--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "f1diddler" <f1diddler@...> wrote:
>
>
> I fail to understand how a rule that is incomplete and/or fails to
> anticipate prickly problems as they arise is therefore NOT SENSIBLE, and
> therefore discarded in favor of something that instates the opposite
> intention of the erstwhile rule--BAM (Buy A Model.)
>
I agree. Ideally, the rules would leave nothing to interpretation and would deterministically lock participants into the intended behavior.
When I bring my wife's diamond ring in to be cleaned, they press it with some kind of probe that beeps if it is a real diamond. If only we had a tester that beeped if the competitor built the model.
The absence of a BOM tester doesn't mean we should abandon the concept, though. We all know what being the builder of the model means in general. Enforcement by a go/no-go tester is best, like checking wing span or model weight, but BOM wouldn't be the first Indoor rule that is beneficial but challenging to enforce. Someone will know if you didn't build what you are flying, and social pressure is not inconsequential.
The VP hub question simply presents us with a situation requiring interpretation and clarification (apparently, although I would previously have said it was clearly in violation of BOM).
The US legal system does this all the time. A law is written for a general case, and is interpreted by judges for specific situations. Previous rulings set the precedent for future decisions.
We just need to get a determination on which side of the BOM threshold a completed VP hub falls.
The discussion about whether there should be a BOM rule at all for Indoor is a completely separate topic, and I think there are significant differences between Indoor and Outdoor in that regard.
Received on Tue Oct 23 2012 - 09:14:07 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET