• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Us open 2018

Jack Hays said:
Yes, that was your argument. I found it irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just my argument, it was the argument of everyone who objected to Ramos and his rulings, and it was WHY they objected, the entire basis of the complaint. So to say it was irrelevant is to deliberately miss the argument entirely. Lack of consistency, when you acknowledge consistency is important, was the entire point.

If consistency is important, as you acknowledge, you can't limit the discussion to one match. If consistency doesn't matter, fine, each match and each performance by a chair umpire stands on its own - they're evaluated on an n=1 population, and can make calls one way on Tuesday and adopt completely different standards on Wednesday.

Pick a side, pick an argument.
 
JasperL said:
It wasn't just my argument, it was the argument of everyone who objected to Ramos and his rulings, and it was WHY they objected, the entire basis of the complaint. So to say it was irrelevant is to deliberately miss the argument entirely. Lack of consistency, when you acknowledge consistency is important, was the entire point.

If consistency is important, as you acknowledge, you can't limit the discussion to one match. If consistency doesn't matter, fine, each match and each performance by a chair umpire stands on its own - they're evaluated on an n=1 population, and can make calls one way on Tuesday and adopt completely different standards on Wednesday.

Pick a side, pick an argument.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the two are not mutually exclusive. In the larger scheme of things consistency is important, obviously and inarguably. In this specific match, in which the rules were unquestionably enforced properly, Serena was entirely in the wrong and Ramos was entirely in the right. Whatever may or may not have happened in any other match does not matter.
 
Jack Hays said:
On the contrary, the two are not mutually exclusive. In the larger scheme of things consistency is important, obviously and inarguably. In this specific match, in which the rules were unquestionably enforced properly, Serena was entirely in the wrong and Ramos was entirely in the right. Whatever may or may not have happened in any other match does not matter.
Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself in the SAME post, which is funny. :roll:

An analogy is a workplace policy imposing docked pay for being late. If the boss ignores the first 99 people who come in late and says nothing, then docks the 100th person for being late, and who was late, and docks her pay, two things are true - 1) the rule is inconsistently enforced and the boss is behaving like a tyrant, AND the 2) rule as stated was properly enforced for that 100th occurrence. Pointing out the latter doesn't address the former, and if the former IS THE ARGUMENT, that the boss is arbitrarily enforcing a rule, the fact that it was properly enforced in that 100th occurrence is in fact not relevant.
 
JasperL said:
You're contradicting yourself in the SAME post, which is funny. :roll:

An analogy is a workplace policy imposing docked pay for being late. If the boss ignores the first 99 people who come in late and says nothing, then docks the 100th person for being late, and who was late, and docks her pay, two things are true - 1) the rule is inconsistently enforced and the boss is behaving like a tyrant, AND the 2) rule as stated was properly enforced for that 100th occurrence. Pointing out the latter doesn't address the former, and if the former IS THE ARGUMENT, that the boss is arbitrarily enforcing a rule, the fact that it was properly enforced in that 100th occurrence is in fact not relevant.
Click to expand...

Difference of course is that in your (faulty) analogy there is one boss. In tennis there are numerous umpires. Ramos is responsible only for himself. He properly enforced the rule. Serena had a tantrum.
 
Jack Hays said:
Difference of course is that in your (faulty) analogy there is one boss. In tennis there are numerous umpires. Ramos is responsible only for himself. He properly enforced the rule. Serena had a tantrum.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if there are 1 or 10 bosses, 1 or 10 chair umpires, what matters to employees and to tennis players, and the public, and the game of tennis in this case is the rules are or are not consistently enforced. You've said 1) consistency is important (obviously it must be) and 2) the only thing that matters in this case is that ONE match. They both cannot be true. To hold one position is to abandon the other.

And of course he's not responsible only for himself - he's part of a system, a team and it's impossible to argue that a system or a team with different standards for one match on one day, and different standards for another match on another day is working effectively. That converts a system where 'the rules are the rules' into one in which the rules are what the person in charge says they are at a given time, which might be different tomorrow, or in the next match.

In other settings that kind of system is called tyranny, rule of men, not of laws, because laws routinely ignored and/or arbitrarily enforced aren't in fact laws but tools to punish or reward depending on the whim of the tyrant.
 
JasperL said:
Doesn't matter if there are 1 or 10 bosses, 1 or 10 chair umpires, what matters to employees and to tennis players, and the public, and the game of tennis in this case is the rules are or are not consistently enforced. You've said 1) consistency is important (obviously it must be) and 2) the only thing that matters in this case is that ONE match. They both cannot be true. To hold one position is to abandon the other.

And of course he's not responsible only for himself - he's part of a system, a team and it's impossible to argue that a system or a team with different standards for one match on one day, and different standards for another match on another day is working effectively. That converts a system where 'the rules are the rules' into one in which the rules are what the person in charge says they are at a given time, which might be different tomorrow, or in the next match.

In other settings that kind of system is called tyranny, rule of men, not of laws, because laws routinely ignored and/or arbitrarily enforced aren't in fact laws but tools to punish or reward depending on the whim of the tyrant.
Click to expand...

Of course they can both be true. Indeed, it is Ramos who stands for consistency. If there is inconsistency then surely the fault is with those who do not enforce the rules and with players who expect no enforcement. Ramos was right, even using your standard.
 
Jack Hays said:
Of course they can both be true. Indeed, it is Ramos who stands for consistency. If there is inconsistency then surely the fault is with those who do not enforce the rules and with players who expect no enforcement. Ramos was right, even using your standard.
Click to expand...

So now you've created a third set of goal posts. Consistency matters, of course, and Ramos might rule inconsistent with other umpires in other matches, but it's not his fault!

It's a series of disingenuous arguments! Hilarious stuff Jack. :roll:

All you're doing is starting with the conclusion - Ramos performed perfectly - and working backwards into whatever twisted, internally contradictory argument allows you to hold that position unchallenged.
 
JasperL said:
So now you've created a third set of goal posts. Consistency matters, of course, and Ramos might rule inconsistent with other umpires in other matches, but it's not his fault!

It's a series of disingenuous arguments! Hilarious stuff Jack. :roll:

All you're doing is starting with the conclusion - Ramos performed perfectly - and working backwards into whatever twisted, internally contradictory argument allows you to hold that position unchallenged.
Click to expand...

No. I'm the one whose view hasn't changed throughout our exchange.
Rules are written down so there can be consistency.
Ramos enforced the rules as written.
Yours is an argument in favor of chaos and privilege.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. I'm the one whose view hasn't changed throughout our exchange.
Rules are written down so there can be consistency.
Click to expand...

The question and the concern is that rules written down are enforced, in practice, inconsistently.

Ramos enforced the rules as written.
Click to expand...

So did the boss(es) who ignored coming in late 99 times but punished that 100th person.... Enforcing the rules as written that 100th time doesn't address the problem of inconsistently enforcing that rule.

Yours is an argument in favor of chaos and privilege.
Click to expand...

The argument that it doesn't matter if umpires routinely ignore and arbitrarily enforce coaching or apply wildly different standards of umpire abuse is to argue for chaos and privilege. Unfortunately it's you who is making the argument.
 
JasperL said:
The question and the concern is that rules written down are enforced, in practice, inconsistently.



So did the boss(es) who ignored coming in late 99 times but punished that 100th person.... Enforcing the rules as written that 100th time doesn't address the problem of inconsistently enforcing that rule.



The argument that it doesn't matter if umpires routinely ignore and arbitrarily enforce coaching or apply wildly different standards of umpire abuse is to argue for chaos and privilege. Unfortunately it's you who is making the argument.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you have it backwards. The written rule properly enforced by Ramos is the safeguard against chaos and the privilege to which some players may believe they are entitled.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you have it backwards. The written rule properly enforced by Ramos is the safeguard against chaos and the privilege to which some players may believe they are entitled.
Click to expand...

Same as that 100th employee getting docked, after the first 99 didn't. That's tyranny and relying on the written rule in a given case is no justification for rules arbitrarily and/or randomly enforced in practice in all those other cases.

And now you've reverted to your original point that consistency from match to match, umpire to umpire, doesn't matter, which you've alternatively embraced and discarded depending on the post and what position doesn't create too much cognitive dissonance in THAT POST. :roll:
 
JasperL said:
Same as that 100th employee getting docked, after the first 99 didn't. That's tyranny and relying on the written rule in a given case is no justification for rules arbitrarily and/or randomly enforced in practice in all those other cases.

And now you've reverted to your original point that consistency from match to match, umpire to umpire, doesn't matter, which you've alternatively embraced and discarded depending on the post and what position doesn't create too much cognitive dissonance in THAT POST. :roll:
Click to expand...

No. It's Ramos who stands for consistency --adherence to the written rule-- while Serena and her defenders claim privilege --special rules for special people.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. It's Ramos who stands for consistency --adherence to the written rule-- while Serena and her defenders claim privilege --special rules for special people.
Click to expand...

OK, you're not even trying to make a coherent argument anymore, and created a new straw man to boot (the bolded)! I think you're trying to see how many illogical arguments you can make in a thread at this point. You're doing great!
 
JasperL said:
OK, you're not even trying to make a coherent argument anymore, and created a new straw man to boot (the bolded)! I think you're trying to see how many illogical arguments you can make in a thread at this point. You're doing great!
Click to expand...

I have made the same argument from the beginning. Your increasingly irrational (frantic?) responses reflect your frustration, I suppose.

Ramos enforced the rule. Serena's coach admitted he cheated. Serena had a tantrum. She was penalized. That's the whole story.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have made the same argument from the beginning. Your increasingly irrational (frantic?) responses reflect your frustration, I suppose.

Ramos enforced the rule. Serena's coach admitted he cheated. Serena had a tantrum. She was penalized. That's the whole story.
Click to expand...

And it's a great argument! The only match that matters is this match, but consistency matters unless it doesn't, like in this case, in which the only match that matters is this one, and if there is inconsistency, which matters OR doesn't depending on the post, it's not Ramos' fault, but the fault of other umpires for not consistently enforcing the rules, which consistency, again, matters in some posts or doesn't, depending!

The rules are the rules! So if that boss ignores the rule 99 times, and enforces it the 100th time, that's OK because the rule says you can't be e.g. coached or late to work and it's not a problem (or is a problem!) if that rule is arbitrarily and randomly enforced, because in tennis or in general there can be no problem with arbitrary enforcement of any rule if in some cases, as with Serena, it is enforced as written but otherwise routinely ignored, for no discernible reason other than the whims of who is in charge!

Brilliant!
 
JasperL said:
And it's a great argument! The only match that matters is this match, but consistency matters unless it doesn't, like in this case, in which the only match that matters is this one, and if there is inconsistency, which matters OR doesn't depending on the post, it's not Ramos' fault, but the fault of other umpires for not consistently enforcing the rules, which consistency, again, matters in some posts or doesn't, depending!

The rules are the rules! So if that boss ignores the rule 99 times, and enforces it the 100th time, that's OK because the rule says you can't be e.g. coached or late to work and it's not a problem (or is a problem!) if that rule is arbitrarily and randomly enforced, because in tennis or in general there can be no problem with arbitrary enforcement of any rule if in some cases, as with Serena, it is enforced as written but otherwise routinely ignored, for no discernible reason other than the whims of who is in charge!

Brilliant!
Click to expand...

As I said, increasingly (now fully) irrational.
 
JasperL said:
You finally got something right - I was paraphrasing your irrational arguments. No, they don't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but stooping to puerile (and inaccurate) invective doesn't help your case. Your problem is that my argument is coherent, consistent and irrefutable.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but stooping to puerile (and inaccurate) invective doesn't help your case. Your problem is that my argument is coherent, consistent and irrefutable.
Click to expand...

1) Consistency from match to match, tourney to tourney, etc. is important
2) The only thing that matters is that one match.

Those are contradictory. You've argued both, in some cases in the same post!

BTW, I always love it when people grade themselves and give themselves A+! Beautiful stuff. Trump did that this week, which was nice, so I guess you're learning from the master! Good job!
 
JasperL said:
1) Consistency from match to match, tourney to tourney, etc. is important
2) The only thing that matters is that one match.

Those are contradictory. You've argued both, in some cases in the same post!

BTW, I always love it when people grade themselves and give themselves A+! Beautiful stuff. Trump did that this week, which was nice, so I guess you're learning from the master! Good job!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but both can be true because they are different discussions, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly.
Within the context of the single match, Ramos enforced the rules appropriately. Serena violated the rules, and was penalized.
In the larger context of match-to-match consistency, Ramos adhered to the written rule, the only rational basis for consistency. The inconsistency of some other umpires who may not follow the written rule was never Ramos's problem to solve.
What Serena sought was inconsistency to grant her privilege above the rules. Ramos's refusal to bend was highly principled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom