Clear up text around adherance to World Record standards
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
The full text of 1A.5, World Records, IUF Records reads:
The host should ensure that the competition conditions are conducted and recorded
according to the IUF Rulebook and the IUF World Record standards. If world record
standards cannot be used, then the competition results cannot be used for new world
records.
To me it seems contradictory to state that some standard must be used, followed by a statement about what happens if those standards can NOT be used. Maybe I miss some subtlety in "should". Regardless, I offer this rewrite:
Especially for Unicon or other large conventions, the host is strongly encouraged to ensure that the competitions are conducted and recorded according to the current IUF World Record Guidelines. Competitors will in principle expect that the quality of the results is suitable for world records. If this is not realistically possible, then the competition results cannot be used for new world records. Competitors need to be made aware of this at least two months in advance.
Note that I omitted the Rulebook. It seems too obvious that if the Rulebook regulates competition, hosts are encouraged to adhere to it.
The term of two months hovers in my memory, ISTR this has been used before, or is regulated elsewhere.
Comment
I think this is good
Comment
I also like that.
Comment
Me too.
Comment
The two months notification is great in an ideal world; what happens if a local situation complicates this during the Unicon (or other event)? To be clear, a situation that is completely out of the control of the hosts/IUF.
Comment
That is unfortunately true and I think it would be good to consider this fact. Maybe by replacing the last sentence with something like that: "Every effort should be made that competitors are made aware of this at least two months in advance."
Comment
I agree with that new sentence, perhaps with one edit:
Since this is a less strict sentence (which of course is the intention), I think that "should" can be replaced by "must". We don't need two non-strict elements.