Petition to establish a working group for revising the rules

[oso97]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

And we don't need to change the FIE rules -- we just need to add "Notes" to the USFA Rules like the ones already there, where the US practice is different -- or, in the case of rule interpretations, just not mandatory for the rest of the world.

Yea, because we wouldn't want to fence under the same rules as the rest of the world...

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

And we don't need to change the FIE rules -- we just need to add "Notes" to the USFA Rules like the ones already there, where the US practice is different -- or, in the case of rule interpretations, just not mandatory for the rest of the world.

I don't believe the US practice should be different than the rest of the world. I see a major component of the problem in developing referees is our size and the separation and the relative isolation of our pockets of fencing.

England is small enough that all the referees can get together. As are many of the other fencing countries on the other side of the Atlantic, at least until you get to Russia.

Where other countries can hold countrywide clinics, we must do a lot of our referee development by reading and studying the rules. Our referees have little recourse but to look to a small number of mentors and referee trainers while in European countries, the majority of the referee trainees are exposed to the majority of the mentors and trainers.

I don't see the rest of the world changing the rules of fencing because we don't understand them as well as we should.

We don't need rule changes, we need explanatory and amplifying information so that we understand the rules in the same way they do in other countries. So that all of our pockets of fencing are understanding and applying the rules in a uniform fashion and applying them the same way as they do in other countries.

We don't need rule changes, we need explanations. We need our practice to become the same as in the rest of the world.

[SJCFU#2]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

We don't need rule changes, we need explanatory and amplifying information so that we understand the rules in the same way they do in other countries. So that all of our pockets of fencing are understanding and applying the rules in a uniform fashion and applying them the same way as they do in other countries.

We could also use a more efficient method of disseminating this information than the current "word of mouth" approach. Simply posting notes regarding what was discussed at the referee briefings given every morning prior to national events on-line would be a big improvement. Preparing a video of the annual refresher briefing for rated referees would also be nice (there are a lot of 6's and below who don't regularly attend NAC's, and when they do it isn't for refereeing).

[Hauptman]

I believe that the idea is that the rules should be written so that there is complete agreement as to what they say, even if you don't agree with them.

For example, we have the old argument as to whether the arm should be extending or extended for a valid attack. Well, we re-write the rules in two forms; each form clearly stating one position or the other, and then you put them up to a vote. Whichever approach we adopt, at least the rule will be clear and unambiguous.

I completely agree with Oiuyt that we should start with the low hanging fruit, the easiest targets, in which there is little disagreement on application but in which the written wording of the rule could be much improved.

[peet]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

For example, we have the old argument as to whether the arm should be extending or extended for a valid attack. Well, we re-write the rules in two forms; each form clearly stating one position or the other, and then you put them up to a vote. Whichever approach we adopt, at least the rule will be clear and unambiguous.

This would be a recipe for unmitigated disaster. (IMNSHO)

[keith]

Originally Posted by peet

This would be a recipe for unmitigated disaster. (IMNSHO)

Far better to have the delegation step out from the smoke filled room and transmit their preferred current interpretation by Chinese whisper.

[peet]

Originally Posted by keith

Far better to have the delegation step out from the smoke filled room and transmit their preferred current interpretation by Chinese whisper.

Or, I dunno, how 'bout we go with the overwhelmingly prevalent, very long-standing "interpretation"*: extending, not extended, which BTW is explicitly supported by the rulebook?

And more to the point, I for one don't think that popular vote among the "unwashed masses" is a very good way to decide what the rules are.

-p





* "Interpretation" isn't really the right word here, since the extending vs extended issue is explicit in the rules. No interpretation necessary.

[noodle]

if i were to set up a wiki designed to hold the current version of the rulebook and the work-in-progress new version of the rulebook, would anyone use it to do the editing?

[fencerbill]

Could you live with calling it an "annotated" rulebook? Having 2 rulebooks, I don't know? I had thought of a wikipedia type thing, glad there is someone who can do it.

There is a credibility issue. If someone other than the FOC does it, it is not really a reference, just someone's opinion.

The FAQ approach has the advantage in that it can start as a skeleton, which then is filled out as time goes by. The FOC can think of questions/answers or questions/answers can be submitted for their reviews. If it is a FOC property, it does have credibility.

Ouiyt would be a natural for FAQ Godfather, he seems to have a lot of time.

But he will have National Secretary duties which could hold that back. Particularly since so much needs rescue.

Maybe we can get Damon Scaggs to do it?

[erik_blank]

Originally Posted by noodle

if i were to set up a wiki designed to hold the current version of the rulebook and the work-in-progress new version of the rulebook, would anyone use it to do the editing?

Hummm... Why not use the already established wiki here on f.net?
http://www.fencing.net/wiki/Main_Page
There is even a section that already mentions the rules there: http://www.fencing.net/wiki/Rules

[noodle]

Originally Posted by erik_blank

Hummm... Why not use the already established wiki here on f.net?
http://www.fencing.net/wiki/Main_Page
There is even a section that already mentions the rules there: http://www.fencing.net/wiki/Rules

if you feel like it would be easier, have at it.

[rory]

I'm sorry, wiki?
Please tell me that's a joke.

I have to admit I think that this is a futile, unnecessary and pointless exercise - but if you insist on doing it, please make sure that anyone who contributes knows what the hell they're talking about.

Otherwise you're going to do the equivalent of passing the rulebook through automatic translation software, only replacing the automatic translation software with a series of idiots.

Just educate people instead, for crying out loud.

[onetouch]

May I suggest beginning with the lowest of all hanging fruit?

t.7

- The attack is the initial offensive action made by extending the weapon arm and continuously.....

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong....

But that's the way to bet. Damon Runyon

[noodle]

Originally Posted by rory

I'm sorry, wiki?
Please tell me that's a joke.

I have to admit I think that this is a futile, unnecessary and pointless exercise - but if you insist on doing it, please make sure that anyone who contributes knows what the hell they're talking about.

Otherwise you're going to do the equivalent of passing the rulebook through automatic translation software, only replacing the automatic translation software with a series of idiots.

Just educate people instead, for crying out loud.

a wiki does not automatically imply that everyone and their mother gets to contribute. one can easily set up a wiki so that only approved people (in this case, i'll refer to them as "experts") can modify things. this would be the scenario i was referring to, not a wide open wiki so that anyone can touch it. the point of the wiki software is to allow a group of people to collaboratively edit something. that group might mean "everyone" or, in this case, the experts.

but thanks for the knee-jerk reaction, it really helped.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Hauptman

I believe that the idea is that the rules should be written so that there is complete agreement as to what they say, even if you don't agree with them.

Bingo! This, we should be striving for. Rep coming your way.

Originally Posted by Hauptman

For example, we have the old argument as to whether the arm should be extending or extended for a valid attack. Well, we re-write the rules in two forms; each form clearly stating one position or the other, and then you put them up to a vote. Whichever approach we adopt, at least the rule will be clear and unambiguous.

Originally Posted by peet

This would be a recipe for unmitigated disaster. (IMNSHO)

Hauptman can correct me if I am wrong, but I read his post as a suggestion for a voting procedure in general, not directed specifically at the special case of extending vs. extended.

What would be such a disaster about that? There is already a vote, in the FIE general meetings. What would be the qualitative difference in extending the voting rights in this case?

If you are afraid that it would lead to too many rules changes in a short time - so that the fencing world can not digest the mall - then I have simple solution. Set a maximum of N rules changes in each year (N=5, maybe), and only the N number of rules changes which are in the top of the passing percentage list actually get enacted.

For example: say that there are 7 rules changes proposed, and for some of them the change alternative gets an absolute majority. Assume that they get t he following voting percetages:

Rule change proposal A: 94% for, 6% against
B: 70% vs. 30%
C: 65% vs. 35%
D: 60% vs. 40%
E: 55% vs. 45%
F: 54% vs. 44%
G: 45% vs. 55%

In this example, G does not get an absolute majority, and is therefore defeated. F get an absolute majority, by there are 5 other proposals which pass with higher margins, so it fails also. Proposals A-E pass.

So, what deal-breaking problems can you point out?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by peet

Or, I dunno, how 'bout we go with the overwhelmingly prevalent, very long-standing "interpretation"*: extending, not extended, which BTW is explicitly supported by the rulebook?

And more to the point, I for one don't think that popular vote among the "unwashed masses" is a very good way to decide what the rules are.

-p





* "Interpretation" isn't really the right word here, since the extending vs extended issue is explicit in the rules. No interpretation necessary.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. It was just an example!! Sheesh!!

[peet]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. It was just an example!! Sheesh!!

Ok, so I didn't take it to be an example, I thought you really wanted to bring the definition of extension into question.

Sorry bout that.

Still, I think that voting on individual rule changes among any group of people larger than the FOC is a really bad idea. The rules are not just a bunch of proscriptions effected in isolation from one another. The rulebook should be a cohesive, coherent work, consisting of logically connected and consistent parts. It must take into account all the complexity and change in the fencing world, as well as its history. Such a thing is always best authored by a small group of the most knowledgeable individuals rather than a mass, democratic effort.

Even in the open source software world, big OSS projects still keep their list of committers to a minimum, and carefully vet candidate committers before they're given write access to the code repository.

Input and feedback from the masses? Absolutely.
Actual authoring by the masses? I think not.

my $0.02.

-p

[fencerbill]

There are a number of people who we hear from a lot here on f.net who seem to be experienced referees and who seem to know each other. Let they and other interested fencers work with Craig to be the agents for the f.net "Annotated Rules of Fencing". These agents could include the several FOC members active on f.net or the FOC members could provide critical review (or even have veto power).

Not quite the credibility of the FOC, it would have to earn its respect.