, official ceremony, in which participants are obliged to carry unisex WBF uniforms. No music (maybe some neutral music approved by all WBF members would be ok). Nobody allowed to say anything (some Quebecians might take offense of Canadian players speaking English), but the players are instructed to display some standard gesture in response to receiving the medals.
- An offical victory party subject to conditions stated by the team. The organization that send them can impose whatever restrictions they fancy if stated before the team selection procedure started, and if physically taking place in the host country of course it has to conform to local laws, but the WBF and the host bridge federation can impose no restrictions whatsoever.{sarcasm off}

ralph23 said:

if they in fact hate America, and our flag and anthem, that's not OK with me.

Funny, I would say the opposite. If someone stands on the podium while the flag is shown and the anthem is played, and s/he disaproves the symbolism of the flag/anthem, I think it's his/her right to make that clear, since failure to do so might be taken as approval of said symbolism. OTOH a remark about Bush is uncalled for, assuming that no sane person sees the ceremoni and the American victory as having anything to do with the chimp.

The again, my position on this issue is obviously a concequence of my position that playing the anthems and displaying flags is outrageous in the first place.

I voted "no signs", somewhat arbitrarily. Maybe I would personally be OK with the olive leaves of the Cyprus flag and the Irish tricolore but not with the eagle of the Albanian flag and the Saudi sables, but that's just my taste.

[P_Marlowe]

jtfanclub, on Oct 16 2007, 09:01 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 16 2007, 08:13 PM, said:

No sign is appropriate.

I might make an occasional exception for "Hi Mom" from the schools division.

Oh, and another thing. When you are on the podium, DRESS ACCORDINGLY. Wear a tie and keep your damn jacket buttoned.

Suppose the non-playing captain, or even one of the players, dies during the tournamnet....

Now can you have an "In Memoriam" sign?

I agree that no there shouldn't be any political signs, but I don't think the line is at 'no signs'.

Agree.

Another possibility would be a "Natural Catastroph",
e.g. "Hurricane Katrina" or something similar.
Would anyone really object, if the player had a small
black cord around their wrist to honor the death?

And other examples exist as well.

The point is, that everybody needs to decide, where
to draw the line for themself.

And he has to accept the consequences, if the majority
finds the behaviour in question inapprobriate.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

ralph23, on Oct 16 2007, 08:08 PM, said:

"Some" would be appropriate IMO if done without laughing through and making a mockery of the national anthem.
<snip>
The point is how disrespectfully they behaved during the national anthem. They could have held a sign and done it respectfully, and sung the anthem in the manner it deserves, without creating distractions or boisterousness. Instead, they acted like a bunch of adolescents.
<snip>

I disagree.

Even mocking the national anthem could be approbriate.
It is a drastic gesture, and you should be wary to do it,
but it may be the only way to make a given point.

The question is, what do you want to achieve, and if you are
willing to accept the consequence.
If you mock the national anthem you will offend lots of peoble,
and you will have to pay a price.
And it does not matter if the WBF sanctions certain actions
or not, WBF rules just increase the price you may have to pay.

You have your own free will.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I did not vote "All signs are appropriate", because I have
a line I wont cross, and everybody should have such a line, but
you cant define the line.

[sceptic]

I voted for some, though it is possibly inappropriate it would be harmless if the lady in question had held up a sign saying "Happy birthday Dad" " Get well soon son" or something of that nature, I would smile

The thing I found lacking in the behaviour, was a deliberate slight on the country she is representing (I happen to believe they were all in on this and it probably was done with humour intended rather than with malicious intent) though, that possibility is not entirely missing from my thought process.

I think if you represent you country you should act as an ambassador for it, keeping your opinions to your self or in a group of peers you can discuss such things with.

I think some one summed it up, acting with no class at all.... if I was lucky enough to be chosen to represent my country, I am sure I could keep my opinions to myself and try and act in a manner worthy of the selectors trust in me, they let people down and that is the important thing in my mind to take into consideration

[hotShot]

I would have liked to pick all signs, but I would exclude signs that:

• support illegal activities
  
• support violence
  
• are insulting someone

(The list may not be complete.)

Other than these normal limits of free speech, I have no problem with signs.

If you voted for no signs, then I guess you are aware that wearing a necklace with a cross (clearly a religious sign) would not be allowed as well.

[Echognome]

Hannie, on Oct 16 2007, 06:48 PM, said:

From now on when asking whether something is appropriate, ask yourself: What Would China Do?

How about "what's appropriate in the host nation?"

And to Arend's point, if it were being held in an Islamic nation, do you not think a different dress code might be appropriate?

So I don't get either of your points!

As per signs, I consider it to be pretty gray. Imagine on the one extreme that you had a picture of a teammate that passed away recently but you felt was there in spirit throughout the competition. Seems that would be appropriate in any competition.

On the other extreme, it's easy to imagine some very offensive signs with vulgar languages or religiously, ethnically, politically sensitive images or phrases.

So I would say some should be allowed.

Who should determine what is appropriate should probably be a combination of rules laid down by the WBF in combination with some possible additional restrictions laid down by the host nation (who might know better what might be offensive locally).

[ulven]

No signs.

If I won a world championship and had the intention of having the prizegiving photo enlarged in my home to remind me of this joyful ocasion, I'd be 'over-the-top' pissed if one of my teammates held up a sign saying 'hi mom' or whatever innocent message you'd like to substitute.

Political or non-political, I don't care. Let's keep the litter out of our bridge ceremonies.

Edit: Ok, a photo of a deceased teammate, but then it's not a 'sign' by my definition.

[ulven]

jonottawa, on Oct 16 2007, 10:49 PM, said:

What is certainly NOT appropriate is to sit idly by while the greatest country in the history of the world gets infected by a bunch of neo-conservatives with a decidedly theocratic, fascist agenda who want nothing more than to see America become a banana republic, who have already successfully implemented several policies to facilitate that conversion and who have a realistic shot of achieving their goal if not enough people speak out against them. 

When my grandchildren ask me what I did when America lost its way, I won't have to answer 'I did nothing, because I didn't want to offend anyone.'

Pick your playground - a bridge ceremoni in a foreign country isn't the forum that will achieve anything in that direction for you.

Maybe you should devote your time to politics, journalism, opinion blogging or whatever you wish to do with your time instead of wasting it on playing bridge if this is how you feel.

That would serve you, and the people who made the choice to spend time playing bridge because they don't want to get involved in 'other stuff' for at least as long as the tournament lasts, better.

When participating in a bridge tournament, which is non-political in nature, you implicitly agree to keep manifestations out of that environment IMO.

Respect those boundaries.

[hrothgar]

I don't think that the WBF or the USBF should have render any official opinion regarding signs.

1. I think that the whole "issue" is a distraction. Its a waste of time and money getting involved.

2. To me at least, local laws are a non-issue. If you break a law, thats a matter for the civil authorities to sort out. I don't want the geniuses running the WBF to get involved in enforcing local statutes.

3. Ultimately, I think that social pressure is likely to be more effective at controlling this type of behavior.

Furthermore, I think that some of the examples that are being thrown around are pretty silly. I don't think that anyone would stand up holding a sign that says "Nuke Israel" because I don't believe that there are all that many people in the world seriously interested in nuking Israel. On the other hand, if a team did feel sufficiently strongly about the subject that they were willing to stand openly during an award ceremony holding such a sign, I for one would consider this interesting data point... (More over, I doubt that the fear of official sanction from the WBF would be likely to deter the behavior of said individuals in any way. If anything, the thought to lots of drama and free publicity is probably a big draw)