You may be aware that I was a member of the Super Touring Advisory Committee for the Sports Car Club of America. The STAC's responsibility is make recommendations to the Club for regulations for that category. It requires a lot of thought, not only what you want people to do, but what you don't want them to do.
I wrote the following on a racing forum some years ago, and I thought it bore repeating, with some minor updating...
How to write a rule
We seem to get into a lot of arguments about various rules. “This rule says this” or “this rule says that” or whatever. Typically the basis of this argument is "different strokes, different folks"; one person's read is another person’s cheat.
I see the root cause for all these arguments because of one thing: poorly-written rules.
Yep, sorry if it pisses off the rulesmakers, but I think I can credibly argue that most disagreements center around either people reading into the rule what wasn’t intended (maybe based on a failure of the rulesmakers’ imaginations) or poor use of verbiage to describe the intent.
Sorry, but there's no "intent" in the regs. There's only the regs.
So, here are Greg’s Tips to keep in mind when you’re trying to write a rule.
Tip #1: You can’t POSSIBLY think of all situations
Consider this: there’s a handful of you sitting around a table (or talking on a conference call) trying to find the best way to write an allowance to the regs (e.g., struts, suspension bushings, engine mounts, whatever). These regs will be viewed and interperted by a large population. Do you REALLY believe that you're smarter than all the collective brains out there? Do you really believe you can think of all possible permutations that the rest of the world will come up with? Of course you can't. The masses, as massive as they are, have a collective imagination that simply dwarfs your group's. Ergo, you are insignificant when it comes to thinking of all possibilities.
Be humble.
Tip #2: "If It Doesn’t Say You Can, Then You Cannot"
Glory be! That little bit of sunshine is your savior. The "IIDSYCTYC Rule" (GCR 9.1.3.D) is the one rule that can pull your butt out of a fire. You, as a rulesmaker, have the ultimate authority on allowances, because until and unless you allow it, it cannot be done, period! But, you absolutely must keep in mind...
Tip #3: The Roffe Corollary
Attributed to friend and former racer, George Roffe, the Roffe Corollary simply states, "If it says you can, then you bloody well can!" Whereas The "IIDSYCTYC Rule" is your friend and savior, the Roffe Corollary is your enemy and Achilles’ Heel. Many a rulesmaker's intent has been smashed by seemingly simple words that opened massive holes in the regs (e.g., remote reservoir shocks, splitter and undertrays, spherical suspension bushings, open ECUs, D Sports Racer track lap records...)
Examples of those words include "may", "allowed", "free", "unrestricted". Use those words with care, as you just opened up a big wide door with them.
Tip #4: With Tips #1-3 in mind, describe only what you want to ALLOW, not what you want to restrict.
Tip #1 says there is no possible way that a handful of people on a concall can think of all the permutations. Tip #2 gives you the control to allow nothing. Tip #3 warns you to avoid over-using the magic words "allowed" or "unrestricted" or "open" or "can be replaced" and so forth, in fear of the Roffe Corollary.
So now, simply and clearly with as few words as possible, state exactly what you want to allow. Nothing less, nothing more.
Be specific. Avoid those over-encompassing big words that are read as "whatever you want to do within the restrictions listed below" because you probably can't think of all the possible restrictions you'd have to write in to cover it. Go back to Tip #1, 'cause otherwise you just may have just opened a biiiig hole (insert loophole-driving-a-truck-through emoticon here). Do you really think you can fill that hole sufficiently (hint: you can't)?
Besides, there's no need to describe what you cannot do, 'cause you've already done it: the IIDSYCTYC Rule (Tip #2).
Tip #5: See Tip #4
If after writing your rule you still feel the need to start adding in restrictions, then your new rule isn't worded well; go back to Tip #4 and try again.
Bottom Line
If you accept and understand your humility, and keep these simple tips in mind, I absolutely believe you cannot go wrong. Oh, someone will find a hole, somewhere. Use your humility to accept that challenge and fix it.
And, somewhat related, resist falling prey to the below philosophical failure. We do this to ourselves all the time and then look back and wonder how we allowed it to happen. By then it's too late...
"In our constant club-racer quest to make our cars faster, safer and 'more reliable' we have pushed for rule changes that simply accelerated the rate of entropy. Every class of production racing does this, of course, until it finally brings on its own demise." - Peter Egan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 2012 Addendum...On "The Spirit of the Rules"
I had a spirited debate with someone recently regarding regulations, the "letter" of the regs, and the "spirit" of the regs. It's something that we like to lean on when trying to "interpret" a reg, and I suspect our direction-of-leaning tends to change with whatever side of the argument we're on.
In my opinion, the responsibility to express the "spirit of the regulations" lies on the shoulders of the regulations writers. It is their responsibility to agree on the "spirit" and to codify that into the "letter". Any failures of the reader of the regs to read them as intended - or to successfully "intorturate" them into something that was not intended - is solely a failure of the rules writers.
None of us are pefect, mind you, but we can always do better.
This came to the fore recently. I wrote this addendum the week after the first Formula 1 race in Austin, the one where Ferrari intentionally broke the FIA seal on Massa's transmission so that Massa would get a 5-place grid penalty. By doing so, it allowed Massa's teammate, Alonso (who was fighting for the championship) to get moved over to the "clean" side of the track for the start. And they did it immediately prior to the start so that their main competitor, Red Bull, could not pull the same trick and move him back over.
Many argued that while this was within the "letter" of the regs, it was not within the "spirit" and thus warranted further penalty.
Poppycock.
Tony Dodgins wrote a good column on this issue in Autosport. He discussed this scenario and also compared it to the 1975 Glen race where Clay Regazzoni, while being lapped, blocked Fittipaldi so that Clay's teammate, Lauda, could gain an advantage. Clay eventually got black-flagged but his actions allowed Lauda to win the race. Dodgins noted that the argument about the "spirit" of the regs was brought up, that while Regazzoni broke no letter of the regs, he violated the spirit of the regs. Dodgins replies:
Rightly or wrongly, the fact is that anyone who believes in the 'spirit' of the F1 regulations is being naive. There are only the regulations. Period.
I concur with Dodgins. Remember what I wrote in prior posts about "failure [on the part] of the rulesmakers’ imaginations"? And the "you can't think of everything"? That's where these "spirit" arguments originate. Because no one person or group can beat the computing power of the masses, and no regulators can possibly figure out what all the masses can come up with. It's a Sysiphian task.
That doesn't mean that regulators should be intentionally made powerless to change the regs to meet the original intent ("spirit") and cover that new "intorturation". In fact, it is the duty of the regulators to re-think their "letter" positions and make a conscious choice to change that letter to meet the original intent; to do otherwise is an active allowance for the "spirit" to change and is a derelict of duty.
F1 regs were subsequently changed to ban Regazzoni's tactics; any driver that intentionally impedes the flow of another driver like Clay did in 1975 will not only get black-flagged but may get a significant start penalty in subsequent races -- or worse. And don't be surprised if a change to the "letter" of the regs about breaking seals on drivetrain components is forthcoming... - GA
October 2012 Addendum
All rulesmakers should take a half-hour and listen to this podcast. It really hits home toward the end...
I think you start by admitting to yourself that no individual, no government, is ever going to be as smart as the people who are scheming against you. So when you introduce an incentive scheme, you have to just admit to yourself that no matter how clever you think you are, there’s a pretty good chance that someone far more clever than yourself will figure out a way to beat the incentive scheme.
The Cobra Effect
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/10/11/the-cobra-effect-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
A fav Reason Series: Great Moments in Unintended Consequences
https://reason.com/tag/unintended-consequences/
Comments
Post a Comment