ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY AGREEMENT for bringing bad behaviour under check which is hurting bridge players
#1
Posted 2013-May-20, 19:24
#2
Posted 2013-May-20, 21:10
As to the bit about skill levels: Simply, pushaw. You're not the first, and you won't be the last, and I've only seen one common characteristic between those that bring it up, which I will not mention.
PS: Masterpoints != Skill, no matter how much some would like that to be true.
#3
Posted 2013-May-21, 12:04
TylerE, on 2013-May-20, 21:10, said:
"Posts: 1"?
#4
Posted 2013-May-29, 16:12
TylerE, on 2013-May-20, 21:10, said:
As to the bit about skill levels: Simply, pushaw. You're not the first, and you won't be the last, and I've only seen one common characteristic between those that bring it up, which I will not mention.
PS: Masterpoints != Skill, no matter how much some would like that to be true.
If you offered evidence for your rather sweeping statements I might agree with you. As it stands however I think frankant's suggestion of a zero tolerance policy agreement is entirely reasonable and timely. It might be difficult to implement and would probably result in our more colourful posters being banned.
#5
Posted 2013-May-30, 09:57
(*) Spoiler - er, that already happens. Doesnt stop the GIFs, says the Theory; and it looks like in practise too. <- Penny Arcade, don't go investigating GIFT if you're offended by words that would get one banned by ZT.
#6
Posted 2013-May-30, 11:28
mycroft, on 2013-May-30, 09:57, said:
One of the craziest recent stories was about how a kindergartner or first-grader was suspended because he was eating his Pop-Tart from the outside in -- and at one point the teacher thought that the remainder of the pastry was shaped like a gun!
#7
Posted 2013-May-30, 16:14
1) This is frankant's first post.
2) I may be naive but zero tolerance seemed to work in New York.
3) Can you judge a policy by the reaction of the fringe?
4) It is reasonable for newcomers to be surprised by the gap between BBO rules and members' actual behaviour.
#8
Posted 2013-May-30, 21:13
Scarabin, on 2013-May-30, 16:14, said:
1) This is frankant's first post.
Welcome, frankant.
Quote
Great comparison! I eagerly await the statistics on whether a strict stance on BBOers' loud boomboxes results in fewer members mugging each other.
Quote
Not sure about this. Probably not, in general. The fringe normally react the same way to everything even if the policy is mildly or moderately in favour of them.
Quote
They should definitely be apprised of the procedure for reporting a post that they feel is offensive. And, naturally, they can block posters whose content they do not like. (This, of course, applies only to the Forums.)
#9
Posted 2013-May-30, 21:27
Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 21:13, said:
The 1980s called, they want their stereotypes back.
#10
Posted 2013-May-30, 21:46
Scarabin, on 2013-May-30, 16:14, said:
Perhaps you are naive; here is the Wikipedia article.
A book I read a few years ago, Freakonomics, suggested that the reduction in violent crime in the 1990s was a result of Roe v Wade.
#11
Posted 2013-May-30, 23:10
Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 21:46, said:
A book I read a few years ago, Freakonomics, suggested that the reduction in violent crime in the 1990s was a result of Roe v Wade.
Perhaps the Wikipedia article confuses zero tolerance with mandatory sentencing. I understand zero tolerance as not turning a blind eye to minor crimes - not as applying the same punishment to major and minor crimes. However I do not think describing zero tolerance as brain dead or insane is justified in either case.
As regards my choice of "comparison" I choose those I think will be familiar to most posters. Another "comparison" would be that the Roman Catholic church could benefit from a zero tolerance policy toward sex abuse.
#12
Posted 2013-May-31, 01:23
#13
Posted 2013-May-31, 03:26
Scarabin, on 2013-May-30, 23:10, said:
Quite, but there are no "major crimes" that are facilitated by discourtesy at the online bridge table.
In any case, if bad behaviour is reported, something can be done about it. Isn't it supposed to be possible to save the chat logs?
#14
Posted 2013-May-31, 08:18
GreenMan, on 2013-May-31, 01:23, said:
It would be status quo in the Water Cooler forum. Let's stick to bridge here, please.
Back on topic, Zero Tolerance can be crazy if it's taken to an extreme and interpreted too literally. The main purpose of instituting it was because players were getting away with all kinds of disruptive behavior. Since it's not possible to enumerate precisely how decorum should be maintained, the hyperbolic term "Zero Tolerance" adequately gets the point across that disruption is unacceptable. It's up to the director to use common sense to avoid being excessive in applying it.
#15
Posted 2013-May-31, 09:43
#16
Posted 2013-May-31, 10:04
nige1, on 2013-May-31, 09:43, said:
Seriously? Can't civil behaviour be assumed, and penalised without having signed a contract?
#17
Posted 2013-May-31, 10:13
barmar, on 2013-May-31, 08:18, said:
Back on topic, Zero Tolerance can be crazy if it's taken to an extreme and interpreted too literally. The main purpose of instituting it was because players were getting away with all kinds of disruptive behavior. Since it's not possible to enumerate precisely how decorum should be maintained, the hyperbolic term "Zero Tolerance" adequately gets the point across that disruption is unacceptable. It's up to the director to use common sense to avoid being excessive in applying it.
But that's exactly the point! if it's "Zero Tolerance" there is no room for judgement.
#18
Posted 2013-May-31, 10:48
Vampyr, on 2013-May-31, 10:04, said:
Agreeing to Terms of Service is a routine part of signing up for online services. Why not? If nothing else, it shortens the arguments when someone does need to be booted: "You can't make me leave." "You agreed to the ToS and then violated it, so, yes we can."
#19
Posted 2013-May-31, 11:03
which is why I'm flipping out over the "ZT" word, which has all the advantages that "we're really going to take this seriously" does, and all the known disadvantages that "we're really going to take this seriously" doesn't - including in many cases not, in fact, taking it really seriously.
Okay, having the terms of service be a pop-through screen might be better than a link over there, but the only people that seriously believe that people read those pop-through screens are lawyers (and even they don't believe it, they've just written the law such that they can say it with a straight face).
Re: NYC, that's the "broken windows" policy, not a ZT policy in fact, wasn't it? And if we're looking at NYC "crime-fighting", an investigation into the "stop-and-frisk" policy's totally unbiased implementation might be in order. But that's one for the Water Cooler as well.
FrankAnt, welcome, even though I totally disagree with you. Please note that on the Internet, ALL CAPS IS CONSIDERED (and really, truly, read as) SHOUTING. Which may be a factor in the tone of the responses.
#20
Posted 2013-May-31, 12:10
mycroft, on 2013-May-31, 11:03, said:
If I remember correctly the terms were somewhat interchangeable back then -- you avoid the "broken windows" effect by refusing to tolerate sleeping on park benches, petty vandalism etc.
Now, of course, "Zero Tolerance" usually means a policy that is applied uniformly across the board -- eg "no guns or replica guns" treats forming your fingers into a gun and taking a gun to school the same -- with no application of common sense.