[awm]

Our district Grand National Teams event (which runs four days over two weekends) finishes on April 13th. My wife and are spending Passover (Jewish holiday on April 14th) with relatives overseas and need to travel on that day. I sent an email asking our district coordinator whether our (six person) team would be able to continue without us provided we make the final day. The conditions of contest state that each player must play half of every match, unless an exception is granted by the district coordinator. Her response read in part:

"I will NOT be able to give permission to players that can not play in the 2nd weekend
of this event. There have been others (on bridge cruises, etc.) that have recently
asked permission to do the same because of GOOD CAUSE --- but I have NOT given
exception for this."

Is there anything offensive about this response?

[Hanoi5]

awm, on 2014-January-24, 21:50, said:

Our district Grand National Teams event (which runs four days over two weekends) finishes on April 13th. My wife and are spending Passover (Jewish holiday on April 14th) with relatives overseas and need to travel on that day. I sent an email asking our district coordinator whether our (six person) team would be able to continue without us provided we make the final day. The conditions of contest state that each player must play half of every match, unless an exception is granted by the district coordinator. Her response read in part:

"I will NOT be able to give permission to players that can not play in the 2nd weekend
of this event. There have been others (on bridge cruises, etc.) that have recently
asked permission to do the same because of GOOD CAUSE --- but I have NOT given
exception for this."

Is there anything offensive about this response?

Are the caps yours? That would be offensive in my opinion...

[awm]

Hanoi5, on 2014-January-24, 22:24, said:

Are the caps yours? That would be offensive in my opinion...

The quote is exactly as she wrote it, all caps are hers.

[Bbradley62]

Either she or I may have misunderstood your situation. Are you able/willing to play on Staurday, April 12? If so, you're not asking to be excused from the whole second weekend.

[awm]

Bbradley62, on 2014-January-24, 22:32, said:

Either she or I may have misunderstood your situation. Are you able/willing to play on Staurday, April 12? If so, you're not asking to be excused from the whole second weekend.

We could play on Saturday; that's not actually the issue here. In fact even her decision not to make allowances for us is not the issue. The problem (for me) is the implication that going on a bridge cruise would be a more legitimate cause for requesting such an allowance than celebrating a religious holiday. But perhaps other people don't get that from her use of all caps?

[Bbradley62]

I would agree with you if the event were scheduled on the actual holiday; but she seems to (somewhat reasonably) view any travel plans as equivalent.

PS: I had already upvoted Hanoi's post about the caps.

[mr1303]

I'd say that this e-mail isn't exactly the politest or most friendly e-mail ever written, but against that I don't think you can claim this as being racist or anti-Semitic or anything similar.

Incidentally, the language sounds like the DC is a non-native English speaker.

[cherdano]

People are so terrible at writing emails - it's even worse than writing BBF posts. So I wouldn't be surprised if it was completely unintentional.

[FrancesHinden]

awm, on 2014-January-24, 22:52, said:

We could play on Saturday; that's not actually the issue here. In fact even her decision not to make allowances for us is not the issue. The problem (for me) is the implication that going on a bridge cruise would be a more legitimate cause for requesting such an allowance than celebrating a religious holiday. But perhaps other people don't get that from her use of all caps?

The caps are irritating but I don't find it offensive. Nor do I see the implication that you do.

[JLOGIC]

It could be read as

"There are others who have asked for permission for GOOD CAUSES like bridge cruises, and I didn't let them do it, so obviously I'm not gonna let you do it for such a BAD CAUSE like seeing family during Passover"

That is how Adam is interpreting I think (with some tongue in cheek hyperbole in my example of course)

But it could also be read as

"There are others who have ALSO asked for permission for GOOD CAUSES like travelling for bridge, and I didn't let them do it, so it would not be fair for me to let you do it for a GOOD CAUSE like travelling for Passover."

The whole good causes thing is vague, but I think it's far more likely that she's saying even though you have a good cause, she is not granting you permission because she also turned down others with similar good causes. It is just so unlikely to begin with that someone thinks a bridge cruise is more important than Passover. I don't even think she's saying bridge cruises are equally important as Passover, it's just what Bbradley said, she views all travel as equal and being out of town is a good cause but she's not going to grant the exception for that.

If certain travel is different than others, where does she draw the line? It wouldn't work. If you had to travel for work, that would be a good cause, but should she grant the exception? What about if your friend was getting married? How good of a friend would it have to be? What about family? Bridge cruises seem trivial but if it's a trip they've planned that they cannot get out of (cheaply) it is still a good reason to not be able to play. What if it was a trip to the Bahamas? What about Australia?

I think not getting into those judgement calls is fine. Her point was probably just it will piss off/get into that line if she gave you the exception but not the people who asked for it for other travel/schedule reasons. Maybe you disagree and maybe that's right but I doubt she was trying to imply that others reasons were more important and she said no to them.

[Cascade]

No.

Although I do object to the capitals. I would assume ignorance rather than offence until I knew different.

[kenberg]

First an experience of my own: I was on a team that had survived a couple of qualifying rounds. For the next round I had a conflic. I had agreed to be a judge at the National Mathcounts Competiton so I wanteds to be able to send in a substitute for that day,. This was turned down. I understood this, if that is what the rules required. But the Director kept referring to my othe commitment as a "hobby" as in "We can't do this just to accommodate your hobby" or "You have two hobbies and you will just have to choose between them".

I think it is similar here. Rules have to be set and it is probably best for all if the rules are clear and enforced uniformly. But the phrasing is godawful. Tact is not her forte, I would say.,

[ArtK78]

Aside from the problems in the e-mailed response to your request, it seems to me that the DC is essentially rewriting the District Conditions of Contest. If the COC provides that a player can miss an otherwise required segment of the event and remain qualified if the DC grants an exception to the COC, but the DC states that she will not grant and exception in your case and has not granted exceptions to others for good cause in the past, just when would the DC grant an exception? For all intents and purposes, the DC is removing the exception clause from the COC.

I would try to find out if any exceptions have ever been granted and what the circumstances were. Perhaps the circumstances are limited to a sudden illness of one of the team members - in other words, circumstances out of the control of the player - rather than situations which involve personal plans which were within the control of the player. If that is the case, I have no problem with the decision of the DC - only with the manner in which she puts her decision in writing.

When I started to read your post, I thought that you were going to say that the District had scheduled the event to conflict with Passover. But that is not the case.

[Vampyr]

People are so quick to feel "offended" these days. It's really irritating. People should get over themselves.

[kenberg]

Here is a suggested alternative response, i wonder what Adam and others would think:

Quote

I am rejecting your request to be excused from playing a portion of the match on April 13. I will explain how I reached this decision.

The conditions of contest state "[insert the conditions here]".

The dates and the conditions of contest were known well in advance. On this basis I consider granting exceptions to the requirement to play a portion of each match only in the case of events that are both serious in nature and could not have been foreseen. I accept that family gatherings for religious observances are serious in nature but the possibility for such a clash was a clearly foreseeable event, and since the schedulers still planned the contest for April 13, I am not granting an exception on this basis.

Something like that maybe? It does seem as if the schedulers decided to ignore the proximity of the dates. It would be crazy to do so with the follow-up intention of granting a large number of exceptions or, even worse, granting exceptions for some and not for others. It seems reasonable to conclude they were not planning on granting exceptions on the basis of the nearby observance of Passover.

When I was teaching, I found that professors fell into one of two groups concerning the Wednesday just before Thanksgiving. Some gave a test on that day. I always planned review material and examples for that day and, if possible, I provided material on the web for those who were on a plane home on that day. Scheduling events can be difficult and fully avoiding conflict with religious observance is not always possible but I would hope that the schedulers would at least give a thought to such matters. There has to be a balance. Another person's religion should not be allowed to control my schedule, but if a little forethought can avoid conflicts such as this, it seems sensible to do so.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-25, 08:03, said:

People are so quick to feel "offended" these days. It's really irritating. People should get over themselves.

What an offensive post, Stefanie!

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2014-January-25, 07:46, said:

Aside from the problems in the e-mailed response to your request, it seems to me that the DC is essentially rewriting the District Conditions of Contest. If the COC provides that a player can miss an otherwise required segment of the event and remain qualified if the DC grants an exception to the COC, but the DC states that she will not grant and exception in your case and has not granted exceptions to others for good cause in the past, just when would the DC grant an exception? For all intents and purposes, the DC is removing the exception clause from the COC.

The COC gives discretion to the DC. Unless there's also some criteria that she's supposed to follow, I don't see how she's changing anything. I suspect she would grant exceptions for last-minute emergencies, but rarely for someone who knows well in advance that they can't play all days of the event.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2014-January-25, 09:30, said:

What an offensive post, Stefanie!

Well, since it is critical of those who are quick to take offense, I suppose those people would be offended, particularly since they are quick to take offense... Ouch it is doing my head in!

[ggwhiz]

While I do find the reply offensive I immediately put it in the category of clueless insensitive moron and/or someone dealing with frivolous requests who has just HAD IT!

I'm not dealing with this until I find out what the motivation is and even if it's not to my liking I will just steer a wide path. I doubt that is the case here so take the high road.

[Bbradley62]

I still think it's worth a follow-up email to see if she's willing to differentiate between missing the whole second weekend and missing just the last day.