[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]

Quote

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.

[Rhutobello]

I think we all can agree that we will not have discrimination :

It is just the way we see it, let us just take this comment:
(it must not be taken as an attac on writer, I just use it in trying to explain my thoughts)

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.

The start of discrimination is planting of a little seed, that "good people" allow to grow. Suddently it stand as a plant and you must fight hard to get rid of it.

And yourself are saying it good in this line:

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

Yes that is right, and since it has no point to the majority of players, no demand for quality in brigde, and there are no way to controll the partisipants fullfillment of the "demand", there is no use in allowing them to start, even if there is no seed of discrimination.

How many of your locale brigdeclub assemble 1500 and more players each night?

How many national events assemble the same?

How many nationes do your local club have playing?

As you see, f2f is one thing online brigde is something else.

Let us care 8)

Have a nice day ;D

[dogsbreath]

It has always been a condition of playing on BBO that courtesy ,or at least lack of rudeness, is shown to others.. surely this gives Fred et al enough scope to deal with this matter without over-complicating the issue. As another contributor said.. there are lots of tourneys now.. if you dont like the look of it dont join.. contentious titles or conditions are probably against the site rules already.

Regards, Dogsbreath

[Rhutobello]

First, read the starting question 8)

Second, the more tournys BBO host the more awear they have to be, in order to give justice to all.

This has nothing to do with players and their abillity to choose another tournament, that we will do anyway 8)

It has all about to see ahead, and then I can't see any point in allowing tournys that have no controlling sources 8)

Have a nice day ;D