The authority to card

[telkanuru]

Your self-assessment is confirmed.

Apparently you have only a passing relationship with the English language?

[EldRick]

Apparently you have only a passing relationship with the English language?

You make my point for me - if I had raised you, you would not be arrogant, and would have much better manners. There is no reason for you to display senseless aggression in this forum. Grow up.

[telkanuru]

You make my point for me - if I had raised you, you would not be arrogant, and would have much better manners. There is no reason for you to display senseless aggression in this forum. Grow up.

And on the downside I'd be born with a mental defect.

Again, I'm fine the way I am, thanks.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

You make my point for me - if I had raised you, you would not be arrogant, and would have much better manners. There is no reason for you to display senseless aggression in this forum. Grow up.

His parents are actually very nice people and seemingly reasonable as parents go.

It turns out children have free will, so I don't really have much faith in how your skills as a parent would change a persona Telk decides to portray on an internet forum......

[Inquartata]

Playing loud music in the wee hours, when it's loud enough that the elderly neighbors to hear, is actually against the law in many (most?) jurisdictions.

It's not universal.

My point is that any society functions much more smoothly and pleasantly if individuals have a modicum respect for each others' sensibilities, as opposed to "Whatever I do, is right".

I put the deterioration of civility in modern America down to the lasting after-effects of the hippie culture and it's "Do your own thing" self-absorbtion.

If you're upset that the ref won't "turn down the volume of the fencers", you can complain to the bout committee, and see what their definition of "disturbing order" is.

Which delays your pool. I thought the referee corps was supposed to be a fellowship of people who help each other out, rather than causing each other needless difficulties? Particularly when, as in this specific case, it costs Ref A absolutely nothing to accomodate Ref B's request...

Depending on their personal interpretations, you may or may not get backup. But there are a whole lot of very good refs who will tell you to go away and stop bothering them.

Yeah? So it's all about who you are in the pecking order, then? That's pretty sad, IMO.

And if Ref B is Wes Glon and Ref A is Joe Nobody, the result is expected to be different?

But a referee making a judgement of fact that it isn't an infraction does mean that it isn't an infraction.

Unless there's video review, in which case it may well still be an infraction.

[epeemike81]

Which delays your pool. I thought the referee corps was supposed to be a fellowship of people who help each other out, rather than causing each other needless difficulties? Particularly when, as in this specific case, it costs Ref A absolutely nothing to accomodate Ref B's request...

It costs Ref A nothing, but does improperly affect the fencer in question who is now taken off their game by having to worry about subduing their normal behavior because ref B is easily distracted. You're suggesting that I should inconvenience a fencer by asking them to stop a perfectly legal behavior because it will make another Referee happy. I will not do that. I'm there to serve the fencers.

And if Ref B is Wes Glon and Ref A is Joe Nobody, the result is expected to be different?

Wes Glon would never be Ref B, but I'll grant the premise in order to answer. If Wes (or anybody else) asks me to card somebody for a behavior I don't consider improper, I will refuse to do so REGARDLESS of who the referee is.

-m

[MyrddinsPrecint]

It's not universal.

My point is that any society functions much more smoothly and pleasantly if individuals have a modicum respect for each others' sensibilities, as opposed to "Whatever I do, is right".

I put the deterioration of civility in modern America down to the lasting after-effects of the hippie culture and it's "Do your own thing" self-absorbtion.

On the other hand, assuming that others ought to always conform to what you wish simply because it is your sensibility (and not the norm sensibility) is another example of self-absorption and "whatever I do, is right".

Which delays your pool. I thought the referee corps was supposed to be a fellowship of people who help each other out, rather than causing each other needless difficulties? Particularly when, as in this specific case, it costs Ref A absolutely nothing to accomodate Ref B's request...

If Ref A actually believes that the fencer has done nothing wrong, and the examiner standing behind ref A believes the fencer has done nothing wrong, then penalizing the fencer may indeed cost ref A dearly.

Yeah? So it's all about who you are in the pecking order, then? That's pretty sad, IMO.

And if Ref B is Wes Glon and Ref A is Joe Nobody, the result is expected to be different?

The rules ideally ought to be consistent. In a perfect world, the same rules/interpretations/etc would be applied in a backwater E&Under and the Olympics. I would not want to go to 50 completely silent national competitions to get to a World Cup and find all my opponents yelling, regardless of whether or not I would like to yell. It's a bit "whatever I do, is right" to assume that the US will pick their favorite rules and the rest of the world will just go along with us. The rules and interpretations are set internationally, and then the upper echelon brings things back and sets rules and interpretations nationally.

Currently, nationally and internationally, a great deal of types of self expression are NOT considered disturbing order. I would personally like the threshold to be consistent throughout all competition, but I realize that's not likely. In the meantime, I will take my cues from refs who are better than me. And yes, if Wes Glon walked up to me and suggested that an individual was over the threshold, I'd probably believe him over me. Because I don't believe that whatever I do is right. In fact, when it comes to reffing, I'm often of the opinion that whatever I do is wrong!! (of course, I like to hope that I would make the change effective *later*, for the consistency for the fencers..... but I'm not so sure that I have the refereeing self esteem to manage it. )

[Inquartata]

I'm there to serve the fencers.

Apparently, you're there to serve one fencer. And the Devil take the others in his vicinity...

How noble and admirable of you.

Wes Glon would never be Ref B, but I'll grant the premise in order to answer. If Wes (or anybody else) asks me to card somebody for a behavior I don't consider improper, I will refuse to do so REGARDLESS of who the referee is.

-m

I have not said anything about carding anyone. I have been talking about asking the loud fencer to quiet down a bit, in order to make your fellow ref's job less difficult. You know; civil behavior between co-workers? Accomodating a reasonable request which costs you nothing?

Oh, I forgot: It disadvantages your favored fencer, so that's an outrageous thing to consider. Never mind; carry on.

On the other hand, assuming that others ought to always conform to what you wish simply because it is your sensibility (and not the norm sensibility) is another example of self-absorption and "whatever I do, is right".

Indeed. These things are a give and take.

Which is why I seldom ask a loud neighbor to quiet down. Because he has a right to his means of enjoyment, too, so long as it doesn't overwhelm everyone else's. One tries to find a balance. I go so far as to wear earplugs and noise-cancelling headphones so I can sleep though the banda music. Only when it exceeds even those or actually rattles things in my house do I ask them to turn it down. And you know what? They do.

Funny thing, that, huh? People getting along? Cooperating? Making concessions and getting them in return? What a concept!

And yes, if Wes Glon walked up to me and suggested that an individual was over the threshold, I'd probably believe him over me. Because I don't believe that whatever I do is right. In fact, when it comes to reffing, I'm often of the opinion that whatever I do is wrong!!

I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about him just asking you to do him a favor, and ask your fencer to take it down a notch because he, Wes, is finding it distracting. ( Not that he would, but hypothetically. )

You and Mike are thinking about this as "legal behavior" to which a fencer has a right as some sort of absolute, I think. But all three of us could think of all kinds of behaviors which are legal AND still disturb order; and all three of us probably have a threshhold beyond which even a behavior we tolerate at level 5 becomes intolerable at level 10. Still legal, but now it bothers me, not just Ref B. So now I do something about it. Right? But why? It's still "legal", after all. No?

All I'm saying is that it costs nothing to recognize that your threshhold is not the only one which matters, if one is a part of a community which is supposed to be helping each other out and making things go smoothly for all concerned. One can get along, instead of operating as if one is a petty king in his own personal fiefdom. No?

[epeemike81]

Apparently, you're there to serve one fencer. And the Devil take the others in his vicinity...

How noble and admirable of you.

The issue comes down to whether what the fencer is doing is allowed under the rules. If it is, then I will not card it or even ask them to stop. To do so would be to disadvantage that fencer. If it is not, then I will card it (or on occasion warn them and ask them to stop). To not do so would be to disadvantage all the other fencers.

Since in the example we're discussing Ref A already chose to not card it, clearly they've already determined that what the fencer is doing is NOT disturbing order. Thus, to change that decision based on what a fencer or other ref requests would be to disadvantage that fencer.

Where does it stop? If you're distracted by the color of your opponents lame, should I require that they find a new one?

If you ask the police to cite your neighbor for disturbing the peace because of the garish color they chose to paint their house, they will tell you that your neighbor is not, in fact, disturbing the peace. That doesn't mean they're favoring your neighbor, just that they have impartially judged that what you're complaining about is not, in fact, disturbing the peace.

Indeed. These things are a give and take.

Which is why I seldom ask a loud neighbor to quiet down. Because he has a right to his means of enjoyment, too, so long as it doesn't overwhelm everyone else's. One tries to find a balance. I go so far as to wear earplugs and noise-cancelling headphones so I can sleep though the banda music. Only when it exceeds even those or actually rattles things in my house do I ask them to turn it down. And you know what? They do.

Funny thing, that, huh? People getting along? Cooperating? Making concessions and getting them in return? What a concept!

And as a fencer, you should feel free to ask another fencer to please quiet down. They are free to either do so or not. Where we find an issue is when referees get involved. I think you'll agree that there is a very different tone to you asking your neighbor to quiet down than a police officer showing up and telling them to quiet down. The referee telling them is akin to the second one, not the first.

You and Mike are thinking about this as "legal behavior" to which a fencer has a right as some sort of absolute, I think. But all three of us could think of all kinds of behaviors which are legal AND still disturb order;

It is the fencing world's equivalent of a legal issue. Referees are there to maintain order and enforce the rules.

No, I cannot think of behaviors which are legal (in the fencing sense) and still disturb order, as there is a rule against disturbing order.

I can think of behaviors which are legal but some (including some refs) find distracting, but those do not disturb order. If they did, I'd card them.

and all three of us probably have a threshhold beyond which even a behavior we tolerate at level 5 becomes intolerable at level 10. Still legal, but now it bothers me, not just Ref B. So now I do something about it. Right? But why? It's still "legal", after all. No?

not true. If I believe it to be legal, I will allow it regardless of whether it bothers me or not. A great example is high pitched screaming. It's like nails on a chalkboard! It bothers me to no end. It's not, however, disturbing order, so I allow it. It is not my place to inconvenience a fencer for my own comfort level. I'm there to serve them.

What you seem to be missing is that in your analogy the referee is not one of the folks in the neighborhood, but rather the cops. So, in your analogy imagine that a police officer thought that what a citizen was doing was perfectly legal, but cited or arrested that citizen when requested by another cop. Doesn't sound so reasonable to me...

-m

[Insipiens]

But a referee making a judgement of fact that it isn't an infraction does mean that it isn't an infraction.

But is he applying the correct test? The referee makes a judgement of fact as to whether something is disturbing good order on "his" piste. I think the arguments arising here are partly down to the question as to how do we decide what is disturbing good order. The question of what are the appropriate tests is a question of how do we interpret correctly the rule, and therefore not just a judgement of fact.

[keith]

The question of what are the appropriate tests is a question of how do we interpret correctly the rule, and therefore not just a judgement of fact.

A scream-o-meter perhaps?

[Insipiens]

A scream-o-meter perhaps?

That implies that whether something is disturbing good order can be just a matter of volume.
Unless your scream-o-meter measures "piercing-ness" (as opposed to blood-curdling-ness ... yaarh) or other aspects of screaming (irritating-ness seems to be a useful measure)

Most people do seem to agree that other actions (slapping your opponent, making lewd gestures at the referee, punting your mask into the middle of an active bout ... ) are disturbing good order. The debate really seems to be about whether a scream per se, or a scream of a certain volume merely by virtue of its volume can be disturbing good order.

As I understand Inq he seems to be of the view that screaming qua screaming is disturbing good order. Epeemike seems to think no screaming is disturbing good order. The problem is one of interpretation - they are not arguing as to the volume or distraction of the scream [or maybe they are and I am missing something].

[KD5MDK]

In case the discussion is tempted to start back up again, this is not the place to discuss an individual's performance review.

[epeemike81]

In case the discussion is tempted to start back up again, this is not the place to discuss an individual's performance review.

It was the individual who brought it up... While it's thread drift, I don't believe it was improper...

-m

[keith]

It was the individual who brought it up... While it's thread drift, I don't believe it was improper...

-m

Seconded.

Even if the FOC states in it's communications that assessments are confidential the identities of the assessors, beyond 'The FOC', was not disclosed.

[vivoescrimare]

I think the issue being thrown around here is heavily subject to details that can't be considered "normal."

If I'm a solid referee, and I go to the referee across from me (whom I know) and say, "Hey, that screaming is really distracting me and the fencers on my strip, would you mind seeing if he can tone it down a bit?" then almost any referee that I have had the pleasure of working with would at the very least, jokingly inform the offending fencer that he was making it hard for other people to pay attention to their bout since his is evidently much more exciting. (This is assuming his screaming could be considered excessive.) No cards need be thrown, no feathers need be ruffled.

If, on the other hand, I yell across both strips at the referee on the far side, even jokingly, with "Do you want to card them or shall I?" I deserve a negative rebuttal.

Vivo

Please note, I sincerely believe most referees can see the line of what _could be_ considered excessive. I started fencing in college and have a pretty high tolerance, but I respect and can understand people who prefer a little more decorum in their bouts.

[KD5MDK]

Seconded.

Even if the FOC states in it's communications that assessments are confidential the identities of the assessors, beyond 'The FOC', was not disclosed.

I don't see any way a productive public discussion can come from it. The FOC certainly isn't in a position to publish the details of its evaluation here, so there's no way for a discussion to occur.

[keith]

I don't see any way a productive public discussion can come from it. The FOC certainly isn't in a position to publish the details of its evaluation here, so there's no way for a discussion to occur.

Given that these are not private fora I don't think productive discussion really comes into it. Although the fact that some people are not happy with FOC processes is certainly as useful as 99.99999% of the information on here. It's all infotainment after all .

Whether or not it's a good idea for folk to share this stuff is a totally different matter, and outside certain boundaries that should probably not be a mod's decision. Further, I think that most here would regard a dignified silence on the part of the FOC as perfectly appropriate.

[arc]

It's not universal.

My point is that any society functions much more smoothly and pleasantly if individuals have a modicum respect for each others' sensibilities, as opposed to "Whatever I do, is right".

I put the deterioration of civility in modern America down to the lasting after-effects of the hippie culture and it's "Do your own thing" self-absorbtion.

To restore thread drift ... Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon. The little speech about how duelling breeds civility because one thinks a bit more about consequences when one has to back up one's words with one's life ...

[The Jersey Devil]

Is that the Heinlein that referred to killing all the lawyers? Man had some intriging ideas.