100% open question here. Are there any limitations of any kind in receiving help, coaching, assistance from any source .. in filing-out and filing any hearing request for any type of hearing?
Is this just for protests? Or are you asking about redress requests, reopening requests, Rule 69 misconduct, appeals to a national authority, arbitration, or international jury procedures as well?
I would say it is not appropriate for a judge sitting on the panel to help a competitor fill out the form and then sit on the panel that hears it. And I would propose that it 1. has the appearance of favoritism, 2. is not fair to the responding party as the help wasn't reciprocal, 3. appears to provide the competitor with the thought process of the judge. I think these issues and others may or may not bleed over to other help. For example, is it appropriate for the RO to help if the hearing request isn't a request for redress where it's not about the RC's actions (or inaction)? I'm interested in what other judges think the issues might be where a competitor is helped with submitting a request. What makes it inappropriate if and when you think it is...
Paul .. I agree. That's a clear line. A judge sitting in the panel should not help.
But what if I'm not judging at an event but a buddy calls me and asks me to help him file the hearing request to make sure the written filing meets validity?
We should also check Code of Ethics/Conduct to make sure there isn't anything listed there.
In college sailing we create limits on before filing with the RC, but that doesn't address a hearing. I don't know if any such restrictions exist outside of certain classes or events...
I often do youth events, and especially when their phones are not up to it. I do help competitors file prorests. I also lend a pc amd then leave them to it. Just happy to get the protests to get rules compliance in fleets.
First off, RRS 41 Outside Help is a rule of Part 4 which applies only to boats while racing (RRS Preamble to Part 4), so it does not affect any help boats may receive after they have finished racing.
About help given by judges or other race officials.
There's a considerable difference, which the rules commentary books about protesting don't always make clear, between writing the minimal requirements of RRS 60.3(a), and preparing for a protest.
I appreciate Paul's reservations, but given the very minimal requirements for protest contents in RRS 60.3(a), I would suggest that any help in meeting these requirements would be all but trivial. Desirably any advice should be given by a duty judge, not by a judge that will hear a protest, but particularly at club level, as Michael has indicated I don't think there's much harm in it.
But I'm wondering where you would draw the line and why. When do you think it becomes inappropriate to help. Consider the possibility that perhaps a competitor would not have been able to file a valid protest were it not for the judge helping. Is that fair to the respondent? What if the judge corrects the description of the incident such that the competitor realizes that they are incorrect in their analysis and instead decide not to file the request because they would be disqualified. Is that fair to the respondent? What if the judge coaches the competitor on how to present the case to the panel? The point I'm making here is, where do you think the line should be drawn, if at all.
Spoiler alert: AI is coming. Angelo wisely took the underlying issues I discussed with him concerning how AI will function to this forum. At some point in the very near future, competitors are going to be submitting AI generated hearing requests directly through RRoS. Perhaps we can confront any issues more specifically once that is actually happening, but we really are trying to get out in front of it a bit before then. So what we're really asking is, where do you draw the line and why. Your response will help us sharpen how AI behaves in the application.
At some point in the very near future, competitors are going to be submitting AI generated hearing requests directly through RRoS
Paul,
Were you canvassing whether or not 'help' provided by AI in writing a protest was permissible?
In which case, my answer is absolutely yes.
Were you concerned about AI hallucination protests?
In which case, how is AI error any different from errors competitors make witout any AI assistance?
Are you contemplating putting an AI 'wizard' into the RRoS protest form and wondering if this is OK?
EDIT: OK, saw your AI Wizard in https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/5417-limitations-on-coaching-or-outside-assistance-in-filing-a-hearing-request#comment_21349
Other than the judges who might hear the protest, I do not believe there are any restrictions. I am an Judge. I have been consulted by people preparing for a hearing. I will have to be careful not to put myself in a conflict of interest position for future events but I don't think there are limits on the help that can be provided to a competitor by a person with no conflict. You can ask another competitor, you can ask your parent (or child), you can call a friend who is a judge or you can call Dave Perry (after you have read his book).
Yes AI is coming. If AI helps someone get their form filled out correctly, I am ok with it. The competitor is still responsible for the content. Submitting a form with incorrect facts (such as AI hallucinations) can get the competitor into trouble. To be honest, in my experience, the content of the form aside from validity does not have a lot of impact on the hearing.
AI is going to come in at some point of time and there is no way we can curb its use. A sailor taking help of AI to fill up the protest form is fine. He still needs to attend the hearing and defend himself. We need to be prepared for this.
As far as helping with filing of protest is concerned by the judges, it would be fine if the judge is helping with getting the protest filed online, as in, if the competitor is unable to access the system online and you as a judge are helping with a laptop and internet. However, as a judge we should not be guiding them for the contents of the protest; which should be done by the sailor.
Satish .. "However, as a judge we should not be guiding them for the contents of the protest; which should be done by the sailor."
I'd like to press you on your position here to be more detailed and backup that position by something in the rules.
Above, is that any "judge" or are you speaking of a judge that will sit on the panel?
As John A points out, what if it's not coaching for specific content elements but only content existence? For instance, "You left the Protestee blank". .. or "Hey, you need to describe the incident specifically enough so that the PC and the Protestee identify the incident you are protesting about".
What specific element of the Rules or Codes are you basing your position on?
Angelo, Above, is that any "judge" or are you speaking of a judge that will sit on the panel?
I am just referring to help to the sailor as far as providing him access to Internet or laptop in case the sailor is unable to file the protest due to connectivity or other issues. I am in no way saying that the judge needs to fill in the protest for the sailor.
Right .. I got that. I was trying to press you in the other direction.
On what basis in the Rules or Codes do you support your position? Why can't a judge go further? .. and are you limiting that to any person who is a qualified judge or only judges that are sitting on the panel?
I'd equate helping someone log-into a site to offering them a pencil and a piece of paper or protest form. I'd agree that any judge, even one sitting on the panel, can provide this level of assistance ... but that is an extremely low threshold.
But I'm wondering where you would draw the line and why. When do you think it becomes inappropriate to help. Consider the possibility that perhaps a competitor would not have been able to file a valid protest were it not for the judge helping. Is that fair to the respondent?
This is what I had in mind about helping a competitor to deliver a protest was:
give them a Hearing Request Form and a pen//lend a laptop/tablet/phone
Tell them they need to
identify the protestee: write sail number, name, on the HRF
Write the Race number
Write the time and place of the iincident
Identify the incident Rule Number, Rule Heading that you think was broken (get them to say this: do not tell them what rule to write)
That is to say, assist competitors to meet the minimum requirements for their protest to be valid
I guess that that is where the boundary between permissible help or facilitation, and improper coaching falls
What if the judge corrects the description of the incident
Once ever a judge starts talking about the description of incident or diagram, they have crossed the line.
such that the competitor realizes that they are incorrect in their analysis and instead decide not to file the request because they would be disqualified. Is that fair to the respondent? What if the judge coaches the competitor on how to present the case to the panel?
That's way out of court.
Once a protest validly gets into a hearing, judges can and should 'help' parties present their cases by asking good questions to get out all the relevant facts.
The point I'm making here is, where do you think the line should be drawn, if at all.
Minimum requirements to get a valid protest, no further.
The pros teach how to file a protest.
So I would say no restrictions.
PS: Feel free to categorize and discriminate between them if you want.
But what if I'm not judging at an event but a buddy calls me and asks me to help him file the hearing request to make sure the written filing meets validity?
We should also check Code of Ethics/Conduct to make sure there isn't anything listed there.
Just happy to get the protests to get rules compliance in fleets.
About help given by judges or other race officials.
There's a considerable difference, which the rules commentary books about protesting don't always make clear, between writing the minimal requirements of RRS 60.3(a), and preparing for a protest.
I appreciate Paul's reservations, but given the very minimal requirements for protest contents in RRS 60.3(a), I would suggest that any help in meeting these requirements would be all but trivial. Desirably any advice should be given by a duty judge, not by a judge that will hear a protest, but particularly at club level, as Michael has indicated I don't think there's much harm in it.
Were you canvassing whether or not 'help' provided by AI in writing a protest was permissible?
In which case, my answer is absolutely yes.
Were you concerned about AI hallucination protests?
In which case, how is AI error any different from errors competitors make witout any AI assistance?
Are you contemplating putting an AI 'wizard' into the RRoS protest form and wondering if this is OK?
EDIT: OK, saw your AI Wizard in https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/5417-limitations-on-coaching-or-outside-assistance-in-filing-a-hearing-request#comment_21349
Yes AI is coming. If AI helps someone get their form filled out correctly, I am ok with it. The competitor is still responsible for the content. Submitting a form with incorrect facts (such as AI hallucinations) can get the competitor into trouble. To be honest, in my experience, the content of the form aside from validity does not have a lot of impact on the hearing.
As far as helping with filing of protest is concerned by the judges, it would be fine if the judge is helping with getting the protest filed online, as in, if the competitor is unable to access the system online and you as a judge are helping with a laptop and internet. However, as a judge we should not be guiding them for the contents of the protest; which should be done by the sailor.
I'd like to press you on your position here to be more detailed and backup that position by something in the rules.
Above, is that any "judge" or are you speaking of a judge that will sit on the panel?
As John A points out, what if it's not coaching for specific content elements but only content existence? For instance, "You left the Protestee blank". .. or "Hey, you need to describe the incident specifically enough so that the PC and the Protestee identify the incident you are protesting about".
What specific element of the Rules or Codes are you basing your position on?
Above, is that any "judge" or are you speaking of a judge that will sit on the panel?
I am just referring to help to the sailor as far as providing him access to Internet or laptop in case the sailor is unable to file the protest due to connectivity or other issues. I am in no way saying that the judge needs to fill in the protest for the sailor.
On what basis in the Rules or Codes do you support your position? Why can't a judge go further? .. and are you limiting that to any person who is a qualified judge or only judges that are sitting on the panel?
I'd equate helping someone log-into a site to offering them a pencil and a piece of paper or protest form. I'd agree that any judge, even one sitting on the panel, can provide this level of assistance ... but that is an extremely low threshold.
That is to say, assist competitors to meet the minimum requirements for their protest to be valid
I guess that that is where the boundary between permissible help or facilitation, and improper coaching falls
Once ever a judge starts talking about the description of incident or diagram, they have crossed the line.
That's way out of court.
Once a protest validly gets into a hearing, judges can and should 'help' parties present their cases by asking good questions to get out all the relevant facts.
Minimum requirements to get a valid protest, no further.