Forums

The Racing Rules of Sailing
1778 Posts
Rule 18 and Room at the Mark
171 Posts
Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures
106 Posts
Match and Team Racing Rules
46 Posts
Race Committee & Race Management
76 Posts
Rules 2 and 69
45 Posts
Training Materials, Presentations and Classes
58 Posts
Share Your SI/NOR Language
48 Posts
Event Management & Forum System (Q's, Comments & Suggestions)
170 Posts
繁體中文論壇 - Traditional Chinese Channel
2 Posts
Regole e dintorni - Italian Channel
50 Posts

Forum Guidelines

Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.

Powered by WIND

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Limitations on Coaching or Outside Assistance in Filing a Hearing Request
    Paul said

    In thinking this through, I have a few questions. 

    1. How is coaching by AI different than coaching by a competitor's coach, his team mates, a friend, Dave Perry, etc.

    Not at all.

    1. How does coaching "skew" testimony?  I am of the belief that coaching generally makes for better and more efficient hearings.  If a competitor knows what the elements are for a claim, then they are better able to craft their argument to achieve their goal.  How is that bad?

    For a start, a witness that has been 'schooled' in what to say and how to say it is highly problematic.  If a coach tells a witness that such and such must have happened, then the witness may testify that it did happen, whetehr they actually saw it at the time or not.

    It's often said that an eyewitness's unmediated and contemporaneous testimony is more authentic and reliable than the testimony they may later give, particularly after having had a coaching discussion that highlighted important 'facts' necessary to support an allegation of a particular rule breach.

    Judges can sometimes identify 'reconstructed' evidence:  this is when a witness says 'It must have been ... ' something:  This is not evidence of what the witneess saw or heard, it is something reconstructed from other perceptions.  Reconstructed evidence should be given less weight than direce evidence of what was seen or heard.

    Whether intentional or not coaching of a party or witness can skew their evidence.  However, judges can't proceed on the assumption that because there has been a prior discussion (which is perfectly permissible within the rules) then the evidence is less truthful or accurate than otherwise.  

    Sailing is a coached game and judges have no business, outside of RRS 41 or substantial evidence of lying in breach of RRS 69, in interfereing with any coaching process.

    1. If coaching increases the likelihood of false testimony (and I know of no metric that supports this), why would AI be any different than coaching from any other source? 

    If a competitor asked AI 'Tell me what to say to win my protest that NNN broke RRS 13'' that would get them a specification or a script.

    I don't think this would be any different from the result of asking a human coach or any other support person the same question.

    I think an ethical coach or support person would be very reserved in answering that sort of question.

    1. If the application offers AI coaching to both parties, and preserves that coaching for the parties and judges to see, why would this not lead to more concise hearings and better understanding.

    I'm more than happy with the expanded prompts provided in the AI Protest Form you have exhibited in this thread.

    Consistent with view I've expressed that it's OK and helpful for a judge at an event to help a competitor up to the point of making a protest valid, and probably no further, I think the RRoS platform is moving beyone it's 'charter' when it starts to provide 'coaching'.

    Doing a proper job of evaluating and endorsing a particular AI LLM and a particlar interrogation script would be a pretty big undertaking.

    Preserving that coaching for the parties and judges to see would create a relatively voluminous written document for judges to read.  I'm not sure that that would lead to 'more concises hearings'.,

    1. The PC is still tasked with determining how to weight the evidence.  If a competitor is providing information that the members of the panel find less convincing than other evidence, they should weight it accordingly.  Thus, even if a competitor is using AI to craft testimony, if it is true, what is the problem?  If it is not true, then it would be treated like any other evidence and weighted by the panel.

    If a coach or AI encourages a witness to make up or embellish evidence, that's a bad thing.  It may be impossible for a judgee to detect.  I guess that there is no real reason to expect that AI is any more likely to do this than a real live coach, except that accredited coaches sign up to a Code of Ethics.

    Again, I don't think there's anything much judges can do about this. 


    1. If the application provides coaching and provides the panel with access to see that coaching, isn't that better than not knowing whether a competitor has been coached and what they were told?

    I guess so, but, as I've said above, can we be sure that we've done a good job of selecting the AI we are linking to.

    What about the case where a competitot accesses some other AI, and doesn't disclose it to the protest committee.
    Today 00:35
  • Updating the Notice of Public Links
    I was responding to your question about QR codes.
    Yesterday 20:01
  • To postpone or not to postpone ?... that's the question !
    Correct....
    Yesterday 00:30
  • Protest race abandoned.
    John,
    Thank you for providing the link to the article posted by Graeme Hayward and originally written by Mary Pera.  It is sad that neither of them are with us any more.  
    Wed 02:56
  • Does "competent but not expert" change with the competition level?
    I think I probably hint at it in my OP, but I think some of these shifts are fully appropriate, while others are maybe appropriate, even if potentially at odds with the phrasing in Case 103:
    1. IMO, age restrictions of the fleet mathematically shift the level of competency we're looking for. A 10yo will not be at the same level as a 25yo.
    2. same here, except I think the only difference between a 20yo and an adult is the level of athleticism expected... we should expect a high level of athleticism in racing where all sailors are college-aged
    3. same again for me. If we limit boats to 2 people, then we must also force them to give each other extra room for a douse. Indeed, 2 people is BY DEFINITION appropriate for the boat, as no more are allowed in that event!!!! To say otherwise would be to force collisions at leeward marks!
    4. Same. If you are required to have no more than two people, then you are only required to have two competent people, and room needs to account for that.
    5. Trickier, but easy to handle. I wouldn't go to the group average, but I would definitely want at least a percentage of the participants to be capable of sailing within the definition of room... otherwise what are we doing?
    6. Yeah. I think we need to hold championship sailors to a higher standard. If you're going to show up and compete for a high level national or world championship, then you're agreeing that you can sail above the level of "competent".
    7. same as #6

    TLDR:
    • IMO it is appropriate within the statements from Case 103 to adjust "competent crew" to fit age and other crew restrictions as required by the event/fleet/SI's, etc. (statements 1-4)
    • I also feel it makes sense to do so for statements 5-7, but I'm not sure that syncs up with Case 103.


    Mon 19:08
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more