100% open question here. Are there any limitations of any kind in receiving help, coaching, assistance from any source .. in filing-out and filing any hearing request for any type of hearing?
Is this just for protests? Or are you asking about redress requests, reopening requests, Rule 69 misconduct, appeals to a national authority, arbitration, or international jury procedures as well?
I would say it is not appropriate for a judge sitting on the panel to help a competitor fill out the form and then sit on the panel that hears it. And I would propose that it 1. has the appearance of favoritism, 2. is not fair to the responding party as the help wasn't reciprocal, 3. appears to provide the competitor with the thought process of the judge. I think these issues and others may or may not bleed over to other help. For example, is it appropriate for the RO to help if the hearing request isn't a request for redress where it's not about the RC's actions (or inaction)? I'm interested in what other judges think the issues might be where a competitor is helped with submitting a request. What makes it inappropriate if and when you think it is...
Paul .. I agree. That's a clear line. A judge sitting in the panel should not help.
But what if I'm not judging at an event but a buddy calls me and asks me to help him file the hearing request to make sure the written filing meets validity?
We should also check Code of Ethics/Conduct to make sure there isn't anything listed there.
In college sailing we create limits on before filing with the RC, but that doesn't address a hearing. I don't know if any such restrictions exist outside of certain classes or events...
I often do youth events, and especially when their phones are not up to it. I do help competitors file prorests. I also lend a pc amd then leave them to it. Just happy to get the protests to get rules compliance in fleets.
First off, RRS 41 Outside Help is a rule of Part 4 which applies only to boats while racing (RRS Preamble to Part 4), so it does not affect any help boats may receive after they have finished racing.
About help given by judges or other race officials.
There's a considerable difference, which the rules commentary books about protesting don't always make clear, between writing the minimal requirements of RRS 60.3(a), and preparing for a protest.
I appreciate Paul's reservations, but given the very minimal requirements for protest contents in RRS 60.3(a), I would suggest that any help in meeting these requirements would be all but trivial. Desirably any advice should be given by a duty judge, not by a judge that will hear a protest, but particularly at club level, as Michael has indicated I don't think there's much harm in it.
But I'm wondering where you would draw the line and why. When do you think it becomes inappropriate to help. Consider the possibility that perhaps a competitor would not have been able to file a valid protest were it not for the judge helping. Is that fair to the respondent? What if the judge corrects the description of the incident such that the competitor realizes that they are incorrect in their analysis and instead decide not to file the request because they would be disqualified. Is that fair to the respondent? What if the judge coaches the competitor on how to present the case to the panel? The point I'm making here is, where do you think the line should be drawn, if at all.
Spoiler alert: AI is coming. Angelo wisely took the underlying issues I discussed with him concerning how AI will function to this forum. At some point in the very near future, competitors are going to be submitting AI generated hearing requests directly through RRoS. Perhaps we can confront any issues more specifically once that is actually happening, but we really are trying to get out in front of it a bit before then. So what we're really asking is, where do you draw the line and why. Your response will help us sharpen how AI behaves in the application.
Other than the judges who might hear the protest, I do not believe there are any restrictions. I am an Judge. I have been consulted by people preparing for a hearing. I will have to be careful not to put myself in a conflict of interest position for future events but I don't think there are limits on the help that can be provided to a competitor by a person with no conflict. You can ask another competitor, you can ask your parent (or child), you can call a friend who is a judge or you can call Dave Perry (after you have read his book).
Yes AI is coming. If AI helps someone get their form filled out correctly, I am ok with it. The competitor is still responsible for the content. Submitting a form with incorrect facts (such as AI hallucinations) can get the competitor into trouble. To be honest, in my experience, the content of the form aside from validity does not have a lot of impact on the hearing.
AI is going to come in at some point of time and there is no way we can curb its use. A sailor taking help of AI to fill up the protest form is fine. He still needs to attend the hearing and defend himself. We need to be prepared for this.
As far as helping with filing of protest is concerned by the judges, it would be fine if the judge is helping with getting the protest filed online, as in, if the competitor is unable to access the system online and you as a judge are helping with a laptop and internet. However, as a judge we should not be guiding them for the contents of the protest; which should be done by the sailor.
The pros teach how to file a protest.
So I would say no restrictions.
PS: Feel free to categorize and discriminate between them if you want.
But what if I'm not judging at an event but a buddy calls me and asks me to help him file the hearing request to make sure the written filing meets validity?
We should also check Code of Ethics/Conduct to make sure there isn't anything listed there.
Just happy to get the protests to get rules compliance in fleets.
About help given by judges or other race officials.
There's a considerable difference, which the rules commentary books about protesting don't always make clear, between writing the minimal requirements of RRS 60.3(a), and preparing for a protest.
I appreciate Paul's reservations, but given the very minimal requirements for protest contents in RRS 60.3(a), I would suggest that any help in meeting these requirements would be all but trivial. Desirably any advice should be given by a duty judge, not by a judge that will hear a protest, but particularly at club level, as Michael has indicated I don't think there's much harm in it.
Yes AI is coming. If AI helps someone get their form filled out correctly, I am ok with it. The competitor is still responsible for the content. Submitting a form with incorrect facts (such as AI hallucinations) can get the competitor into trouble. To be honest, in my experience, the content of the form aside from validity does not have a lot of impact on the hearing.
As far as helping with filing of protest is concerned by the judges, it would be fine if the judge is helping with getting the protest filed online, as in, if the competitor is unable to access the system online and you as a judge are helping with a laptop and internet. However, as a judge we should not be guiding them for the contents of the protest; which should be done by the sailor.