Rule 8.1.3

[WaJim]

Just finished my RO re-cert test.

 

Fell for a trick question and got both parts wrong. I focused on the item and shooter designation instead of the number of firearms. Read half the question and answered too quickly. Im ok with that,,,lesson learned.

 

The other issue I also had was on Firearm unloaded condition.

 

I knew the rule but found the wording confusing enough that I answered the question wrong.

 

Test question was something like "Its allowed on unloaded start to have slide locked back"

 

Rule 8.1.3 is the appropriate rule for the question but it kinda talks in a circle and ends up with the last 7 words kind of erasing the "must be slide forward Unloaded Start" part in the middle.

 

Its like my Ex Wife wrote the rule.

 

..........comments?

 

 

 

Maybe the rule needs another teeny sentence for clarity?

 

[Brooke]

No ambiguity there. You follow the default rule unless a specific condition is called out in the WSB.

[SGT_Schultz]

2 hours ago, WaJim said:

Rule 8.1.3 is the appropriate rule for the question but it kinda talks in a circle and ends up with the last 7 words kind of erasing the "must be slide forward Unloaded Start" part in the middle.

 

Sorry, no.

[DirkD]

6 hours ago, WaJim said:

Just finished my RO re-cert test.

 

Fell for a trick question and got both parts wrong. I focused on the item and shooter designation instead of the number of firearms. Read half the question and answered too quickly. Im ok with that,,,lesson learned.

 

The other issue I also had was on Firearm unloaded condition.

 

I knew the rule but found the wording confusing enough that I answered the question wrong.

 

Test question was something like "Its allowed on unloaded start to have slide locked back"

 

Rule 8.1.3 is the appropriate rule for the question but it kinda talks in a circle and ends up with the last 7 words kind of erasing the "must be slide forward Unloaded Start" part in the middle.

 

Its like my Ex Wife wrote the rule.

 

..........comments?

 

 

 

Maybe the rule needs another teeny sentence for clarity?

 

8.1.3  Courses of fire may require ready conditions which are different to those stated above. In such cases, the required ready condition must be clearly stated in the written stage briefing. When a firearm Ready Condition requires a firearm be prepared with an empty chamber (or cylinder), the slide/bolt of the firearm must be fully forward (or the cylinder must be fully closed) and the hammer or striker must be fully down or fully forward, as the case may be, unless otherwise specified in the stage briefing.


How much clearer do you want the rule to be?

It is very clear, the default is hammer down slide closed on unloaded start unless other conditions in the WSB

[WaJim]

2 hours ago, DirkD said:

8.1.3  Courses of fire may require ready conditions which are different to those stated above. In such cases, the required ready condition must be clearly stated in the written stage briefing. When a firearm Ready Condition requires a firearm be prepared with an empty chamber (or cylinder), the slide/bolt of the firearm must be fully forward (or the cylinder must be fully closed) and the hammer or striker must be fully down or fully forward, as the case may be, unless otherwise specified in the stage briefing.


How much clearer do you want the rule to be?

It is very clear, the default is hammer down slide closed on unloaded start unless other conditions in the WSB

 

I guess when alone doing a test with no one to compare notes,confer with I had an issue with the way it was worded. 

 

If you take the last seven words and insert them after the first sentence.

 

eg;

 

Courses of fire may require ready conditions which are different to those stated above. In such cases, the required ready condition must be clearly stated in the written stage briefing. Unless otherwise specified in the stage briefing when a firearm Ready Condition requires a firearm be prepared with an empty chamber (or cylinder), the slide/bolt of the firearm must be fully forward (or the cylinder must be fully closed) and the hammer or striker must be fully down or fully forward.

 

Like this?

 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by WaJim

[DirkD]

29 minutes ago, WaJim said:

 

I guess when alone doing a test with no one to compare notes,confer with I had an issue with the way it was worded. 

 

If you take the last seven words and insert them after the first sentence.

 

eg;

 

Courses of fire may require ready conditions which are different to those stated above. In such cases, the required ready condition must be clearly stated in the written stage briefing. Unless otherwise specified in the stage briefing when a firearm Ready Condition requires a firearm be prepared with an empty chamber (or cylinder), the slide/bolt of the firearm must be fully forward (or the cylinder must be fully closed) and the hammer or striker must be fully down or fully forward.

 

Like this?

 

 

 the current rule is very clear, no reason to change it.

[WaJim]

10 minutes ago, DirkD said:

 the current rule is very clear, no reason to change it.

 

Have you taken the RO test ...?

 

Pretty important for the rules to be easily understood. The test is not a joint effort with other ROs....or shouldnt be.

 

 

 

The way I wrote it is clearer by far than the way it is written.

 

My 2 cents.

[DirkD]

30 minutes ago, WaJim said:

 

Have you taken the RO test ...?

 

Pretty important for the rules to be easily understood. The test is not a joint effort with other ROs....or shouldnt be.

 

 

 

The way I wrote it is clearer by far than the way it is written.

 

My 2 cents.

yes


it is clear as written

Why should the rule be re written because you did not understand it as it is currently written?

Edited January 5, 2021 by DirkD

[broadside72]

There are so many places that the rulebook could be reworded, clarified or simplified.

[WaJim]

1 hour ago, broadside72 said:

There are so many places that the rulebook could be reworded, clarified or simplified.

 

Agreed.

 

The rules can be modified without cutting one tree.

 

I thought that this was the proper place for airing a concern about how a rule was written.

 

Next time ill just PM Dirk.

 

 

 

BTW Broadside when was the last time you used the phrase "as the case may be" ?

 

Now that I have googled it I find out its a Legal phrase.....used in contracts.

 

 

[MikeBurgess]

6 hours ago, WaJim said:

 

I guess when alone doing a test with no one to compare notes,confer with I had an issue with the way it was worded. 

 

If you take the last seven words and insert them after the first sentence.

 

eg;

 

Courses of fire may require ready conditions which are different to those stated above. In such cases, the required ready condition must be clearly stated in the written stage briefing. Unless otherwise specified in the stage briefing when a firearm Ready Condition requires a firearm be prepared with an empty chamber (or cylinder), the slide/bolt of the firearm must be fully forward (or the cylinder must be fully closed) and the hammer or striker must be fully down or fully forward.

 

Like this?

 

 

I actually prefer this way of ordering the sentences, if nothing else it would be nice if the "Unless otherwise specified in the stage briefing" was placed in the exact same order in every paragraph it is used in.

[SGT_Schultz]

8 hours ago, WaJim said:

 

Have you taken the RO test ...?

 

Pretty important for the rules to be easily understood. The test is not a joint effort with other ROs....or shouldnt be.

 

 

 

The way I wrote it is clearer by far than the way it is written.

 

My 2 cents.

 

You seem to be the only one who is confused by the existing language, the only one who thinks a change is needed, and the only one who thinks your re-write improves clarity.

 

What else would you like everyone who has commented so far to do?  To agree with you when we don't?

 

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by SGT_Schultz

[WaJim]

25 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

 

 

What else would you like everyone who has commented so far to do?  To agree with you when we don't?

 

 

 

 

Not at all. You can agree or not, of course, as the case may be.

 

It's 2021 not 1776 and people with a keen grasp of the English language don't necessarily get or use Lawyer Speak.

 

I'm saying the passage is not necessary and can be confusing.

 

I also think the mere posting this concern on BE about the wording helps another RO understand a wordy rule is a positive move..

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said earlier...the test isn't a group effort. So if this helps that one RO...I'm good.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by WaJim

[PatJones]

1 hour ago, WaJim said:

It's 2021 not 1776 and people with a keen grasp of the English language don't necessarily get or use Lawyer Speak.

USPSA is full of range lawyers...

 

 

 

[Intheshaw1]

Man, if you think that is wordy and lawyer speak I hope you never read a legal document as those are 100x worse. Unfortunately it's the world we live in when people are sue crazy.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Intheshaw1

[SGT_Schultz]

9 hours ago, WaJim said:

It's 2021 not 1776 and people with a keen grasp of the English language don't necessarily get or use Lawyer Speak

 

 

Anyone who doesn't immediately understand the phrase "as the case may be" and has to google it doesn't have a keen grasp of the English language in 2021.

 

It may have originated as a legal term long ago.  I don't really know or care about its origins.  But to think it's not a phrase in common use?

 

LOL

Edited January 6, 2021 by SGT_Schultz

[Brooke]

Good Lord!!! 

[DirkD]

12 hours ago, WaJim said:

 

 

Not at all. You can agree or not, of course, as the case may be.

 

It's 2021 not 1776 and people with a keen grasp of the English language don't necessarily get or use Lawyer Speak.

 

I'm saying the passage is not necessary and can be confusing.

 

I also think the mere posting this concern on BE about the wording helps another RO understand a wordy rule is a positive move..

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said earlier...the test isn't a group effort. So if this helps that one RO...I'm good.

 

 

 

 

 

Rule is clear, it is not lawyer speak  you are pissed you got it wrong so you want to change the rule.

 

If a ro can't understand this rule they should not be a ro

[Boomstick303]

I am relatively new and have been an RO for a very short amount of time.  I have no issue with the way the rules are written at all.  They from what I have experienced and have had to ever reference in the rule book been clear and concise.  What has not been clear is how the rules are enforced or not enforced, on an organization's, club's, RO, CRO, RM or MD whims.  I have a bigger issue with the way the current rules are or are not applied in situations.  

 

I cannot see rewriting a rule by placing the same words in a different order make the rule any more or less clear.  

 

Another issue I see, is where a competitor wants the rule to be interpreted a certain way, or game the rule to benefit their "Stage Plan" to gain an advantage that no one else thought of and try to bend the rule to fit their scenario.  Then the RO and/or CRO go along with the bending of the rule because they do not know the rules, or are unsure.  We all have phones.  We all have access to an electronic rule book at the drop of a hat.  Use it.

 

After taking the RO test twice now, I have found that many of the errors I make on test questions are, I did not dig deep enough into the section of the rule book to find the exact answer they are looking for.  The rule book was not wrong, written poorly, or need to be changed.  I needed to know the rules better, or dig deeper to have a full understanding of what the correct answer is.  I think the test is written this way on purpose to make you understand this principle, or maybe I am just giving USPSA/NROI too much credit.

[DirkD]

40 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

I am relatively new and have been an RO for a very short amount of time.  I have no issue with the way the rules are written at all.  They from what I have experienced and have had to ever reference in the rule book been clear and concise.  What has not been clear is how the rules are enforced or not enforced, on an organization's, club's, RO, CRO, RM or MD whims.  I have a bigger issue with the way the current rules are or are not applied in situations.  

 

I cannot see rewriting a rule by placing the same words in a different order make the rule any more or less clear.  

 

Another issue I see, is where a competitor wants the rule to be interpreted a certain way, or game the rule to benefit their "Stage Plan" to gain an advantage that no one else thought of and try to bend the rule to fit their scenario.  Then the RO and/or CRO go along with the bending of the rule because they do not know the rules, or are unsure.  We all have phones.  We all have access to an electronic rule book at the drop of a hat.  Use it.

 

After taking the RO test twice now, I have found that many of the errors I make on test questions are, I did not dig deep enough into the section of the rule book to find the exact answer they are looking for.  The rule book was not wrong, written poorly, or need to be changed.  I needed to know the rules better, or dig deeper to have a full understanding of what the correct answer is.  I think the test is written this way on purpose to make you understand this principle, or maybe I am just giving USPSA/NROI too much credit.

If you think all the rules are clear and concise you have not read them and don't know what they say.

 

Give some examples of rules being bent to allow gaming, it is probably a shooter that knows the rules found a way to game it and showed the ro the rules.

[Boomstick303]

12 minutes ago, DirkD said:

it is probably a shooter that knows the rules found a way to game it and showed the ro the rules.

 

I would agree with this statement and most of the time this is correct.  I have encountered what I have described as well.  Using Props outside of fault lines for support for example.

 

I have not ever read the entire rule book.  Have you?  My point was I have never left the rule book questioning a rule or they way it should be interpreted.  Do you have examples where the rule book is not concise?

 

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Boomstick303

[DirkD]

1 hour ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

I would agree with this statement and most of the time this is correct.  I have encountered what I have described as well.  Using Props outside of fault lines for support for example.

 

I have not ever read the entire rule book.  Have you?  My point was I have never left the rule book questioning a rule or they way it should be interpreted.  Do you have examples where the rule book is not concise?

 

 

You can't use anything outside the shooting area for support,

10.2.1

If a competitor fires shots while touching the ground or any object completely outside the fault lines, they will be assessed one procedural penalty per occurrence. If any part of an object is inside the fault lines, then that entire object may be used for support without penalty. Support structures outside the shooting area such as, but not limited to wall feet, legs, braces, etc., may never be used for support, and any object completely outside the fault lines may not be used for support, even if it touches an object that is inside the fault lines. Course designers may designate certain parts of structures, such as raised platforms, as part of the shooting area, while excluding their support structure or steps, but must mark those areas with legal fault lines. Raised planks or timbers may be designated as shooting areas as long as they satisfy the requirements listed in 2.2.1.2.

Yes I have read the rule book, the whole rule book

[Boomstick303]

Trust me I understand that rule.  This is a rule I have seen gamed as the shooter used the object outside of the fault line for support at the start of a stage.  The RO was distracted by the other questions the shooter asked pertaining to hands below belt.  I was not the RO, nor do I feel I need to explain the to RO the infraction as it is not to the outside observer to point the fault out. 

 

This rule is very concise.  Again what rules do you think are not concise in the book, as  you failed to provide an example.  Your quote, "If you think all the rules are clear and concise you have not read them and don't know what they say."

[DirkD]

5 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

Trust me I understand that rule.  This is a rule I have seen gamed as the shooter used the object outside of the fault line for support at the start of a stage.  The RO was distracted by the other questions the shooter asked pertaining to hands below belt.  I was not the RO, nor do I feel I need to explain the to RO the infraction as it is not to the outside observer to point the fault out. 

 

This rule is very concise.  Again what rules do you think are not concise in the book, as  you failed to provide an example.  Your quote, "If you think all the rules are clear and concise you have not read them and don't know what they say."

you can do whatever you want when not shooting, procedurals only apply while shooting,  if the shooter isn't in the proper start position or condition why is the RO starting the shooter?

What infraction did the ro miss?

[Boomstick303]

11 minutes ago, DirkD said:

you can do whatever you want when not shooting, procedurals only apply while shooting,  if the shooter isn't in the proper start position or condition why is the RO starting the shooter?

What infraction did the ro miss?

 

Sorry I will be more precise.  The RO should have never let the shooter start the course of Fire.  Is that better?  Or is it legal to start a stage leaning on a prop outside of the shooting area and not incur a penalty.  He would be leaning on the prop on the clock, after the timer is started right?  He is still leaning on the prop once the buzzer goes off.  Either way it looked to me the RO errored.  Or am I not correct?

 

Again, your example of rules that are not concise is????

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Boomstick303