An ITCS Re-Write

[Greg Amy]

And you as well (or better) than anyone should know that the 'spirit' of the rules doesn't really apply in the tech shed.[/b]

BRAACK! Wrong answer. The reason "the spirit doesn't work in the Tech shed" is because we have a culture of tolerance for creative interpretation of the rules. We are significantly more apt to lean towards letting someone get away with such actions - at least initially - versus telling them to pack up their shit and go home.

In other words, we "approve" such action.

Culture cannot be legislated. It's not unlike the culture of a major corporation, such as Enron, tacitly allowing activities that may be somewhat justifiable by twisting the rules, but are clearly out of bounds of society. If the leadership condones such twisting, the minions will follow.

Better rules. But can we do it without a rulebook 1 foot thick...I think we can. I HOPE we can.[/b]

Wrong answer, Part Deaux.

Attitudes and culture cannot be legislated. Period.

[Andy Bettencourt]

BRAACK! Wrong answer. The reason "the spirit doesn't work in the Tech shed" is because we have a culture of tolerance for creative interpretation of the rules. We are significantly more apt to lean towards letting someone get away with such actions - at least initially - versus telling them to pack up their shit and go home.

In other words, we "approve" such action.

Culture cannot be legislated. It's not unlike the culture of a major corporation, such as Enron, tacitly allowing activities that may be somewhat justifiable by twisting the rules, but are clearly out of bounds of society. If the leadership condones such twisting, the minions will follow.


Wrong answer, Part Deaux.

Attitudes and culture cannot be legislated. Period.
[/b]

But you can't tell someone to pack up and go home when the rulebook 'says' something they can do and they do it - unless you are a singular judge and jury like you said in your 2nd post. Without common interpretations accross the Nation, we can't even get to a starting point.

I agree we need to discourage the actions - but without a common set of interpretations, I fail to see how it can happen. And that is where the rulebook needs to get a LOT better.

I hear you loud and clear, just trying to determine if the effort is futile or not....

[Greg Amy]

But you can't tell someone to pack up and go home when the rulebook 'says' something they can do and they do it...[/b]

That - right there - is why we are where we are. YES YOU CAN tell someone to pack up and go home when they show up with a cantilevered bar acting as a shift knob, and air acting as material for suspension bushings, and a splitter acting as an airdam, just as you can when they show up with high-compression pistons and illegal camshafts. You most CERTAINLY can. BUT, you are consciously choosing not to, in order to foster a sense of "community", "caring", "understanding", and/or "inclusion".

There are distinct differences between "misunderstanding" and conscious manipulation of the letter of the rules. Problem is, we lump both of those into the "inclusion" part. You've got to understand that with human nature there will always be the former, and that there will always be the latter. There is no real good way to compromise between the two, so either one has to suffer: either the "misunderstanders" have to be told to go home and fix their cars in order to exclude the "manipulators", or the manipulators have to be tolerated in order to include the misunderstanders.

We've actively and consciously chosen the latter tact. Are we willing to change that?

When I wrote the MT2 rules many moons ago (available here: http://www.it2.evaluand.com/mtcs.pdf) I specifically addressed that issue with the following verbiage:

These rules were written with clear intent and no hidden agenda, and the organizers Modified Touring 2 rules committee will not tolerate “creative interpretation” of the rules. A web site with specific competitors’ questions will be maintained; if any competitor has any question about what is and is not allowed, these should be directed to the rules committee for formal interpretation and publication. “Creative interpreters” run significant risk of having their modifications nullified without prior notification.

And, I meant it. I was fully prepared to tell a competitor to pack their stuff if they came up with some goofball "interpretation" of what the rules states. No weird-ass "shift knobs", no air as a material, none of that.

So, I ask again: are we willing to do that? If not, then I suggest nothing will change and in the end it will be incumbent upon you (both "Andy" you and other rulesmakers) to continually monitor the modifications that people are doing to their cars and continually "modify" the rules to address original intent.

Such as re-writing the shift knob rule so that people truly replace it with a shift knob.

Capiche?