It's Only Words

Swimming Canada (SNC) is notorious for using eighty-three long-winded words in policies when two or three short ones would do just as well or even better. They recently published selection criteria for various representative teams which contained the following:

Amendments and Unforeseen Circumstances
In all situations SNC makes a best effort to consider every possible circumstance when crafting and approving selection documents. SNC also recognizes that unforeseen circumstances may present themselves and create a necessity to amend components of these selection criteria. The SNC Selection Committee, if faced with such circumstances, will receive counsel from SNC staff and other interested parties who chair of the selection committee may deem appropriate for input into the consideration of any such amendments. Such amendments shall be considered up to 72 hours prior to the trials competition and shall not change the key direction of the selection document nor radically amend the qualifying mechanisms.

So the challenge is, how few words can we use while retaining the same meaning? The last bit is important because otherwise we are imposing our values and ideas on their systems and that's not the exercise. All we're doing is streamlining their systems to make them more user-friendly.

They have 111 words, I got it down to 51 with:

Selection Criteria Amendments
SNC always seeks to write Selection Criteria covering all possible circumstances. If, however, changes become necessary the Selectors will consult with parties deemed interested and may publish minor amendments up to 72 hours prior to the Selection competitions which will not fundamentally change the original direction or mechanisms.

and a colleague tried:

SNC recognise that components of the selection criteria may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the trials if deemed appropriate by the selection committee chair.

... which is 27 words plus whatever title is used but, IMHO, deserves an 'F' by refusing to guarantee no change in the mechanism or direction. Under the rules of the game, just the potential to change the meaning must be an 'F' score. When this was pointed out the same colleague responded with, 'disagree .....and any change changes the meaning anyway..... it is not possible to change anything without changing the meaning!' Well, I ask you? What sort of world-view is that? The flaws started to show when they admitted partial defeat (most unlike them):

'yes .. I agree. you can change the words without changing the meaning (which I did).. however, they have indicated that they can make a change to the policy so no matter how small the change they have changed the meaning'

The bold is my emphasis illustrating the total nonsense of the logic (again, most unlike; maybe they're developing old-timer's disease). If a), you can change the words without changing the meaning, then b), no matter how small the change they have changed the meaning, is contradictory (infuriatingly, not most unlike!). When queried the response was changing a timeline or number changes the mechanism to which my response was:

No it doesn’t. It’s like accelerating and changing the rev speed of my Jaguar in top gear; it doesn’t change gear it just speeds up the car using exactly the same mechanism but more fuel.

.. and received the mind-blowing reply:

wrong analogy in the context of swimming - if you change the speed then you have made a change to the mechanics for achieving that speed

Now! Let's have a pause right here; the collegue is someone who thinks ... and I quote ... swim races are about just jumping into water and waving your arms and legs around,; so, that's the perspective on what we are dealing with here. They also questioned the car analogies. OK, they're female, 'nuff said, probably but what's wrong with car analogies anyway? I think they're perfect for this subject. They are, after all, about mechanical systems and they go in 'a' direction!! I'm told those of the female persuasion don't respond to car analogies; maybe I should use doll analogies?

This is the main body of my reply so far:

If I 'amend' the colour of a Jaguar from greeny-blue to black there is no change to the mechanism of how the car works and no change to the direction it's driving in. The reason to make the change is because greeny-blue is a much nicer colour for a Jaguar than black (no-one would disagree with that). If I amend the direction by turning the wheel, that's different because it will end up in a different destination but I can write a guarantee that I won't do that, and I can allow myself to change the colour and still arrive at the same destination, in the same condition, at the same time.

I can also change the car by making it smaller (an X-type rather than an XJ) and it won't necessarily change the mechanism or direction but it may do as, eg, my V8 engine won’t fit under the bonnet of an X-type. So, if I want to change the size, I have to be aware of any previously agreed guarantees that these would not be changed. However, if I keep the size the same but change the engine from XJ8 (3.2 litre) to 2.0 litre X-type, I definitely have changed the mechanism and the car won't perform the same – its top speed will be slower. If I have an X-type and take the engine out and substitute the 6.75 litre turbocharged V8 from the Bentley I will, not only change the mechanism but also the direction because the car won’t handle properly and will veer off the road and crash!

There are some things which fall into a grey area, eg, cloth or leather seats, headlight bulbs, or tyre choices. Whether a change there is a change in direction or mechanism would depend on the individual change - cloth or leather seats probably wouldn't make any difference, headlights may and tyres probably would.

So what's your best effort? How few words?