[joshs]

Hey Fred,

I was not even aware of BBO's rule about no political statements. I have certainly seen political statements, at least relatively innocuous statements that are basically along the same lines of Debbie's sign. Usually these have led to friendly conversations, sometimes to heated debates, but I certainly have gotten to know others better as a result. I personally think that what someone puts in their profile is analagous to putting something on a sign in a public place (like outside a supermarket) which can be seen by one's community (which is now virtual more than physical) and that message really has nothing what so ever to do with the supermarket or the web site and they are not responsible in any way for the content. In fact the area outside a supermarket is considered a public place in US law, where constitutional free speech guarantees apply. The store owner can't regulate the speech made there. As its been 15 years since I studied constutional law in school (and I do not do this stuff professionally), I have no idea what the status of the law is in terms of defining "virtual public places" and what the implications are for speech on internet sites.

Anyway, as I have said before I do think a society or organization can regulate themselves. I just think there are conflicting goals and values at play. I also think that the goals for the WBF and the USBF may not be the same as for BBO (and as BBO is owned by you and a few other people, the rest of us really get a lot less say in what the policies are). Let me try to explain this by first talking about the olympics.

The stated purpose of the olympics is to promote world peace through the activity of sports. The idea is to get people together with different backgrounds, political ideologies, religions and so on, and let them interact. This lets the athletes learn about each other and learn that despite their differences they all share a common love of sport and sportsmanship (fair play, etc.). Hopefully this will forge friendships, but at the very least it will promote understanding and tolerance for other ways of life, by both understanding that people are different but share commonalities at the same time. Without the ability to express one's self freely, the players can not get to know each others values, and half the purpose of them interacting has disappeared.

My understanding, was that one of the WBF's goals was for bridge to become an olympic sport, and that even if it doesn't become an olympic sport it shared the values that the olympics were trying to promote. That is, lets get to know each other and learn to trust each other, while doing something we all love, and while demonstrating the highest standards of ethics/sportsmanship in the process. I don't think supressing speech builds trust or promotes understanding or aids this goal in any way.

Obviously you disagree on this next point, but I also do not think that public political speech is fundamentally different than public religious expression. Both send a message to the world about who you are and what your values are. They may be motivated by different things, or they may even be motiviated by the same thing ( for instance see The Bible's commandment "Justice, Justice, Shall you Pursue"). This expression of one's self is fundamental to some people's identity. I for instance, would walk through a mob and get myself beaten up to go to Yom Kippur services, and would not take a job for any salary that required me to violate the values and practices that are central to the jewish faith. While I do not wear a Kippah, others do. This is how they express their values and beliefs to the world and would undergo great hardships in order to keep expressing themselves. Some other people feel the same way about expressing their core values, which may come from a religion or may come from a political movement/ideology or wherever. I really think censorship is basically an evil...

Josh

[fred]

Echognome, on Oct 22 2007, 10:31 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 22 2007, 01:55 PM, said:

This has nothing to do with values.

Consider the rule we have on BBO: players cannot put political statements in the profiles.

Those who break this rule are warned. Those who are warned and who do not change their profiles are barred.

It is necessary for us to make stupid rules like this because .01% of our members have demonstrated that they are not responsible enough to babysit themselves.

So, in essence, you've had to go down the slippery slope yourself.

What's "political"? If I say "Olof Palme is great." Would that be political? Might that offend someone?

Who is the judge, jury, and executioner?

I applaud that you allow notes in the profile, but you do not currently limit those notes to bridge related items (as far as I am aware). In essence, the BBO policy is in the "some" camp with regards to this medium.

You set out a list of rules and someone or some group is going to have to determine what is acceptable and what is not.

Here the medium is well defined (the text input on the profile box). I think many of us are stating that if you start making up very specific rules like "no signs" for the WBF ceremonies, then the slope is going to be about defining what is a "sign". (does a t-shirt count? does a tattoo count? do the acceptance speeches count?) Rather than just accepting that there is a tough gray area and make more general guidelines on behavior.

Now please don't misinterpret. My view is that I think it's great that there are profiles and that people have some leeway as to what they put in them. The idea I'm promoting is to have general guidelines. The interpretations have to be made by someone. Is it all completely fair? I don't think it should matter as it's our privilege to use the site. So in that sense, it's somewhat different. But I think it's perfectly reasonable for you (collectively the owners of BBO) to have the final say or to delegate who has the final say. Similarly, I think it's fair for the WBF, and the sponsoring organizations to determine who has the final say on all behavior.

I agree with just about all of this.

Sure we are all in the "some" camp in the sense that, if the question had been "what behavior is appropriate?" almost everyone would have said "some".

My actual (poor) choice of question was more specific: "which signs are appropriate?". As a result, a lot of people left the "some" camp.

Making it even more specific "which overt acts of public political expression are appropriate at the World Bridge Championships?" (or whatever) would have left us with even fewer "somes".

The more specific you get, the less slippery the slope, but the more rules/guidelines/statements you need to try to cover the same ground.

I have no idea what wording or level of specificity is ideal in this case or whether such wording should be presented as a rule, a statement, as part of some larger general guideline or as something else. But I do think it would be very smart for the WBF to try to establish some boundaries (or publicize existing boundaries), even if the edges are necessarily slippery.

They have to come up with the best way they can to deliver the message "please don't do that again".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

joshs, on Oct 23 2007, 01:30 AM, said:

I was not even aware of BBO's rule about no political statements. I have certainly seen political statements, at least relatively innocuous statements that are basically along the same lines of Debbie's sign. Usually these have led to friendly conversations, sometimes to heated debates, but I certainly have gotten to know others better as a result. I personally think that what someone puts in their profile is analagous to putting something on a sign in a public place (like outside a supermarket) which can be seen by one's community (which is now virtual more than physical) and that message really has nothing what so ever to do with the supermarket or the web site and they are not responsible in any way for the content.

I don't feel responsible for the content of profiles.

But not everyone feels the same way about political statements in profiles as you do. We have enough people on BBO such that, regardless of the specific political statement, many will complain.

Then we have to make a choice: deal with the complaints or not. Either way we lose and either way our members lose.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jchiu]

fred, on Oct 23 2007, 01:35 AM, said:

I agree with just about all of this.

Sure we are all in the "some" camp in the sense that, if the question had been "what behavior is appropriate?" almost everyone would have said "some".

My actual (poor) choice of question was more specific: "which signs are appropriate?". As a result, a lot of people left the "some" camp.

Making it even more specific "which overt acts of public political expression are appropriate at the World Bridge Championships?" (or whatever) would have left us with even fewer "somes".

The more specific you get, the less slippery the slope, but the more rules/guidelines/statements you need to try to cover the same ground.

I have no idea what wording or level of specificity is ideal in this case or whether such wording should be presented as a rule, a statement, as part of some larger general guideline or as something else. But I do think it would be very smart for the WBF to try to establish some boundaries (or publicize existing boundaries), even if the edges are necessarily slippery.

They have to come up with the best way they can to deliver the message "please don't do that again".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Agree with this. I wouldn't say the question was poor though as it sparked what, in my opinion, was some pretty interesting debate.

edit: didn't realize my computer was logged in under jason's name. That'll teach him to not clear his cache when using my computer.

-echognome

This post has been edited by jchiu: 2007-October-22, 20:28

[helene_t]

fred, on Oct 23 2007, 03:35 AM, said:

They have to come up with the best way they can to deliver the message "please don't do that again".

That was how I thought when I decided to vote "No signs". So maybe I did understand the question after all

[Al_U_Card]

"And I think to myself, what a wonderful world."

L. Armstrong

[jonottawa]

fred, on Oct 22 2007, 09:55 PM, said:

Consider the rule we have on BBO: players cannot put political statements in the profiles.

Those who break this rule are warned. Those who are warned and who do not change their profiles are barred.

It is necessary for us to make stupid rules like this because .01% of our members have demonstrated that they are not responsible enough to babysit themselves.

I suppose you think we are harming people with this rule. I disagree but I believe you that you think that.

Even so, consider the harm we would do to ourselves (and all of our other members) if our policy were any different. If you can't see this, I will be happy to spell it out for you, but try to use your imagination first.

What would you do if you were running an online bridge site?

The WBF is in exactly the same situation.

This is not about values. It is about existence.

Aaaaaahhh, I see said the blind man.

Fred, who is a very nice guy, on some level doesn't like it that he has been forced to adopt an "almost no signs" rule on his online bridge site and experiences cognitive dissonance with the idea expressed by others that the WBF ought to not legislate in this area in spite of the recent behavior of the USA 1 ladies at the closing ceremonies in Shanghai.

"If a nice tolerant congenial guy like me has been forced to lay down the law, certainly a bunch of stuffy old suits running an international bridge organization will reason similarly."

To me, the 2 situations aren't remotely analogous.

Fred's running a FREE site, filled with ANONYMOUS people and hands out a Sharpie and some posterboard to everyone who walks in the door. Setting limits to what the anonymous mob will do with the Sharpie and posterboard is eminently reasonable, and indeed, necessary.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by mycroft. Banning all signs, for fear that once in a great long while someone will show up with an offensive sign, or requiring that all participants wear a blindfold, for fear that one of the teams will use the opportunity to recreate the Aristocrats joke for the audience's enjoyment, is overkill.

[TimG]

fred, on Oct 22 2007, 08:35 PM, said:

They have to come up with the best way they can to deliver the message "please don't do that again".

Maybe they could put signs up at the site of the next trials.

[fred]

jonottawa, on Oct 23 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

"If a nice tolerant congenial guy like me has been forced to lay down the law, certainly a bunch of stuffy old suits running an international bridge organization will reason similarly."

To me, the 2 situations aren't remotely analogous.

Here is the part that is analogous:

Both BBO and the WBF could be hurt very badly by visitors to their site/events making overt public political statements.

It therefore makes sense (to me at least) for both BBO and the WBF to take whatever steps they think are necessary to prevent that from happening.

Of course things will only get worse if such steps have side effects that are worse than the problems they are trying to prevent. I don't think that is even close to being the case here, but that is admittedly a subjective opinion.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

On BBO one will have to ban more than just "political statements" - there is a whole range of non-bridge statements that would get lots of other members upset. So if the BBO rule is just Fred's "players cannot put political statements in the profiles" it will have to expanded at some point. Likewise the WBF needs to consider not only "political signs", but all types of signs that might appear at future events.

[helene_t]

To me the most important difference between the two problems is that I suppose that on BBO, abuse@ gets flooded with complaints about sociopatic behaviour, as well as complaints from hysterics who feel offended by anything. I have no opinion about the specific "no politics" rules, but it's clear to me that abuse@ needs some rules that enables as many complaints as possible to be dealt with in a semi-automatic way.