Consider "competed in more than 33% of any prior year's events",
the wording on the web page.
If I didn't compete last year, but I did compete in 33% of the
events in 1989, is that wording true or false? It's clearly true.
Actually, if for any prior year (to this year) there exists a year
in which I competed in 33% of that year's events, then the phrase
is true. If the prase is true, "you are not eligible for Novice class"
It is crystal clear, there is no other valid interpretation that I can see.
OTOH, If I competed in 25% of the events for the last 12 years,
I can still run Novice. But everyone would know I am a weasel.
This would still not work for me because of "been judged
ineligible by the Novice Class Administrator or Solo2 Program
Chair " Either of these folks can boot you out at any time, and
they have, too. If you have run a little for 4 years and are still
coming in sixth, nobody is going to worry. If you start running
as fast as the top of your open class, you are movin' up.
Those who are found to be ineligible this week will
immediately be moved by me into open class for the whole year,
unceremoniously. I have been authorized by the Chief to do so.
No need for anybody to protest.
Come on, guys, there's no honor in cheating for a Novice
trophy. It's easy for everyone to figure it out. You look like a
weasel! Let real Novices have a go. None of these trophies will
get you a cup of coffee or entry into heaven. Get real! If you have
any doubt about your eligibility, get out of Novice and be a Mensch.
Jerry
Jerry Mouton mailto:jerry@moutons.org Laissez les bons temps rouler!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Giles Douglas" <giles@vy.com>
To: "John J. Stimson-III" <john@harlie.idsfa.net>
Cc: <Dan4223w@aol.com>; <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: inelegible novice
> Just asking for a clarification...
>
> Surely this wording also makes it that if you aren't a eligible to be a
> novice in ANY prior year, then you can no longer be a novice. (it says
> any prior year's events). Prior doesn't just include the previous year, it
> includes all previous years. Ie if I became inelligible to be a novice in
> '99 because I ran x events in 98, then I can't be a novice in 2002 either.
>
> Otherwise it would be pretty easy to win the novice trophy every other
> year!
>
> Giles
>
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, John J. Stimson-III wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:22:07 -0800
> > From: "John J. Stimson-III" <john@harlie.idsfa.net>
> > To: Dan4223w@aol.com
> > Cc: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: inelegible novice
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 01:48:25PM -0500, Dan4223w@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > The rules of eligibility aren't so clear. It depends on how many
> > >races there were the previous year, and some people may be too lazy
> > >to look that up (honestly, they might). I've never encountered a "10
> > >races" rule.
> > > -Dan
> >
> > From http://www.sfrscca.org/solo2/Results/2002/novicerules.html
> >
> > "Novice Class is intended for beginning autocrossers. You are NOT
> > eligible for the Novice class if you have: competed in more than 33%
> > of any prior year's events (e.g., for the 2001 series: regular series
> > plus slush series equals 24 events; 33% is less than 8 events. You
> > are ineligible if you ran 8 or more events in 2001.)"
> >
> > I don't think it could be any more clear, and the event counting and
> > math is even done there for you. Although I think that the wording
> > should be "1/3 or more of any prior year's events" if the intent is to
> > make someone with 8 or more (out of 24) events ineligible.
> >
> > The last statement in the rule is only true because 33% of 24 is 7.92
> > events, but most people (including me, until I tried to figure out how
> > that last statment could be true) will read "33%" as "1/3", which
> > would be 8 events. They will arrive at the conclusion that 8 events
> > is okay, while 9 or more disqualifies you as a novice.
> >
> > --
> >
> > john@idsfa.net John Stimson
> > http://www.idsfa.net/~john/ HMC Physics '94
|