Many of the people on here are officials, but officials can have differing opinions. Most of what this does is help you to analyze a situation and see the different sides of the same situation. That is why most protest committees are made up of an odd number of people.
 

If the repondent wants 'official interpretations', which World Sailing won't give, then he or she should read the Case Book.
Different points of view are always aired by PC members when finding facts and, sometimes even when coming to conclusions.  That is the nature of the beast. 

And I can guarantee that when your respondent thinks (s)he's sailing into exactly the same situation as was discussed here last week, (s)he won't be.  And the opponent's view of the situation will also be different.  Part of being a judge is to look at both stories and determine, on the balance of probability, given all the evidence you have, what is the most likely thing to have happened.  Only then can you determine who broke which rules, if any.

I think that is a great insight that was brought up and I was pondering how would be a better way to convey answers.
Would using the Protest Format be of use?

Have a clear statement on the Facts Found followed by Conclusions, with rules broken?  We can all discuss the incidents
as are normally done in the hearings.  Then move onto Findings, then conclusions.  

It seems like that is the structure we use to (attempt to) make a Hearing based on a logical set of rules and not the
jumbled, potentialy arbitrary mess of a general discussion.  It could help here as well prepare us all for the times
we have differences that need PC help.
 

I'd like to associate myself with the POV presented above by Ant and Jim.  Sometimes there is a consensus which points or is built upon the approved authority.  When it's not, I think we risk the "confusion-of-authority" that is hoped to be addressed by adding disclaimers and warning labels .. if we force a "conclusion".

"Warning - Reliance upon any rule interpretation you read on this forum could be hazardous to your score!"  .. :-)

Funny ... the following thought/memory came to my mind during the last thread and for some reason it's resonating with me in our discussion here.....

As a boy, I was raised a Roman Catholic .. church every Sunday, CCD each week, Mom in the choir, etc...  The answers to the big-Q Questions were taught to me as well defined and definitive with little room for ambiguity.

Years later as a young man in my late 20's (after I had left the Church), I had the occasion to attend a formal diner in the historic library at Georgetown University (Wash, DC), which is run by the Jesuites.  As the evening rolled-on, I got a little board and started roaming the stacks and browsing some of the old books there.  I had found myself in a row filled with volume after volume containing debate from within the Church on some of the foundational tenents of the Church.

In that moment, I can remember feeling as if the Church was more "real" in some sense .. down a little closer to earth .. and that those who were wrestling with the issues were grappling with them just like me .. though when it comes to the official positions of the Church, they were well defined and slow to change.  At the same time, I realized that seeing this debate would be confusing and maybe unsettling to others.

We've got the RRS's, the Cases, the Appeals, and even the Q&A's.  For me, that's plenty of authoritative resources.  I think if you do the things you suggested to make the site clearly non-authoritative, then we can be left to freely grapple without risk of confusion-of-authority.

And this forum should not be a reference of knowledge, that is what the RRS, cases, appeals and calls are for - it is a place to exchange ideas and individual understandings.  What I really like is that sometimes I read someones slant on a rule that is different than mine and gets me to think outside the box so to say.  Sometimes  it changes my perspective.   Either way it gets me thinking.  I don't see how that can ever be a bad think. 

Two issues for me:

1. A number of posters on this forum put forward their view in a way that suggests it is the definitive answer to the question when it isn't (which isn't a problem for those of us who are confident about reading the rules, but has the potential to give a misleading impression to those that are working to understand them). Not sure what can be done about this except...
2. Whilst I can click on the name of each contributor to see their qualifications (and hence the level of credibility that I might give to their answer) this isn't immediately obvious from the presentation of their post on the forum. Might it be helpful to somehow display the official "status" of each poster at the top each posting?