J24 (Sail No. 4239) Dartmouth |
Laurent Giles 'Jolly Boat' Exeter |
29er GBR 074 Tynemouth |
List classes of boat for sale |
Rule 69 - where are the limits |
Post Reply | Page <1 7891011> |
Author | |
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Topic: Rule 69 - where are the limits Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 8:14am |
[QUOTE=Solo4652] It's a gross breach of good manners if it was aimed at me and I say so. It's easy for the protest committee to decide whether it was a gross breach of good manners - just ask the person on the receiving end. /QUOTE]
No, you can determine whether you were offended, but you can't determine whether the other person was rude. My grandma would have been offended by the use of 'ta mate' rather than 'thank you madame', but that is her problem not the other persons, and is not a gross breach of good manners. |
|
Rupert
Really should get out more Joined: 11 Aug 04 Location: Whitefriars sc Online Status: Offline Posts: 8956 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 10:02am |
You reallycould get to the situation where someone is disqualified for not saying please if the only person who has any say in matteres is the "offended" person. I think I'll put in a counter protest as I was offended that you protested me, and feel is was a gross breach of manners. You can't do anything about it because only my view counts.
|
|
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
|
Solo4652
Groupie Joined: 08 Apr 15 Location: Stockport Online Status: Offline Posts: 71 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 11:25am |
@Peaky
"My grandma would have been offended by the use of 'ta mate' rather than 'thank you madame', but that is her problem not the other persons, and is not a gross breach of good manners." I can't see that, sorry. Your grandma does not "have a problem" if she is grossly offended by "Ta mate". OK - she might be out-of-step with modern society and its use of language, but she is nonetheless still grossly offended by the remark. As I've suggested, maybe a low-threat way forward would be for your Grandma to not have to make a full-on Protest for such incidents (as she has to at the moment). Maybe we should make an Advisory Hearing a necessary first response, the aim being that the name-caller learns that what he said was considered grossly offensive, even if he didn't think so. "Oh, OK - sorry, no offence intended. I'll not say that to you again". If he does says the same thing again to your Grandma thereafter, then she protests. Edited by Solo4652 - 15 Aug 15 at 11:26am |
|
Rupert
Really should get out more Joined: 11 Aug 04 Location: Whitefriars sc Online Status: Offline Posts: 8956 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 11:37am |
So, normal, everyday language is now seen as an offence when sailing in your book. Would that be a rule in your simplified version too?
|
|
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
|
PeterG
Really should get out more Joined: 12 Jan 08 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 818 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 11:48am |
It's a gross breach of good manners if it was aimed at me and I say so. It's easy for the protest committee to decide whether it was a gross breach of good manners - just ask the person on the receiving end.
That's complete nonsense. On that basis anyone can have someone disqualified for saying pretty much anything if they want to by saying "Oh I was so offended". Racing sailing boats, like any other group sport involves agreement between those involved about what they are doing and how. That requires common agreement on things like what is offensive language as much as it does agreeing that I won't fit a mainsail 50% bigger than class rules allow. If we don't accept common agreement on what the rules of the game are then we might as well all go home. You are, of course, fully entitled to be offended by "silly sausage", and to say so, but your are not entitled to expect a protest committee to penalise someone because you, and you alone, find it offensive.
|
|
Peter
Ex Cont 707 Ex Laser 189635 DY 59 |
|
Solo4652
Groupie Joined: 08 Apr 15 Location: Stockport Online Status: Offline Posts: 71 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 1:21pm |
"...that requires common agreement on things like what is offensive language as much as it does agreeing that I won't fit a mainsail 50% bigger than class rules allow..."
Two completely different things, I suggest. It's entirely possible for us to agree about something overt and quantifiable such as sail sizes. However, it's going to be well-nigh impossible for us to agree on something which is hidden, personal and subjective such as offensive language. In fact, I'm suggesting that we don't even try to - we recognise from the outset that "offensive language" is a an ever-changing shape-shifting phenomenon that's best "defined" at a moment in time by the person on the receiving end of it. Could all be different next week, of course, or in a different fleet, or with different generations as society shifts and evolves. That's the problem with "gross breach of manners" - it's such an ephemeral thing. |
|
Solo4652
Groupie Joined: 08 Apr 15 Location: Stockport Online Status: Offline Posts: 71 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 2:29pm |
Folks,
Alongside my stepping aside over in the "Simplified Rules" debate, I think I need to do the same thing here. I've contributed what I can to this thorny problem of Rule 69, and all I'm doing now is repeating points I've made before. So, I'll check in periodically, but stay away from front-line debate for now. Peace, Steve |
|
andymck
Far too distracted from work Joined: 15 Dec 06 Location: Stamford Online Status: Offline Posts: 397 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 3:15pm |
As expected, as I must admit I did when these concepts were first introduced to me, people are way over reacting. The expected calls to be made on the course are clearly explained in the rules.
No one has ever suggested we should be chucking people out for not saying please. What we are saying is that what we may perceive as banter, may be bordering on bullying and offence. Most people in the uk are very happy to use some peoples hair colour in banter, which clearly meets the definition of racism, and don't intend the deep offence they cause. I also do not think in most cases it would warrant a DSQ either. But you would be guilty. The only case I have seen, was when a talented team racer told a guy from an opposite team after they beat his 1 v 3 mark trap "you should even try team race manoeuvres against teams like us, you will always loose" got an immediate flag. It had been made clear in the briefing what would happen. But was not excessive language. This is a clear minefield, there are legal definitions of offence, and I am afraid they have little to do with what either the general public, nor the protest committee regards as offence. This is quite clearly why you have such a wide option of potential penalties within 69 |
|
Andy Mck
|
|
Rupert
Really should get out more Joined: 11 Aug 04 Location: Whitefriars sc Online Status: Offline Posts: 8956 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 16 Aug 15 at 7:50pm |
How is Mentioning someone's hair colour racist? Offensive I can see, but before I went grey, I'm told I had a ginger beard (to me it always looked brown...), yet I am the same race as the bloke up the road with a black beard.
|
|
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
|
MattK
Far too distracted from work Joined: 02 Feb 05 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 221 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 16 Aug 15 at 8:02pm |
It's not.
|
|
Post Reply | Page <1 7891011> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |