nasty618

It's a long time to be dead and yet still be kicking. I think maybe reports of Single Stack death were greatly exaggerated. Make Single Stack Great Again.

We're at 104 one day before open reg starts. 17 Gs, 21 Ms. That's with less than half of the super squad filled and other heavy hitters still to squad. 22 Gs, 37 Ms in 2020. 32 Gs, 44 Ms in 2019. Not making any assertions, just a quick update in case we want to track numbers, gauge slot vs open registrations or come back to the topic of Production Nationals participation next year.

The next thing they do is buy a Shadow 2 that keeps winning local matches, install fancy triggers and thumb rests... and still finish 30% of the winner. If one forgets the second component after looking at their results... Well, that's just willful ignorance.

So you've been playing this game for a while... Can you give any specific, non-anecdotal examples where a club lost its affiliation for breaking 3.3? How many clubs? I can give you at least one specific example of the opposite. Match fees matter.

That's a very good point and it makes sense.

To you, to me and 44% of those who voted it seems to be clear. But overwhelming majority seems to have no clue. 50+% said "no call", 5+% said Procedural. What rule did those 5% apply?... we'll never know. I agree that the rule should be adjusted to address this giant gap. Not even access to the trigger - it's drawn when there's access to any portion of the inside of the trigger guard... Which can be tricky as there are set ups that allow some movement potentially exposing a millimeter or two of the internal trigger guard.

And that is what's troubling... but not shocking. I can point you to a thread where I describe how not one, but three CROs make a fundamentally bad call on a well known classifier.

I like the NROI question of the month. I don't like the 50/50 spilt in votes.

What exactly should it tell me?

I'm all for having an electronic rule book. It's there on my phone and gets good use almost every match... But there's huge psychological and educational value in being able to pull out an official book from the range box, open it on the right page, ask the range lawyer or opinion giver to read it and walk away. One does not exclude the other and the costs of having a printed book cannot be so prohibitive that a a fiscally frugal and financially healthy organization should so easily scratch it.

Yes, I was hoping to hear your opinion on why and if a different combination might fix things somewhat. Personally, if it's 300 or 100... I can't say "I don't care". I do, to an extent. But as long as the returning champion is there - for me it's all that matters. For the outcome I'm looking for in a Nationals, which is my performance and improvement gains as compared to the champ's results, it could be just the two of us.

But it's also an open book test and you have what? three attempts to complete it? All while being able to review the results before taking another stab at it in an attempt to get 80 or 85% to pass? I find it almost amusing when people who are not ROs or worse, haven't even read the rule book, start offering their opinions. It often starts with "I think it should be...". I wish we still had printed rule books. Open the book on the relevant rule, point at it and tell them to read it.

Not that Production is not going the way of SS... it might be... or maybe not, given the political climate, we don't know. But are you considering the point of combined divisions that draw and split the pool of talent, like CO and Prod last year? Makes me think if a combined Open/Low Cap and PCC/CO/Lim might be a better combination to maximize the numbers of each division.

That's not what I'm talking about. But, as you've said in the past - i don't have the time or inclination to try to educate you.

Well, I'm relieved. Not that I thought it did.