Da System

[Flexmoney]

Are Arbitration Committee findings posted anywhere?

No, at least not with IPSC and, frankly, I don't think it would be a good idea either.

We certainly don't want an Arbitration decision taken at one match in Timbucktoo being used as a precedent at another match because, at best, the decision taken applied to a unique set of circumstances and, at worst, the the AC may have gotten it completely wrong in any case.

Vince, that is my arguement (in a nut shell) against having one "judge" making a ruling (in this case, Amidon).

We already have those procedures set in place to handle the situation (sorry for the drift...not looking to debate that issue...just thought I would point out the logic behind my position)

[drift off]

[Vince Pinto]

Flex,

I hear you but, for argument's sake, I would prefer that one individual (possibly) get something wrong consistently, than have multiple interpretations from match to match.

Perhaps you don't know this about John Amidon, but if he comes across a new rule query, he invariably raises it with the IPSC rules committee (of which he is a member) for comment, and I can't think of an instance where we didn't support his call, because there's no doubt that John knows his ass from his elbow when it comes to rules.

In respect of rules unique to USPSA (mostly divisional stuff), the USPSA BOD has sufficient confidence in him to make him "Da Judge", and we should all support that decision. In any case, I understand the BOD retains "veto power" over John's calls.

BTW, I know you're objecting to the system, not to the man himself, but I can't recall John ever making a rules foo-foo. On the other hand, I have a list as long as my arm of really stupid Arbitration decisions made by "three wise men" on an AC. For me, it's not about numbers - it's about knowledge.

Anyway, out of curiosity, exactly how would you change the system?

[Flexmoney]

Vince, I went ahead and slpit this out since I didn't want to drift the other thread further..

BTW, I know you're objecting to the system, not to the man himself, but I can't recall John ever making a rules foo-foo.

Exactly. I just think it is too much for any one person to tackle...not matter who. There just isn't any way one person can keep on top of all that there is to know.

His first ruling is a perfect example...unless Glock has stopped using tenifer and parkerizing.

Anyway, out of curiosity, exactly how would you change the system?

I would have left this one alone.

- Your people write the rules (kinda like congress writes laws).

- And, we have a system that interprets those "laws"... RO > CRO > RM > Arb Committee (similar to the judicial branch of our government)

- I fear the king (whoever it may be) that throws out new "laws"...no matter who the advisors are.

Just my opinion.

[Vince Pinto]

His first ruling is a perfect example...unless Glock has stopped using tenifer and parkerizing. 

Have faith, My Son.

Since the question asked was "non-US-speciific" (it equally affected IPSC Production Division), John raised the matter with the IPSC Rules Committee (7 members), and we were unanimous that changing the finish of a Production Division gun was against the rules. In other words, John did not simply make a decree alone from the top of the mountain while holding aloft two stone tablets.

What you saw was the conclusion - John spared you the inner workings (you know the saying about watching laws and sausages being made!).

And the same applies to me. If I give a "ruling" here (which you often call "an opinion"), you can bet your sweet bippy that it's not the first time I've been asked the question, and my reply is based on precedent. If it's a new query, I too will refer it to my colleagues before replying.

No man is an island, but the fact that only one or two of us are the "public face" of rules doesn't mean we haven't consulted with our colleagues. Moreover, don't you think we'd be kinda dumb posting "rulings" in a public forum like this if we weren't 100% sure of our answer? These things can come back and bite you in the ass. Hey, you wanna see my scars?

BTW, I guess the guy who asked the chroming question doesn't understand Glocks, because the Glock tenifer treatment is engrained in the metal - it's not just a finish or coating. In any case, he didn't want to restore the finish, he wanted to change it. Sure, the colour of the gun means zip, but we're obliged to apply the "letter of the law", because even cosmetic changes are not permitted in Production Division.

So, have I beaten you into submission yet, or do I have to send Shooter Grrl and SiG Lady around to see you?

[Vince Pinto]

One more thing. In IPSC, we do have three "branches of Government":

1. The IPSC Rules Committees (7 to 16 people) drafts rules.

2. The IPSC General Assembly (40 to 65 people) approves, rejects or modifies rules.

3. The IPSC Executive Council (6 people) interprets rules (see Rule 11.8.1).

Sure, some individuals appear on two of the above (e.g. I'm in 1 & 3, Mike Voigt is in 1 & 2), but that's merely because we just don't have enough people around willing to spend the considerable time (and money) required to stay the course.

Moreover, there are hundreds of people who comment and make suggestions about rules between 1 & 2 above (e.g. IROA Range Masters, competitors such as those who took the trouble to post constructive comments here and on the USPSA Member's pages etc.), and those comments actually resulted in changes being made to the initial drafts.

In fact, I get emails from people saying "Awesome. You listened to my advice and changed a draft rule. Thanks".

Finally, as I said in the other thread, the RO>CRO>RM>AC are primarily there to enforce the rules and/or ensure that rules have been correctly applied, but they do not have the authority to ignore or reject rules they don't like.

Yes, they may occasionally need to "interpret" rules due to a specific set of circumstances which have arisen at one match, but such interpretations apply exclusively to that match, and this is not something new. It's been that way for as long as I can remember, and I don't see anyway we can change it. I mean, do you really want an AC decision in IPSC Tabasco affecting a match in Ohio?

[Flexmoney]

Crap...I didn't even want to talk about this...

1. All I need as a match official is a rule book. I can read. If a shooter reads different...there is a process (up to an arb).

Simple enough.

2. I don't need another set of documents to suppliment the rulebook. That would include a gun list, as well as any rules hammered down by the rulers. How can the RO/shooter be expected to keep up? Many of them don't even waste the time digging into the rule book that we do. (what a bunch of sucker we are )

3. Our court system offer "opinions". That don't re-write law. Effectively, they set a precedent...which stands as the accepted interpretation of the law, until challenged. I felt it was fantastic when Amidon was writing "opinions".

I don't like that he (or anybody) is re-writing law. Because that leads to mistakes...like the one with the Glock. They aren't blued, they are PARKERIZED...and that is as big a difference as chroming to most.

I am a bit shaken that the conclusion he wrote went thru your 7 member committee (and you all missed that). OK...I'm not too shaken, I expected as much[edit: not offense intended]. This is the perfect example of what I am talking about.

Finally, as I said in the other thread, the RO>CRO>RM>AC are primarily there to enforce the rules and/or ensure that rules have been correctly applied, but they do not have the authority to ignore or reject rules they don't like.

Not sure why you mention that...I certainly never implied that they could ignore or reject rules they didn't like. They are there to interpret the rules at the match.

It's been that way for as long as I can remember, and I don't see anyway we can change it. I mean, do you really want an AC decision in IPSC Tabasco affecting a match in Ohio?

Again...I never implied such a thing. An Arb Committee decision is only good for one match...it doesn't set precedent for other matches.

[EricW]

Threads like these are the #1 reason I never want to be a range officer.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but holy crap. Whatever happened to the shooting?

[Paul B]

I've been shooting this game for over 25 years now and I learned something I never really knew before in this thread.

[/quote One more thing. In IPSC, we do have three "branches of Government":

1. The IPSC Rules Committees (7 to 16 people) drafts rules.

2. The IPSC General Assembly (40 to 65 people) approves, rejects or modifies rules.

3. The IPSC Executive Council (6 people) interprets rules (see Rule 11.8.1).]

What exactly does the IPSC Executive Council do besides interpreting rules? Who is on the Council and how does it work? I'm sorry if I should know this but I just don't.

[Vince Pinto]

Crap...I didn't even want to talk about this...

But, but, but ..... you started (spun off) this thread

I don't like that he (or anybody) is re-writing law.  Because that leads to mistakes...like the one with the Glock.  They aren't blued, they are PARKERIZED...and that is as big a difference as chroming to most. I am a bit shaken that the conclusion he wrote went thru your 7 member committee (and you all missed that).  OK...I'm not too shaken, I expected as much [edit:  not offense intended].  This is the perfect example of what I am talking about.

John was not re-writing anything. A competitor asked a question and John answered it in accordance with the rules, which he quoted verbatim. USPSA PD Point (H) says "External modifications other than sights are not allowed", but amazingly the competitor didn't understand that changing the slide surface from the factory standard to something else is an external modification.

And John didn't use the words "blued" or "parkerising" in his submission to the Rules Committee. Sure, he said "reblue" in the USPSA Member's Forum, but it's clear he was simply making the point that you cannot change the external finish of a gun. Again, this is merely restating existing rules, not re-writing them.

2.  I don't need another set of documents to suppliment the rulebook.

That's great, but you can see from the above example that somebody needed help understanding simple English. I answer dozens of rules questions each week but, in replying to the vast majority of them, I simply quote a rule which the questioner didn't bother reading.

Case in point - I was asked yesterday if a competitor can change his slide stop in Standard Division. Eventhough you don't shoot Standard, I'll bet my left cojone that you could answer that question in a heartbeat (please say "yes", coz I've become rather attached to my left cojone)

[Vince Pinto]

Paul,

What exactly does the IPSC Executive Council do besides interpreting rules? Who is on the Council and how does it work? I'm sorry if I should know this but I just don't.

We're going off on bit of a tangent here, but I'm nonetheless happy to answer you. The official answer can be found in the IPSC Constitution, which states:

6.4 The President shall appoint a General Secretary, Secretary and Treasurer, normally from the same Region as he, and together with the President and Vice President of IROA they shall constitute the Executive Council of the Confederation.

7.1 The President, with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, is responsible for the conduct and management of the Confederation's affairs and is its chief executive officer. The President and Executive Council shall be directly responsible to the Assembly.

The current members of the IPSC Executive Council are:

IPSC President: Nick Alexakos (Canada)

IPSC General-Secretary: Fritz Gepperth (Germany)

IPSC Secretary: Vince Pinto (Hong Kong)

IPSC Treasurer: Ren Henderson (Canada)

IROA President: Dino Evangelinos (Canada)

IROA Vice-President: Jurgen Tegge (Germany)

Rules interpretations are actually an infrequent part of the council's duties. Most of our time is spent dealing with problems being faced by existing member regions, considering applications from potential new regions, dealing with major match issues, dealing with the numerous committees established by the President and so on.

Note that apart from the official IPSC Executive Council, President Nick Alexakos appointed an additional unofficial group of advisors called the IPSC President's Council, and this is currently comprised of:

Tim Andersen (Denmark)

Neil Beverley (UK)

Bob Chittleborough (UK)

Chepit Dulay (Philippines)

Victor Ferrero (Ecuador)

Luiz Frota (Brazil)

Peter Glenn (Australia)

Alain Joly (France)

Michael Voigt (USA)

Apart from being regularly consulted on all manner of issues, both Councils get together annually (usually in conjunction with SHOT Show), to discuss the issues of the day. Such meetings are open to observers, by prior arrangement with the IPSC President.

Hope this helps.

Note that the location in brackets above is the person's region of residence - it is not necessarily their nationality, which is not within my purview to state.

--------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT TO ALL: Please note that Paul's general question has been asked and answered. However as political discussions are specifically prohibited in the BE Forums, opinions on whether or not the IPSC Constitution (or parts thereof) are to your liking or not cannot be entertained here.

I therefore ask that everyone please respect the forum guidelines and refrain from commencing a political debate. Thank you.

[Paul B]

Vince, thanks for the answer on the executive council.

It's kind of interesting to me that I often hear that John Amidon should not have the power (alone) to interpret the rules. While I agree with most shooters (being the independent SOB's that we are) that it makes me uncomfortable to have a lot of power in anyones hands, I really don't think John is stretching any of the rules in his interpretations. In fact it's almost like he is a very strict, conservative U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the "Constitution" as most American shooters would like- conservatively.

I think most of us would really like him to interpret our pet peeve liberally, but when I think more about - be careful what you wish for.

[Flexmoney]

I am not trying to say that Amidon shouldn't Interpret rules.

He has been interpreting rules for quite some time...and doing a great job at it.

His intertretations, in the past, have been "opinions". That has always been fantastic. He could provide clarity on an issue, without over-riding the rulebook.

Our new rule US 11.8.3 now makes those intertretations law, not opinion.

[Vince Pinto]

Our new rule US 11.8.3 now makes those intertretations law, not opinion.

The difference between an "opinion" and an "official interpretation" is that you can ignore the former if it doesn't suit you, but you can't ignore the latter, because it's the law. Is that what's been bugging you for so long?

Everybody has an opinion, but it's the law which governs the way matches (and society) are conducted. If we ran our matches based on opinion, then we'd effectively have a different rulebook used by each Match Director, and that's something which will never happen, neither on a National or International basis.

But hey, you've told me your objections, but I don't recall you ever telling me your solution ........... ???

[Jim Norman]

Actually it is the opinion of a judge what the law actually is that governs society and generally that opinion will be cited as the law until a higher authority overturns the opinion.

John does a very good and thankless job interpeting the rules. The problem can be that unless there is a careful record kept, his opinions could contradict each other.

If John's ruling are to be given the weight of law, fine, but hten we must have an easy way to check what those rulings are. Is there any proposal on the table to facilitate this?

I can easily carry (and I do) the rule book, I can't carry internet access to the range, or rather I chose not to get wireless as I have no other need for it.

I would think that the rulings should be gathered and published once a quarter in a tearout section of Front Sight. That way those interested parties could staple them into the bacl of the rule book. The print format should be such as to support this. Until 30 days after the mailing date, the old rule interpetation or la k of would prevail, that should give anyone time to get their new issue. THe effective date could be published on the website as could the archival rulings.

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

I believe I gave my solution in an earlier post in this thread.

Bottom line is...mistakes happen. John has made a couple in his most recent writtings. No big deal...until those mistakes become law. Thats all I am hoping to point out.

Then there is the bus test. What happens if the "person we depend on" gets hit by a bus tomorrow?

Jim, Amidon's ruling will be posted on the USPSA website and will take effect 7 days after posting (from what the new rule reads).

[Vince Pinto]

Then there is the bus test.  What happens if the "person we depend on" gets hit by a bus tomorrow?

I guess the powers that be will appoint a new guy, just like if the Ohio Section Coordinator gets abducted by aliens

(cue music from Twilight Zone: DOODOO doodoo DOODOO doodoo)

[Jim Norman]

That John's rullings take effect 7 days after posting is fine, to a point. I would rather a quarterly update that everyone becomes aware of at the same time. Even in this day we have a lot of people that are not hooked into the web.

But this is a good start. I also understnad that the BOD has an override function now. If they don't aggree they can block the rulling?

Jim

[Neil Beverley]

Note that apart from the official IPSC Executive Council, President Nick Alexakos appointed an additional unofficial group of advisors called the IPSC President's Council, and this is currently comprised of:

Tim Andersen (Denmark)

Neil Beverley (UK)

Bob Chittleborough (UK)

Chepit Dulay (Philippines) 

Victor Ferrero (Ecuador)

Luiz Frota (Brazil)

Peter Glenn (Australia)

Alain Joly (France)

Michael Voigt (USA)

Either Nick and Vince don't love me anymore, I've been sacked and I've got my life back ; or

I've become so insignificant that I'm no longer needed and I've got my life back ; or

Vince simply forgot about me and I've still got to slog away , I haven't got my life back , but worse, nobody cares!

On the assumption that I haven't been sacked I belong somewhere in this list.

[Tman33_99]

I can easily carry (and I do) the rule book, I can't carry internet access to the range, or rather I chose not to get wireless as I have no other need for it.

I would think that the rulings should be gathered and published once a quarter in a tearout section of Front Sight. That way those interested parties could staple them into the bacl of the rule book. The print format should be such as to support this.

This is why I suggest an "IPSC/USPSA Rules Case Book" in an earlier thread. John Amidon's rulings would be a fantastic starting point for such a thing. With a case book published annually or at least bi-annually and with updates in front sight, I believe the entire membership would be better informed and thus better Range Officers and competitors.

Travis

[Vince Pinto]

Neil,

On the assumption that I haven't been sacked I belong somewhere in this list.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Your name is listed, and Nick still loves you for the same two reasons which originally endeared you to him (i.e. you work hard and you work cheap).

Mea culpa, old mate, and sorry about that - I was using my old list. As punishment for my sins, I'll send myself to bed tonight without my usual ration of milk 'n' cookies or my Pamela Anderson doll