[Bad_Wolf]

Check this out, it would never fly in the US (or most places for that matter).
The thought police are alive and well in New Zealand..
The board of New Zealand Bridge has adopted a new “Social media policy”. This policy specifically includes as “social media” private texts and emails!
The policy forbids, amongst other infractions, any social media “post or circulation” that includes any

“…disparaging language or commentary regarding a Player, Board or Committee member, official, the organisation or its Affiliated Clubs”

The penalty for failing to remove such a “disparaging” post is that the board may
“initiate formal disciplinary action with the potential for sanctions to be imposed as a consequence.”

The sanctions that may be imposed are wide ranging and include fines and expulsion from bridge in New Zealand.


Understandably there has been widespread criticism of this policy prior to its adoption, to no avail.

I would like to beg your indulgence as I test this policy on this fora.

The board of New Zealand bridge is acting in a heavy handed, patronising manner that may well breach New Zealand legislation. Far from acting in the best interests of bridge in the country they are acting simply to stifle criticism and healthy debate. The policy is a disgusting Stalinesque trampling of freedom of speech that I wrongly believed had been mostly eradicated from modern democracies. Shame, shame, you bunch of power mad megalomaniacs.

[nige1]

Bad_Wolf, on 2016-March-06, 20:50, said:

The board of New Zealand Bridge has adopted a new "Social media policy". This policy specifically includes as "social media" private texts and emails!The policy forbids, amongst other infractions, any social media "post or circulation" that includes any "…disparaging language or commentary regarding a Player, Board or Committee member, official, the organisation or its Affiliated Clubs" The penalty for failing to remove such a "disparaging" post is that the board may "initiate formal disciplinary action with the potential for sanctions to be imposed as a consequence."The sanctions that may be imposed are wide ranging and include fines and expulsion from bridge in New Zealand. [SNIP]

An apathetic public allow most organizations, especially Bridge organisations, to bask in indolent incompetence. Unless we take the trouble to stand for election, vote, or at the very least criticize, the consequences are our fault, it is human nature for the official culprits to object; but the organisation, as a whole, should welcome and profit from such attentions.

[helene_t]

I think you'll get a DP of at least two VPs for that post, Bad_Wolf

[Zelandakh]

The most recent policy document I could find at the NZB website is this one dated 22nd September. As far as I can see it has nothing in it to suggest private texts and emails are the issue suggested in the OP. Is there a new document?

[billw55]

Banning criticism is nigh proof of incompetence.

Furthermore it is harmful long term. Those orgs/clubs/officials/players that deserve criticism will drive down participation if unchecked.

Uh oh I may have just got myself banned.

[Bad_Wolf]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-07, 03:49, said:

The most recent policy document I could find at the NZB website is this one dated 22nd September. As far as I can see it has nothing in it to suggest private texts and emails are the issue suggested in the OP. Is there a new document?

The New manual is on the NZBridge website. See page A52. The next page instructs us to "respect the rights...of others", except freedom of expression apparantly.

[kenberg]

Let's see if I have this right. If, after I go down in a cold contract, I say that "I really screwed that up" that would be disparaging language or commentary regarding a Player, right?

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-March-08, 14:15, said:

Let's see if I have this right. If, after I go down in a cold contract, I say that "I really screwed that up" that would be disparaging language or commentary regarding a Player, right?

And you'd better not slap yourself on the wrist, lest you be accused of assault.

[1eyedjack]

Are those responsible for formulating the policy elected officials on a fixed term, out of curiosity?