Messages

... OK it was a dumb question!

Anyone hazard a guess at the displacement of a national 12 (ball park)?

Hi,
Is anyone traveling to Burton Week from the North East? Would you be willing to take an extra mainsail with you?
Cheers

Come on then. Those in the know please spill the beans!
Those not in the know - lets speculate!
Wing tips on the mast? (that's the best I can do i'm afraid!)
Phil
 

I get the feeling the IC vote had a much bigger franchise, that's all; and the outcome was a compromise!
Anyway, i'm sick of this as well, I don't have a particularly strong view either way about rule changes. I just tried to facilitate the discussion of rules outside this forum.
Thats my last word on the subject; and I suggest the forum get back to less enthusiasm sapping conversations!

The IC has just been through a process of VOTING on their rules.

Exactly, so why:
a) is 5.2 divided into a single subclause, and
b) is there a note about pre 1995 boats being able to ignore clause 5.2.2
Phil

OK Tommo and the rest...
What does clause 5.2.2 say then?

Philip

John,
It's got nothing to do with undermining the committee. I thought it might be a way of harnessing the rank and file to work toward a positive outcome rather than just moan. I have been on the forum for a number of years and it annoys me as much as anybody else when the talk turns to moans about the rules; not because of the dabate, but BECAUSE nothing ever happens.

This was in response to Mr 'wondering' wishing we went somewhere else to discuss the rules. I don't agree with his sentiment (i.e. 'don't discuss this at all') But I figured that a wiki was possible and would be more constructive, and... see my other post.
In fact, rather than undermine the TC, I have just done them a service in providing a neat repository of the current rules and a web based method of discussing them which should save them time and energy in the future.
I could make editing a privelige for just comittee members (with all able to add threads and comments to threads) . That actually sounds like quite a good idea to me. Would you support that?


As for volunteering for committees; here come the excuses...
1) I live in the north east of england - when was the last time an AGM was held within 100 miles of me?
2) I have been unable to drive since January - and am unlikely to sail again until next June at the earliest. In my more depressed moments I think I may never sail again - so this might become academic anyway.

3) I am building a house, setting up a business and finishing a doctorate on top of family and work commitments and I'm already on my professional bodies national committee.
4) I think there are more qualified candidates

Philip

What is the point? well...
Some of these discussions rumble on and then fizzle out and nothing ever gets changed. I was hoping that the wiki might demonstrate which particular clauses are the real contentions points. It will also be useful to have both sides of the argument in one place alongside the rule.
Once these are identified, the wiki allows a new possibility, anyone can change the actual clause. This of course will not actually change the rules, but asks for a positive contribution rather than a moan. Anybody can of course change it back. Over time, if the 'class' strength of feeling is represented, the new clause might become reasonably stable - and it could then be a candidate for incorporation into the official rules.
Wiki's have mechanisms to support this principle; voting, warning of a up comming change, giving time for people to respond, and reverting to previous versions, for example. Discussion groups have no real object apart from the discussion.
The process is likely to be very messy however, and possibly doomed to failure. Contributors should recognise from the outset that a difference of opinion is not a personal attack. And that many contrbutors will not have thought through the implications in detail before posting and will be interested to hear the oposite argument. As an example - i was firmly of the opinion that taking correctors out was a good thing, until i heard Antony's contribution about this benefitting the lightweights more than the heavyweights. This hadn't occured to me before; now I'm not in favour of removing the lead!
The fact I might have wasted a couple of hours of my life doing it is for me to worry about (I did it as an academic exercise, i'm thinking of using a wiki as an assignment for one of my modules and I wonderd how long it took to set one up - now I know!)
The first thing to do is to capture all points of view about all clauses (many of the clauses will not be controversial in the slightest, so this isn't as onerous as you might think - many hand make light work). I know that previous threads have turned up interesting information about the rules. I would be grateful if people could help pulling all this discussion into one place. If you have had a bee in your bonet about any particular clause, you would like to suggest a new clause, or you want to nominate a clause for deletion. Go ahead!
Regards
Philip

I've copied all the discussion that has occured here (lately!) to the specific clause in the rules.
It does look like I have trouble holding any one opinion for less than a minute, but that is a fair representation of reality anyway.
I do think this will be a helpful exercise even if it is just that the rules have a search feature. Remember to create a 'Thread' if you want to start discussion
Phil

I have gone ahead and done it. Here is a 21st century method of debating/evolving the class rules.
http://national12.wetpaint.com/

In doing this I have noticed several discrepancies - for example there is a note refering to clasue 5.2.2 (which doesn't exist)


The way I envisage anyone using it is to add explanations or comments to the 'thread' for any individial entry - like the good explanations that are already here about certain rules.
The actual entries can be edited for grammar/spelling etc. at will.
The descriptions of the clauses can be altered at will - these were the best i could do in the time, and i gave up toward the end (when it became too technical)
The content of the clauses could be altered by anybody after debate - like changing the length to 13 feet!
Clauses can be deleted after debate - like 11.7.2

The original entry can always be reverted back to. And of course anybody else can reedit your edit
Enjoy or ignore

Phil

What is the evidence for "enough to rule aout a few more joining the class"?
You are limiting the outlay to two sets for a good few years, rather than a new set every season.
Phil

I have just reported 'Wondering' to the moderator
One of the attractions of the class should be it's development status. If all attempts at debate around the rules and how to innovate are strangled at birth we lose something, and may as well become the restricted class mr 'wondering' clearly wants.
I would like to think that in a less pressured halcyon day, discussions like this could take place between like minded folk down the pub over a pint; or in the garage between two mates coniving a cunning plan over a half built 'killer design'.
As with a lot of things in modern britain, we have to put up with a 'virtual' experience rather than the real deal. I for one would rather have the feeling I was part of a 'virtual chat down the pub' on this discussion board than not have any participation at all in design, innovation and class development.
What possible purpose is served by trying to close this discussion down? I suggest some people haven't quite moved into the 21st centry and haven't quite understood the difference between web 1 and web 2 (web 1 being the early type of 'information presenting' websites, and web 2 being interactive technologies that enable a community to build, grow, evolve, and prosper. It, in fact,  mirrors the differences between a one design and a development class!
Hmmm... perhaps we should put the rules up on a wiki and allow anyone to edit them!
Survival of the fittest or intelligent design?

Philip

sails sold, sorry

Phil