• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Red Dolphin

Members
  • Content count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Red Dolphin

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  1. I ran a few numbers making some pretty large assumptions. I have to admit now i think it may be possible to go against the current maybe 1 to 5 kts. Amazing. AL of course going with the current with no drag you will eventually do light speed. I'm shocked that this might be possible and would love to see it. What cool machines. I stand corrected from my previous post .
  2. Your right I don't think what he's saying is possible. You could maybe foil in The direction of the current at double it's speed. And I'm absolutely positive this is what he meant to say. Nice video for sure tho.
  3. Mate, getting a simple factual description of events out of you is like pulling teeth. You seem to think that a boat approaching the race committee and requesting that the race committee review an OCS decision is somehow improper. It's not. Good race committees encourage competitors to communicate with them about possible errors by the race committee, usually through the medium of Scoring Review Requests. Far better that a race committee corrects an error that they have made voluntarily than have the race committee, an aggrieved party, and a protest committee ponder the issue at length in a formal hearing of a request for redress. You seem to be saying that, in this case, a boat approached the race committee and tendered a video showing that they had returned and restarted after being initially on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal, and the race committee was persuaded, and reinstated the boat from OCS. You refer to this video as 'dodgy' and 'unconclusive'. That may well be your opinion about the video, but the race committee may have had a different opinion to yours as to the probative value of the video or taken the video evidence in conjunction with other evidence it had to hand, such as race officer's sound recording or notes and been satisfied on the balance of probabilities. You seem to think that this video was 'evidence that would not be admissible in a protest hearing' Why do you think a video would not be admissible in a protest hearing? You assert that '[rule] 90.3c gives the race committee power to change results without making sure that it's the right decision'. It does no such thing. Rule 90.3( c ) requires the race committee to 'correct the error'. That plainly means the the race committee must replace an erroneous score with the correct (right) score. The rule absolutely obliges the race committee to come to the 'right' decision. You say you 'protested the race committee for reinstating a boat with [poor] evidence'. Regardless of whether you ticked the 'protest' or 'request for redress' box on the form, the protest committee should have treated this as a request for redress, alleging an improper action by the race committee in reinstating the boat. You say 'I had to prove "without the dodgy video" that the boats didn't go back. Why were you unable to rely on the video? Was it because you could not accomplish the logistics of obtaining a copy of the video and showing it in the protest hearing? That's unfortunate: a more determined protest committee might have tried to have the race committee or whoever held the video attend as a witness and present the video. If this video was presented to the race committee by the boat in question, then it may not have been 'records or observations' of the race committee's own, and thus may not have enlivened the obligation to correct contained in rule 90.3( c ), and the race committee may have been using its general discretion to correct errors it has made. Why do you think moving rule 90.3( c ) into Appendix A would make any difference to how the rules are applied? Why would the location of a rule in the rule book make any difference to the way it is applied? The protest committee told me the video was inadmissable. And rightly so as it certainly didn't prove the boat went back. The Video was inconclusive. That's what my initial protest was about if you read my previous post. I think 90.3© should be dealt with in appendix A5 which has the Heading SCORES DETERMINED BY THE RACE COMMITEE. Something similar could be put in there with all the other scoring details that i don't pretend to know much about. It would just make things a bit simpler, I dont think it would change anything else. Look i don't think i really need to spell out all the details, I'm simply after infomation so i can deal with this situation should it raise its head again. Other members have already sorted this out for me. Thanks Again.
  4. Protest who? You can't protest the RC, you can only ask for redress. But, having experienced this once when serving as RC, can a boat protest another boat for being OCS if the RC did not call them OCS? Of course you can, You'd just better have really good evidence. For the record, I did protest. I protested the race committee for reinstating a boat with evidence that would not be admissible in a protest hearing. A dodgy video from an unanchored boat that was anything but conclusive. My anvenue for protest was probably wrong, thanks to you guys I see I should have applied for redress. The thing that I didn't like was that the competitors who were OCS pressured the race committee to change the result themselves, which means they bypassed the protest hearing and then could rely on the dodgy video. 90.3c gives the race committee power to change results without making sure that it's the right decision. Because the results were changed I had to prove "without the dodgy video" that the boats didn't go back. A very difficult thing to do even tho I had 4 witnesses to say that the boats were definitely OCS when the gun went. I would like to see 90.3c placed in appendix A where it belongs and it would make things like this slightly easier.
  5. Thanks guys. 62.1 and A5 are the ones i was missing. I feel i have a pretty good grip on the rules, but its not always super easy to work out or find what your looking for in time to make it count. Regards
  6. Thanks. OCS definitely signaled at the time. Just changed after the fact without a hearing. It doesn't seem right to me. I'm not sure 90.3c is really applicable.Rule 90.3c is the rule relevant to the race committee changing scores. Why would it not be applicable? I feel 90.3 c is there to correct obvious mistakes in scoring like entering the wrong place or sail number and correcting this without a hearing. Not reinstating random boats that broke random rules with no hearing. This might be open to abuse.
  7. Thanks. OCS definitely signaled at the time. Just changed after the fact without a hearing. It doesn't seem right to me. I'm not sure 90.3c is really applicable.
  8. Hi Guys, I've seen this situation recently, and I keep it as simple as I can. Can a race committee overturn an OCS result without a protest hearing? Hope a few of you guys might know the rules involved. Thanks
  9. Sick mate, Siiick.
  10. I rest my case.
  11. Nice observation. A lot of time, money, and effort is invested in these development classes to improve speed. So a non rotating round or oval has been chosen because ???? Because they are running Mast Head Kites. And here i believe might be part of the problem with these trimaran rigs. They need the power of a mast head kite but no-one who sails them can remember to let the rotation off enough to keep the rig in the boat. So maybe a round tube might be the way forward. You could certainly save some weight aloft. Might prove to be quicker too.
  12. I would do if there was any chance they had any credibility. There are a fair number of well qualified people who would love to get involved with a serious Oz challenge and I do know just about all of them. I am not the only person who thinks these guys are doing more harm than good. What is needed is a VRO, and they are in very, very short supply. There are currently only 2 or 3 people in Oz who could do it and every one of them has said no to very real and credible attempts to get a challenge together. Even the seed capital and contacts of the Oatley family (estimated net worth $900m+) wasn't enough. Corporate Oz has shown a distinct lack of interest. So who is team NZs VRO then Simon?
  13. Maybe you should jump on the phone and offer your expert advice and show them your extensive list of special friends.
  14. Its an Extreme 40! Shouldn't that read an old, obsolete boat that the only similarity between it and the AC is that there are 2 hulls... besides the absurdity of the whole idea, I love the well used sailing terms ..... "tipping up" Is that anything like capsizing, or wiping out or..... Sorry, but this article is a real embarrassment to Australian sailing. Simon N you're the only embarrassment to Australian sailing around here. Good on them for having a crack. God knows that the AC series is in desperate need of a decent venue.
  15. Difficult to tell what its made from. But from the general vibe of the rest of the sail i'd say its the cheapest shit they could find. That head patch looks like a 4 year old came up with it. Gross.