28 Feb 2008 12:53:20
arahim
Conducting an Opinion Poll

With all this uproar about what gestures and words should be
sanctionable ICC has created a questionaire for polling opinion on
what is offensive and what is not so they can institute the standards
of the masses to their sanctioning system. Here are the questions.
Please participate and help remove offensiveness from cricket.

1. Which do you think is worse: The bowler (feilder) pointing towards
the pavillion after dismissing a batsman OR telling the batsman that
he should retire because he is too old and can't run or bat?
Auxilliary question: In case of the later is the bowler/feilder
committing treason to his team by trying to get a weak member of the
team out of the lineup and therefore making the task of his team more
difficult.

2. If someone stereotypes an accent (of someone) and says "I am
playing for my country" then is it alright in return for the other
party to make fun of the offending party's religion OR is religion
more sacred than nationalism.

3. If a word can be unutterable by one party because it is deemed
racially offensive by one party then can the other party ask for
certain behaviors and words to be banned because they carry the same
seriousness of offense to them.

4. If Symonds refuses to play in one country, where no specific threat
has been made against him, because he feels it dangerous should he
refuse to play in another country from where specific threats have
been made OR is it ok to play in the second country because of the
amount of money being offered (may be its like being US truck driver
in Iraq: You do it for the money). Also some posters have pointed out
that the threat to "whites" is more in the first country. As of last
reports that does not apply to Symonds even if taken at face value
except for the cream on his face.

5. Which standard of determining seiousness or jest be used?
A. One party and one party alone determines whether what they say is
in jest or seriousness and also they alone decide what the other party
said was in jest or seriousness.
There are no other options available.


29 Feb 2008 09:33:43
Rod
Re: Conducting an Opinion Poll

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:53:20 -0800 (PST), arahim
<arahim_arahim@hotmail.com > wrote:

>1. Which do you think is worse: The bowler (feilder) pointing towards
>the pavillion after dismissing a batsman OR telling the batsman that
>he should retire because he is too old and can't run or bat?
>Auxilliary question: In case of the later is the bowler/feilder
>committing treason to his team by trying to get a weak member of the
>team out of the lineup and therefore making the task of his team more
>difficult.

I see both as pretty minor but I'd suggest the sledge is worse.
That's only because I see pointing to the sheds as a non-event.

>2. If someone stereotypes an accent (of someone) and says "I am
>playing for my country" then is it alright in return for the other
>party to make fun of the offending party's religion OR is religion
>more sacred than nationalism.

Have at it. Make fun of my religion all you want.

>3. If a word can be unutterable by one party because it is deemed
>racially offensive by one party then can the other party ask for
>certain behaviors and words to be banned because they carry the same
>seriousness of offense to them.

Absoultely. Seems you're describing a catch 22 though.

>4. If Symonds refuses to play in one country, where no specific threat
>has been made against him, because he feels it dangerous should he
>refuse to play in another country from where specific threats have
>been made OR is it ok to play in the second country because of the
>amount of money being offered (may be its like being US truck driver
>in Iraq: You do it for the money). Also some posters have pointed out
>that the threat to "whites" is more in the first country. As of last
>reports that does not apply to Symonds even if taken at face value
>except for the cream on his face.

My head is about to explode trying to decipher that one...

>5. Which standard of determining seiousness or jest be used?
>A. One party and one party alone determines whether what they say is
>in jest or seriousness and also they alone decide what the other party
>said was in jest or seriousness.
>There are no other options available.

I'll go for no other options available for $500, Alex.

Cheers,
Rod.


28 Feb 2008 17:35:02
Brijesh
Re: Conducting an Opinion Poll

On Feb 28, 12:53 pm, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> With all this uproar about what gestures and words should be
> sanctionable ICC has created a questionaire for polling opinion on
> what is offensive and what is not so they can institute the standards
> of the masses to their sanctioning system. Here are the questions.
> Please participate and help remove offensiveness from cricket.

Okay

>
> 1. Which do you think is worse: The bowler (feilder) pointing towards
> the pavillion after dismissing a batsman OR telling the batsman that
> he should retire because he is too old and can't run or bat?
> Auxilliary question: In case of the later is the bowler/feilder
> committing treason to his team by trying to get a weak member of the
> team out of the lineup and therefore making the task of his team more
> difficult.
>

I think both should be allowed or disallowed. They are equally
offensive or non offensive. To me these things don't seem offensive.


> 2. If someone stereotypes an accent (of someone) and says "I am
> playing for my country" then is it alright in return for the other
> party to make fun of the offending party's religion OR is religion
> more sacred than nationalism.

Definitely racist to imitate an accent. But its not all right for the
other party to be offending a religion just because he was a victim of
a racist remark. Offending religious beliefs is definitely not
justified here.

>
> 3. If a word can be unutterable by one party because it is deemed
> racially offensive by one party then can the other party ask for
> certain behaviors and words to be banned because they carry the same
> seriousness of offense to them.

Of course. If calling someone a "donkey" or an "elephant" or a "rat"
is racially offensive in some culture, I'd propose a ban on such
words. Also accusing someone wrongly of using these words should be
considered an equally big offense. Thats because its a serious
allegation

>
> 4. If Symonds refuses to play in one country, where no specific threat
> has been made against him, because he feels it dangerous should he
> refuse to play in another country from where specific threats have
> been made OR is it ok to play in the second country because of the
> amount of money being offered (may be its like being US truck driver
> in Iraq: You do it for the money). Also some posters have pointed out
> that the threat to "whites" is more in the first country. As of last
> reports that does not apply to Symonds even if taken at face value
> except for the cream on his face.

Where Symonds prefers to play is his own free will. I remember
Australia refusing to play in SL in 96 world cup (probably because
they were afraid of losing) and a combined indo-pak playing in Sri
Lanka just to show how paranoid the West Indies and Australians were.
My guess is even now, Australia does not want to play in the sub
continent against Pakistan. But its the players free will. He has
every right to opt out of a tour for personal reasons and CA has right
to take into consideration the fact that he dropped out of a tough
tour.


>
> 5. Which standard of determining seiousness or jest be used?
> A. One party and one party alone determines whether what they say is
> in jest or seriousness and also they alone decide what the other party
> said was in jest or seriousness.
> There are no other options available.

If party A feels that party B is crossing the line, then PArty A
should bring a complete stop to the "jest". If party A still does not
stop then it better be prepared to accept the "jest" of party B.



28 Feb 2008 21:14:57
Re: Conducting an Opinion Poll

On Feb 29, 1:53=A0am, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> With all this uproar about what gestures and words should be
> sanctionable ICC has created a questionaire for polling opinion on
> what is offensive and what is not so they can institute the standards
> of the masses to their sanctioning system. Here are the questions.
> Please participate and help remove offensiveness from cricket.
>
> 1. Which do you think is worse: The bowler (feilder) pointing towards
> the pavillion after dismissing a batsman OR telling the batsman that
> he should retire because he is too old and can't run or bat?
> Auxilliary question: In case of the later is the bowler/feilder
> committing treason to his team by trying to get a weak member of the
> team out of the lineup and therefore making the task of his team more
> difficult.

Neither should be a problem. Lets stop this whining. However, a bowler
verbally abusing a batsman in a really bad way or worse actually
throwing the ball at him (after fielding it) or fielders doing that
should be looked at very seriously.
>
> 2. If someone stereotypes an accent (of someone) and says "I am
> playing for my country" then is it alright in return for the other
> party to make fun of the offending party's religion OR is religion
> more sacred than nationalism.

Lets not bring religion into this. If an Australian makes fun of an
Indian accent (in English) than the Indian should turn around and make
fun of the way the Australlian speaks the Indian language. That would
be in the right spirit.
>
> 3. If a word can be unutterable by one party because it is deemed
> racially offensive by one party then can the other party ask for
> certain behaviors and words to be banned because they carry the same
> seriousness of offense to them.

Yes, this should be allowed.
>
> 4. If Symonds refuses to play in one country, where no specific threat
> has been made against him, because he feels it dangerous should he
> refuse to play in another country from where specific threats have
> been made OR is it ok to play in the second country because of the
> amount of money being offered (may be its like being US truck driver
> in Iraq: You do it for the money). Also some posters have pointed out
> that the threat to "whites" is more in the first country. As of last
> reports that does not apply to Symonds even if taken at face value
> except for the cream on his face.

It would be interesting had there been huge terrorists attacks in
major cities in India. And then a couple of months later would those
players have refused to play in these cities (when they have been
offered huge amounts to play). That would really have been interesting
to see.
>
> 5. Which standard of determining seiousness or jest be used?
> A. One party and one party alone determines whether what they say is
> in jest or seriousness and also they alone decide what the other party
> said was in jest or seriousness.
> There are no other options available.


Surely you jest.


29 Feb 2008 17:44:44
FiLtHy
Re: Conducting an Opinion Poll


SNIPPED:

Heres my Poll:

Why do Indians whinge so much?

Do they have an inferiority complex? (Fucking oath they do!!!)

Why does their captain (ODI)/keeper keep cheating?

What satisfaction does he get knowing he's a cheat?

When will the Pakis nuke those fuckers?






29 Feb 2008 07:26:40
Mango
Re: Conducting an Opinion Poll


"arahim" <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4d350b0a-ef58-4f92-b3ba-d000093cb4aa@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> With all this uproar about what gestures and words should be
> sanctionable ICC has created a questionaire for polling opinion on
> what is offensive and what is not so they can institute the standards
> of the masses to their sanctioning system. Here are the questions.
> Please participate and help remove offensiveness from cricket.
>
> 1. Which do you think is worse: The bowler (feilder) pointing towards
> the pavillion after dismissing a batsman OR telling the batsman that
> he should retire because he is too old and can't run or bat?
> Auxilliary question: In case of the later is the bowler/feilder
> committing treason to his team by trying to get a weak member of the
> team out of the lineup and therefore making the task of his team more
> difficult.
>

The first is the worst of the two but both are trivial and shouldn't be
punished. The answer to the second question is that a player is not trying
to get a weak player out of the team. He is trying to get a good player to
have second thoughts about himself.

> 2. If someone stereotypes an accent (of someone) and says "I am
> playing for my country" then is it alright in return for the other
> party to make fun of the offending party's religion OR is religion
> more sacred than nationalism.
>

Both religion and nationality are not reasons to abuse people. Both should
be punished

> 3. If a word can be unutterable by one party because it is deemed
> racially offensive by one party then can the other party ask for
> certain behaviors and words to be banned because they carry the same
> seriousness of offense to them.
>

Yes. There can be a difference in degree. There can be be a cultural
difference that leads to a misunderstanding. Tolerance should be shown for
first offences, and if apologies are offered they should be accepted. If
there are repeats when a particular player knows that the other player is
offended by those words then the offence can be construed to be deliberate
and of a higher level.

> 4. If Symonds refuses to play in one country, where no specific threat
> has been made against him, because he feels it dangerous should he
> refuse to play in another country from where specific threats have
> been made OR is it ok to play in the second country because of the
> amount of money being offered (may be its like being US truck driver
> in Iraq: You do it for the money). Also some posters have pointed out
> that the threat to "whites" is more in the first country. As of last
> reports that does not apply to Symonds even if taken at face value
> except for the cream on his face.
>

He can play where he likes for whatever reason he likes.

> 5. Which standard of determining seiousness or jest be used?
> A. One party and one party alone determines whether what they say is
> in jest or seriousness and also they alone decide what the other party
> said was in jest or seriousness.
> There are no other options available.