Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Jollymon32

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jollymon32

  • Rank
    Sees Target

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Weston-Broward County-Florida
  • Real Name
    Andrew Medina

Recent Profile Visitors

1,043 profile views
  1. Meh, just another rabble rouser. Good riddance.
  2. I am pretty sure no one is losing any sleep about what you care about or not.
  3. IVC, the fact that we are having the discussion points to the lack of specificity that leads to interpretations (whether right or wrong) and the need for determination from the top of the organization to attempt to avoid match time arbitrations from range lawyers. I maintain that if ‘solid’ meant ‘solid’ that many of these interpretations would be moot, albeit bringing up the mag or foot across the wall dilemma. On to the next ‘anomaly’...lol..
  4. I think NROI was clear - if not "really solid" then it is not solid. So you can go under a wall to get to the other side, throw stuff under it, put your fingers through them, in short anything but bullets can cross "not really solid" solid planes. (Makes you wonder if you can stick a gun fully through a "not really solid" solid plane, and once the gun is on the other side, fire rounds at targets.) Here is what I get from this NROI gem: if you don't want people going under walls, throwing stuff under them, etc. make the walls go all the way to the ground.
  5. The last sentence reads: "If the wall was really solid the magazine wouldn’t have gone through so of course the shooter can retrieve it. This won’t tear the fabric of the time/space continuum or anything." That makes sense. Accordingly then, the term "Solid" in 2.2.3.4 "All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane..." means that it is only "solid" if the barrier is indeed "really solid". Got it..... I think..... Makes you wonder if the word "solid" should be omitted from the rule.
  6. For the record, you sent a copy via text of something DNROI answered you or answered in the RM forum. Nowhere in the text did it state to disseminate that information as his final decision; indeed, the text seemed like he was mulling it over - unless DNROI uses "seems to be" as a definitive. We also have allegations that someone has asked this question beforehand and gotten an opposite answer from DNROI. DNROI has not and may not answer the query I sent him directly. I am not going to surmise his answer from something that may be off the record. It ma
  7. Unless of course the RO/CRO can go tit for tat with the range lawyer.
  8. CRAP - another "anomaly"!!! 2.2.3.4 "Shots cannot be fired though the barrier except at designated shooting ports or other designated openings. Any hits that result from full diameter shots fired through a barrier except through a designated port or opening will not count for score...." Appendix A3 Shot: A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm. If you stick your gun completely through the "solid plane" and fire, then the the "shot" was not fired through the barrier, it was on the other side of the barrier. AAA
  9. You guys are 100% right - I may have been using the wrong term, maybe "inconsistency" is not the right term. What ever the term, I am referring to the "anomaly" in which: A solid plane (2.2.3.4) is solid for some things and not for others - for example, solid so that you can't stick a gun through it to shoot at targets from under a physical wall, but not solid enough to stop a foot, magazines, or in the case of this post, fingers. And these "anomalies" can be addressed by: 1) Rules Update: For example, maybe removing the word "solid" from 2.2.3.4. 2) DN
  10. That is exactly how I understand it as well. These inconsistencies have to either be resolved by a rules update, NROI decree, or match day arbitration. I do believe that NROI will state that grabbing through walls is fine, and until such time that they do we can argue the point till we are blue in the face as I believe that there are excellent arguments for either position. These discussions, I believe, is what provides the catalyst for the continuous positive evolution of the rule book. As these inconsistencies come to light, are discussed ad naseum, nuts cracked (LOL), etc. it
  11. I think that mesh walls and walls that do not go down to the ground are problematic for just these reasons. I believe someone posted that the reason for the "solid plane" sentence was to prohibit someone from shooting under a wall. If I can pick up a mag from under the wall, why could I then not shoot at a target from under the wall? These are the inconsistencies that drive the discussion we have just seen.
  12. I have balls of steel. I continue to believe that there are inconsistencies in the manual and these can only be resolved by removing them or by DNROI issuing the final word.
  13. So, it is because I have not found DNROI clarifications that I posted this query. I did research before putting my nuts on the chopping block and coming with this here (LOL). I may have not mentioned it in the original post, but I was not the stage designer, the RO, or anything other than a participant in the match when I witnessed this. This entire post is to educate myself in what I perceived was an action that may not be allowed in the rules.
  14. I don’t know about “superior“, but I believe that the points I have made have merit, are logically sound, and may point to an inconsistency in the rule book. Indeed, some posts showed how I was wrong on my answer on the application of procedural penalties and the applicability of the concept of “impenetrable” to the situation and these points have been dropped. sorry to see you go...
  15. Thanks for the input. Not sure to what you are referring as convoluted and illogical leaps. I have provided clear and concise substantiation with references for the statements being made. And it is clarification from NROI that I am asking for.
×
×
  • Create New...