[Walddk]

jonottawa, on Nov 18 2007, 06:21 AM, said:

Any English majors here?  Is 'ceases' right or is 'cease' right.

Cease sounds better, but ceases seems like it's right. 

"We, the undersigned, are writing this petition to respectably request that the USBF ceases its attempts to punish members of the USA1 Venice Cup team."

I am no English major but I have a university degree in English. It depends on how the speaker is thinking of the USBF; as a single entity (singular) or as a group of members (plural).

Singular is probably more usual than plural, but this may be one of those British- English vs American-English dichotomies. So as I see it, you can use both as far as the USBF is/are concerned. The same applies to for instance companies and countries.

USA lead/leads, Microsoft has/have. Take your pick.

Roland

[jonottawa]

Walddk, on Nov 18 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 18 2007, 06:21 AM, said:

Any English majors here?  Is 'ceases' right or is 'cease' right.

Cease sounds better, but ceases seems like it's right. 

"We, the undersigned, are writing this petition to respectably request that the USBF ceases its attempts to punish members of the USA1 Venice Cup team."

I am no English major but I have a university degree in English. It depends on how the speaker is thinking of the USBF; as a single entity (singular) or as a group of members (plural).

Singular is probably more usual than plural, but this may be one of those British- English vs American-English dichotomies. So as I see it, you can use both as far as the USBF is/are concerned. The same applies to for instance companies and countries.

USA lead/leads, Microsoft has/have. Take your pick.

Roland

Thanks.

[jonottawa]

Jlall, on Nov 18 2007, 06:57 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 17 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

I don't know where Justin is on this, maybe he could revive his blog for a day for this.

I have been silent since about the first few pages of the other thread because I am friends with some of the women on the team, and I don't think what they did was appropriate at that time (as I indicated at the time). My view is that they should get the equivalent to a slap on the wrist (or no sanction at all) since the punishment should fit the crime, and this thing has really been blown way out of proportion. I never thought that there should be serious blood drawn such as being banned from international competition.

All that being said, I would not be willing to sign a petition at this time. So far, as far as I know, nothing has happened. No punishment has been handed out. I have faith that the punishment will end up fitting the crime, and I think any kind of petition is at the very least premature. I also believe that we do not know all the facts and that the people who will hand out punishment, if any, know more about the facts than us. I have no reason to think that their informed judgement will be worse than my uninformed judgement. I know that people are reading these threads and have a good idea of where everyone on this forum stands. I don't think anything else is necessary at this time.

Not that I think you care but I really disagree with the way you handle yourself on these forums and I think that you should remember that people here are human beings, and that you are not being assertive, you are being aggressive and just plain rude. I would not mention this except that I know you (in the sense that I have met you, not that I "know" you), and although a bit on the rude side sometimes I think you are actually a good guy and misrepresenting yourself by the way you act on these forums, a bit like jdonn used to. Of course I don't know you very well, and maybe you aren't, and likely you don't care about what I'm saying. But I digress.

I hate this 'let's psychoanalyse Jon' fetish that seems to periodically seize all-too-many people around here, but okay, I'll bite this time.

Let's theoretically remove the vocal anti-board behavior people like me from the equation.

Do you truly believe that with half the voices saying 'suspension for a year (or four) sounds right' and the other half of the voices saying 'I trust the board/panel to do the right thing' that the Board would now be backtracking as they are and poised to potentially do the right thing?

I don't.

I certainly don't pretend that I personally played a significant role in the outcome of this. But without loud and vocal support for the ladies and against the tactics/publicly discussed/leaked proposed punishment of the Board/Panel, this would certainly have ended badly.

It still might. But I'm proud of the role I've attempted to play in heading off a disaster.

I'm passionate about fighting/preventing injustice. If that comes off as rude, well, unlucky.

[jonottawa]

Since the petition we ended up with isn't anti-USBF behavior at all, I think a new thread is in order, lest people be misled by the thread title.

From the other thread:

The petition is up at:

http://www.ipetition...FVeniceCupTeam/

The petition is based on a letter written by Richard E. Willey, edited by Josh Donn. I don't think it would be fair to call it an anti-USBF petition. It's mainly just a 'let's put this behind us' petition. The text is as follows:

We, the undersigned, are writing this petition to respectably request that the USBF ceases its attempts to punish members of the USA1 Venice Cup team. We believe that the controversy surrounding the sanctions has eclipsed the original incident. A politically charged battle that has rapidly spread into the mainstream media doesn't benefit anyone.

We recognize that there is enormous controversy regarding the action of the USA1 team on the podium in Shanghai. However, the USBF Board had a number of alternative responses available which were more suited to the magnitude of the situation:

1. Noting that the behavior of the USA1 Team violated the WBF Code of Conduct.

2. Expressing regret toward the behavior of the USA1 Team and recognizing that the WBF might chose to impose sanctions.

3. Implementing its own Code of Conduct designed to avoid repeat incidents.

The USBF BoD has the authority to take almost any action that it wants. However, the punishment should fit the crime, and we do not support the extremeness of the actions being considered toward the Venice Cup Team.

Respectfully,

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Nov 18 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 17 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

I don't know where Justin is on this, maybe he could revive his blog for a day for this.

I have been silent since about the first few pages of the other thread because I am friends with some of the women on the team, and I don't think what they did was appropriate at that time (as I indicated at the time). My view is that they should get the equivalent to a slap on the wrist (or no sanction at all) since the punishment should fit the crime, and this thing has really been blown way out of proportion. I never thought that there should be serious blood drawn such as being banned from international competition.

All that being said, I would not be willing to sign a petition at this time. So far, as far as I know, nothing has happened. No punishment has been handed out. I have faith that the punishment will end up fitting the crime, and I think any kind of petition is at the very least premature. I also believe that we do not know all the facts and that the people who will hand out punishment, if any, know more about the facts than us. I have no reason to think that their informed judgement will be worse than my uninformed judgement. I know that people are reading these threads and have a good idea of where everyone on this forum stands. I don't think anything else is necessary at this time.

Not that I think you care but I really disagree with the way you handle yourself on these forums and I think that you should remember that people here are human beings, and that you are not being assertive, you are being aggressive and just plain rude. I would not mention this except that I know you (in the sense that I have met you, not that I "know" you), and although a bit on the rude side sometimes I think you are actually a good guy and misrepresenting yourself by the way you act on these forums, a bit like jdonn used to. Of course I don't know you very well, and maybe you aren't, and likely you don't care about what I'm saying. But I digress.

Well said.

[inquiry]

Please keep post on the issue of petition to the two threads ... one in support of the women, one in support of the USBF.... we don;t need multiple new ones on the same subject. I merged the threads now. Stronger action if new similar threads pop up.

Thank you for your understanding.

[bid_em_up]

Jon,

Even though its probably too late to edit the petition, I think a better choice of wording for the first paragraph would have been:

Quote

We, the undersigned, are writing this petition to respectably request that the USBF ceases its attempts to harshly punish members of the USA1 Venice Cup team. We believe that the controversy surrounding the sanctions has eclipsed the original incident. A politically charged battle that has rapidly spread into the mainstream media doesn't benefit anyone.

I signed the petition reluctantly, and notated my objection. I do think some type of sanction needs to be applied, just not to the extremes that are currently being proposed. Change the word harshly to severely or whatever wording you would choose to indicate that the sanctions being "sought" or discussed are simply too extreme.

You somewhat indicated that in the last paragraph:

Quote

The USBF BoD has the authority to take almost any action that it wants. However, the punishment should fit the crime, and we do not support the extremeness of the actions being considered toward the Venice Cup Team.

So I finally chose to sign it. If it was not for that paragraph, I probably would not have.

[jonottawa]

bid_em_up, on Nov 19 2007, 04:57 PM, said:

Jon,

Even though its probably too late to edit the petition, I think a better choice of wording for the first paragraph would have been:

Quote

We, the undersigned, are writing this petition to respectably request that the USBF ceases its attempts to harshly punish members of the USA1 Venice Cup team. We believe that the controversy surrounding the sanctions has eclipsed the original incident. A politically charged battle that has rapidly spread into the mainstream media doesn't benefit anyone.

I signed the petition reluctantly, and notated my objection. I do think some type of sanction needs to be applied, just not to the extremes that are currently being proposed. Change the word harshly to severely or whatever wording you would choose to indicate that the sanctions being "sought" or discussed are simply too extreme.

You somewhat indicated that in the last paragraph:

Quote

The USBF BoD has the authority to take almost any action that it wants. However, the punishment should fit the crime, and we do not support the extremeness of the actions being considered toward the Venice Cup Team.

So I finally chose to sign it. If it was not for that paragraph, I probably would not have.

Thanks Bid.

We're up to 50 signatures and counting. A lot of interesting comments (including yours, I'm guessing. Go Tarheels!)

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Nov 19 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

Jon,

Even though its probably too late to edit the petition, I think a better choice of wording for the first paragraph would have been:

A better choice would have been using 'respectfully' instead of 'respectably', as someone pointed out to me yesterday. Oops! Jon is it possible to change it, maybe just sending out an email to all who signed to let them know?

[jonottawa]

jdonn, on Nov 19 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Nov 19 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

Jon,

Even though its probably too late to edit the petition, I think a better choice of wording for the first paragraph would have been:

A better choice would have been using 'respectfully' instead of 'respectably', as someone pointed out to me yesterday. Oops! Jon is it possible to change it, maybe just sending out an email to all who signed to let them know?

You know what? I almost said something about respectably/respectfully but didn't want to sound too anal. (I was going to suggest changing the first respectably to respectfully and then change the signature to Sincerely,) Oh well.

I think we should just leave it. One really shouldn't tinker with a petition once the signatures start, imo. If you feel super strongly about it, I will, though. But I don't think it's worth spamming people about. I could make a note in the sidebar saying what we changed and how many signatures there were at the time.

[jdonn]

I don't think you can change it without telling everyone who had signed, even a cosmetic change that doesn't alter the meaning.

[jonottawa]

jdonn, on Nov 19 2007, 06:09 PM, said:

I don't think you can change it without telling everyone who had signed, even a cosmetic change that doesn't alter the meaning.

I tend to agree. That's why I don't think we should change it.

If it took us this long to bring it up, is it really that important? I tend to think not.

Anyway, I'm gonna be offline until this evening. I'll check in later.

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Nov 19 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

I don't think you can change it without telling everyone who had signed, even a cosmetic change that doesn't alter the meaning.

Josh,

If you are backhandly attempting to point out that my "suggested" wording would change the nature of the petition, I completely agree with you, which is why I said it was probably too late to edit the petition to make any such change.

(And if this is not what you were attempting to do, then just ignore this post.)

However, given that the first paragraph of the current petition appears to indicate that all disciplinary actions by the USBF BoD needs to cease, and the last paragraph (to me) appears to state that some actions might be acceptable, just not to the degree as currently being sought, it would make more sense if the two paragraphs agreed in their statements.

And while, you may feel that no sanctions whatsoever should be applied (as I think you have stated elsewhere), I personally believe that the petition would find a more supporting position from other players if it had been worded in such a manner that some sanctions (including no action taken) might be acceptable, just not to the extreme nature the BoD apparently is attempting to seek.

Given that the objective (at least from my perspective) is to tell the BoD "you guys are going overboard here, lets make the punishment fit the crime" and hope to inject some semblance of reason into the matter, for the sake of all parties and the game of bridge itself, it would have served the purpose of the petition better to not demand that all disciplinary sanctions be ceased, but instead request that the BoD cease its attempts to "make an example" of the VCT team via the severity of sanctions levied against the players.

With all of that said, I agree its too late to change the wording; it was just an observation on my part, and not a request for it to actually be edited.

jmoo.

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Nov 19 2007, 01:44 PM, said:

(And if this is not what you were attempting to do, then just ignore this post.)

I wasn't.

My feeling is if you like what it says, sign it. If you don't, don't sign it, or start your own. If you do sign it, don't whine about it!

[bid_em_up]

jonottawa, on Nov 19 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

A lot of interesting comments (including yours, I'm guessing. Go Tarheels!)

Given that I am non-native to the area, and a fairly recent transplant at that, my "alliances" to any team are pretty much:

"Go any local team, Tarheels, Blue Devils, Demon Deacons or Wolfpack".

If forced to choose one, its probably the Wolfpack, mainly due to schools that friends are/were associated with here in the area.

But thanks anyway.

[jpinboca]

I find the idea that the USBF is planning any sort of sanctions whatever to be appalling. Absolutely appalling. It happened, give everyone involved a stern talking-to if you like (I don't think they were wrong, but obviously some of you do) and LET IT GO.

[jonottawa]

Should this thread be locked? I think the sooner it drops off the active threads list the better.

The issue's been resolved and I've said all I want to say about it. Most people feel the same, I think.

To post below:

Ben, excuse me for saying so, but you did plenty to participate in the debate when you arbitrarily deleted the thread I started to discuss the leniency petition that Josh and I were sponsoring.

I asked a simple question ... 'Should this thread be locked?' If you want to get huffy about it, be my guest. Nobody is discussing the issue of this thread: Should there be a petition against the USBF? Why? Because the issue is resolved. If they want to discuss what the women did, there's a thread for that.

[inquiry]

Jon, excuse me for saying so, but while a "solution" has been found, and no doubt one that fits your view just fine, others may not agree. For instance, I have had to delete one post that was very unhappy with the solution. So while the issue is "resolved" there may still be someone who wishes to debate the issue. Not me, I am going to try to keep it to two threads or so, and I have not participated in the debate so far (other than to express a single view that protest/rally/non-bridge related activist signs should not be displayed in such events), nor do I intend to start. But I certainly am not going to be the one who tries to stop the debate.