|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#19
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Quote:
Perhaps you need to look at what's actually written, and not what you (or whoever was responsible for this rule) intended to write. That's the salient point here: what's actually written. Teams are not bound by intent, they are bound by rules. You know as well as I that the officials can't just insert words and concepts as if they should (in someone's opinion) be there. While I certainly recognize that the intent of the rule is very important, if the rule doesn't actually say what it was intended to say, no amount of good intent can take the place of actually fixing the rule. I'm not trying to mislead teams, but you're not helping matters by denying that the rule is potentially inconsistent. If they're misled, it will be because you refuse to acknowledge that there is a slight difference in the way that the rules are worded, and that omission has the potential to cause practical consequences. I'm going to go over this in detail: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The first sentence of <R105> says there is no overall quantity limit on cylinders. The second sentence says that they must be rated for 125 psi and COTS. So far so good. The third sentence says that you may purchase cylinders. The fourth sentence says that they must be the same as the ones on the form (same part numbers), and obtained from a Bimba or Parker dealer. So, what's that saying? The word "they" bolded above logically refers to the objects in the preceding (third) sentence, namely purchased pneumatic cylinders. Not pneumatic cylinders in general. Not donated, found, stolen or bartered pneumatic cylinders. If you take that fourth sentence to mean cylinders in general (referring to sentences one and two, but not three), its content is logically consistent, but grammatically disjointed. You wouldn't write an essay like that, and you can't reasonably expect people to read like that. Going to Update 5, the relevant sentence references rule <R105>. We have previously established that the text restricting us to cylinders from the form applies to purchased cylinders. If we are operating under <R105>, then the clarification ought to be referring to those items in <R105> which are in question—namely the ones with the restriction that needs clarifying, or in other words, the purchased ones (see sentences three and four). It makes no sense for the update to be referring to all cylinders (i.e. clarifying one of the first two sentences), because it isn't a mere "clarification" to add a new restriction where it never existed before. If the intent was to modify the rule, then you can't just call it a clarification, and expect people to treat it identically. <R106> says, in the first sentence of the first bullet, that prior year KOP cylinders are allowed in addition to those in the KOP. The second sentence of that bullet says that these parts must be accounted for as explained in Section 8.3.4.3 (i.e. account for the cost like any conventional COTS item). Note that the word "purchased" doesn't make an appearance in <R106>. Like I said earlier, there's a subtle point that was overlooked. It's your problem if you feel compelled to take it personally, but the fact of the matter is, given a reasonable application of English sentence and paragraph structure, I can't interpret it your way. The stupid part of all of this, is that it's a tiny change to fix it to everyone's satisfaction. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Team Update #3 Posted | Katie Reynolds | Rules/Strategy | 26 | 21-01-2007 19:41 |
| Team Update #2 is Posted | geo | General Forum | 1 | 16-01-2004 10:56 |
| Team Update 8 Posted! | Harrison | General Forum | 1 | 30-01-2003 08:08 |
| Team update #6 posted | Joe Ross | General Forum | 6 | 22-01-2003 10:14 |