Just a quick general question on the definition on how we implement “gender-diverse” now:
- Four guys not okay.
- Four woman okay.
Right?
in my understanding, diverse means that at least 1 representant of another gender has to make part of the team, ( regardless the sexual orientation).
ex: 3 people who concider themselves as males + 1 person that concider themselve as a female,
or the opposite, or any proportion of these two genders (sorry for the terminology and a simplistic binarisation of the gender spectrum,).
but maybe this could be further disscussed?
merci jo,
vous aviez tout bien compris!
je l ai demandé sur tout pour comparer les 2 façons de décider, club vs individuel, parce que on veut tous un système de vote le plus juste possible pour le max de gens.
1 Like
I’m more confused then before.
I’ll try to make my examples (i.e. this is not a the complete list) more clear:
- Four heterosexual biological males not okay.
- Four heterosexual biological females okay.
- Two heterosexual biological males and two heterosexual biological females okay.
Right?
Not okay.
Sorry guys for messing around, but with my absolutely neutral observation skills I report following formal error in the voting process:
We (Basel) voted blank for the last question. The sheet contains a column to report „blank“ as a vote in the excel sheet = on the macrolevel. Its Quentin who created the sheet and filled our vote in. So for us it was ok to vote „blanc“ on the macrolevel. Nobody cares about the question five, by the way. It was accepted.
But for the hot topic „mixed mandatory“ this same „blank“ votes where absorbed as „yes“ despite the fact that it should be accepted on the macrolevel, as our vote was accepted.
So this is incoherent to count the blanks in one column and to not count it two columns earlier, just because it serves the interests some voting party. I think it was just not clear at all to anybody. As Basil stated he wasn‘t aware, and as everybody can see above everybody imagined something different under this label. Some reported „abstain“ some „no opinion“ some „blank“ and as I statet we could transfer „blank“ and it was counted as a category and filled in. But just partially.
Dont call me a bad person or shitstorm on me, because I report it. If you are honest you must admit that this observation is valid and this vote contains a problem where it matters.
At least whe should dramatically improve and clarify our decision making process in the extreme case we should consider to repeat the vote.
Hi everyone
Sorry for the late Interruption in this Discussion:
First i love bike polo and all the different people in this Circus and i think it’s a great Community.
And i love to play all kind of tournaments, the tougth ones like Euros or Worlds and the fun ones, i even enjoy to play the normal Pickups in the lokal Club.
I personally enjoy the really though plays against and with the best players (i would not count me to the best players, a good one yes, but with development potential). I even liked to play against Call me Daddy, for them who know that Team. And for me it doesn‘t matter if the tought(good) players are female male or in between, and for the sexual orientation i don’t care, i accept all like they are.
I think it’s a fact, that in competitiv tournies like euros, worlds most of the higher ranked Teams are male dominated. The reasons can be biological or educated or what ever. And i would say if we let the rules like they are, it would stay more or less like that, and i could live with that.
Now when the Community decides we want more Flintaplayers in the competitive Tournaments, i‘m ok with that, but not the 3/1 it has to be 2/2 in the 4vs4 format because with the 3/1 thing, when it matters on the court, it will be that in most of the Teams the Flinta player will be in the goal or off the Court. And then its for nothing the 3/1!
So for me, its if we want change the competitive format, then we have to change it real, 2/2 and not only on the paper… and if we change it only, that we can say we include all kind of players, and on the Court it’s the same ( Most of the Time the ‘toxic though male‘
are playing) then this rule is for nothing.
Conclusion:
1: i love u
2: i love the though, fast, all in, on the edge, sometimes over the limit games with no mandatory player regulation
3: at least after the Game there has to be always the respect for the other players and the refs ( better also during in the game, but sometimes it’s Not so easy) so for me the culture of the Game and the behave is also important
4: for me personally i‘m in a shitty situation, because i had a great team (wasn‘t easy to get it together like this) and now i‘m a little bit fucked. But it doesn‘t matter, we will find a solution …… perhaps
5: i’ m open if we want change the competitive tournaments, but then change it real and not only on paper and then we have also to think if the think with the nationallity is also something we should change…
6: and this steps has to be discussed in person and not on a forum and has to include the old and younger generation and there should be room to discuss different options
7: sorry for my english, peace and see you soon
Dani de Bâle
5 Likes
Yes i modified 2-3 times the google sheet because we got a mix of kind of answer, like only club vote, club vote with detail of ind. votes and some individual votes. (i think you can see the histoy on google doc).
1st times i didn’t even think twice when entering StGallen votes i saw some YES and a bunch of BLANK and i count it as a YES.
2nd times when Lausanne ask about this BLANK thing, i think it was a good point, so i put like a “TIE ?” under the “result” box.
Then i edited my post to ask StGallen / Basil what was the Vote Club they would have sent
I think one honest question would be : what St Gallen have voted as a club ? @Basil-St.Gallen ?
Then the 3rd times i edited the doc with Basil “confirmation” of the YES.
Yes i edited the google, yes i’m biased because i personnally voted YES (it’s why i saw the YES and not the BLANK) but also yes i want it perfectly transparent and fair. Asking St Gallen directly was in my opinion the only option to avoid interpretation, because we voted “Club Vote”, meaning Club should only report their decision.
We could imagine multiple scenario, like GVP at a Bar asking “who want’s mixed mandatory” ?
5 hands rising
who doesn’t
3 hand rising
who don’t care ?
6 hands rising
“So it’s 5 yes vs 3 no, everyone is ok ? i’ll post it on Poloverse? Cool let’s have more beers”.
And nobody would know or care.
I agree the phrasing and process have room to improve !
1 Like
hello again from the slow brewing east.
thats right, lukas…
if we have club votes, and there is the possibility as a club to vote blank, stgallens vote from last week would have been blank. (6 blank, 3 yes).
(This is my fault, because of my slow thinking and bad english, and also a bit lazyness, to ask the club first. I didnt think so far.)
now i realize, that we have about 7 men and 1 women in stgallen willing to play. If the decisions are made, we might be looking for some flinta to build 1 or 2 more teams…
If not definitly decided, i will discuss with stgall bike polo next tuesday
Lukas tu as le détail de votre vote ? (vote individuels)
Je sais pas trop comment vous voyez pour départager le vote autre s’il fallait le faire.
Hello Dani
In the organisation of the Swiss champs, we plan to create a discussion area. We’ll try to find time between all the matches. But between Bex and Lausanne we’re going to set something up.
3 Likes
On the subject of the ‘blank’ vote, it now seems clear to me that St Gall’s vote on the mixed question should be put down as Blank, and not for mixed mandatory.
I understand the logic of what Quentin has said, but in this instant it is a false logic - as abstaining from the vote was not simply a matter where one removes themselves from the vote, it was an option that was included as something to be to be voted on.
Sure, it’s why i asked St Gall to clarify their answer. What they did now (thx).
How you all see the next step ?
Do we use individual vote as a tie breaker ?
Vote again individually ?
BTW : the deadline was 20.04 only Lausanne voted on time
Sorry, but my point was I don’t see how asking St Gallen to clarify their vote could be part of the next step??
The vote was already clear.
If we allow them to redefine their vote, then all clubs should have the chance to vote again.
/
Tie break is an option, but strictly speaking this should have been decided upon before the voting process began… For instance in the case of Bern, we have a large club but only a few participated in the vote, had it been clear that a tie break situation might have evolved, those effected by the vote (on either side) might have made more of an effort to encourage more participation.
/
Really I am not sure how to move forward. There’s a big part of me that thinks we should take this as an opportunity not to make a decision, but as an opportunity to take some lessons for the future and to open up a discussion about how to balance competitive aims with inclusive aims (great that Lausanne and Bex are already planning this!)
But of course I must acknowledge my own bias there - both personally, as someone who believes mandatory mixed is a poor solution to the important issue of gender represntation (by prioritising tokenism ahead of development). And secondly, as the rep of a club that will have a team excluded because of this vote.
I never said that the next step was to ask St Gallen : i said i’ve asked them and they confirmed that BLANK is their vote. Also l didn’t suggested about having only them re-vote (which makes no sens indeed).
The next step is now, with the TIE on the mixed question how do we continue ?
As you proposed :
- no decision (well, no decision in this case will take the NO as a decision).
- tie break with actual ind. votes
- vote again on this object with individual votes ?
Anyway a decision should be taken.
In my opinion tie breaking is fine, fair and efficient (less time consuming…).
(Well at least only if Basel have more or less than 10 voices for the NO…)
Sorry, I misunderstood
:)
1 Like
@kluk
and all others who care about this disscussion,
I really dont understand how is that even after St Gallen clarified their position ( yes it was needed cause unfortunately it was decided to count club rather than individual voices) , it s still possible to disscuss about the result of the votation. The risk is that instead of building inclusive teams, the people will still keep fighting until the end of may.
In my understanding, the 3 options of answer that was offered were clear enough and didnt require further explicitation beacause ( like what quentin said) :
- teams can be mixed or non mixed, so it is yes or no. there s no other possibility.
- NO OPINION, or blanc means : « i dont know what to think, please decide yes or no without my vote, but i voted »
- the decision was to count at club level, for me it was clear that St gallen result is YES according to what is written above.
- SO THERE S A CLEAR 4 YES against 3 NO at national level. And i see all further discussion against the results as a desperate tentative to cancel what is voted just because some doesnt like the results.
FOR YOUR INFO ( although i suppose that even the opposers to the mandatory mixed 24, know how it works in CH…) :
!!!
!!!
!!!
so it was obvious like a couple of eyes in a face that the « no opinion » is included to count the % of participation in the population and to see how many people need to still think.
conclusion :
-I SEE NO NEED FOR ANY TIE BREAK OR A REVOTING.
besides the fact that only lausanne voted on time and it was a YES, if you really wanna be precise at maximum about the vote.
what i see is a very kind intention of the defenders of a YES to make the defenders of a status quo the less upset possible.
ask yourself : « after a dozen of years from now, i wanna remember myself as a guy from which of 2 camps on this pic ? »
can we just accept that its fairly (not perfectly, but fairly voted mandatory) and start to think about the number of teams? the lengths of the games) the format? move forward finally??
2 Likes
i would repeat the individual vote.
after reading nearly all the 150 posts, i see the the whole thing a bit different then before.
id love to discuss with st.gall, how we see polo in near future. do we want the compulsion uf mixed genders? or are we okay with finding the toughest / strongest / smartest / fastest / … teams without caring of any gender
or else, just as an idea: every team can play against each other in one turnament, and we have two same rated rankings. one for mixed gender teams and one for single gender.
i dont even know my opinion about these questions, and id love to discuss and hear more arguments.
but its a bit late for this kind of issues, and as i see it as my fault, i would also accept to just play mixed genders as quentin made up the document with the collected votes. thank you at this point for all the changing of documens and organizing…