Rule 5.1.8

[Gary Stevens]

Yes that would be a problem. Although both sound like good item to have always, but to each  his own.

[theWacoKid]

12 hours ago, Southpaw said:

I think the question is, why are you modifying, adding, or removing parts from your gun during the match?  It sounds like you're talking about making changes to your gun not because of a broken part, but just because you want to?  In which case I agree with JAFO, replacing broken parts, no big deal, but changing your gun when it's still functioning properly - I can't think of any modification that should be allowed without RM approval.  If there's nothing wrong with your gun, why would you want to modify it if not to gain some advantage on a particular stage?  I think that's the whole point of the rule, to prevent people from modifying their gun from one stage to the next to gain some advantage by doing so.  Which is why the punishment is a DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Similar to a backup gun; you can't switch to it in the middle of the match just because you want to.  Your primary gun has to first become unserviceable or unsafe.

But the rule doesn't say "to gain an advantage" nor does it say "competitive advantage".  With respect to modifying a gun it says "significant change" and the rule book only states that the same type of sights must be used throughout the match unless approval is provided by the RM (5.1.7).

So I understand where you guys are coming from with not wanting any parts coming on/off the gun, but I'm not sure the rules are written that way.

I'm playing devil's advocate and saying anything that doesn't put a gun in a new division is not a significant change.  I don't know if that's right, but it can be defended.

And it's not similar to a back-up gun or sights as those items are specifically addressed in rule 5.1.7.  Modifications are not addressed in 5.1.7 and are only mentioned in 5.1.8.

Edited August 31, 2016 by theWacoKid

[Southpaw]

Is this an actual issue with people modifying their guns mid match when their gun is still functioning properly? I've never seen or heard of this being a problem. I guess I just don't understand why you want to modify your gun mid match and what specific parts you have in mind?

And the rule doesn't say you can't change parts, just that you need RM approval so when in doubt why not ask? After all if it's a mod that you think the RM wouldn't allow if asked then you probably shouldn't be doing it and shouldn't be surprised if you get DQed for it if the RM finds out...

[theWacoKid]

Yes, this stems from an actual ah-ha moment from a match.  This led me to research the rule book which in turn led to me to wonder what significant means.  Some modifications seem so trivial there is no way I could consider them significant even if it is beneficial for the shooting problem at hand.

[Southpaw]

So what mods did the ah ha moment involve and which do you think are not significant?

[theWacoKid]

The mod was removing a slide racker to reduce the likelihood of it catching a prop and inducing a malfunction.

I think changing a barrel (because of power factor requirements) and changing sights (because the rules say so) are significant.  Other than that anything else you do that doesn't bump your gun to a new division doesn't seem to fit significant by what the rule book details.

If they didn't want to allow any mid-match mods the rule should state that the gun must remain configured in the same condition throughout the match except in cases of breakage, failure, parts falling off, or RM approval.

Edited August 31, 2016 by theWacoKid

[Sarge]

3 hours ago, theWacoKid said:

The mod was removing a slide racker to reduce the likelihood of it catching a prop and inducing a malfunction.

I think changing a barrel (because of power factor requirements) and changing sights (because the rules say so) are significant.  Other than that anything else you do that doesn't bump your gun to a new division doesn't seem to fit significant by what the rule book details.

If they didn't want to allow any mid-match mods the rule should state that the gun must remain configured in the same condition throughout the match except in cases of breakage, failure, parts falling off, or RM approval.

What if it involved installing a racker for only table starts?

that is indeed significant

[Nik Habicht]

I'm pretty sure that as the competitor you don't get to decide what "significantly" means.....

But we could, and probably should beef up the language, if we want to stick with the original intent -- which was that in "practical" shooting you run what you brung, not choose the right gun/combo of gun parts for the stage.  Golf this isn't....

If I found out you modified a gun at a match I was RMing, it would depend on what you modified -- if I determined the modification to be significant, your match would be over.  You'd get to appeal, but my friend, the MD, would pick the members of the Arbitration Panel -- and there's absolutely nothing to prevent him from interviewing candidates for the panel on their position on competitors modifying their handguns....

Even if you win the arb and are reinstated, will you still be focused on shooting the match, or will any advantage gained by modification be wiped out by concentrating on the arb in the interim?

 

 

[theWacoKid]

Nik,

I agree that is the intent of the rule and it is in fact the way I feel and why I would be uncomfortable making any mid-match adjustment to my gun. 

However, I'm not so sure the rules and the word "significant" tighten up that point fully and agree the language could use some simple beefing.  Because if someone thinks what they're doing is no big deal then they just do it and nothing comes of it because no RM was ever even consulted.  If it's clear by the rules the adjustment is forbidden that should change the train of thought.

Edited September 1, 2016 by theWacoKid

[twodownzero]

1 hour ago, Nik Habicht said:

I'm pretty sure that as the competitor you don't get to decide what "significantly" means.....

But we could, and probably should beef up the language, if we want to stick with the original intent -- which was that in "practical" shooting you run what you brung, not choose the right gun/combo of gun parts for the stage.  Golf this isn't....

If I found out you modified a gun at a match I was RMing, it would depend on what you modified -- if I determined the modification to be significant, your match would be over.  You'd get to appeal, but my friend, the MD, would pick the members of the Arbitration Panel -- and there's absolutely nothing to prevent him from interviewing candidates for the panel on their position on competitors modifying their handguns....

Even if you win the arb and are reinstated, will you still be focused on shooting the match, or will any advantage gained by modification be wiped out by concentrating on the arb in the interim?

 

 

Rules do not have INTENT! They are just words.

[Nik Habicht]

1 hour ago, twodownzero said:

Rules do not have INTENT! They are just words.

I don't know about that, Tim.  I'm pretty sure that when you talk to the Board members, they'll be able to tell you what they intended when they wrote a rule......

 

 

[Nik Habicht]

2 hours ago, theWacoKid said:

Nik,

I agree that is the intent of the rule and it is in fact the way I feel and why I would be uncomfortable making any mid-match adjustment to my gun. 

However, I'm not so sure the rules and the word "significant" tighten up that point fully and agree the language could use some simple beefing.  Because if someone thinks what they're doing is no big deal then they just do it and nothing comes of it because no RM was ever even consulted.  If it's clear by the rules the adjustment is forbidden that should change the train of thought.

I'd probably be ok with tightening it up some......

A competitor may make a change to his gun without consulting the RO, but the odds are that if it's significant, someone else on the squad will notice.... 

[theWacoKid]

12 hours ago, Nik Habicht said:

I'm pretty sure that as the competitor you don't get to decide what "significantly" means.....

10 hours ago, Nik Habicht said:

I'd probably be ok with tightening it up some......

A competitor may make a change to his gun without consulting the RO, but the odds are that if it's significant, someone else on the squad will notice.... 

 

That's the thing.  The competitor actually DOES determine what is significant, because if they deem it not significant they never even notify the RM.  Why?  Because the rules state you need approval for significant modifications, but if it's not significant, to the competitor, they don't need to ask.  Also, going on my take that some of these mods are so trivial and not really "significant" it is very unlikely anyone else on the squad will notice.  It's pretty obvious that most of the time nobody else around you cares about your score and even less care about your gun.  Everyone is mostly worried about their own gear and their own shooting.

Edited September 1, 2016 by theWacoKid

[Gary Stevens]

28 minutes ago, theWacoKid said:

 

That's the thing.  The competitor actually DOES determine what is significant, because if they deem it not significant they never even notify the RM.  Why?  Because the rules state you need approval for significant modifications, but if it's not significant, to the competitor, they don't need to ask.  Also, going on my take that some of these mods are so trivial and not really "significant" it is very unlikely anyone else on the squad will notice.  It's pretty obvious that most of the time nobody else around you cares about your score and even less care about your gun.  Everyone is mostly worried about their own gear and their own shooting.

So can you provide wording for a new rule that you believe would solve this issue? Remember your words will be parsed for any possible alternative meaning or usage.

[teros135]

10 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

So can you provide wording for a new rule that you believe would solve this issue? Remember your words will be parsed to within an inch of their lives for any possible alternative meaning or usage.

FIFY  

[theWacoKid]

5 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

So can you provide wording for a new rule that you believe would solve this issue? Remember your words will be parsed for any possible alternative meaning or usage.

Well, I'm no lawyer, I just play one on the internet.  

Leave substitute gun wording as it is, I think it's clear and works and leaves the final decision with the RM.

I'm thinking that instead of saying "significantly modifies" to state that no modifications are allowed unless approved by the RM.

Define modify to be the intentional removal, addition, or switching of any parts relative to the configuration of the gun when it fired the first shot of the match.

Clarify that replacement of, addition of, or removal of parts will be allowed in instances of parts failing, breaking, becoming accidentally lost, or being repaired.  

OR create a definition of what constitutes "significant" or maybe easier is to define what constitutes "not significant".

[twodownzero]

20 hours ago, Nik Habicht said:

I don't know about that, Tim.  I'm pretty sure that when you talk to the Board members, they'll be able to tell you what they intended when they wrote a rule......

I do not care what some people think that a collective body "intended" when it enacted a rule.  I care only about the language they've enacted into our rules.

Collective bodies do not have "intent" and cannot have "intent."  What the individual members may have thought when they voted does not matter.  The founding fathers could have never contemplated the existence of the Internet, but the law still treats this post just like it does the newspaper.

I don't know why you'd care about what they "intended" either even if it wasn't a nonsensical concept.  We are to apply the rules objectively as written, not read what we think their intent might have been.

[Nik Habicht]

38 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

I do not care what some people think that a collective body "intended" when it enacted a rule.  I care only about the language they've enacted into our rules.

I don't know why you'd care about what they "intended" either even if it wasn't a nonsensical concept.  We are to apply the rules objectively as written, not read what we think their intent might have been.

Care to provide a rules reference for that last sentence.....

[Gary Stevens]

Nic I think I am going to have to agree with that last sentence. Words mean things. If USPSA realizes they wrote something that did not convey what was intended, they have ways to correct it. I speak from experience on this. The fact that they do not correct it leaves room for conjecture.

[twodownzero]

1 hour ago, Nik Habicht said:

Care to provide a rules reference for that last sentence.....

It's a language problem.  Rules cannot have intent, they are just words.  If the words do not create the consequences their creators may have wanted, the solution is to fix the words, not read into what they may have wanted.

The principles of fairness in the administration of the rules is the basic essence of what it means to be a range officer.  I know I have been telling you this for years, and this keeps coming up.  Many rule disputes can be solved simply, by just following the language of the rule. 

That documents created by collective action have no intent requires no rules reference.  It is the idea that we would go against the language of the rules and apply what we think they "really meant" that needs authority.  And you will find none, because having objectively applicable rules is the whole reason for having rules in the first place.

[Gary Stevens]

25 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

It's a language problem.  Rules cannot have intent, they are just words.  If the words do not create the consequences their creators may have wanted, the solution is to fix the words, not read into what they may have wanted.

The principles of fairness in the administration of the rules is the basic essence of what it means to be a range officer.  I know I have been telling you this for years, and this keeps coming up.  Many rule disputes can be solved simply, by just following the language of the rule. 

That documents created by collective action have no intent requires no rules reference.  It is the idea that we would go against the language of the rules and apply what we think they "really meant" that needs authority.  And you will find none, because having objectively applicable rules is the whole reason for having rules in the first place.

THIS

[Nik Habicht]

59 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

It's a language problem.  Rules cannot have intent, they are just words.  If the words do not create the consequences their creators may have wanted, the solution is to fix the words, not read into what they may have wanted.

The principles of fairness in the administration of the rules is the basic essence of what it means to be a range officer.  I know I have been telling you this for years, and this keeps coming up.  Many rule disputes can be solved simply, by just following the language of the rule. 

That documents created by collective action have no intent requires no rules reference.  It is the idea that we would go against the language of the rules and apply what we think they "really meant" that needs authority.  And you will find none, because having objectively applicable rules is the whole reason for having rules in the first place.

And it's possible that I would have gotten your point years ago, if we were speaking in person in realtime......

That said -- how do you handle situations not specifically addressed by the rulebook?  Can match staff never look at the words in the rulebook and infer intent, as they decide how to deal with a situation that's not addressed?  

 

[twodownzero]

9 hours ago, Nik Habicht said:

And it's possible that I would have gotten your point years ago, if we were speaking in person in realtime......

That said -- how do you handle situations not specifically addressed by the rulebook?  Can match staff never look at the words in the rulebook and infer intent, as they decide how to deal with a situation that's not addressed? 

No, they can't, because words do not have "intent."  You don't seem to ever get it.  Words have "meaning."  They don't have "intent."  Only individuals have "intent."  Our rules are not created by an individual, or we could just ask him what he meant.

The only authority for interpreting the rules is their words and definitions found in the rulebook for what the words mean.  There is absolutely no legitimacy nor objectivity to attributing some undrafted "intent" to the rules.  If there was, the rules would have to be accompanied by some sort of notes explaining what the drafters "really meant."  Absent that, we have only what they gave us, which are the words they used.

[Sarge]

[motosapiens]

On 9/1/2016 at 9:03 AM, Gary Stevens said:

So can you provide wording for a new rule that you believe would solve this issue? Remember your words will be parsed for any possible alternative meaning or usage.

meh, i would just ignore it. In my experience, people who change things mid-match are among the most likely to make stupid mistakes because they are using gear that they aren't consistently practicing with. If you think a slide-racker will help you on table starts (more than actually practicing table starts), then I think you should be able to put one on just for that stage. Eventually, hilarity will ensue.