New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Rule 69 - where are the limits
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Rule 69 - where are the limits

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 11>
Author
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1087
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 15 at 12:16am
Originally posted by Solo4652

Well, - they're the Protest Committee, not the Ethics Committee.

Why would it be grossly unreasonable for a competitor to be penalised for saying "Silly Sausage" to me on the racetrack if I genuinely find it offensive?

Because there is no rule that forbids calling you a silly sausage or offending you in any other way that does not rise to the level of a gross breach of good manners.
Back to Top
Solo4652 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 08 Apr 15
Location: Stockport
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Post Options Post Options   Quote Solo4652 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 15 at 2:42am
Not sure my verbal reasoning skills can cope with that last sentence of yours, Brass! And in any case, what if I personally do consider "Silly sausage" to be a gross breach of good manners? You might not, the Protest Committee might not, but what if I do?
Back to Top
andymck View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 15 Dec 06
Location: Stamford
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 391
Post Options Post Options   Quote andymck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 15 at 8:14am
I can think of plenty of people who would be greatly offended by being called a sausage. They would even claim it was racist, given what sausages are made from.
Andy Mck
Back to Top
Rupert View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 11 Aug 04
Location: Whitefriars sc
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8892
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rupert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 15 at 10:48pm
If the person calling you a silly sausage did so deliberately to offend you personally, with prior knowledge that it would do so, then perhaps you have a point, but if such a mild term was used at random, you'd have to understand it was not meant to be offensive. f**k off yout**t, on the other hand, doesn't need context.
Firefly 2324, Lightning 130, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
Back to Top
Peaky View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 15 Nov 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2813
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peaky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 15 at 11:12pm
Being thin skinned (like many sausages) does not give you a right to protest someone under rule 69. Should we say "please" when requesting room at a mark, so as not to offend. Or better still "after you".
Back to Top
andymck View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 15 Dec 06
Location: Stamford
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 391
Post Options Post Options   Quote andymck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 15 at 11:22pm
That's the issue here. Offensive comments do not need to be intended to be offensive. That is why we get all sorts of what can seem frivolous complaints go a long way in the real world. For a protest committee to try and decide what is offensive is a potential minefield. Many people just can't understand why someone else may take offence. The sausage example is one, and we do have sailors from religious backgrounds that could be offended.
If there is no intention, the committee has the option to issue a warning. This would be both educational and proportional.
I am not advocating a flourish of protests but the question should not be did you intend to be offensive, but why are you offended.
Andy Mck
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1087
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 12:24am
Whether a person is or is not offended by some conduct is NOT the issue.

The issue a protest committee must decide in a rule 69 hearing is whether, if because someone was offended to some degree or because of some other reason there was a gross breach of good manners.

That is to say, not only that there was a breach of good manners (which arguably any foul swearing is), but whether such a breach of good manners was a gross breach.
Back to Top
andymck View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 15 Dec 06
Location: Stamford
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 391
Post Options Post Options   Quote andymck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 1:14am
But manners are subject to national, racial and religious and gender variation. A protest committee that does not appreciate that banter for one is a gross breach of manners to another. I agree that you can breach this rule without causing offence to a competitor. But you may also breach this rule unintentionally by using what you feel is banter.
Like I have said previously I have seen an international judge give a penalty for banter which he perceived as bullying.


Edited by andymck - 15 Aug 15 at 1:20am
Andy Mck
Back to Top
Solo4652 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 08 Apr 15
Location: Stockport
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Post Options Post Options   Quote Solo4652 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 1:21am
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. In that way, it almost becomes a self-policing rule that's easy for a protest committee to rule upon. Also, it might mean competitors think twice about mouthing off at somebody else because they realise that what they're saying might be a gross breach of manners, even if they don't think it is. That realisation may then lead to people being far more likely to keep their mouth and temper under control, and that might well make a racecourse a much more pleasant place to be for all concerned. Bliss.

Edited by Solo4652 - 15 Aug 15 at 1:32am
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1087
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 15 at 2:01am
Originally posted by andymck

But manners are subject to national, racial and religious and gender variation

If that is so then a protest committee would take that into account

A protest committee that does not appreciate that banter for one is a gross breach of manners to another.

I agree that you can breach this rule without causing offence to a competitor.

You can also offend a competitor without breaking the rule.

But you may also breach this rule unintentionally by using what you feel is banter.

I think that foul language or abuse that amounts to a gross breach of good manners would go beyond banter in anyone's language.

Banter is intended to at least 'get a rise' out of someone. It cant be unintentional, and while intentionality is not a necessary ingredient of a gross breach of good manners, it would certainly be an aggravating factor.

Like I have said previously I have seen an international judge give a penalty for banter which he perceived as bullying.

Which involves intimidation, which is another issue, probably involving a breach of good sportsmanship.



Edited by Brass - 15 Aug 15 at 2:09am
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy