Help
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?
Restricting by gender
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,808
- Joined: 2003-January-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:USA
Posted 2003-September-27, 11:05
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,422
- Joined: 2003-February-13
Posted 2003-September-27, 11:25
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.
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.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,472
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2003-September-27, 12:07
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.
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.
Alderaan delenda est
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,082
- Joined: 2003-April-26
- Gender:Male
- Location:Scottish Borders
Posted 2003-September-27, 13:10
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
Not that I see any sense in running said events ... especially online but also f2f.
Regards
Paul
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,599
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2003-September-27, 13:17
Quote
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.
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
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 114
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:Norway
Posted 2003-September-28, 03:06
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
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
Edvin say "a smile a day keep the doctor away"
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-March-07
- Gender:Male
- Location:Laos
- Interests:Wagner and Bridge
Posted 2003-September-28, 03:33
Exactly! How would you know that someone is male/female etc?
I have always suspected that Ben is an 18 yo curvaceous female.
I have always suspected that Ben is an 18 yo curvaceous female.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2003-September-28, 11:41
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
"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
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,156
- Joined: 2003-July-03
- Location:Portland, Oregon
Posted 2003-September-29, 11:54
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.
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.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,599
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2003-September-29, 12:59
Quote
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.
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
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,422
- Joined: 2003-February-13
Posted 2003-September-29, 15:24
Quote
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.
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,599
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2003-September-29, 15:58
Quote
Quote
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
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
#13
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 2,493
- Joined: 2003-February-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Dartmouth, NS, Canada
Posted 2003-September-29, 17:12
Quote
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.
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
#14
- Group: Members
- Posts: 198
- Joined: 2003-January-16
- Gender:Male
- Location:Albany, NY
- Interests:Doubling everything... there's nothing in life that shouldn't be doubled... except for, well... um....
Posted 2003-September-29, 18:47
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
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
John Chodan (skrshawk)
Administrator, BridgeBase Forums
Administrator, BridgeBase Forums
#15
- Axxx Axx Axx Axx
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,976
- Joined: 2003-August-31
- Gender:Male
Posted 2003-September-30, 16:27
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
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
#16
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2003-October-01, 07:45
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.
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.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#17
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 114
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:Norway
Posted 2003-October-01, 08:20
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
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
Edvin say "a smile a day keep the doctor away"
#18
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,422
- Joined: 2003-February-13
Posted 2003-October-01, 09:33
Quote
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!
#19
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2003-October-01, 13:58
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!
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!
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#20
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2003-October-01, 14:53
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
"...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