“The Reasonable Doubt Rule”

[Tom Hall 7485]

What I will call the “Reasonable Doubt Rule” gave the entrant the benefit of the doubt when the judges entered uncharted waters in judging authenticity:

     All deductions for authenticity must be identified on the judging form; team leader must discuss with owner/exhibitor
     and then initial “approved deductions,” or cross out non-deductible items.  In case of reasonable doubt, the opinion of
     the owner shall prevail.  (Directory 1993-1994, p. 9.)

This last sentence was the Reasonable Doubt Rule.  It was not clear whose reasonable doubt was involved, but in the context of judging it was obvious that it wasn’t just the entrant’s.  It was not clear how many members of the judging team had to have the reasonable doubt, but that issue could have been clarified easily in a revision.

For over 20 years, the Reasonable Doubt Rule gave the entrant some hope of being able to avoid deductions for seldom-seen and mysterious authenticity issues.  Our events don’t have many cars with such issues.  There is no reasonable doubt about an Auto Zone battery.  However, we don’t always know whether to deduct for the absence of a pot metal script where there typically was one, but there is no evidence of any holes ever having been drilled to receive it.  We don’t always know how to spot an error by the manufacturer.  It is those sorts of puzzles that the Reasonable Doubt Rule was designed to decide.  If a member of the judging team or the entrant could make a convincing argument and create the reasonable doubt, then there was not to be an authenticity deduction for that unusual thing.  The Reasonable Doubt Rule did not require the entrant to show the judges any document, and it can be viewed as relieving the entrant of that burden.

The Reasonable Doubt Rule was printed in the 2015 International Membership Directory.  After that, the rules were completely rewritten and were no longer printed in the directories.
 
What happened to the Reasonable Doubt Rule?  My copy of the Second Edition of the Official Judging Manual (2017) does not seem to have it, and neither does the Third Edition (2018) at https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cadillaclasalleclub.org/resource/resmgr/judging/CLC_Judging_Manual_2018.pdf via Jason Edge.

[cadillacmike68]

Here we go again...

[Paul Phillips]

Tom
I don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish on this topic. If you want to understand how judging at GN and other National meets is now administered, please look at the judging manual, available for free at https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cadillaclasalleclub.org/resource/resmgr/judging/CLC_Judging_Manual_2018.pdf. The CLC board has approved this, and all judging protocols of the past are just that - past history.

Look at page 6, it tells you exactly what the team captain will do on any authenticity issues identified, and what the owner’s response process should be. If you have a car being judged, the team captain will identify all authenticity issues to you.  If you disagree, it is your responsibility to request the Chief Judge to come to your car. You show your documentation, make your case, and the Chief Judge decides which way to rule on the issue.

If you do not want to participate under this system, that is your choice.  There are other groups that judge under different rules, and you are free to participate with them if that makes you more comfortable.  The current CLC judging system is intended to be fair, and to make it so only the really authentic and properly prepared cars get the top awards. That makes it really “mean something” when you achieve Senior Crown in CLC.

I hope you will accept this and participate in CLC judged events. If you have a great car, it will be appreciated by the others in attendance. If you have some things that can be improved, you will get the feedback needed to improve.

Please remember, this is a hobby that we do because we like our classic cars. Have fun with it!

Paul

[BJM]

Tom
As Paul stated very well, it's been updated and codifed in a different way.  Seems reasonable to me, still quite fair, and definitely will help "raise the bar" for judging standards.