Which signs are appropriate?

[jikl]

It may be safest, but the only the home of the brave can be the land of the free.

 

Your quoted land will sue someone for tripping over their own shoe, in fact I had a lawyer come up to me when I lived in the US about that outside a shopping centre, he only became disinterested when I told him I bought the shoes in Australia :P

 

So be brave, be free, but make sure you have deep pockets.

 

Sean

[blackshoe]

Committees. Hm.

 

"A committee is an organism with three or more stomachs - and no brains." - R.A. Heinlein

[joshs]

Dear Fred,

 

I voted some. (At least regard to the word appropriate)

 

First, the word appropriate does not mean

"in accordance with rules" and inapporiate does not mean "sanctionable behavior".

The question if there should be rules that outlawed some signs is a different question. I for one, think its inappropriate to show up at someone's house unannounced at dinner time. Its a far cry from saying that someone should be punished for it. "In Bad taste" is partially a subjective opinion and the community doesn't have to agree on this. I know one restuarant that posts "men must not wear hats inside." I will not go in that resturant, since jews in fact keep there head covered inside, and the custom of taking one's hat off inside (originally just in churchs) in the west (for christians) came from differentiating christians from jews (ok there is some historical debate about the origin of this custom). So to me, the sign (and custom) says "jews not allowed" even though I am sure most people have no idea where any of these customs come from. The point is that not everyone has the same idea of what is appropriate...

 

Anyway, let me get on to the question about if the position that "some signs should be disallowed" is in itself absurb (I think that was the question you were really interested in). I think your implicit argument is the "slippery slope" argument that its impossible to have rules that cover all cases, and besides where exactly is the boundary between an allowable sign and a non-allowable sign. If you were in fact making a different argument, I am sorry I missed it, so you will have to let me know what it was.

 

Let me site two examples of slippery slope rules in other contexts:

1. US constitutional law

2. Laws of Contract Bridge

 

1. One of the key factors in a law being valid is if the law is clear enough so that you know if some action you are doing is illegal. As an example of some supreme court decisions that dealt with such an issue there were a sequence of court decisions Roth vs the US to Jacobellis v. Ohio to Miller vs California from the 50's-70's addressing the constitutionality of obsenity laws. The opinion of the members of the court ranged from the absolutist (everything is speech and protected under the first amendment) to the other camp which felt that despite the lack of a clear boundary between something obscene and something which is protected free speech, it is clear when something went way over the line, and those are the enforcable cases.

 

No matter which camp you are in, I would not call the other position absurb. Both sides might call the other side absurb, but when there is this significant of a disagreement between a siginificant number of intellegent subject matter experts, I think the word absurb is a major overbid...

 

2. Rules regading Breaks in tempo in an auction do not have any hard and fast rules. There is not a cut of point which is "if its your 2'rd bid in a competative auction, and the opps bid 3C over 2H then a hesitation of 7.4 seconds is ok, but 7.45 seconds is not." The rules are subjective, but again follow the main principle that its clear when someone had a SIGNIFICANTLY longer hestitation then there was a break in tempo. When its close to the not well defined boundary, it is not classified as a break in tempo.

 

As to what kind of rules someone might want to put in place regarding signs (or speech in general), the normal rules would be: No libelous (statements that are harmful to the person, as well as blantantly false) insults. Or no libelous insults of someone at the event. Or don't insult our host. Or...

 

There are lots of possible rules which achieve a social end that at least most of us favour, is narrow in scope, and its clear if someone stepped way over the line.

 

Josh

[fred]

Hi Josh,

 

I am not qualified to comment on constitional law, but I think your bridge example is a perfect illustration of why "some" should be avoided if at all possible.

 

Hestitations in bridge are perhaps the biggest source of controversy and conflict in our game. They cause longtime friends to suspect each other of cheating, create impossible situations for committees and directors to resolve, and not infrequently determine the outcome of important tournaments. This leads to further bad feelings among longtime friends, accusations of bias, and abuse and embarrassment for those who have the thankless task of trying to set things right.

 

I think all serious bridge players would agree that our game would be better off if there existed some "clean" way to deal with hestitations.

 

Unfortuantely that is not possible. We cannot outlaw hestitations because bridge is a hard game and people need to think. Nobody would want to play if we either forced them to bid and play every 3 seconds (no hestiations) or forced them to bid and play every 5 minutes (all hesitations).

 

Nor can we create fair rules that will govern all hesitation situations and lead to an equitable result (or even come close). Human judgment, a slippery slope, is the best we can do.

 

The best in this case is really awful!

 

The sign situation is completely different because there is a clean way to solve this problem without involving human judgment and without destroying the fabric of the tournament.

 

The answer is simple: just say "none" :)

 

Sure this creates another slippery slope in terms of "what is a sign" or "what is a political statement", but my sense is that if organizations like the WBF make their wishes clear then, in practice, bridge players will not even think of travelling up this particular slipperly slope. For those who try to test the limits (or simply ignore the WBF's explicit wishes) the penalties should be severe.

 

Despite how it may sound, I am definitely not one of those people who thinks there needs to be a million rules governing all aspects of life. Before the Shanghai incident I would not have thought that a "no public politicing" rule would be necessary - I would not have thought that any world class players (to say nothing of World Champions) would have such poor judgment as to necessitate such a rule.

 

But this incident clearly demonstrates that the lack of a clear policy in this area can lead only to trouble. IMO the WBF should be trying to minimize the slipperyness of the slope. Making a clear statement of "no signs" is the best way for them to do this.

 

I wish this wasn't necessary, but evidently it is.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[joshs]

Hey Fred,

 

Now I always thought you had a libertarian streak (maybe I misread that). I guess the responsibility of managing a virtual communiity (BBO) changes that. :)

 

First, let me dispute your claim that there no rule that can solve the hesitation problem. Here is rule A: All bids and plays must be made in between 7 and 10 seconds (with something like a chess clock used, and time officially starts and ends when the clock button is pressed). This is a uniform rule, where bidding too fast or too slow are equally sanctionable, and involves no discussion of whether the slowness or fastness indicates any action by partner. The point is, that this rule, just as the current rules, or no rules has consequences. Some players will benefit and some will be harmed, and it will make the game worse in some respects (you can't take the time to solve an interesting logic problem), but make it better in some other respects. I am not saying I am in favour of this rule. I am merely saying that there can be "enforcable rules" other then no rules at all in these situations.

 

Similiarly, on the matter of signs there are enforcable rules. Whether or not people like those rules is another matter.

 

Now as to the other matter, there seems to be some sentiment that "no signs" is a neutral position (same effect on all). This is not true.

 

There was recently an incident where a girl was forbidden from playing soccer while wearing an islamic head dress (the league overruled the ref at halftime thankfully). A league's decision that there is no headgear allowed does not have a uniform effect on everyone. There are some people who wears headgear as an expression of who they are. Others do not wear headgear as an expression of who they are. I personally do not think that religious expression is fundamentally different then political expression. Both are personal expressions of who someone is. Perhaps they indicate what group they consider themseleves a part of, perhaps they indicate an idea they believe in, or whatever.

 

If you pass a dress code, the people who like to dress that way benefit, and people who do not are harmed. Similiarly if you prevent speech or other forms of self expression. Those rules benefit some and harm some. This is not to say there should never be rules or restrictions, but lets not pretend that these are neutral. I don't think my wearing a yamulkah (a jewish head covering) is any different then someone wearing a Fred Thompson for President button or is any different then a I didn't vote for Bush sign. If you outlaw signs, people who do not like to make public statements or those who likes presenting the view that everyone agrees on all issues benefits, and people who have some thing to say are harmed. Its as simple as that.

 

One of the main things a society struggles with is that values conflict with each other and interests conflict with each other. For instance maybe someone's religious expression involes screaming lord save us at the top of their lungs while burning a dead skunk. This expression harms others, so its up to the society to figure out how to balance those competing harms/interests. There is no one correct answer, and much of political philosophy involes an argument about how should a society make such a decision.

 

Josh

[matmat]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rro/lowres/rron197l.jpg

[luke warm]

OK so we were talking about two different comitees.

 

But you seem to say that "no fomal rules", "no formal rule enformcement"  and "no rules" is the same. I voted "no signs" but I'm against a formal ban. I suppose you think I'm saying the same as the two other groups, then ... but I beg to differ.

well the 'no formal rules' and the 'no formal rule enforcement' confuse me, but i won't go so far as to say that you mean either of them when you say 'no signs'

 

i personally don't know the difference between 'no formal rules' and 'no rules', and the 'no formal rule enforcement', if it means nothing is actionable, leaves me with the same feeling... but that's just me

~~Now as to the other matter, there seems to be some sentiment that "no signs" is a neutral position (same effect on all). This is not true.~~

i don't think 'no signs' can be considered neutral, but i think 'some signs' has no meaning without some group determining the appropriateness of each sign... and i don't think that will do (i know a lot of people love subjectivity, but usually this love is in proportion to how close the subjectivity is to their own opinion)

[glen]

Regarding the (copyrighted) cartoon, the guy not holding the sign has no freedom of speech.

[fred]

Those rules benefit some and harm some.

I believe a "no signs" rule would harm nobody.

 

I believe it would be only a matter of time until a "some signs" rule would harm everybody.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jonottawa]

Those rules benefit some and harm some.

I believe a "no signs" rule would harm nobody.

 

I believe it would be only a matter of time until a "some signs" rule would harm everybody.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I agree that a "some signs" rule would harm everybody.

 

That's why nobody who voted "some signs" argued that there should be a "some signs" rule. They argued that if and when a nutty enough person decided to do something egregious enough to merit sanction, they would be met by the:

 

No f***ing lunatics allowed! rule.

 

That trumps the 'some signs' rule, anyway.

[glen]

...That's why nobody who voted "some signs" argued that there should be a "some signs" rule...

I didn't argue but stated there should be a "some signs" guideline, which I provided.

 

At this point I'm lost whether Fred's 'I believe a "no signs" rule would harm nobody' means no to all types of signs, or just no to political signs, as he redefined the thread question.

[joshs]

Those rules benefit some and harm some.

I believe a "no signs" rule would harm nobody.

 

I believe it would be only a matter of time until a "some signs" rule would harm everybody.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Well I completely disagree. I think a no sign policy harms me, harms debby rosenberg, and harms anyone who would normally wear a political button, a yankee cap, an end the genocide in darfur sign, or a get well soon paul soloway sign. I think only people who would not normally have such a sign, who doesn't derive pleasure from having such a sign, thinks that outlawing something that gives someone else pleasure doesn't cause harm. Outlawing something always causes harm. If it didn't, you would not have needed to outlaw it in the first place. This does not mean you shouldn't outlaw it, but you need to recognize that you are causing harm and weigh the costs and benefits (to different people) of such a policy. When we ban smoking at the table we are harming you (or did you give up smoking recently?), and benefiting me. I think there is a good reason to make such a rule, but I would never claim it didn't harm you.

 

Josh

[sceptic]

I dont think there should be a no signs rule at all, a code of conduct for the players representing their country would be a better way foreard, a nice simple, please when in the spotlight, just try and respect other peoples opinion, religion, views etc, IF IN DOUBT SHUT UP common sense would be better

[blackshoe]

Well I completely disagree. I think a no sign policy harms me, harms debby rosenberg, and harms anyone who would normally wear a political button, a yankee cap, an end the genocide in darfur sign, or a get well soon paul soloway sign.

Let's not define "harm" ridiculously broadly please.

 

"I don't like it" is not the same as "I am harmed by it".

[joshs]

Well I completely disagree. I think a no sign policy harms me, harms debby rosenberg, and harms anyone who would normally wear a political button, a yankee cap,  an end the genocide in darfur sign, or a get well soon paul soloway sign.

Let's not define "harm" ridiculously broadly please.

 

"I don't like it" is not the same as "I am harmed by it".

So there is a slippery slope of where "I don't like it" ends and "harm" begins?

Who are you to say where harm is, and who is hurt by what? Obviously someone has claimed they were harmed by Debbie holding up her sign (otherwise there would be no ruckus here). They are not claiming they were harmed as badly as if they were run over by a car (at least I don't think the claim about the level of harm is that high). But there is a claim of harm.

 

While I think being harmed by the sign is silly, certainly a lot of people here feel harmed by it. I think its rediculous to say that the sign (especially a statement of fact!) can harm someone but being told you can't have a sign can't.

[jikl]

In actual fact, I don't think anyone is really claiming to be harmed by this sign. The potential signs are the potential harm if this is not dealt with.

 

Sean

[fred]

Those rules benefit some and harm some.

I believe a "no signs" rule would harm nobody.

 

I believe it would be only a matter of time until a "some signs" rule would harm everybody.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Well I completely disagree. I think a no sign policy harms me, harms debby rosenberg, and harms anyone who would normally wear a political button, a yankee cap, an end the genocide in darfur sign, or a get well soon paul soloway sign. I think only people who would not normally have such a sign, who doesn't derive pleasure from having such a sign, thinks that outlawing something that gives someone else pleasure doesn't cause harm. Outlawing something always causes harm. If it didn't, you would not have needed to outlaw it in the first place. This does not mean you shouldn't outlaw it, but you need to recognize that you are causing harm and weigh the costs and benefits (to different people) of such a policy. When we ban smoking at the table we are harming you (or did you give up smoking recently?), and benefiting me. I think there is a good reason to make such a rule, but I would never claim it didn't harm you.

 

Josh

No offense intended, but I find this to be laughable.

 

Do you honestly believe that poor Debbie Rosenberg would be harmed if the USBF made it clear that they did not want people making overt political statements at THEIR tournaments? How about if the USBF made it clear that they did not want THEIR respresentatives to do the same thing?

 

Give me a break.

 

IMO it does zero harm to Debbie to ask her to respect the wishes of her hosts and the organization that chose her team and paid for their trip to Shanghai. If she really feels she needs to tell the world how she feels about politics, there are plenty of ways she can do that when the tournament is over.

 

And even if you really believe she will have been harmed in the process (which is hard for me to imagine but I will take your word for it), I cannot believe that you think that the degree of harm is even if the same league as the harm that will inevitably result if the WBF/USBF says "some signs are OK" or says nothing at all (which has the same effect).

 

I am not trying to single out Debbie even though she is the one who was actually holding the sign. You are the one who mentioned her name and I found it convenient to use a specific name in this post.

 

It turns out that I have liked Debbie very much since the time that we were both Junior players (her USA team beat my Canadian team in the finals of the 1991 World Junior Championships and IMO Debbie was the star of that match). This incident has not changed that. I sincerely hope that the feeling is mutual and that my strong disapproval of her actions will not impact our friendship as far as she is concerned either.

 

Debbie is a fantastic bridge player. It would be a real shame if, as a result of this incident, she was unwilling or not allowed to play in some future World Championship(s) for the USA.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

Fred, I don't think you realize how much confusion there is about what this thread is about. Maybe those in the "some" camp would not say that WBF should have a some-sign policy, but just say that there are some signs they personally feel offensive, and others they don't. Maybe they say "some" because they think it should depend on the size etc. of the sign, not on the message. Just one of many possible interpretations.

 

I really don't think you should make any assumptions about who means what, since nobody understands what anybody is saying in this thread. For example, you appear to be using the word "harm" quite differently from the way joshs uses it. There have been a few concrete sentiments put forward by Heddy, Ulven, Jon and Richard, and some such as Arend, Han and Matt have tried to clear up some of the confusion. But most of what has been written here is obscure. At least to me. In particular, I can make no sense of what you, walddk and Jimmy are saying. I may or may not agree with you. You might as well be talking Swahili, as far as I'm concerned.

[Walddk]

In particular, I can make no sense of what you, walddk and Jimmy are saying. I may or may not agree with you. You might as well be talking Swahili, as far as I'm concerned.

From the word go I have said "No signs". How can that be so difficult to understand?

 

Roland

[luke warm]

all i've tried to say is that the 'all signs' and 'some signs' have the same meaning, even if there's someone somewhere who decides... because in that case the 'some signs' simply means 'all signs which i/we agree are appropriate'

[helene_t]

The following is not a joke. As surrealistic as it sounds, it really happened:

 

I was picked up on the street by a volunteer from "The Movement", who asked if I would participate in a poll. OK. The first question was: "What do you think about society?". When I asked her to be a little more specific she got baffled. I suppose she would have been pleased with a reaction like "I have given it a lot of thought and reached the conclusion that I'm all for it".

 

Serious bridge players are used to being very specific when they specify problems (for forum polls or otherwise). Therefore I'm disappointed that nobody seems to see a need for clarifying what the question in this thread is. Let me try to translate this thread into a bridge problem:

 

Fred (refering to a situation with information bordering UI): "When is it acceptable to lead a spade? Always, Sometimes, Never?"

 

Han: What do you mean by "acceptable"? Can something be bad sportmanship and still "acceptable"?

 

Fred: "Maybe we should set up a bad-sportmanship sub-comitee.

 

Helene: "Accetable? To whom? The AC that believes in the law or the players who believe in their own opinions?"

 

Jimmy: "I'm not talking about this specific case, I'm arguing philosofically"

 

Matt: "The TD has certain freedom in interpreting the laws. There will always be cases where the law is not explicit and he needs to use his common sense. If necessary, he can elicit expert knowledge. This system works quite well".

 

Jon: "The real question is if the TD should supervise players and tell them what to lead"

 

Fred: "I thought it was obvious that a "spade" means "a small spade" in this context".

 

Helene: "I have no idea if the term "lead" is restricted to "opening lead" or not. We are probably discussing different things at the same time".

 

But those were just the most obvious ambiguities. Nobody realized that different posters referred to different regulating authorities, some took it for granted that the question concerned equity restoration where it damaged opps to lead a spade while others assumed the discussion to include procedural penalties in non-damaging cases, some assumed that a vote for "never" would impose an obligation to call the TD while other's assumed that the non-offenders might do that only in case they claimed damage, some of the "some" voters thought of the borderline cases being so rare that it would not overload the AC while some of the "Never"-voters thought of a different threshold that would probably lead to almost all cases being forwarded to the AC etc etc etc. Nevertheless, several posters expressed strong sentiments, even to the point of relating the issue to holocaust denial, and making ad hominem attacks.

 

A well-posed question would focus on a very specifc decision which the posters should imagine themselves facing. "Would you, as a member of a CoC comitee of WBF, vote for an explicit ban on political signs, subject to an automatic fine of SDR 5000 per team member?" is a well-posed question. Therefore I can understand Jon's sentiments.

 

"Would you, as an attendant of such a ceremony, be negatively influenced with respect to your sympathy for a player, if that player displayed a 25*40 cm sign with some statement unrelated to the event?" is a well-posed question. Therefore I can understand Hetty's, Richard's and Ulven's sentiments.

 

Most other sentiments I cannot understand. Sound like "Society? I'm all for it!" to me.

[mycroft]

My problem is that a "no signs" rule is using a sledgehammer to hit a thumb^H^H^H^H^Hnail. It is the sign of a litigious society that "OMG, occasionally people do stupid things! We can't allow that! Ban everything that might lead to that!" rather than "We expect you to be reasonable. If you're not, well, actions have consequences. But we assume that 99% of you are reasonable 99% of the time; you might want to just double think things." is even being considered.

 

If making punishable "get well soon Paul" or "in memory of Mark M." is the price we have to pay to ensure that a joke doesn't get out of hand every 70 years and potentially cause an embarrassment, then it's not worth it - in my estimation.

 

Frankly, if the sign were less obviously "written on the back of a menu in marker 20 seconds before we went up", I don't think the reaction would be so bad. It wasn't that the message was controversial (well, yeah, it is), it's that it was *ugly*.

 

Michael.

[joshs]

Those rules benefit some and harm some.

I believe a "no signs" rule would harm nobody.

 

I believe it would be only a matter of time until a "some signs" rule would harm everybody.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Well I completely disagree. I think a no sign policy harms me, harms debby rosenberg, and harms anyone who would normally wear a political button, a yankee cap, an end the genocide in darfur sign, or a get well soon paul soloway sign. I think only people who would not normally have such a sign, who doesn't derive pleasure from having such a sign, thinks that outlawing something that gives someone else pleasure doesn't cause harm. Outlawing something always causes harm. If it didn't, you would not have needed to outlaw it in the first place. This does not mean you shouldn't outlaw it, but you need to recognize that you are causing harm and weigh the costs and benefits (to different people) of such a policy. When we ban smoking at the table we are harming you (or did you give up smoking recently?), and benefiting me. I think there is a good reason to make such a rule, but I would never claim it didn't harm you.

 

Josh

No offense intended, but I find this to be laughable.

 

Do you honestly believe that poor Debbie Rosenberg would be harmed if the USBF made it clear that they did not want people making overt political statements at THEIR tournaments? How about if the USBF made it clear that they did not want THEIR respresentatives to do the same thing?

 

Give me a break.

 

IMO it does zero harm to Debbie to ask her to respect the wishes of her hosts and the organization that chose her team and paid for their trip to Shanghai. If she really feels she needs to tell the world how she feels about politics, there are plenty of ways she can do that when the tournament is over.

 

And even if you really believe she will have been harmed in the process (which is hard for me to imagine but I will take your word for it), I cannot believe that you think that the degree of harm is even if the same league as the harm that will inevitably result if the WBF/USBF says "some signs are OK" or says nothing at all (which has the same effect).

 

I am not trying to single out Debbie even though she is the one who was actually holding the sign. You are the one who mentioned her name and I found it convenient to use a specific name in this post.

 

It turns out that I have liked Debbie very much since the time that we were both Junior players (her USA team beat my Canadian team in the finals of the 1991 World Junior Championships and IMO Debbie was the star of that match). This incident has not changed that. I sincerely hope that the feeling is mutual and that my strong disapproval of her actions will not impact our friendship as far as she is concerned either.

 

Debbie is a fantastic bridge player. It would be a real shame if, as a result of this incident, she was unwilling or not allowed to play in some future World Championship(s) for the USA.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Well Fred we will just have to live with finding each others position laughable. I think the position that

 

a. someone was harmed by the sign

but

b. Censoring signs harms no one

 

Is completely inane. I can understand the position that neither a or b harms anyone (although I completely disagree with it,) and the position that both policies harm someone so we just have to figure out which harm is most severe (my position is that censorship causes much more harm), but your actual position, well I just think you have no respect for other people having different values then you have. People throughout time have been beaten up, arrested, or even killed in order to speak freely, and such a person, who knows that they may be physically harmed, clearly thinks that the physical harm is not a severe as being silenced. I have no idea how much Debbie cares about her ability to speak out, or about her message, but many people certainly do care a great deal about their political beliefs.

[fred]

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.

 

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.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

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.