Restricting by gender

[uday]

Someone tried to create a tourney earlier, where the requirement for entry was that you had to be male.

 

This made us uncomfortable, and we asked the host to alter the requirements. He did, and all is well w/that tourney, but i thought I'd ask out loud:

 

Were we right to be uncomfortable with this sort of restriction?

[csdenmark]

YES - you are right!

 

But of course more of that kind to come. Tourneys for americans only, for all but israeli's, or catholics, for children, for lovers of cats, for people using glasses - you name it!

 

Right now we have restrictions not to use your national system and only for acol-players I have seen. All kind of small groups will try to exclude others. Of course some too will try to meet others - but thats another story I think.

 

Such never ends!

 

You have made it very easy to exclude others. The tool you are using - private clubs - are really hard to use for their original intensions. Both of these are counting.

[hrothgar]

I really have a mixed opinion about this.

 

Personally, I don't have any special reason to play in a game that was restricted to males only. This format doesn't fill any special need on my part. Furthermore, I recognize that some members of this community might find this type of format somewhat offensive. I certainly conceive of other tournaments format that I would find extremely offensive.

 

With this said and done, I would strongly prefer that BBO management does not prevent players from running whatever format tournament that they prefer.

 

Telecommunications regulations define a concept known as a common carrier. One standard definition of common carrier status is that ""no customer seeking service upon reasonable demand, willing and able to pay the established price, however set, would be denied lawful use of the service or would otherwise be discriminated against." Common carrier status provides service providers with limited liability in exchange for deliberately limiting their ability to apply discretionary authority.

 

In short, common carrier status recognizes the existence of a "slippery slope". As soon as a common carrier starts to apply any kind of discretionary authority, they assume a responsibility to apply appropriate discretionary authority, And, of course, the problem is that NO ONE can ever agree regarding what constitiutes appropriate discretionary authority.

 

My own preference and advice is that BBO should define a policy that it will not apply discretionary authority.

 

To raise an obvious analogy: I don't approve of the KKK in any way, shape, or form. However, I feel that it is right and appropriate that the are granted the right to publically organize and protest.

[paulg]

As my local club, my county, national organisation (English Bridge Union), European Bridge League and the World Bridge Federation all run events with gender restrictions, I see little wrong in people running online tourneys with this format.

 

Not that I see any sense in running said events ... especially online but also f2f.

 

Regards

 

Paul

[fred]

I really have a mixed opinion about this.

 

Personally, I don't have any special reason to play in a game that was restricted to males only. This format doesn't fill any special need on my part. Furthermore, I recognize that some members of this community might find this type of format somewhat offensive. I certainly conceive of other tournaments format that I would find extremely offensive.

 

With this said and done, I would strongly prefer that BBO management does not prevent players from running whatever format tournament that they prefer.

 

Telecommunications regulations define a concept known as a common carrier. One standard definition of common carrier status is that ""no customer seeking service upon reasonable demand, willing and able to pay the established price, however set, would be denied lawful use of the service or would otherwise be discriminated against." Common carrier status provides service providers with limited liability in exchange for deliberately limiting their ability to apply discretionary authority.

 

In short, common carrier status recognizes the existence of a "slippery slope". As soon as a common carrier starts to apply any kind of discretionary authority, they assume a responsibility to apply appropriate discretionary authority, And, of course, the problem is that NO ONE can ever agree regarding what constitiutes appropriate discretionary authority.

 

My own preference and advice is that BBO should define a policy that it will not apply discretionary authority.

 

To raise an obvious analogy: I don't approve of the KKK in any way, shape, or form. However, I feel that it is right and appropriate that the are granted the right to publically organize and protest.

 

I am not sure I agree with you that the KKK should have the

right to publically organize and protest.

 

I am sure that they should not have the right to burn a cross

on my private property if I don't want them to.

 

I do not see BBO as a public place. It is a prviate club in which

all people are welcome as long as they follow the rules of the club.

So I guess we are not a "common carrier".

 

Yes, this means that the people who run BBO have a responsibility

to see that the rules we choose are enforced. It would be nice if

we did not have this responsibility, but given how badly a small

percentage of our membership is capable of behaving, I don't think

our site could function if we were not willing to get involved.

 

I agree that coming up with a perfect set of rules that will make

everyone happy is impossible, but I think we just have to try our

best and hope things work out. Sometimes we have to modify our

rules as new situations (like the "men only tournament) arise.

 

A rule like: "tournament managers and private club owners are not

allowed to discrimate based on race, religion, country of origin,

age, gender, etc..." makes a lot of sense to me. As far as I am

concerned, anyone who cannot accept this rule should be

encouraged to play their online bridge somewhere else.

 

I have no problem if such people choose to discrimate based on

"bridge reasons" (simply systems only, complex systems only, expert

players only, no expert players....) or other reasons like "good

connections only", "people who speak Italian only"... (that is,

reasons that could be legitimate for the smooth running of a

tournament or private club).

 

I personally can think of no legitimate reason why women (or men

or Jews or Italians or...) should be excluded from any particular

aspect of BBO.

 

Note that I do see a difference between "Italians" and "people who

speak Italian". To exclude Italians would be an example of racism. To

exclude people who do not speak Italian is different - perhaps the

director only speaks Italian and he does not want players in his

tournament that he cannot communicate with.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Rhutobello]

I agree with BBO, it is good that we care ;D

 

On the other side, what should be the point to restrict the tourny to one sex?

Aren't we online? Aren't we just a couple of eletrical impulses? there are free registration. Who know...maybe I am a woman....or maybe a ...... ::)

 

NO..no let the game itself tell us that life is great! ;D

[the hog]

Exactly! How would you know that someone is male/female etc?

I have always suspected that Ben is an 18 yo curvaceous female.

[pbleighton]

Ron writes:

 

"Exactly! How would you know that someone is male/female etc?

I have always suspected that Ben is an 18 yo curvaceous female."

 

Ron, is this "aggressive bidding"? :)

 

Peter

[DrTodd13]

Fred owns the site. He can dictate whatever rules he likes on

the site. We can all vote with our feet if we do/don't like those

rules.

 

I personally don't see enough of a difference between male

and female bridge playing to want to play more or less with

either gender. What about the purely social aspects of

bridge? Well...they are greatly diminished during online play

anyways but I could see how someone could still feel more

comfortable playing with their own gender...even online.

Therefore, I don't have a problem with single gender only

tournaments. I probably won't join any of these unless I

have no other choice but they don't offend me because it

represents a single individual's choice. If people are

offended they won't join the tournament and the host

probably won't try it again. If there were a male-only

f2f bridge club and women didn't like it then tough cookies.

The organizer has a right to host any kind of tournament

they like. On BBO though, Fred is the master and if some

people are offended and he wants a more cordial atmosphere

he can stop people from hosting gender specific tournaments.

 

The only thing that would anger me is an inconsistent message.

Either gender-specific tourneys are ok or they aren't. Different

rules for different genders/races strikes me as so 20th century.

[fred]

Fred owns the site. He can dictate whatever rules he likes on

the site. We can all vote with our feet if we do/don't like those

rules.

 

I may be the one who ultimately decides, but I make

decisions concerning rules without at least discussing

the issues with my partners Sheri and Uday. If we are

not sure we will try to seek guidance from the BBO

membership (as we did in this case by posting about

the "men only" issue in forums).

 

If any of our members disagree strongly enough

about any of our rules to consider "voting with

their feet", I would appreciate hearing about it

before they actually do so.

 

I do not enjoy the responsibility of being the person

who gets the final say on the rules and I certainly

do not pretend to know all of the "right answers".

I would encourage the membership to offer their

feedback when they disagree with one of our rules.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

 

I do not enjoy the responsibility of being the person

who gets the final say on the rules and I certainly

do not pretend to know all of the "right answers".

I would encourage the membership to offer their

feedback when they disagree with one of our rules.

 

Fred Gitelman

 

 

I am sure you have noticed Fred that only a very small part of the users of BBO are posting anything here. Therefore BBO Forum is not representative for what the users are thinking. The hard and important decisions to make are the moral ones. Thats also those issues with only 5-6 persons involving themselves into. For bridge hands etc. it is more - but no more than 15-20 persons regularly uses BBO Forum for exchange of views. 3 persons have made approx. 1/4 of all postings and 10 persons half of all postings.

 

Language is a major hinder for very many - and I have asked some why they never look into here. They tell me it is a small club discussing topics of no interest to them and a little more I am not sure whether I should tell here.

 

As you are the owner, the right - and obligation as well - to make the decisions is yours and yours alone. No doubt! Maybe a broader basis for advises might be helpful to you. As this topic is an example of - technical solutions have a big impact on how individuals behave themselves.

[fred]

 

I do not enjoy the responsibility of being the person

who gets the final say on the rules and I certainly

do not pretend to know all of the "right answers".

I would encourage the membership to offer their

feedback when they disagree with one of our rules.

 

Fred Gitelman

 

 

I am sure you have noticed Fred that only a very small part of the users of BBO are posting anything here. Therefore BBO Forum is not representative for what the users are thinking. The hard and important decisions to make are the moral ones. Thats also those issues with only 5-6 persons involving themselves into. For bridge hands etc. it is more - but no more than 15-20 persons regularly uses BBO Forum for exchange of views. 3 persons have made approx. 1/4 of all postings and 10 persons half of all postings.

 

Language is a major hinder for very many - and I have asked some why they never look into here. They tell me it is a small club discussing topics of no interest to them and a little more I am not sure whether I should tell here.

 

As you are the owner, the right - and obligation as well - to make the decisions is yours and yours alone. No doubt! Maybe a broader basis for advises might be helpful to you. As this topic is an example of - technical solutions have a big impact on how individuals behave themselves.

 

Agree that the people who post to Forums are not

representative of the general membership, but I seem

to be lucky in that the regular Forums posters are

both wise and care about the difficult issues B)

 

We do have the ability to "take surveys" by polling

the people who log in, but we have never used this

facility before. Maybe we should do so when trying

to resolve difficult issues in the future...

 

Fred

[Gerardo]

A rule like: "tournament managers and private club owners are not

allowed to discrimate based on race, religion, country of origin,

age, gender, etc..." makes a lot of sense to me.

 

What about allowing traditional f2f limitations? I know that identities are easy to fake, but they may make sense in tourneys, provided open tourneys are available, I think.

 

Race and religion are plain out, of course.

What about Ladies (same thing, the other way) or Mixed?

Youth?

Country/Region of origin/residence as inclusive? (ONLY italians, for example)

 

I mean, I think "f2f tradition" is a fair rationale for establish a limitation.

 

"Male only" has no such justification. Personally, I don't think it has a good rationale (nor Ladies nor Mixed, in my view, other than f2f)

 

Youth has experience, and geographic, in my view, are overcome in online, but it may have some uses, like knowing people before you play f2f with them B)

[skrshawk]

We already in a way have tournaments specific to nationalities - language groups that have a minimum speaking base outside of their nation. Many nations do have different local conventions simply because the game developed with those conventions in their countries - now on the international stage they mix and ultimately evolve.

 

My personal opinion is that we should not be restricting the type of tourneys volunteer TD's may hold as long as there isn't a factor of patent offensiveness involved (I would particulary frown upon tourneys for "jew-haters", for example).

 

If there isn't fair representation, that's not our issue. Somebody who feels slighted should feel free to host tourneys in favor of those they deem slighted. We are the forum - we don't dictate its content (beyond general guidelines) or organize its events for the most part. It is up to the users (and always has been) to make BBO the community it is.

 

Take care,

John

[hotShot]

Hi!

Here in the f2f world we play men's, women's, mixed, junior, senior and open championships. Not to mention local events.

I think this is to give more people a chance to win such an event.

 

Here at BBO, there are no titles to win, and there is no way to tell the true gender, skill level, nationality etc. of a BBO-user.

 

So lets not use that sort of criteria for a tourney.

You can restrict tournaments to your friends, and your online club. i think that should do.

 

(And i hope we will not see a 'club of true experts' playing all alone.)

 

have fun

 

hotShot

[Free]

Hmmm, if someone wants to play a tournament with only males it's discriminating but when someone would organize a mixed tournament its not? Its all the same if you ask me, just another formula. In every 'big' event, you have open and mixed, and sometimes even males and females apart (regional en national championships). Why shouldn't anyone organize something similar because its online?? I don't see the difference, its still bridge.

 

But, who says you're a man or a woman? Change your name and nobody knows... So its quite ridiculous to try and organize this online imo.

If they want to organize a tourney only for Italians or whatever country, I wouldn't care. They just want to play bridge and probably think its funnier with only Italians or males or... So let them have fun and play with other people who also want to play with you.

[Rhutobello]

I can see that many posters refering to live brigde, and what is happening there.

 

Well if one club in real life will make a tourny for male only, or something else, it makes more sence to me then if you do the same online. In real life it has a purpose, it is under control, and the audiens and partisipants are verry narrow contra online brigde.

 

Many says "why not allow it" it is just a few that want to play together? Well in my opinion BBO have taken the right stand. If you don't want dicrimination in any form on the site, then you have to set a standard at once! If not, it will be harder and harder to make restrictions bacause people always find a reason why just they should be allowed and not other.

 

I will agein point out Fred's comment on "country" tournaments. You can set "have to understand" Norwegian" not that you have to be a Norwegian.

The last requerment will be easy to achive in online brigde, the first one will be a bit harder ;D

[csdenmark]

Hmmm, if someone wants to play a tournament with only males it's discriminating but when someone would organize a mixed tournament its not? Its all the same if you ask me, just another formula. In every 'big' event, you have open and mixed, and sometimes even males and females apart (regional en national championships). Why shouldn't anyone organize something similar because its online?? I don't see the difference, its still bridge.

 

 

Right - and you still have several situations in societies discriminating against women - think about religion and I think you will have no problem to see the cruelty in your argument.

 

From the old days you still have reminiscenses of discrimination - in the world of bridge too - but that's in no way an acceptable argument to create new deprivations.

 

Please let those heading for a revival of our cruel history alone!

[Free]

You take it way too far! One guy who wants to organize a tournament for men and you refer to discrimination around the world, religion stuff, and other non-relevant things? I don't live in the old days, I don't organize such a tournaments (because I love women) and I don't care what other people do.

 

If a woman starts a tourney for women only, who cares? If you can't speak Italian and the language is Italian, don't speak or join. Just play another tournament... Same for other 'restriced' tournaments. There are enough!

[pbleighton]

Free writes:

"...I don't live in the old days.."

 

Claus' point is, I believe, that "the old days" are still with us.

 

If you don't care about discrimination, that's your prerogative.

 

But please don't imagine that the chronological transition to the 21st century has somehow wiped clean the social evils of the 20th century.

 

Read the papers!

 

Peter Leighton

[DrTodd13]

In my view, reverse discrimination is just as evil as the

discrimination that prompts it. Punishing the innocent for

the discrimination of their fathers is unjust. That being

said, if someone says "no men allowed," is their intention

to oppress the male gender or to provide an environment

in which women can be themselves without the pressure

that the presence of the other sex brings? From just this

minimal information, you can't tell what their motives are.

They could have a good motive, as you see. Irregardless,

freedom dictates that people should be able to associate

or disassociate with whomever they please. In f2f bridge,

if men wanted to be able to have a session where they

could concentrate better without the distraction of

beautiful women then why shouldn't that be allowed.

Excluding a gender doesn't necessarily imply a bad intent.

Of course, BBO is only a pseudo-public institution and the

rules that should govern society as a whole do not always

apply. If you see a tourney with a weird restriction, please

stop to consider there may (and usually is) a benevolent

intention instead of a malevolent one. If you still the

restriction is offensive then don't join the tournament. If it

really is offensive then most people won't join and the

tourney will flop. Ostracism worked well as a behavior

adjustor for many years.

[csdenmark]

Whereever you find any kind of violation or tendencies to violate human rights you will find me on the side of those suppressed. Right now we talk about women - what and who next?

 

As Fred rightly pointed out there is a very big difference between the italian language and italians(the people living in the country Italy). To overcome the italian language is not a matter of principles and deprivation of rights - it is a practical matter. That is acceptable I think but it will not be acceptable to restrict for only swedish language due to the fact of easy understandability of norwegian and danish language. As I remember you are belgium citizen - how about a restriction only to accept the people living in flamish part of your country? And it will not be acceptable either to restrict for italians - then you dont pay attention to the Balkan geography and history - nobody wants to have that repeated I think.

 

To look away from human decency in smaller matters is a dangerous sidetrack nobody of us knows the end of. Therefore the borderline is not the matter but the principle.

[pbleighton]

DrTodd writes:

 

"...Punishing the innocent for the discrimination of their fathers is unjust..."

 

It certainly would be, if that was what is being proposed. However, that is NOT the case.

 

The issue at hand is whether BBO should permit tournaments to discriminate on a basis which has NOTHING to do with any legitimate bridge purpose. Race, gender, and nationality (though not language proficiency) clearly fall into that category.

 

"Ostracism worked well as a behavior adjustor for many years."

 

Only at the margins. I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out where it failed, and IS FAILING, completely.

 

The world won't end if Fred allows discriminatory tournaments. However, the world changes for the better (and worse) based largely on small decisions, which have a huge cumulative impact.

 

Peter

[DrTodd13]

Bridge is played by people and those people have different

races, genders and nationalities. Thus, those factors cannot be

separated from bridge because bridge is a social activity. There

are two different areas to talk about...one is f2f bridge and the

other is online bridge. I can see how people would want to play

with people of similar culture, gender, nationality, age...any number

of reasons. The reason they would want to play in this manner has

nothing to do with bridge but relates to the social interaction that

accompanies bridge. I know that if there were an "under 40" game

I'd love to go to it because I don't have much in common with those

65+. I don't have anything against those 65 and older but I don't

want to hang around with them. I will certainly grant that many of

the social aspects of bridge are diminished online and that is why

I think tournaments restricted based on the above factors makes

most sense for f2f bridge. Since I feel the social aspect of the game

is gone for online, I wouldn't relish an "under 40" tournament online.

I do want to give people the right to free (non)association even for

online bridge and think we are mature enough as a civilization to

ostracize tournaments with nonsensical restrictions.

[Free]

Free writes:

"...I don't live in the old days.."

 

Claus' point is, I believe, that "the old days" are still with us.

 

If you don't care about discrimination, that's your prerogative.

 

But please don't imagine that the chronological transition to the 21st century has somehow wiped clean the social evils of the 20th century.

 

Read the papers!

 

Peter Leighton

 

Discrimination is still a problem, I know that, but its a lot less then years ago. And since there are A LOT OF TOURNAMENTS, I think people should start looking at such tournaments as 'restricted' and not as 'discriminating', that's all. If there was only 1 tournament I'd think about it differently.

 

Btw, I still dont see the point of restricting on things you cant see: man/woman, age, haircolor,... But the organizer of that tourney probable does.