Rob Boudrie

This is a known issue we need to do something about (It's been on the list so long I forgot about it). In any case, the old results are still posted under the previous club's number - not sure if there is an interface to get to them though, but they were not removed from the database. Please post old and new club numbers so I can look. There are two issues - one technical, the other policy. As a technical matter, EzWinScore would have to "recalculate" the results; output; and recalculate again, and additional info added to the upload file format to differentiate. This is not insurmountable, but it's a lot more than spending 30 minutes in an evening adding more stats. The other is one of policy - there has never been any traction on the board to publish "results" which aren't actually "results", but stats that look like results.

I was tempted to get a Z6i, but I just couldn't get past the fact that, unlike many far cheaper scopes, the warranty is limited to two years - something I consider very important on any optic with an electronic component. One would expect that a $2200 Swarvoski could match the warranty of a $500 Vortex, but such is not the case.

In order to determine what would happen, one must look to history, not assertions being made when the actor does not have to pay a high personal price. Were there widespread, or even localized, refusals by New Orleans police to confiscate lawfully owned guns during Katrina? Have any federal officers refused to partake in the "secret trials" being held in federal courts around the country? Have any intelligence agents stepped forward, at their own peril, to detail covert sigint on domestic communication; project Carnivore or the like? Talk is cheap. Putting ones self in a position of paying a high price - both from an employment and legal perspective - is quite another matter. Sure, there are no doubt some stand up soldiers who would refuse an order, but I doubt the majority will refuse to obey when told "Soldier, that is a lawful order issued by chain of command, follow it or face court martial".

I was wondering how long it was going to take for someone to notice this. What actually happened was Dave Thomas asked me to add the chart at the top with the number of competitors by class and division, and there was a discussion on another forum about percentages the winners shoot, and after making a few Excel errors, I asked myself "Why am I doing it the hard way?", so I added it while taking care of Dave's request. It may just happen Done. Fixed. Nope. Two reasons: Current USPSA policy is to display only recognized results. I can't display what I don't have, and the upload system posts all the detailed data from the official results, not the combined. The new stats display is just an enhanced extraction of existing data; combined results don't exist in the online database. Any club can register a club contact who, in turn, may designate any number of additional stats officers as authorized score uploaders. It would appear your club is not using this FREE service provided by USPSA. Clubs that post to their own site are encouraged to post to uspsa.org as well, as USPSA is committed to maintaining a long-term archive of these results. If you club is concerned about USPSA taking traffic from your club, just post to the USPSA site a few days after you post to your club page. Time to change that to "Area 5 Director Elect".

If you ever want to sell the land, it could be an EPA cleanup site with the new owners having a claim to have it de-leaded at your expense.

The current system uses the Invisionboard search plug-in facility to use the sphinx search engine, which is the only reason the forum has an acceptable search speed. Has 3.2.3 improved search to the point where one no longer needs to add aftermarket search software to get pre-index database optimization of the search function?

Both newly elected officers were present for all discussions - Phil Strader in his capacity as Area 4 Director and Kyle as member who was invited to participate in discussions due to his director-elect status.

The meeting at which we will follow up on the election issue will be in January after the new officers take place. What is under discussion is the mechanics of how an election is conducted, not procedures like "rules and runoffs", how one petitions to become a candidate, etc. The most important thing is that no procedural changes be made when there are "votes in play", particularly if the changes have ANY chance of influencing the election. One reason I felt this was an appropriate time is the amount of time it takes to move from "starting discussions" to "done deal" - advance notice of any bylaw change meeting is required; once any bylaw changes are made, a contract has to be negotiated with an election company; and the new procedures published. If we let things slip into the spring, USPSA may already have "declared candidates", individuals circulating nominating petitions, etc. - and that opens up the can of worms like "how does this change impact XYZ's chances relative to the other candidate".

The following motion was passed at the BOD meeting this morning. Current bylaws require advance notice of the inclusion of any amendment to the bylaws, hence the nature of this motion. I will be working with rest of the board to generate the exact bylaws change we will vote on in January, however, some of the key points that I expect to see based on the board discussion: - The election will remain independent, and not under control of USPSA. The contract will state that USPSA does not have access to the voting record of any individual member. - It will allow internet voting, but also allow members to cast their ballot via US Mail. Internet voting will be conducted on a server under the control of the election firm; not USPSA staff, officers or volunteers. - No fundamental changes to the election (nomination procedures, runoff if there is no majority after initial voting, etc.) is expected. - There will probably be some minor changes to the deadlines specified for the election. The motion:

It is also possible that one individual voted in the Area 5 runoff, but did not cast a vote in the presidential runoff.

And this is one of the reasons it will not work smoothly for multigun matches. We have been using the pistol Limited Classification for Tactical & Limited shooters in Multigun. If I do an update, it re-sets all the Tactical shooters to U. Linda Chico (L-2035) Columbia SC We need to discuss a solution. I am interested in refining the process in any way that helps, provided we maintain consistency with USPSA policies.

Nice philosophy, but rarely happens in fact. Just because a person is elected to an office by "the people", that doesn't mean the person will do what "the people" want. Absolutely true, but I think USPSA does a better job that most of keeping the election process open to the membership. Our elections are outsourced, so you don't have to take anyone's word that the ballots are counted fairly. Anyone can petition to get on the ballot - I know of some professional organizations where people "apply" for a slot on the ballot and don't get on unless a committee decides to let them run. USPSA does not tell members how to vote. While candidates can run their own ads, you don't see the entrenched leadership promoting a "winning team"; telling people how to vote; or adding ballot designation to tell voters who the "approved candidates" are. (some orgs have the concept of "endorsed by the nominating committee". We don't have any "incumbent protection policies" in place. The only differences are incumbents don't need to gather signatures to be on the ballot, and are labeled as "incumbent". We have runoff elections, which means that a particularly bad director won't stay in office just because a whole bunch of people ran against him/her and split an "anti-incumbent" sentiment. If there is anything more we can do to keep the process open, please let the directors and president know. rob

1. There is no import of class. EzWinScore allows the user to update classifications using a classification file imported into EzWinScore. 2. OPEN and PROD should work for divisions. The identical spelling used in EzWinScore, plus some aliases, are supported. The listings in the earlier posts are the "Aliases" (for example, Limited is allowed as is the alias LTD). 3. If you have trouble, email the import file you are trying to "rob@boudrie.com". As long as the load remains manageable, I will report on the problem. I will try to post the info here so others can learn from any data format issues. rob

Sometimes there are design improvements over the years, and if you have an old machine you may want to upgrade. When the stud on my powder measure broke, it was replaced with one that was supported on both sides of the level arm (a big improvement). What I don't fully understand is why they changed from the 4" (appox) roller bearing arrangement for the main drive cam on the 1050 to a smaller part. I don't see any functional difference, but the older version seems to be a bit more hefty and a nameless individual who I highly respect told "that's the one to get if you can find one". Dillon - can you tell us why this part was changed on the 1050? I have a slight nervousness (slight, very slight) that some of the 1050 parts that are not common to the Super 1050 may not be available forever. Although Dillon is legendary for good service, and fast shipment of replacement parts, there is precedent for declaring a design "obsolete" and discontinuing spare parts for machines.

3AM wake up call at the match hotel.

I have not heard any USPSA staff member, officer or board member advocate anything other than this approach. My position is that I will vote against any election procedure I could rig.

This is one of the reasons I am recommending a professional election firm. This is what they do, and only what they do - so they should be pretty good at it. It also would mean "single vendor accountability". With the current situation, it's a three legged stool - USPSA; the CPA firm; and the mailing house. I will have my report to the board by Monday, so there will be time to read it before the upcoming meeting. I could reduce the cost to zero using in-house on-line voting, however, some things are worth paying for even when you can get them for free. This is one of them. A 30% return rate is not that bad when you consider that many members are not that active, and that only about 50% of our membership (as measured by headcount) has fired a recorded classifier in the past year.

Do you mean the America with warrantless confidential searches via National Security Letter; a second "secret docket" in every federal court district; and crimes so serious that no trial is required - or the America we were taught about in Jr. High school?

I will not bore this list with the details, but I will be presenting a full report to the board. I am actually a bit more optimistic this time around. Yes, there is. These requirements preclude "shortcuts" and I haven't found a good way around having an election firm do a first class mailing to all voters with the access code. I don't really mind the expense of sending out notices to each member, since "member elected representation" is a cornerstone that differentiates USPSA from several other competitive shooting organizations that don't have enough faith in their membership to allow anyone not on the board to vote. The last time I investigated, I dealt with a company that was set up on the "commissioned salesperson" model, which *really* showed in how they dealt with me. I never could get a price - just loads of salesmanship. I've been talking to another company - the contact title is "managing partner" - not "sales rep"; I had firm pricing numbers one day after initial contact; and he seems more interested in an ongoing relationship than Zig Ziglar techniques to maximize a salescritter's cut of the action for closing the deal. He also had all the right answers to my logistical/technical questions. A real benefit of using a professional election firm is that this is what they do - it's not matter of having an org that is not expert in elections (USPSA) work with a CPA firm that specialized in accounting more than elections, which in turn works with a mailing house that is not used to customized election mailings. One stop, one accountable party, one solution.

I must have gotten a good one - I've been cranking on by 1050 for 15+ years and the only thing that ever went bad was the lever that moves the primer slider doohickie - a cheap enough part. It's one nice press and worth the premium over the 650 just for it's generally feel and coolness. I guess it's no loss that I have been too cheap to buy an autodrive.

It will - just be sure to tell Brandon it's to replace a Bomar when you order it, as there are two heights. SVI has one with Bomar compatible dimensions, and one that sits a bit lower (not sure if it's a different dovetail, or just a lower blade) for use in their new guns.

Dillon has toughened up their "BS warranty on the 1050, No-BS warranty on other presses" in recent years. When I bought my 1050, I was assured they would "never enforce the one year limit against a home user unless it was obvious abuse". When I tried to collect on that years later I was told "Mike told us to tighten up on the 1050 warranty and stop giving away free parts unless it's within the one year". I just wish they would stop trying to con us with that "it's a commercial press" line. No, it isn't a Camdex. A more straightforward answer would be "a market analysis indicates that unlimited support is not the profit maximizing stragegy for a press that has little competition in its price/performance niche". The 1050 is a great press, but there are limits in both support and quality. It looks like a cast part failed - something that should have never happened, period.

I did too but I'm curious if anyone else got an $18.00 ballot...... Dave Thomas posted the following on www.uspsa.org today:

Just make sure that you don't have an MD who is not a dentist read your X-Ray after the extraction; give you an antibiotic for a case of osteomyelitis that is a mis-diagnosis for something you don't have because he can't tell the difference between infection and holes drilled to access broken roots; and eventually put you in the hospital because the antibiotics you took for something you didn't have allowed a case of C-diff to take hold and you had to be advanced to IV antibiotics. Trust me on this one - I've seen it happen, and it isn't a pretty sight.

The Utah Initiative is already scoring their local matches with the Iphone and feeding data into EzWinScore. Their program will eventually be released, and is expected to obtain USPSA approval. The program is real. I have seen it.