ZERO TOLERANCE AND STRICT RULES ON BEHAVIOUR ...... ( A short article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )

The problems with having sets of cast-iron rules are countless. Often problems stem from having rules which are either too rigid ,  or too loose and flexible.  Similarly having rules which are either too wide or to narrow can be equally problematic .  Then we have the problems of definition and interpretation , along with the headache of applying the rules to situations , where common sense dictates that  exceptions must be allowed ......along with of course, exceptions to the exception. 
Why not consider this rule for instance : players must refrain from rude and/or antisocial behaviour .
What does  " rude " or "antisocial " actually mean. At what point does behaviour cross the boundary from acceptable into unacceptable ?  Indeed ,  rudeness can come in all manner of forms , from aggressive, threatening foul mouth language to a subtle , cleverly worded, almost witty remarks . Who then is able to judge whether or not the rudeness rule has been broken ?
Drafting any set of workable rules is a nightmare. In the world of politics civil servants are given the daunting task of drafting rules ,  leaving the interpretation to the judges whenever cases involving alleged breaches come to court. By attempting to consider each case on its merits , judges first attempt to define the precise meaning of any critical or key words in the rules , before deciding whether or not the alleged incidents fall foul of the these rules, or do they perhaps qualify for a discretionary exception . Often decisions can go one way or the other if one set of facts can be distinguished from another. 
Allow me to give you a classic example. An over-excited almost manic player loses his composure as a result of mild provocation by an opponent , only to stand up , and swear like a trooper ,  firing off insults and expletives to all and sundry.  A flogging offence indeed ! Many would argue that zero tolerance sanctions can not and must not be overlooked in such an incident. Surely an immediate 3 month ban is warranted , justified and absolutely necessary if repeat incidents are to be avoided.
But what of mitigating circumstances , where the implementation of justice and fairness requires a much more tolerant view of what happened..... and why it happened ? The mild provocation, coupled with the discovery that the player involved had recently started on medication , which unfortunately for him had an unforeseen side-effects , including extreme irritability and highly emotional outbursts . In such circumstances offering sympathy and support is required : not retribution and punishment.

Moreover , in criminal law serious offences require the element of " a guilty mind " ( the mens rea ).  Therefore by the same token the real sinners at the bridge table should be those who have not only committed  " the guilty act " ( the actus reus ) ,  but who possess as well a state of mind where malicious, reckless  and negligent disregard for others' feelings can be established and proved. In the example quoted above I personally would not adopt a zero tolerance stance against the player ,  creating instead an exception to the rule. However , if it could be shown that he was aware of the potential side-effects , thereby recklessly putting others at risk as and when these extreme emotional outbursts occur ,  then establishing an exception to the exception might well be called for.
So yes , it is right and proper to ask and expect players to refrain from rude and/or antisocial behaviour ,  but not to invoke the same strict zero tolerance sanctions to all alleged wrongdoers. Each case must be judged on its merits ,  using common sense and the well established legal concept of natural justice to determine appropriate remedies .