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
    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.
    2. 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?
    3. 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? 
    4. 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. 
    5. 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.
    6. 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?

    Whether we realize it or not, the competitors are using AI to prepare for hearings.  We need to adapt, and change is always hard.  One of the reasons I want to package the AI in the application is so that we can teach it through our experience with it.  I'm thinking that included in the process is a place where judges can provide feedback to the AI, where they can indicate what worked or didn't, or what was inappropriate.  We can then include those rules in the prompt and the AI will get smarter as people use it.

    I'm completely open to hearing criticism and concerns.  However, no matter how we see AI participating in the hearing process, we're already underestimating our experience with competitors who are using it. My goal here is to provide tools to everyone involved to perhaps make AI more functional and reduce some potential abuse.  Let me know any thoughts you may have, but I really do want to drill down into the specific issues.

    Today 23:13
  • Updating the Notice of Public Links
    I was responding to your question about QR codes.
    Today 20:01
  • To postpone or not to postpone ?... that's the question !
    Correct....
    Today 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