LuckyDucky

I've been thinking a L or a U shape is probably enough to cover most core skills. You just place targets where you need. Edit: messing around in practisim: https://imgur.com/a/a88eV0Z

I've been practicing stand-and-shoot for too long (GSSF anybody?) and want to start practicing more movement. Has anybody ever come up with a stage design that incorporates various skills in it? I'd like to set one up in my back yard and just leave it up. It would be dry fire/airsoft only. My first thought was to come up with a list of skills (entering a position from various angles), rounding a barrier multiple directions, ports, leans, shooting while moving, and so on. Then try to design a stage that allows practicing these various skills. Because it is dry fire/airsoft only, it could be used in any direction. The point is not necessarily to shoot the entire stage every time, but to shoot portions of it for specific skills. So how about it?

Nothing would change except the occasional placement trophy/prize would go to a different person. If I face you 1 on 1 and beat you, then I'm "better" than you. But then you throw Max Michel in there and because by chance our performances relative to him worked out that you were better than me relative to him, now you're better? Doing away with class recognition makes more sense.

Having the scores relative to division introduces an element of chance to the class rankings. Your overall score depends on how you did relative to the division winner, not your fellow class members. It doesn't make sense. Rule 6.4.2 and appendix A2 do reference class awards/recognition. But nothing says how to score classes. If classes aren't competing and it is simply a progression metric for the amateurs, why would classes be recognized and awarded at matches? If they are recognized and awarded, they should be scored relative to each other so there is not an element of chance.

So that person is not really always first relative to the B shooters. Where in the rules does it state class ranking is relative to division? If I'm technically competing relative to other B shooters, shouldn't my score be relative to the B shooters?

Is placement in a class calculated relative to the division, including higher classes, or relative to the class including only members of the same class in that division? It can create different placement results either way.

I thought the same. DNROI's job is interpretation, not making rules. It's not even trying to be an interpretation. It just says, "rule # is amended to read." My real issue here that I wanted to ask about is that the rules aren't published properly. If a rule is changed, it should be integrated into the rulebook or in a supplement link right below the rulebook ASAP. That's how government does it, and the online US Code is updated regularly now instead of every 6 years. But according to the poster above and President Foley himself, the new rules are supposed to be updated more frequently. I don't suppose ignorance of the rules is an excuse for a reshoot in USPSA is it?

Reviewing the minutes, I didn't read them all, but used keyword search on NROI. It appears 570 times. Nowhere in the minutes did the BOD authorize NROI to unilateraly change the rules willy nilly. The only thing close to this was in 2003 authorizing DNROI to establish a production gun eligibility policy.

So since I feel like finding an answer... Without yet checking the minutes or articles, the answer is that only the BOD has authority to create or change rules for USPSA. 3.1 of the bylaws states the corporation shall "set forth and publish" rules. 16.1 of the bylaws says that the rules are those most recently published by USPSA. 16.3 of the bylaws state duties of NROI include "communication of official rules interpretations." The bylaws do not specifically designate anyone with the power or duty to make the rules other than 3.1. It's been awhile since I checked Delaware law, but only the BOD has the power and authority to do something if it is not specified in the organizational documents. So we would need to check minutes or articles of incorporation to see if BOD delegated rulemaking power/duties to NROI. Additionally, NROI "rulings" are not published as "rules" nor is it within NROI's duty to "set forth and publish" rules. Therefore, NROI CANNOT change the rules. (unless such duty was delegated by the BOD in minutes or Articles). Also, the "rules" that are "set forth and published" are the 2014 rules, not the NROI rulings.

Isn't that what IDPA does?

What authorizes dnroi to change the rules?

I'm tall, so I shot over a wall as I could see all the stage targets from one spot. The WSB did not prohibit it and neither did the rule in the rulebook. But the "interpretation" does prohibit it. Something I did not know. Whims of men, not rule of law.

I don't actually, as I don't follow these Shenanigans, or I would have known to check the nroi rulings. What was it about?

An amendment is not an interpretation. Do you mean changes will be integrated on the fly? That would be nice.

Rule 11.8.1 says interpretation is NROI's job. Can NROI validly amend a rule to change it to the opposite of what it says? For example, the fence rule 2.2.3.3 says fences are not infinite height. NROI ruling eff. 4/12/17 literally amends the rule to the opposite. This is not an interpretation, but a change. That is not within the NROI's responsibility, and therefore the rule hasn't changed Why does this matter? Fairness. I looked up the rule before shooting a stage the be sure. I looked in the rule book on the app. After I finished someone told me that's not the rule because of the NROI "interpretation" so I zeroed the stage. If we can't rely on the rulebook for rules, what's the point of having a rulebook? It needs to be updated to have the actual rules in it.