In your opinion.
Since Mr. Doan suggested that conflating class and “under” in some places isn’t confusing when it comes to prize distribution and your response indicates a difference of opinion, can you give an example?
Alex Relyea
At least my opinion is based upon having seen 33C in the rule book. Yours is based upon reading only a single rule and overinterpreting it. Which is not news.
incorrect.
To simplify life for everyone on the forum, I propose a simple rule of thumb when Micah assert that a rule is badly worded. Simply ignore his comments until one person expresses agreement with him. If someone does, it’s worth discussing. If no one does, it probably isn’t, because either 1) he’s simply “overinterpreting” it as Mr. Doan puts it or 2) He has a point, but none of us are smart enough to figure out why he’s right. Either way, the discussion won’t be productive.
In one previous case when I said stated a rule was poorly worded and others disagreed, I ran the wording by my mom who happens to be a language teacher and she agreed with me that the wording was poor. I mentioned this but people still either wouldn’t admit the wording the poor or couldn’t figure out how the wording was poor.
Sorry Micah, Mom doesn’t count. Among being a competitive chess player, being a TD and being on these forums, how many apply to her? She needs at least two out of three.
Much legalese (and that’s basically what TD rules are) raises grammatical issues. The presence or absence of a single comma can change the legal interpretation, regardless of what grammatical rules would prefer. (See, for example, discussions over the meaning of the ‘militia’ phrase in the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution.)
The other issue (which runs throughout the rule book) is that it was written assuming it is being read in hard copy, and, was originally written (4ed) before you had more modern word processing software which would easily allow cross references.
There are basically three ways to format something like a rule book nowadays:
- HTML. Pagination and overall length are irrelevant. Cross references are simple.
- PDF. Pagination matters (you would prefer not to leave widows/orphans) but overall length is irrelevant. Cross references are simple.
- Hard copy. Pagination matters. Overall length matters. Cross references can be very clumsy.
By far the most difficult to target is hard copy. Consider that in this set of rules, “class prize” is shorthand for something like “restricted by rating value and/or status”. With either HTML or PDF, you can put that definition once (pretty much anywhere) and link to it where needed. For hard copy, you either put that definition at the front of the rules; or at the first mention (with something like “prize restricted by rating value and/or status, class prize for short”) or (as in this case) after as a clarification, assuming that the definition of class prize is reasonably well understood. The problem is that none of those work well for someone who wants to jump straight to 32B4 (and does not understand that class prize is intended as shorthand); if the definition is in a new recitals paragraph 32 or the “for short” is in 32B2 or the clarification is in 33C, it requires someone to actually look around the rest of the section in the rules. I hope that no one thinks that the best option is to repeat “restricted by rating value and/or status” needs to be repeated in every paragraph. Note that, because of the difficulty of doing cross references in hard copy, the phrase “For examples, see 32B5 Offering a choice of prizes” is repeated several times, and the examples have little if anything to do with 32B5 other than the fact that the “examples” section follows 32B5 and examples aren’t part of the rules so don’t have their own number. In the now distant past, that probably would have been better handled by “See Examples below”, where “below” meant someplace in the next few pages. Now, it would be possible to do a page reference and let the software automatically update it each time you re-print, but then you may end up with a reference to a hard page number that might change with a new print edition.
For the next go-round, I would recommend that we strip the rules (the parts that are under the control of the delegates) of the particular publication target and decide upon specific definitions to be used throughout, make that “glossary” part of the rules rather than having definitions spread throughout, and then cut the actual rules down to the parts that are truly “rules”. (Some current rules are really part “tip”, some are part “definition”). While I assume there would still demand for a hard copy book, it would probably be superior to target HTML, which would allow, for instance, a lot more examples.
And, while we’re at it, finally fix the wording on 32B3.
I agree with all of this. Unfortunately, I don’t see much of a chance of something like this happening.
Tom one problem comes when delegates try to write rules on the floor of the meeting. Another is when delegates seem to think they are publication editors and want to add TD Tips and other things that aren’t rules. Then there are those who want every possibility addressed in the rules.
What was the procedure for the 5th edition? Did Tim and Dan present the revised rule book for an up-or-down vote, or did all the edits have to be approved individually?
There was no individual vote. I don’t think Tim changed"rules" in that writing. The book format was changed a but. Editorial “non-rule” items aren’t within the purview of the delegates.
If memory serves the Delegates got a final up-or-down vote on the 5th edition. There were workshops highlighting the major changes from the 4th to the 5th editions before the vote was taken. I also recall making a short presentation to the Delegates right before the vote to approve or not approve of the 5th edition.
There were quite a few changes to pairing rules. There was an ad hoc advisory committee which was involved in discussing various rules changes.
Yes I think that is correct. One vote without individual up and down on changes. The minutes are probably online if you remember the year.
EDIT 5th edition was published 2003. That was before I was involved in governance.
I was thinking of the 6th edition
This topic was automatically closed 730 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.