Which signs are appropriate?

[TimG]

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]

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]

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... :P

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[pclayton]

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.

This post sums it up nicely. Holding a sign is about as inappropriate as not wearing a tie when you receive the medal.

I doubt the Chinese would agree with this POV Arend.

Yes, and some in the Islamic world would disagree the other way round, and find the dresses the women's dresses at the ceremony shocking and unacceptable. Your point is?

My point is that when you are representing your country in another country, you act as an ambassador.

 

Its no different than being invited to a wedding. You look, dress, and act the part, and you don't make your hosts or the other guests feel uncomfortable.

 

I realize that countries have different dress codes but I doubt anyone would appreciate the players on the podium looking like slobs.

[ralph23]

But Michael Moore nude at the Oscar ceremony would certainly be inapprobriate.

This one's mighty hard to pass up, but I'll show some restraint :)

[jdonn]

Its no different than being invited to a wedding. You look, dress, and act the part, and you don't make your hosts or the other guests feel uncomfortable.

It's very different, at a wedding you are there to honor someone else. When you win the medal everyone else is there to honor you. I would not be bothered if a bride held up I'M GOING TO DISNEY during her ceremony.

[ralph23]

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.

Actually, my comment -- the one to which you responded -- was "I'm not OK with them, as supposed representatives of the USA, ridiculing & mocking & showing disrespect for the national anthem."

 

You responded "Sometimes that is the right thing to do. It is extreme and you must be wary but sometimes it is right."

 

I agree with that sentiment. I think most everyone would, frankly.

 

My response to your comment, in turn, was, if that was their intent, then let them clarify it. Let them say, "We have no respect for the anthem because we have none for our country. It's as bad as Nazi Germany at its worst. Decent people should rebel in the streets."

 

If that is how they feel, they should have the courage to say so.

 

(Or maybe they just feel that silly songs and silly flags are silly silly outdated nationalism-patriotism, and modern cosmopolitan folks like them need to show everyone the way.)

 

If that is not how they feel, they should have the courage to simply apologize for the disrespect and bad taste they have shown. Not for criticizing Bush ... heaven knows, he gets criticized night and day. Not for holding up a sign. The sign is a false issue. And if they don't know what to apologize for ..which I suspect.... then that is just a sad statement on the State of the Union today.

[jonottawa]

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

To call the most logical position absurd is interesting.

 

Anyone who would object to a professional-looking in memoriam sign is not a human being.

 

Anyone who would support an overt threat against someone's life (for instance) is a nihilist or an anarchist.

 

Either of those positions would be absurd.

 

That doesn't mean that you must create a rule or a committee or do anything but ignore what happened in this instance. A more valid poll question would be: Should the WBF and USBF make rules micromanaging behavior at awards banquets?

 

Hrothgar (who interprets the question differently than I do and answers "all",) Helene (who arbitrarily answered "none",) EDIT: and kenberg below have nailed this one, at least in the coherence of their arguments.

[HeavyDluxe]

Anyone who would object to a professional-looking in memoriam sign is not a human being. 

 

Anyone who would support an overt threat against someone's life (for instance) is a nihilist or an anarchist.

 

Either of those positions would be absurd.

My goodness! Aren't we ever opinionated.

[jdonn]

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".

I'm not sure I agree. There are many people in the world (probably very few bridge players though) who knowingly do things that even to them are inappropriate.

 

I actually think "whatever the sign bearer thinks is appropriate" is a good rule, as long as no potential sign bearers have some sort of medical mental impairment that would harm their normal judgment. I like this rule because to me it is intent that matters. This is how I try my hardest to judge people in general, by their intent.

[kenberg]

I have no trouble with the words "all", "some", "no", "signs" but the word "appropriate" drives me up a wall. It once had a meaning: Someone asks if you would like cream in your coffee and you respond, inappropriately, "My name is Fred". Now it means almost anything. Is it appropriate for Lindsy Lohan to demonstrate to the world that she doesn't wear underwear? Is it appropriate for Larry Summers (that was his name?) to give his opinion on why there are not more women in academic positions? Is it appropriate to drive a car while text messaging? Legal or illegal I understand. Wise or stupid I at least have opinions. Appropriate or inappropriate? Dunno.

 

 

So

 

Should folks hold up signs when receiving an award? I would rather they didn't.

 

Should they be tarred and feathered? Naw. (That would be inappropriate.)

 

Should anyone try to regulate this? Only if for some reason they absolutely must.

 

Between Anarchy and the Rule of Law there is room for judgment (good and bad) and for social pressure.

[BillHiggin]

This is how I try my hardest to judge people in general, by their intent.

And that is how people ought to be judged. Actions are a different story. Actions should be judged by their appropriatness irregardless of the intent of the actors.

 

The individuals involved are to be congratulated for their fine performance at the bridge table.

Their actions at the award ceremony (not them as individuals) are to be condemened as completely inappropriate at a formal occasion.

 

Black power salutes are inappropriate at Olympic awards ceremonies.

Michael Moore and the Oscar ceremonies themselves are a mockery (goal for many of the female finalists - dress as close to nude as you can get away with. For everyone - do whatever it takes to get press coverage).

[BillHiggin]

It is important to recognize that an awards ceremony honors both the individuals and the organization they represent. The flag display and national anthem should be considered as tributes to that organization more than to the individuals (who may have quite tenuous ties to that nation).

 

When opinions are expressed at such a ceremony, they will often be taken (whether that was the intention or not) as reflecting the opinions of the represented organization. That is what makes this inappropriate. It is also the reason that the USBF has every right to demand an apology.

[jdonn]

When opinions are expressed at such a ceremony, they will often be taken (whether that was the intention or not) as reflecting the opinions of the represented organization.

It is the people taking them as they were not intended and making these silly assumptions who cause the problem. It should not be necessary for a disclaimer on the sign that says "this sign does not necessarily reflect the view of any people who are not up here holding the sign" because that goes without saying.

 

Actions should be judged by their appropriatness irregardless of the intent of the actors.

 

Actions should be judged by the intent of the people making them IM very strong O. Judging people and judging actions are the same thing. When you judge people, your data source is their actions.

[cherdano]

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 :)

Well it would have been appropriate to be more explicit. :)

 

Apparently most posters understood "sign" as "sign" not as "political sign".

 

For some posters there is also a difference between "not appropriate" and "needs to be sanctioned/punished by the WBF/USBF when it happens". They way I understand you, there is none for you.

[ralph23]

This is how I try my hardest to judge people in general, by their intent.

And that is how people ought to be judged. Actions are a different story. Actions should be judged by their appropriatness irregardless of the intent of the actors.

Who was it (if anyone famous) who said "We judge ourselves by our intent; we judge others by their actions." ?

 

And the two are deeply intertwined. This law school hypo comes to mind: Simon hates the King and wants to kill him. But, he loves the Queen and thinks she is wonderful. A carriage carrying the royal couple comes along, and everyone knows it carries both of them.

 

Simon tosses a bomb in it, with the desire of killing the King. Of course, it blows the royal couple to smithereens.

 

Simon is charged (among other things) with murder of the Queen. His plea: I didn't intend to kill her. And he shows by lots of evidence how much he loved her.

 

Did he intend to kill her? (True, he didn't want to kill her; but did he intend to?)

[hotShot]

When opinions are expressed at such a ceremony, they will often be taken (whether that was the intention or not) as reflecting the opinions of the represented organization. That is what makes this inappropriate. It is also the reason that the USBF has every right to demand an apology.

Since when have organizations the right to vote?

Since when have organizations parents or other family members?

 

I think that at least most bridge player are smart enough to distinguish between athlete and official spokesmen.

[ralph23]

Actions should be judged by the intent of the people making them IM very strong O.

Yes of course. And the criminal law in particular is full of examples: Actions X, Y & Z, when performed by Actor Q, may entail one set of consequences if accompanied by Intent A, and an entirely different set if accompanied by Intent B.

 

OK, so how do you determine intent? Hmmm. Well, you could ask Q. Of course, he may lie and he certainly (in the crime context) has ample motive to lie. Or he may may confuse his motive v. his desire v. his intent.

 

Or you could look to circumstances.

 

Or even look to X Y & Z themselves! Sometimes (not always) the actions carry the intent on their face. But it's generally a very vexing problem.....