• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Cap't Billy

Members
  • Content count

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Cap't Billy

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.lawndart.ca
  • ICQ
    0
  1. PHRF PNW handicappers

    There has to be some compromise on behalf of island boats. As it is, NW holds their appeals meetings on weekends so distant owners can attend. How does BC deal with appeals from the interior? Are the owners expected to travel to Vancouver mid-week to attend appeals meetings? Seems like the only way to fix this is to hold the BC appeals on weekends if interior or Island boats are involved. It is hard to understand how any appeal could only affect Island boats; the whole idea of the Island moving to BC is to encourage more participation in each other's regattas. Therefore any appeal of an Island boat can potentially affect everyone that sails against that boat now or in the future. I'm hearing encouraging things about aligning protocols between NW and BC. So, yes, BC might adjust its protocol (eg. sail measurements) somewhat, or allow some grandfathering of sails, as might NW. NW and BC have different code 6 breaks, for example. A sail designed for NW's code 6 break might measure in as code 7 in BC - is it fair to expect the owner of that sail to pay to have it altered to fit the BC code or accept the rating hit? As mentioned, some sensible compromise is needed - something for the handicappers to work out when they discuss the technical side of the issue. I don't think RVIC has anything in particular to do with it - this is a general problem that needs to be solved, or at least well understood and communicated to everyone with a lot of notice, before Island votes again on any move to BC. PHRF NW recognizes that our common racing area is vast but also sparsely populated in a lot of cases. The idea of forming sub regional groups was to facilitate member service and representation on a more local level – and report back member concerns to the Board/Handicapper’s Council as a whole. In NW your first level of appeal is to the local handicapper. If he agrees then he will carry it to your sub regional group for you. While not required you are always welcome to provide testimony at the sub regional meeting where your appeal will be discussed. If the local handicapper does not support you, as a second avenue for appeal, you may advance it to the sub regional group yourself. If the sub regional group agrees then they will carry it to the next Handicappers Council Appeals Meeting on your behalf. If there is no sub regional group in your area then the Chief Handicapper directly becomes your second line of appeal. If your sub regional group (or Chief Handicapper) does not support your appeal, as your third recourse, you may still advance your appeal yourself at the next Handicappers Council Appeals Meeting where you will be welcome to provide testimony. Decisions of the Handicappers Council are considered final however the Board of Directors, if asked, may choose to reconsider decisions of the HC at their discretion. As a final, final avenue of appeal you may ask that decisions of the HC or the Board of Directors be further reviewed by National Appeals Committee of PHRF who may at their discretion re-consider a decision. What I'm getting at is you, as a member, don't necessarily need to travel to an actual Appeals Meeting to see your appeal considered or ratified. Your appeal may be better received at the Handicappers Council when presented by a disinterested (handicapper) member. Another thing to consider is that if traction is not forthcoming at some point in the process one would have to begin to question the merit of the appeal.
  2. PHRF PNW handicappers

    If you enjoy fleet diversity and racing with sailors from all over the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound and think inter-regional mixing is healthy for our sport, like I do, then have your say. You should get a hold of your Fleet Captain/Handicapper/Director and make your feelings known soon. I prefer not to have impediments that might discourage sailors from other parts of the region joining in at our club’s races and the races I travel to. As appears to be the sentiment of nearly every poster on this thread I wish we could focus our energies on inclusiveness. Rather than building fences higher between areas within the region wouldn’t our efforts be better applied, and sailors and organizers better served, looking for ways to remove barriers? Whose ratings see use on Vancouver Island will be decided at a Royal Victoria Yacht Club forum tommorrow at 1900. Agreed. The best step to take right now is consolidating the ratings and protocol. Then it won't matter who anyone buys their certificate from, and anyone can attend any regatta in the region without having uncertainty on their rating going into the event. Here is a message authored by a respected local sailor that was a hand out at the recent PHRF forum at Royal Vic. I thought it sounded a lot like you Dash. I also thought it most resonated with those attending the meeting - and me PHRF handout..pdf
  3. PHRF PNW handicappers

    If you enjoy fleet diversity and racing with sailors from all over the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound and think inter-regional mixing is healthy for our sport, like I do, then have your say. You should get a hold of your Fleet Captain/Handicapper/Director and make your feelings known soon. I prefer not to have impediments that might discourage sailors from other parts of the region joining in at our club’s races and the races I travel to. As appears to be the sentiment of nearly every poster on this thread I wish we could focus our energies on inclusiveness. Rather than building fences higher between areas within the region wouldn’t our efforts be better applied, and sailors and organizers better served, looking for ways to remove barriers? Whose ratings see use on Vancouver Island will be decided at a Royal Victoria Yacht Club forum tommorrow at 1900.
  4. PHRF PNW handicappers

    I try not to harbour hard feelings towards my fellow sailors. This is what I do for fun. Of course there are members of my crew who more closely match your description but they are mine D's! Flash wouldn't even get on the podium among those who are "harder to like" and he isn't the bad guy about this. I think everyone would agree things could have been handled better all-around about the Big Boat ratings re-do. There is a lot of new blood in PHRF NW and I'm encouraged that some experienced and reasonable and respected sailors are stepping up to volunteer. It also re-invigorates the old guard too I think. It is a frustration how much time gets wasted on the politics however. And not only at the meetings but for the volunteers organizing at the regattas too. It's my sense that the PHRF NW is interested in finding ways to streamline the ratings process for organizers and boats that travel. I have to admit I don't know what that might look like but there are bright lights around that might come up with some good suggestions. Maybe I'll put up a poll that asks the questions. I don't know how to put up a poll - but how hard could it be? I wonder what the questions should be?
  5. PHRF PNW handicappers

    I should have been more clear. I was sitting directly across the table (3 feet) from the main appeal presenter and suggested to him that the mid range ratings moved were a pretty good compromise. He told me that his group would never go for that - I guess because they had statistics. . . damn statistics. "Accept" the ratings was the wrong word too - never be satisfied, (according solely to the main presenter) with the ratings compromise suggested is more accurate. The Chief Handicapper might not support the ratings compromise motion and he gets one vote. The President doesn't even get one vote unless he was also a handicapper - which he might have been in this case. It's based on a majority of the handicappers - but regardless defeated anyway. Maybe I'm obtuse, and I was not as involved as I should have been in all this, but who were the group of people that took over the volunteer organization? That is not a retorical question I'd really like to know who or what group you think took over. An e-mail, as you describe receiving from the Chief Handicapper, would not represent PHRF NW's finest hour. As a Director of the organization I really would like to see it. You can send it to me by regular e-mail (you know) if you don't want it repeated up here.
  6. PHRF PNW handicappers

    12 Metre: Our Dash here had nothing to do with that fiasco. It was a very late entry (was it the day before Swiftsure?) but it could have been better handled from a perceived interest perspective. PHRF NW got a black eye on that one. Again something that would not have happened if we were all singing from the same song sheet.
  7. PHRF PNW handicappers

    I rate zero. We made 9 long weekend away games this year. It's a big deal getting a dozen sailors on the boat even that often. I don't have an IRC rating. But I get what you mean; I didn't get down in the sound this year. If you think all the boats with IRC ratings like that idea then we are talking to different people. It seems a shame to isolate the, could it be a dozen (?), Big Boats when so far it doesn't seem to even make a difference in the results. The year ending PHRF NW membership is more like 950 members and so the annual budget gets north of USD 40,000. I neglected to mention there is one paid employee at PHRF NW who handles all the administration and then postage and stationary - you know it all adds up.
  8. PHRF PNW handicappers

    Handicapping is not a popularity contest. Take it or leave it? Yes. And appeal - just like everybody else. The new PHRF ratings for the BBF are closer now in my opinion and they don't seem to make much of a difference to the results so far either PSSC Big Boat 2014.pdf Southern Straits 2014.pdf Swiftsure 2014.pdf 2013 Grand Prix.pdf Center Sound 2014.pdf
  9. PHRF PNW handicappers

    My impression of the mood at PHRF NW Annual Meeting is that they would welcome the Big Boat Fleet back with open arms. All handicapping systems have their limitations. PHRF NW is a 50 dollars a year system run by a revolving crew of volunteers who meet once or twice a year. We need to align our expectations with those realities. I think PHRF NW doesn’t do too badly considering those resources. The Handicappers Council argues that the ratings adopted, which resulted from deliberations in the Big Boat Committee, were fairer. Could the whole process have been handled better? Sure mistakes were made but let’s not argue that whole can of worms again. I attended the PHRF NW Annual Meeting where some of the BBF appealed their ratings. A 20 or thirty page colour analysis was presented in support of the groups appeal. Their representative did a great job of explaining this complicated appeal material. It should be noted that I have never seen any appeal that even approached the sophistication of this presentation. Because it was so well presented it could be understood and I found some flaws in the reasoning. One element of the presentation was that Big Boat Owners were polled as to what they though their rating should be and also those of the rest of the BB fleet. Actually as I recall only about half of the Big Boat owners were asked this question but their ratings estimates included all of the identified BB Fleet. The half whose input was not sought were those boats whose rating were little affected of even went slower and I guess it was assumed that they would not join in the appeal. When averaged the results of this survey put the owners suggested ratings about in between the old PHRF NW rating and those suggested by Big Boat Committee and approved by the HC. The quick take away is that even the Big Boat Owners surveyed agreed that their old ratings had been soft. It was moved that the Handicappers Council adopt the ratings suggested by the owner’s poll but 3 seconds faster. In discussion it became clear that the Big Boat appeal would not accept those ratings and the motion was defeated. In some cases there was a lot of ratings real estate between the old and the new ratings and so getting half way back would have been a big win for those appealing. I would contend that this is not the owners bending over backwards to resolve the issue. PHRF NW continues to monitor race results among the Big Boat Fleet. Attached is the summary page of an IRC/PHRF NW ratings comparison. If the BB group thinks IRC is more fair, then the data pretty clearly show a much better alignment of IRC with current NW ratings than with the old ratings. I still hope to upload the race data on which this analysis is found which shows the position changes between boats between ratings systems. Comparison of IRC and PHRF Ratings (2).pdf
  10. PHRF PNW handicappers

    Hi Aysm-Cloud The report was prepared by someone you well know. Many comparisons were made. I'll see if I can get him to publish them here.
  11. PHRF PNW handicappers

    Three areas. We still have to resolve the mind-boggling snafu of the "big boat" re-ratings down here in the lowest arm of the Salish. Why? What we really need is a path forward to get your boat, and anything else under about 40 PHRF to get IRC ratings. In the case of your boat, it would be pretty simple, as you have most of the data needed from your ORR or IMS certificates. It would likely just mean measuring the overhangs. Same would be true for the other CM1200s, the Farr 39s, the J/133 etc. I would expect the only boat that would not be excited about IRC would be Terremoto... No, we don't need to isolate another group of boats from the mainstream. Reports from the big boats who were chased into IRC by PHRF NW intransigence is that IRC racing is different, but not necessarily better. Terremoto is certainly not the only boat that would not be excited... Further dividing the fleet is not the answer and that is the message I am getting from nearly every post on this thread - and those I speak with in person. I agree with that sentiment and removing the impediments to more mixing of the regional HRF. I received a copy of the PHRF NW - IRC results comparison and it looked like not much changed beyond that the "IRC favored designs" having done slightly better only a few times. I gave my copy to my local handicapper. Maybe the author should post a copy here? I am a member of the Big Boat Fleet - well maybe not a full member - but I got some of the mail. I am not/would not be excited about racing under IRC corrections.