Don't get me wrong but I'm all in favour of promoting best behaviour at bridge, but the idea of implemented zero tolerance policies as a way forward to achieving this goal is a nonsense. Zero tolerance is in itself extreme intolerance, which smacks of blinkered prejudice towards any form of misconduct no matter how petty or insignificant it is. So is there another way in dealing with disruptive players other than to throw the book at them whenever they step out of line? Well, the answer is " yes ".
Behind every incident there is a root cause that needs to be investigated, identified and understood. Indeed, there are many instances in which players need to be forgiven rather than lambasted. These situations might be when they were themselves innocent victims of anti-social baiting and/or provocation by others. Why shouldn't a player get upset when others are guilty slow play, soft cheating, coffee-housing tactics, insults and false accusations. It is human nature to react in an impulsive and aggressive way.
Moreover, what is the big deal if the player's alleged misconduct has not caused any real alarm or concern to others. Nevertheless, when relationships with club members have been seriously harmed by this incident, there are strong grounds to treat the incident as one warranting a formal complaint followed by a preliminary investigation .
However, it is my contention that when faced with " disruptive " members bridge club committees need to tread very carefully, and would be best advised, before taking up disciplinary proceedings, to adhere to the following advice and guidelines :
(a) not lose sight of the nature and character of the game, where petty altercations are common place and where apologies can so easily asked for and sincerely given
(b) keep their own personal prejudices in check by staying objective and impartial at all times
(c) investigate thoroughly the cause of his/her problematic behaviour in general
(d) arrive objectively and unemotionally at what might have been the underlying factors as to why the member behaved in that way
(e) decide upon a common sense, practical and effective course of action, appropriate to this particular type of disruption and its specific cause ( such action may vary from a quiet word to securing a written promise to change his/her ways, or from in-house counselling to training or treatment sought elsewhere )
By jumping straight in with the zero tolerance policy 3-strikes-and-your-out rule, and pursuing disciplinary proceedings in the manner of a kangaroo court, this rather unwise and uncompromising response completely overlooks the more sensible softly-softly behavioural approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment