Enter NAR login credentials for access.
Please enter your username or email address. This should be the same login you use for your NAR membership
10 Comments on RCP 2021-013
This is just more cancel culture ideology implemented in today's cuture when individuals self-identify as "offended", or when they are just intolerant of other's emotional humanity and occassional mistakes under stress. Everyone should be given a chance to apologize, have some consideration for "innocent until proven guilty" until "bad behavior" with so many "shades of grey" is better determined by a peer review communityor the discretion of the CD. The problem with cancel culture immediate removal when someone claims they are offended is it is really covert bullying learned in middle school to get rid of people you dislike, using gossip, victim mentality, intolerance of others, revenge, and demands for instant removal, shame, or character assassination, without due process or peer jury, or even law.Â Making anything like this mandatory is a bad idea and takes away any form of judicial or magistrate discretion.Â "May"Â is good enough, "Shall" is oppressive and intolerant.Â We all know what "bad behavior" is and can have a good sit down talk with the personÂ and resolve it with community rules and laws that come from our Constitutional individual freedoms of expression, speech and association.Â If no legal laws are broken, then there should be no instant and automatic social justice judgement without a peer review jury.Â Â Policy is policy, guidelines are guidelines, not laws so the CD must have the right to discretion and a range of options on how to deal with each individual situation. I cannot remember if I ever saw "bad behvior" at an NAR event I could not tolerate and simply talk to the individual about my perception of how it impacts me.Â Sometimes you learn why the person is having a bad day and can help. Sometimes others can help you have a better day without being shamed, bullied, or misunderstood.Â I vote on the side of tolerance and discretion, keeping the wording as "May".
As pointed out, this is already within the CD's authority, and changing 'may' to 'shall' won't necessarily change a thing, since it's still the CD's task to define 'egregious'. Having said that, a CD should not be afraid to DQ someone whose behavior gets out of line, whether from an event or the entire meet. We have means to deal with disagreements and even a formal protest process. This is a hobby and events are run by volunteers; no one should have to put up with tantrums or worse.
In reading this rule change, it will make no difference if those in charge are hesitant to enforce the rule for those creating the problem. Rules are only effective if those in charge are not afraid to implement the rule for all involved. The fact this is up for discussion at all demonstrates there is a problem with implementing the rule, not the wording. This is an area of concern if the group is serious about encouraging greater participation from new members. Incidents of poor sportsmanship being permitted from any member, regardless of ranking, is unacceptable.
Barbara wrote: "The fact this is up for discussion at all demonstrates there is a problem with implementing the rule, not the wording." Really? Can you cite example showing how widespread the problem is?
This proposal will eliminate the CD's discretionary judgement by changing "may disqualify" to the mandatory, "shall disqualify." Rather than allowing cooler heads to prevail, allowing for the disgruntled flier to come to their senses, or just ignoring bad behavior, the CD "shall" disqualify the competitor. And if anyone disagrees with a lenient CD they can file a protest and force the issue. I so disagree with this approach. I don't support this RCP.
This proposed change in unnecessary. The current 8.2 reads, "
The Contest Director may disqualify any competitor from an event or from the entire meet on the grounds of failure to practice or observe reasonable safety measures, published or otherwise; for poor sportsmanship; for failure to abide by the orders of the Range Safety Officer or contest officials; whose ability to safely fly model rockets is, in the opinion of the Contest Director or Range Safety Officer, impaired by alcohol or drugs.
As pointed out in the previous comments, to try and define what constitutes poor sportsmanship is most likely to lead to arguments over throwing a chair is or is not more unsportsmanlike than tipping over a table.
IMO, the real issue regarding displays of poor sportsmanship is whether a CD at ANY NAR competition, NRC or NARAM, will do the heavy lifting and actually impose disqualification since 8.2 allows for no lesser form of punishment.
I do not support this RCP.
In this proposed change, defining what is unacceptable remains the purview of the CD as it always has been. I think the strength of this is change is that the CD cannot simply ignore the offending behavior.
I do not think listing examples helps the rule change. The are so many unacceptable behaviors that a list of examples would only tend to channel the behavior to those not listed, like a baseball manager covering home plate with dirt. For example, does listing throwing chairs as unacceptable mean that dumping over a table would be ok?