Teams?

[NSP]

I don't really follow your argument, but I think something is being lost in translation as that clause is to ensure that a hostile COR doesn't prevail and de-rail the competition.  The mutual consent part of modern AC is a tenuous and delicate dance between two (theoretically) competing factions, but one in which the parties share the same overall vision for the way the event should be run.  Remove that and the entire event would be thrown into jeopardy.  Remember, there can only be one challenger at any given time under the Deed so the COR actually holds a fair amount of power with the threat of a DOG race always present if a mutual consent event can't be agreed upon  - the legal battle that would follow if a new COR decided to renege on the agreed protocol (notwithstanding Section 51) and go rogue would be incredibly messy to say the least, but someone with deep enough pockets could absorb that pain if they were motivated enough to screw up the event (see Larry circa 2009-2010).  I'm not a fan of a lot that ETNZ has done - that fucking boat - but this seems pretty inoffensive and given recent cup history makes a lot of sense to protect the viability of the event and assure sponsors and challengers that they won't be sinking a bucket load of cash into something that may end up stalled in the NY courts because someone wants to impose an alternative vision.

 

[WetHog]

Really, if the AC went with boats that the average member of the sailing community has access to, it would die a slow, (or maybe even a quick) death.

My argument is do we know for a fact that the multi's are better for foiling? We haven't seen an efficient foiling monohull yet. It took 2 cycles to perfect a foiling multihull for Americas Cup racing. It may take 2 cycles to perfect an efficient foiling monohull as well.

As for the CoR "demanding a monohull because it provides a design reset for a team who sat out the last Cup cycle, a team who would be one cycle behind the design curve if the AC50's were kept" I think that would be incorrect, as if LR had the input into the ETNZ AC50 that many here say they did, it would make more sense that they would be well ahead of the design curve than well behind.

Again, the Americas Cup doesn't exist for the average joe from down the road to participate in. It exists to inspire those people, to motivate them. If the AC used boats that the average person goes day sailing in, it wouldn't be the Americas Cup. 

The design is chosen.  I will refrain from commenting on it further until we see one in the water.

WetHog   h34r:

 

[Forourselves]

You really don't get it. Your version of democracy is no democracy because the may vote against you

The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest. Either way that's within the rights of the defender, as it has always been. Otherwise there's no reason to become the Defender/ Cor, as the majority may vote against you the entire time, and your "vision" may suddenly become someone elses vision. There is nothing hypocritical about anything. Thats your point right? You're trying to point out some kind of hypocrisy from the defender/ CoR point of view, and you're trying to twist the wording of the protocol to suit your narrative. But in reality, you're over reaching

 

[WetHog]

The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest. Either way that's within the rights of the defender, as it has always been. Otherwise there's no reason to become the Defender/ Cor, as the majority may vote against you the entire time, and your "vision" may suddenly become someone elses vision. There is nothing hypocritical about anything. Thats your point right? You're trying to point out some kind of hypocrisy from the defender/ CoR point of view, and you're trying to twist the wording of the protocol to suit your narrative. But in reality, you're over reaching

Haven't been following this discussion, and dont plan to moving forward, but any time I see a ETNZ fan preaching about the rights of the Defender to veto anything challenger related in order to protect the Defenders vision I take notice for a variety of reasons.  But mainly to have a good laugh.  Thanks.

WetHog   h34r:

 

[Tornado-Cat]

I don't really follow your argument, but I think something is being lost in translation as that clause is to ensure that a hostile COR doesn't prevail and de-rail the competition.

No, a CoR cannot be hostile as any challenger has to sign this entry form, not sure if it's a point lost in reading or translation

[SIZE=11pt](1)    [/SIZE]The Challenger by this Notice hereby challenges for the 36th America's Cup (including its constituent events) in accordance with the Protocol Governing the 36th America's Cup (the "Protocol"). The Challenger hereby agrees to be bound by and undertakes to comply with, and hereby agrees to procure that all of its Team Members (as such term is defined in the Protocol) shall comply with, the terms of the Protocol and all other rules referred to therein.

Facts are:

- challengers have no right unless CoR

- the only time they can vote the defender can veto the result

- there is no defined competitor forum

- in last ACs the new CoR were established by date of entry, this time chosen by the defender

So the only point I agree with you is that RNZYS want to chose a "friend" and control the succession process.

 

[Forourselves]

Haven't been following this discussion, and dont plan to moving forward, but any time I see a ETNZ fan preaching about the rights of the Defender to veto anything challenger related in order to protect the Defenders vision I take notice for a variety of reasons.  But mainly to have a good laugh.  Thanks.

WetHog   h34r:

One word...Trustee.

 

[rh3000]

Haven't been following this discussion, and dont plan to moving forward, but any time I see a ETNZ fan preaching about the rights of the Defender to veto anything challenger related in order to protect the Defenders vision I take notice for a variety of reasons.  But mainly to have a good laugh.  Thanks.

WetHog   h34r:

Nice sweeping statement that deliberately excludes important words like CoR and replaces them with baseless hyperbole... your president would be proud...

 

[rh3000]

You really don't get it. Your version of democracy is no democracy because the may vote against you

TC I *think* you might be based in the UK, but I could be wrong...

Do you not think the UK is a democracy? Or the US? or the likes of AU or NZ?

 

[Tornado-Cat]

TC I *think* you might be based in the UK, but I could be wrong...

Do you not think the UK is a democracy? Or the US? or the likes of AU or NZ?

Ah ah, I love sclarke, and perhaps yours (?), definition of democracy (not Theresa May)

"The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest".

I have to say it sums up pretty well our discussion.

 

[rh3000]

Ah ah, I love sclarke, and perhaps yours (?), definition of democracy (not Theresa May)

"The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest".

I have to say it sums up pretty well our discussion.

Hmmm right, so again, I'm right in thinking that you are UK-based? which I'm sure you'd (as do I) regard as a democracy?

In which case can I suggest you read up on a little thing known as a Constitutional Monarchy? ;-)

 

[Forourselves]

Ah ah, I love sclarke, and perhaps yours (?), definition of democracy (not Theresa May)

"The Challengers get one vote each, that's democracy at its best. yes RNZYS may veto it, but then again, they may not, again, democracy at its finest".

I have to say it sums up pretty well our discussion.

Yep, sums it up... sour grapes on your part.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Hmmm right, so again, I'm right in thinking that you are UK-based? which I'm sure you'd (as do I) regard as a democracy?

In which case can I suggest you read up on a little thing known as a Constitutional Monarchy? ;-)

I am not based in UK but will be pretty close soon !

My conception of democracy does not include an executive that vetoes the result of an election if they lose it. Leave it to sclarke who, I am sure, hates Trump

 

[Stingray~]

This Protocol is heavily favored to ETNZ and LR and TC has a right to point this out even if he focuses on the trees instead of the forest.

Hopefully we will see changes coming that give the other two syndicates some power but I’m not holding my breath..

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Difficult to design a boat when NoR and match conditions are published after the boat is finished, while the defender and the CoR probably already know them.

 

[rh3000]

I am not based in UK but will be pretty close soon !

My conception of democracy does not include an executive that vetoes the result of an election if they lose it. Leave it to sclarke who, I am sure, hates Trump

Nice dodge, but to be clear *every* democracy has some figure able to veto decisions made by participants... to be clear, like in those democracies, that power is typically not wielded unless necessary, and furthermore, your assertion that the DoR can lose this election is not accurate, they are not up for election so they cannot lose it - they are the president / head of state / governor general presiding over the election of another party, just like what happens in a general election in democratic nations...

You're worried about what ETNZ might do with that power, I get it, but the power itself is not abnormal nor evil, nor does it deviate from any functional democratic structure in governments today. As far as the AC goes well... as I said at the beginning... play out some scenarios that ETNZ and their legal teams would forced them to consider and see if you would be comfortable as the DoR having a CoR bail and then whoever is left amongst the defenders having automatic rights to determine the new CoR.That could be *very* messy, and the DoR should have the ability to clean it up - bearing in mind that if they decide to do something unpopular with the defenders then they might not have any left for a regatta.

 

[Forourselves]

I am not based in UK but will be pretty close soon !

My conception of democracy does not include an executive that vetoes the result of an election if they lose it. Leave it to sclarke who, I am sure, hates Trump

So by your version of "democracy" what stops someone buying off voters? Bribery would be rampant if all that is required is a majority vote.

 

[WetHog]

Nice sweeping statement that deliberately excludes important words like CoR and replaces them with baseless hyperbole... your president would be proud...

Funny you bring up “my president” like it’s an insult.  No hyper partisan here.  Both sides of the US political debate are equally full of shit.  Just like any “democracy” on this planet.  The current Jerkoff in the Oval Office will give way to another in time.  

This place isn’t much different.  Those once up in arms over the previous Defenders vision are now preaching the current Defenders similar vision like it’s a revelation from God himself.  Truly inspirational.

Anyway, Defenders of The Vision UNITE!!!   :lol:

WetHog   h34r:

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Nice dodge, but to be clear *every* democracy has some figure able to veto decisions made by participants... to be clear, like in those democracies, that power is typically not wielded unless necessary, and furthermore, your assertion that the DoR can lose this election is not accurate, they are not up for election so they cannot lose it - they are the president / head of state / governor general presiding over the election of another party, just like what happens in a general election in democratic nations...

You're worried about what ETNZ might do with that power, I get it, but the power itself is not abnormal nor evil, nor does it deviate from any functional democratic structure in governments today. As far as the AC goes well... as I said at the beginning... play out some scenarios that ETNZ and their legal teams would forced them to consider and see if you would be comfortable as the DoR having a CoR bail and then whoever is left amongst the defenders having automatic rights to determine the new CoR.That could be *very* messy, and the DoR should have the ability to clean it up - bearing in mind that if they decide to do something unpopular with the defenders then they might not have any left for a regatta.

I am not afraid because the scenario won't happen. I am more concerned about competitors being able to design the right boat without knowing the race track and the NoR.

I am just pointing at the hypocrisy of the protocol.

It is as if Trump  was telling that the democrats could elect their leader but could veto the result until the best suited candidate but....... that it's democracy because he may not exerce his veto right. Trump could not, and would not even do that.

 

[rh3000]

Funny you bring up “my president” like it’s an insult.  No hyper partisan here.  Both sides of the US political debate are equally full of shit.  Just like any “democracy” on this planet.  The current Jerkoff in the Oval Office will give way to another in time.  

This place isn’t much different.  Those once up in arms over the previous Defenders vision are now preaching the current Defenders similar vision like it’s a revelation from God himself.  Truly inspirational.

Anyway, Defenders of The Vision UNITE!!!   :lol:

WetHog   h34r:

Why would referencing your president be an insult? Projecting much? The current US president is simply someone that does indeed make "sweeping statement(s) that deliberately excludes important words... and replaces them with baseless hyperbole" and as a result I'm sure he'd be proud of anyone else that does the same. That was my point.

"similar vision"

BTW FTR I am partisan when it comes to Trump - he is a clueless fuckwit and whilst all main contenders across the aisles were all pretty much flawed, he was by fucking miles the worst option!

 

[rh3000]

It is as if Trump  was telling that the democrats could elect their leader but could veto the result until the best suited candidate but....... that it's democracy because he may not exerce his veto right. Trump could not, and would not even do that.

I get the metaphor, but I'm still not sure it's that accurate... not that I can think of a better one :-/

what is NoR?