A word on "Creative Rules Interpretation"

In reply to SVreX:

Certainly, I never personally made a list...

I really don't want to get into calling anyone out and pointing fingers at individuals. It might sound like a cop out and I apologize if it comes across that way but I have no interest in digging up the past. One place where we probably agree is that focusing on a better future serves more of a function versus getting into bitter or vindictive arguments over history.

Clearly, as Andrew demonstrated, memories are fallible and I would hate to cast aspersions based on my faulty recall of details.

I am not at all judging you for naming individuals and instances, though. You are actually doing a perfectly fine job of bringing up enough examples.

You are probably correct that there has been a growing culture of accepting things that are not technically allowed. Sadly, precedents and strong opinions matter more to some people than they really ought to. Also, it doesn't help that even the staff at GRM have conveniently ignored their own rules a few times...

Sorry that I cannot contribute more detail, but I know that JG and I are not the only ones to use the term 'creative' as a euphemism for 'cheaty'. FWIW I also sometimes call some people 'clever' in an attempt to be a bit nicer of a person than I actually feel.

I think

SVreX wrote: In reply to tb: Other than that, I have basically no knowledge of "creative rules interpretation" that would rise to the level of earning the reputation of "cheating".

I think that this area is exactly where our thoughts intersect most prominently. ^^^

The 'level' or 'line' that differentiates cheating from creativity is probably in a very different place for each individual.

I love creativity and have usually been a proponent of a limited (yet strict) rule set. Others can get there through finding obscure understandings and 'loopholes'. Still, though, some others just rationalize whatever they need to at the time, screw their eyes shut, plug their ears and repeat 'lalalalala' to drown out all reason.

Isn't cheating about getting an edge, a real, tangible advantage?

I've never been to the Challenge so I possibly have no say in this but I don't see how missing fenders is very tangible.

Is it a weight-savings cheat? It's certainly not more aerodynamic.

Unless it's a dollars-spent kind of cheat (like lying about your budget) I don't see the real issue.

I'll certainly be willing to listen if I'm mistaken though.

I have been to three Challenges. Two with my own car and once with Aussie. I have seen cars that had dozens of brand new parts that may not have been represented properly on their budgets. I didn't care. Seriously. Build s car. Get there. Don't be a Shiny Happy Person when building your car and don't be one at the event.

I look forward to see all you "creative rules interpreters" in October!

QuasiMofo wrote: I have been to three Challenges. Two with my own car and once with Aussie. I have seen cars that had dozens of brand new parts that may not have been represented properly on their budgets. I didn't care. Seriously. Build s car. Get there. Don't be a Shiny Happy Person when building your car and don't be one at the event. I look forward to see all you "creative rules interpreters" in October!

Yup!

In reply to wheels777:

Sorry if I got some details of your story wrong (and thanks for correcting me and sharing the story more in depth- it's a good one), but you've really only reinforced my perspective. You take a creative approach to the rules, and I think that is good.

BTW, I did contact Tom. Same day he posted that request.

In reply to SVreX:

No problem. I am sure like many of our fellow competitors we find creativity to be fun and enjoyable, and find budget and safety infractions very disappointing

SVreX wrote: In reply to OldGray320i: Umm... the "governing body" is GRM. It's their event, their rules. And, when you say "The rest would be requirements, which if insufficient at one event could be remedied for the next", it sounds EXACTLY like what I am calling "creative rules interpretation". That's exactly what happened when Andrew brought the yellow Bug. The rules were modified the next year to prohibit what he had done (and later modified again to allow it again). Same thing happened with the headlight rule. My point is that the article suggested "creative rules interpretation" was cheating, which bothers me. I guess we could say that the M.W.D definition of "headlights" is parsing, in the context of this discussion. (BTW, flashlights duct taped to the vehicle was confirmed this year as an acceptable method, so I disagree with your suggestion that I am "parsing"). The point is being creative is not cheating (and, as you have pointed out, rules can be modified the next year to further clarify when necessary).

Ah, the comment about "headlights" and the "dictionary definition" of same and your phrasing of "But that definition is incomplete too" threw me a bit - I thought you were arguing that 'any rule is infinitely arguable'. That is a concept which I would disagree with.

Creative rule interpretation is not cheating. It's looking at something in context and saying "I think they mean to allow 'x', but there's nothing that disallows 'y' - and we could gain an advantage!"

Which, to me, is different than saying "it allows 'x' over here, and it pretty reasonably disallows 'y' when the alphabet is read as a whole (i.e. my "in context" phrase above...), but it doesn't specifically disallow 'y'. I think we can gain an advantage and get away with it".

Is that necessarily "cheating"? In my view, yes, because it is more than reasonably inferred something is disallowed.

The specific example related to GRM (without having read the rules, deferring to your insights there...) I think was creative and not cheating - and if it "offended" (for lack of a better term...) the GRM rule writers, well, they should chalk it up to creativity and alter the "requirements" (as apparently they did).

That said, I suspect rule writing is NOT an easy job - and my hat goes off to those that do.