Easy question! Are the 2013 construction rules the same as the 2012? If not, what changed? I'm in 2 builds (at least, ha!) and don't want to mess up (2 builds being HMS Malaya 1943 (no casements) and SMS Graf Spee. Also: Measuring pump capacity; do I measure a gallon of water into a container and then set the pump a-going, or is there a different way that it's done?
I bench test my pumps, I just include the length of hose/restrictor that way it doesnt pump more or less after its installed in the boat, Some people just dump the water in their boat. I will have to go back over the rules, but I dont be-leave anything changed that would effect either of those ships.
I'm pretty sure I'll be okay. I tend to err on the side of 'costing myself' in battle, so that no one can say I'm stretching legality I'm really just here to shoot and be shot and socialize
For testing pumps, I do it in the ship. Things like water channeling, pump mounting, space between the pump and hull, outlet diameter, and even outlet hose bend all effect the pumping capacity. A quick and easy test that can be done to give a true pumping capability without taking the pump out of the ship is a method done by Bob H in the MWCI. 1) Put water in the ship, turn on the pump, let the ship pump out, turn off the pump. 2) Pour 1 gallon of water into the ship. 3) Using a stopwatch, time how long it takes the ship to pump out that one gallon. 4) Divide 60 by the number of seconds the ship took to pump 1 gallon out to get the gpm the pump is actually pumping. Quick and easy method.
I do it the same way in the boat but I use 5 gallons and pour as it pumps to keep the level around the top of the pump casing. One gallon is simply not enough to get an accurate time on a higher volume pump. Ron Hunt
This. As far as the rules, they are the same as 2012. We've streamlined the process with rules, so there is no set "time" to do the rules. If nobody wants to see a particular rule added or changed, we're not bothering with the process. That seemed to be the case this year. Nobody had a certain rule they wanted considered so, to this point, we've not discussed any rule changes. Sometimes it seems as if when we have a specific time set aside for rules things get proposed just because, well it's rule time and some things should be changed for the sake of change. The way we're doing it now, things can be proposed and debated one at a time, rather then have 5 or 6 irons in the fire with arguments galore and confusion over exactly what's being proposed for change.
I must have missed that vote... Please post the current process of how rules under Treaty will be changed. All I see on the Yahoo website is that the Admirals Board is thinking about it and will post something later. I would like to see the process put in writing. And approved by the battlers, since changing the rules process is not part of the Admirals Board By-laws.
I would be interested in reading the way that it is worded, Without a set "time" to start the rule process, i wonder how possible it would be for a group to pass a rule without the knowledge of some of the battlers? purely from a hypothetical standpoint..
Pretty much a battler who has battled at one of our events in the last two years can propose on the list what you'd like to change. It gets debated. When the admiral's board approves it, it goes to a vote. If the vote passes, it becomes a rule. It's pretty simple. This is the way it was always intended to be done, with the single exception of having a set time to do rules. We decided that having one set time to do this is unfair, because there was an artificial time limit to debate and approve a rule doesnt allow for much thought or analysis on the impact, especially when several rules can be proposed at the same time. This way if a rule needs to be changed, we can do it at any time and make sure that everyone who wants a say gets one, and that nobody is rushed. The thought is, if we remove the time limit and allow more room for debate, there is less likelihood of tempers flaring as all sides can explain their perspective, and one rule at a time is to be addressed. Of course, you have to be active on the site, but that seems like a small price to pay for having your say.
interesting, I remember the whole stage one, see if the rule gets enough of a following amongst the battlers, then stage two, if the founders decide to veto what the majority of the battlers want or not. Was this new way voted on by the Battlers? Instead of veto'ing the Battlers vote, is the new mechanism to inhibit change just not letting it going to a vote?
That's because a certain founder who has since stepped down didn't follow the procedure discussed when things were originally set up, and the other two just let him do as he wished. After you guys split off to do your thing, it's since been brought in to line with how it was always supposed to be. Poorly designed rules that had no chance of passing were never supposed to make it to a vote. This is no different than how congress works in committees to make sure that bills are in a form that may pass muster before they go to the floor for a vote. Since you guys left though, and from what I hear are far more happy without people like me and Eric, I question why you even care. As I don't normally frequent this site any longer, this will be my last post on this issue, but if you wish to discuss things further, you have my email address and I'd be happy to give you any information you want, or even read up on what a scumbag (or oppressive tyrant) you think I am.
I'm not sure I used anything ambiguous by my earlier post, I didn't mean you guys won't alow any change if that is what you took from that? I just wanted clarification how the veto thing worked now that the admiral board made the new rule process. Burning bridges is no good for anyone, even if I didn't like sombody in the format, I'd rather sink them then worry about not fitting in or out of their clique.
Last year when the time came for when we normally would do the rules process the majority of the active membership did not want have a rules process. From what we were told was this, "We like what we have, let's just use the existing rules." So that's the reason we didn't have one. Last year we also discussed implimenting and updated streamlined process, that has been discussed at meets and buidling sessions, to see if that's what the group wants to run with. We will formally post this process in the near future. But in a nutshell what Mike has posted here is pretty much what was discussed and the membership likes this style of dealing with rules. We will put it up to the membership when the time is right. Right now no one is wanting to discuss any kind of changes to our rules set and when it's brought up it's quickly shot down. Everyone seems quite happy with them as they are.
OK Now I am going to chime in here a little bit. As far as I know in many phone conversations and build sessions all or most of the membership body agreed that they liked the rules as they were and didn't see any thing that needed changed. And the membership talked about if something came up with a no time limit it gave more of a chance to let every one hash it out . Ok from my talks with Eric and Mike I saw the job or the responsibility of the Admirals board as being a guild to help members and the proposal of rules and or changes. In other words and I stressed this if a rule change came up or a proposal to make it as simple and clear so that even the most hard headed mountain man or cave man like myself could understand how, what, where, who it affected. And the board was to work with the person or persons to help do this and show what the differences and actions that would happen or be affected by it. Once this was done and approved by the people involved it would go to the body to be voted on, then the Board would do their thing. So far as I know we didn't see a reason to change anything from 2012 rules so we kept it for 2013 . Buddy
Thank you to everyone for voicing their opinions on this matter, I have not observed on the treaty yahoo site any mention of changing how the rules process will take place, only the email staying the admirals board can unilateral make rules up s they deem necessary. Was this voted on by the battlers or was it decreed by the AB? Just looking for clarification to the original Inquiry , again not trying to inflame the discussion, does the battlers votes / opinions include participants of the Midwest naval combat club that battle at AB events?
As you knew when you got involved it would take 2/3 of the membership and 2/3 of the founders to agree to change a rule. It's been that way from the beginning, "2/3 must agree." That's why we've had probably one of the most stable rules set in RC combat. Change for change sake without a compelling argument for the change is not a good reason especially when safety could be an issue. Whenever a rule is approved due to political reasons it always brings about unintended consequences. That's why this group has been structured as it was.
