[Aberlour10]

I voted for "some signs are appropriate"

Why? My opinion is not a view of a lawyer, it isn't usable for
any WBF rules, it's more a personal feeling... in the same situation if a few persons would unfold a huge black banner with hate on their faces, to provoke a political scandal, I would say "zero tolerance for such behavior"

All I saw was a nice lady, with the smile in her face, holding a small piece
of paper with her personal standing. I did not feel she wantend to provoke something or somebody... or to change this ceremony to a political demonstration.

Robert

[pokerbids]

"Pretty silly" someone said about examples and cases being cited and yes come on fellas some of them are. I mean guys whats happened to COMMON SENSE. Have we lost the ability to distinguish and perhaps just use our common sense. From examples of necklaces to signs of the cross......jeeeez. Come on if we want to think of ridiculous examples there is no end. You know none of you would have ever taken the podium and started doing a jig with a sign there and are now just clouding the issue and making me laugh! There is one end and one jury on what is right and wrong in cases like this I tell you and here is the acid test - Ask MY MOM. She will never get it wrong. Just uses what her mom taught her she says and she is bang on everytime. When I first told her about the war of words over this incident she just shook her head sadly. She wasnt too sad about the sign she says cause folks can get it wrong but the fact that anyone needs to debate a clearcut issue like that. You need lessons from my generation said she!!!! Tell em its a sign from my generation to yours she says and the initail signs aint so good she says!

[P_Marlowe]

ulven, on Oct 17 2007, 04:05 AM, said:

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

..., just one question, is it ok for you, that a different
person has a different definition?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

pokerbids, on Oct 17 2007, 06:34 AM, said:

<snip>
Ask MY MOM.
<snip>

No, ... in cases of doubt, ask MY MOM,
I wont accept any other opinion.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pokerbids]

Correct it to Ask A Mom. Please dont say the folks we are talking us are also moms cause I mean ask a mom of a prior generation!!!!!!

[ralph23]

helene_t, on Oct 17 2007, 04:01 AM, said:

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.

Hmmm. well, maybe they do hate the flag and the anthem and their country (or some combination thereof), and they're just altruists using this as a noble opportunity to express themselves and their righteous indignation.

And their mockery of the anthem was in service to a high moral cause. Yes, yes, I can see it now....

In that case, I think a public statement from them to that effect is in order, so that people understand their motives. Let's hear it from them!!

[ralph23]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 17 2007, 04:37 AM, said:

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.

Then they should clarify their position.

"Yes, we meant to mock and ridicule the national anthem. We hate America and everything it stands for. It is Nazi Germany reincarnated and we are making a moral protest."

Let's hear it from them!! If that's what they believe, at least they should have the courage to make it explicit so others can judge their actions as a high moral protest and not as adolescent foolishness.

[helene_t]

Get real, Ralph. They were just nervous and/or in good mood. Laughing is not necesarily a statement, let alone a negative one.

[ralph23]

helene_t, on Oct 17 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

Get real, Ralph. They were just nervous and/or in good mood. Laughing is not necesarily a statement, let alone a negative one.

Oh, ok, now they're NOT making a political statement of high moral cause, but are just giggling. Hmmmm.... they sure change around a lot....

Let's get our story straight shall we?

But since you think that flags and national anthems are silly nationalistic crap anyway, it may not be pertinent to continue this.

well -- Maybe they think that also!! They sure acted like it !! If so, let them say so. It'll end a lot of controversy at least.

[helene_t]

I was refering the hypothetical case that someone disaproves with his/her national symbols. Obviously this has nothing to do with the US Venice Cup team.

Your suggestions may just be meant as a funny thought experiment, but it reminds on certain elements' nasty retorics equating hatred against a country's current government with hatred against the country as a whole.

[TimG]

BillHiggin, on Oct 17 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

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!

The message of the jewelry or ribbons may be more clear than the sign. If you read through the threads, it doesn't seem that people can come to agreement about what this particular sign meant.

[BillHiggin]

TimG, on Oct 17 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

BillHiggin, on Oct 17 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

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!

The message of the jewelry or ribbons may be more clear than the sign. If you read through the threads, it doesn't seem that people can come to agreement about what this particular sign meant.

What the sign meant is totally irrelevant. It is the sign itself that violated decorum.

[fred]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 17 2007, 08:37 AM, said:

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.

I was hoping that someone in the "some" camp would try to define "some" in terms of "whatever the sign bearer thinks is appropriate".

That is the same as saying "all".

In case you didn't figure it out, the purpose of this poll was to make the absurdity (IMO) of the "some" position crystal clear, something that 16 (at last count) pages of debate in the other thread did not manage to accomplish.

I can actually respect the "all" position from a logical/moral point of view. Of course from a practical point of view "all" is also completely absurd.

Not that the poll seems to have accomplished this either...

By the way, I did not think it was necessary for me to be more explicit when I made up the questions for the poll. When I said "signs" I meant political signs big enough so that the audience would notice. When I said "apprropriate" I did not think it was necessary to qualify this with "on the podium at the award ceremony at a bridge World Championships". When I said "are", well you can ask Bill Clinton about what I meant by that

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[P_Marlowe]

Hi Ralph,

just to make it clear, I did not make a comment
if the specific action, which triggered this thread,
was approbriate or not.
I just answered the general question "Which signs
are appropriate?", and i was trying to leave out
emotions.
-------------------------------------------------------
Lots of Germans are wary to express strong patriotic
feelings in public, which hopefully is understandable
given our history, but sometimes we envy other nations,
if it comes to that.
But this may explain, why my statements may be a bit
too rational, ... and we dont talk about German National
Symbols, although most likely this would not change much
for me.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[fred]

hotShot, on Oct 17 2007, 08:49 AM, said:

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.)

Actually your list is too big because the only item that matters is the last one.

I was hoping that someone in the "some" camp would try this because once you say "signs that insult someone are not appropriate" you are saying "no signs are appropriate".

There are people who would be insulted by any sign regardless of its contents.

The point I am trying to make is this:

For any definition of "some" one of the following will be true:

1) It will be the same as saying "none"
2) It will be the same as saying "all"
3) It will necessitate the creation of a sign approval committee

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

For any definition of "some" one of the following will be true:

1) It will be the same as saying "none"
2) It will be the same as saying "all"
3) It will necessitate the creation of a sign approval committee

Sounds as if your answer to Han's question is that "appropriate" means "in accordance with the rules stipulated by the WBF sign regulation committee". Presumably such formal rules would be made in order to make it easy for the WBF to decide on sanctions.

In the other thread you said that it should not be necessary to spell out that players should not intentionally vomit at the table. I think it's possible to hold the POV that by the same token, there are certain (political or otherwise) displays that are acceptable and others that are not, and that players can be trusted to know what is acceptable. (FWIW I suppose that no "signs" of this sort are appropriate, but since I never attended a Venice Cup award ceremoni I cannot have a decided opinion about this, and besides I thought this thread was about displays more generally, not just envelop-size paper signs with 6-word quasi-political messages).

I also think it's possible for me to hold the POV that while certain behavior is "inappropriate" in the sense that I personally think they should not behave that way, I see no need for a formal procedure for penalizing such behavior, for example because the grief coming from having ignited a 13-page water cooler thread is punishment enough.

Without knowing much about US politics, I tend to think that the current political situation in the US is so accute that I have some sympathy for an anti-Bush display even under circumstances where I would not normally find political displays appropriate. Now I wasn't present in Shanghai so I can't say how much bad impact the display had on the ceremoni and what alternatives the team had in terms of bringing attention to their cause without infuencing the ceremoni, and also I have no clue if they were making a political statement or just a silly joke, so obviously I cannot have a decided opinion about this particular incident.

[P_Marlowe]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 09:15 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 17 2007, 08:37 AM, said:

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.

I was hoping that someone in the "some" camp would try to define "some" in terms of "whatever the sign bearer thinks is appropriate".

Ok, lets try, ... but the answer may well be, that it depends.
It depends on the goal you want to achieve, on the point you
want to address.
This defines where you do it and what you do.

Michael Moore made a statement about the current situation
in the US as he was presented with the Oscar, it was
broadcasted world wide, and more important USnation wide.
He wanted to make a point, this meant, that he needed
a broad audience, in the US and world wide, and this audience
did exists, and the message reached the audience.

During the Olympics 1968, black sportsmen showed their
support for the Black Power movement, it was broadcasted
world wide, and more important, US nation wide.
They wanted to make a point, this meant, that they needed
a broad audience, in the US and world wide, and this audience
did exists, and the message reached the audience.

Further examples could be listed, I may not know addional
ones, but other certainly do.

In comparison the ceremony in Shanghai lacked this broad
audience with regards to the world / the US, so it was pointless.
It would have been ok, if the statment dealt with something
the WBF / USBF / ... was responsible for, something the guy
sitting in front of them coudl or should adress, because in this
case the relevant audience was there.

So for me "approbriate" translates to "does the message reach
the intended audience".

The above did answer, where.

And now to which signs.

The Black Power gesture was approbriate, most of the guys
for which the gesture was intended, did know it.

It may well be that during the "Gay Pride March" in New York
some gay right activist parade nude in New York, to show the
world that gay peoble look the same as non gay, but I am
not 100% sure that there exist nude mens at the parade.
In my view this would be approbriate.

But Michael Moore nude at the Oscar ceremony would certainly be
inapprobriate. He did use words, which was approbriate, because
words are a universal method to express ones opinion, we
exclude using some specific words.

So for me "which sign" gets answered by the statement, that the sign
needs also to have some relation to the issue you adress.
In this regards, I have no problem with a large Poster, written words
are a universal way of expressing ones own opinion.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: It may well be that I belong to the "All" camp, but above I
mentioned, that not all words are allowed, and the same is true
for other signs, but which signs are inapprobriate depends on
"why" and "where".

[hrothgar]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 05:15 PM, said:

I can actually respect the "all" position from a logical/moral point of view. Of course from a practical point of view "all" is also completely absurd.

Hi Fred:

I'm a strong proponent of the "all" position. I disagree regarding the practicality of this approach.

I think that it is a mistake to equate "all" with anarchy. Ultimately, I believe that social norms and societal pressures make for a much more powerful regulatory force than an explicit code of conduct.

Case in point: I travel overseas a lot. When I do so, I make a concerted effort to follow social customs. I avoid touch anything "clean" with my left hand when I'm in the Middle East. I try hard not to point the soles of my feet at people in Thailand. I take off my shoes before entering a mosque. Etc. I certainly don't believe that there is a logical basis to any of these beliefs, but if it makes folks happy and avoids trouble, I'm happy to oblige.

In much the same way, I doubt that the members of the USA1 team were looking to cause problems. I suspect that the best way to deal with this entire "incident" would be to simple mention something in passing: For example simple say "We'd appreciate it if folks avoided political statements while on the podium".

I'm sorry if folks got offended that the USA1 team wasn't serious enough while they were on the podium. God forbid that anyone would have the nerve to yawn, giggle, or fidget during the national anthem. However, at the end of the day, none of this matters one bit.

None of this seems important enough to warrant any kind of formal sanction. Moreover, I'd argue that the act of attempting any kind of sanction or implementing a formal code of conduct is very likely to produce unintended consequences.

[P_Marlowe]

hotShot, on Oct 17 2007, 03:49 AM, said:

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.

But some signs which "support illegal activities" may well
be approbriate, because the mayor question is, what was
declared illegal.
For that matter the same is true for some signs which may
"support violence", because the mayor question now is, against
whom and why.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

hotShot, on Oct 17 2007, 08:49 AM, said:

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.)

Actually your list is too big because the only item that matters is the last one.

I was hoping that someone in the "some" camp would try this because once you say "signs that insult someone are not appropriate" you are saying "no signs are appropriate".

There are people who would be insulted by any sign regardless of its contents.

The point I am trying to make is this:

For any definition of "some" one of the following will be true:

1) It will be the same as saying "none"
2) It will be the same as saying "all"
3) It will necessitate the creation of a sign approval committee

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I'm sorry I was not clear enough, should have consulted a dictionary.

I meant:

deliberate insult,
verbal slander or
assault

There are people who will be insulted even without a sign, just because don't like e.g. the color of your tie.