Possible cure to round dumping?

[Duane Thomas]

Every so often in the IDPA forum we have a discussion like this, which always comes down to certain SOs complaining about this horrible, "unenforceable" round dumping rule. In every one of these threads I have asked, "Have you ASKED them whether they were round dumping?" In every thread but this one, that question has gone unanswered. In this one I did push the question, and we actually got answers, a series of justifications for why round dumping is not being called. I really am forced to a few conclusions: (1) There are a fair number of SOs who like getting on the 'net and complaining about this "unenforceable" rule while (2) putting absolutely no effort into enforcing it. The problem is not the rule.

[Jake Di Vita]

Every so often in the IDPA forum we have a discussion like this, which always comes down to certain SOs complaining about this horrible, "unenforceable" round dumping rule. In every one of these threads I have asked, "Have you ASKED them whether they were round dumping?" In every thread but this one, that question has gone unanswered. In this one I did push the question, and we actually got answers, a series of justifications for why round dumping is not being called. I really am forced to a few conclusions: (1) There are a fair number of SOs who like getting on the 'net and complaining about this "unenforceable" rule while (2) putting absolutely no effort into enforcing it. The problem is not the rule

What do you do when the competitor replies "No."?

Yes, I know it was asked before, but I may have missed the response to it?

[rvb]

I enforced it once... overheard someone saying they were going to do it. warned them about the ramifications, then they were PO'd because I "couldn't know" their intent...

-rvb

[Jake Di Vita]

But you really couldn't, Ryan. Unless he has 3 rounds in the -0 zone (and even still), it's still a totally subjective call. I don't know about you, but I can think of a lot of times in stages that things didn't go as planned. I've also made up a lot of 2 A's with another A.

Problems arise whenever you have to judge "Intent."

What do you do if the alleged round dumping is on a swinger? Even if you heard the guy planning it, could you really give him a procedural for winging 3 at it?

[Duane Thomas]

What do you do when the competitor replies "No."?

Take their word for it. Perhaps I have a naive view of human nature but I think most people would tell the truth. It's only because this rule is almost never enforced that people think it doesn't matter. Ask them a direct question, most people will tell the truth. Once they see the PEs and FTDRs actually are being issued, the problem solves itself. The problem is not an unenforceable rule. The problem is a rule that's not being enforced.

[Merlin Orr]

Duane... You are a nice guy.... and you underestimate what people will do to gain an edge - any edge. Did you cheat and round dump? IMO it's kinda like asking someone if they ever "bend" the Fed. income tax rules.

Your statement "The problem is not an unenforceable rule. The problem is a rule that's not being enforced." has a nice ring to it but.......

Just my opinion.

[Duane Thomas]

And not putting even a minimal effort into enforcing part of the IDPA Rule Book because you assume you'll be lied to strikes you a superior alternative? Man, talk about assuming the worst of people.

[Jake Di Vita]

And not even putting a minimal effort into enforcing part of the IDPA Rule Book because you assume you'll be lied to strikes you a superior alternative? Man, talk about assuming the worst of people.

Yes, the majority of shooters are good honest people. Some aren't. That's neither good or bad, it's life. Someone once told me that locks aren't made to keep criminals out, a criminal will go through a lock. Locks are made to keep honest people honest. Trusting that no one will lie when asked the question "did you round dump?" is naive at best.

Put it like this...if someone can get out of a penalty by lying, the rule needs to be changed because it can't possibly be uniformly enforced.

[Duane Thomas]

Trusting that no one will lie when asked the question "did you round dump?" is naive at best.

I didn't say that no one would lie. I said that most people would tell the truth, and that never enforcing a rule makes it easy for basically honest people to assume the rule doesn't matter. I'm saying don't refuse to enforce a rule because of an assumption that everyone is a liar.

[freeidaho]

Duane,

I kinda like where you are going here. I asked once. Shooter said yes. He got the penalty. Now I don't know if the shooter learned not to dump, or if he learned to lie.

kr

[Duane Thomas]

Let's assume the former.

[rvb]

But you really couldn't, Ryan. Unless he has 3 rounds in the -0 zone (and even still), it's still a totally subjective call. I don't know about you, but I can think of a lot of times in stages that things didn't go as planned. I've also made up a lot of 2 A's with another A.

Problems arise whenever you have to judge "Intent."

What do you do if the alleged round dumping is on a swinger? Even if you heard the guy planning it, could you really give him a procedural for winging 3 at it?

Jake, It was years ago and details are long forgotten... would I make the same call today? I dunno. It was the circumstances at the time. It was pretty brazen (something like "I'll do it anyway cause you can't enforce it"). At that time I didn't feel I was judging intent, it was told to me. An unusual circumstance, I've never considered it since.

Bottom line is the rule needs to go.

It's not fair to the honest shooters and not fair to the SOs.

Legal reloads are defined. Vickers and Limited Vickers are defined. Stage design does the rest.

-rvb

Edited March 9, 2010 by rvb

[Duane Thomas]

It's not fair to the honest shooters and not fair to the SOs.

How do you figure?

[rvb]

It's not fair to the honest shooters and not fair to the SOs.

How do you figure?

rather than re-type, I'll just quote myself....

From the hundreds of matches I have attended here are a few observations:

Way more people are getting away with dumping rounds, than are being called for it. The ratio may be hundreds to one. ...

I don't understand? We have a system where possibly 99 out of every 100 people who are effectively cheating are not penalized appropriately, and the system isn't bad? Is that even a system?

I tend to think the pain this rules causes IS landing on the honest non-dumper... those who get their scores bested by shooters who do dump. It also lands on those non-dumpers who (in my experience) get accused of dumping when honestly making up a shot.

And I don't think it's fair to the SOs to have a rule that cannot be measured/applied/etc short of the shooter admitting it.

-rvb

Edited March 9, 2010 by rvb

[Steve Koski]

And I don't think it's fair to the SOs to have a rule that cannot be measured/applied/etc short of the shooter admitting it.

-rvb

Bingo!

Edited March 9, 2010 by Steve Koski

[Glock3422]

With all this "I'm not a mindreader" talk, still no SO has answered my question: have you ever tried just ASKING the competitor whether or not they were round dumping?

Duane

I answered your question. What is your response?

By the way, I asked this question (In good fun) of a poster on this thread at S&W. His smiling response was, "I made up a 3."

Of course. It was probably his only 3 of the match.

Let's just get rid of the rule.

Tactic in life or tactic at a match, who cares? If I know I need to load soon, I am going to make sure that cardboard has it's head down while I reload.

[Duane Thomas]

I don't understand? We have a system where possibly 99 out of every 100 people who are effectively cheating are not penalized appropriately, and the system isn't bad? Is that even a system?

Is this the system's problem, or that what is set down in the Rule Book in black and white is not being enforced? From what I have seen in this thread, and every thread on this topic that I have ever read in eight years on this board, the problem is not the system. The problem is that many SOs have decided not to enforce part of the Rule Book, not even to the extent of asking a competitor whether or not they just round dumped. Why is this? Have they decided they're not going to enforce a "bad rule", only the rules with which they agree? When they became SOs did they not commit to enforcing the entire Rule Book, not just the parts they like?

[Duane Thomas]

Duane

I answered your question. What is your response?

Yes, you did answer my question. I didn't respond because your answer just raised more questions which, in the interests of tact, I didn't ask at the time.

You said in your original reponse:

I have asked the question. [Meaning you have asked a competitor if they'd round dumped.] Although, when I have asked it, it was in good fun.

Here are my questions. Why were you asking a competitor whether or not they round dumped "in good fun" instead of seriously? Have you decided you're only going to enforce part of the Rule Book? And if SOs are going to pick and choose which parts of the Rule Book they'll enforce, why even have a Rule Book?

[rvb]

Is this the system's problem, or that what is set down in the Rule Book in black and white is not being enforced? From what I have seen in this thread, and every thread on this topic that I have ever read in eight years on this board, the problem is not the system. The problem is that many SOs have decided not to enforce part of the Rule Book, not even to the extent of asking a competitor whether or not they just round dumped. Why is this? Have they decided they're not going to enforce a "bad rule", only the rules with which they agree? When they became SOs did they not commit to enforcing the entire Rule Book, not just the parts they like?

If it's a good "system," then why not apply it everywhere? Just ask pf? Just ask gun weight? Just ask gear location under the cover garment? Just ask if gun fits the box? Just ask if the shooter stayed behind cover? Perhaps we should apply the "system" at the state level... traffic cops just ask how fast you were going?

... Actually, it's worse than that; the questions would really be, "did you intend to make pf," "did you intend for your gun to make weight," "did you intend to stay behind cover," etc.

Your point is taken that the question can and should be asked. That might catch that small over-lapping subset of cheaters who don't lie about it. But if that's the only means of enforcement, then my opinion is that it's not a very valid rule. I do think it's the system's problem.

-rvb

[Strick]

Here are my questions. Why were you asking a competitor whether or not they round dumped "in good fun" instead of seriously? Have you decided you're only going to enforce part of the Rule Book? And if SOs are going to pick and choose which parts of the Rule Book they'll enforce, why even have a Rule Book?

Where that fails is the interpretation of what dumping a round is. Is taking an extra shot on purpose at a longer target as a "just in case" round enabling you to reload in between targets instead of the middle of a target dumping? Is it round dumping if all your shots are from behind cover and you have to do a reload whether you dump one or not?

What is dumping a round anyway? Is it a shot that is not on the target or just any shot that fired beyond what the COF has listed as minimum? It could be argues that "dumping" a round is just throwing away a shot and is one that is not even on target.

[Glock3422]

Is this the system's problem, or that what is set down in the Rule Book in black and white is not being enforced? From what I have seen in this thread, and every thread on this topic that I have ever read in eight years on this board, the problem is not the system. The problem is that many SOs have decided not to enforce part of the Rule Book, not even to the extent of asking a competitor whether or not they just round dumped. Why is this? Have they decided they're not going to enforce a "bad rule", only the rules with which they agree? When they became SOs did they not commit to enforcing the entire Rule Book, not just the parts they like?

If it's a good "system," then why not apply it everywhere? Just ask pf? Just ask gun weight? Just ask gear location under the cover garment? Just ask if gun fits the box? Just ask if the shooter stayed behind cover? Perhaps we should apply the "system" at the state level... traffic cops just ask how fast you were going?

... Actually, it's worse than that; the questions would really be, "did you intend to make pf," "did you intend for your gun to make weight," "did you intend to stay behind cover," etc.

Your point is taken that the question can and should be asked. That might catch that small over-lapping subset of cheaters who don't lie about it. But if that's the only means of enforcement, then my opinion is that it's not a very valid rule. I do think it's the system's problem.

-rvb

Let's take the burden off of the SO and just hand out a survey form that all shooters must fill out.

"Did you dump any rounds during this match?"

"Which stages?"

Shooter turns it in and scoring does the rest.

We all stay friends.

[Jane]

Is this the system's problem, or that what is set down in the Rule Book in black and white is not being enforced?

Duane,

For me (who happens to be a get-rid-of-this-rule opiner), the issue is that most laws in our society are based on the consequences of actions rather than on intentions.

The ever-popular "hate crimes" laws are a notable exception to this principle in that they require an inference as to the perpetrator's mindset. Even with those, however, there are usually incontrovertible actions on which to begin that analysis - somebody is dead (which is already a murder rap based on the usual consequences-of-actions based laws) but is his death more egregious because he was gay or Jewish or black or...

The action itself is already prosecutable... the mindset is then called into question.

With round-dumping, by the nature of "UNlimited" Vickers the action of firing an "insurance" or "makeup" shot is not against the normal rules, unless the mindset is suspect in which case it is.

I've seen round-dumping called at one sanctioned match. This was AFTER pretty much everyone on a squad (the team from Trinidad) had fired an extra round at one particular target in order to be at slidelock at specific place in the stage. The SO specifically announced that if anybody else fired an extra round at that spot he'd award an FTDR. A shooter did. He did.

But even in that situation, you can argue that it was unfair because those whose actions had led to the explicit ultimatum that she violated were not subject to the same penalty.

I suppose one could draw an analogy to the highway patrol. They ticket a small percentage of speeders on the highway, but the chance of a ticket no doubt contributes somewhat to compliance in spite of the inconsistent enforcement. Here again, though, the enforcement (albeit not inflicted upon all offenders) is based strictly on actions, not on imputed intentions.

You speak of what is set down in the rule book "in black and white".

A hit on a non-threat is generally pretty much a black and white call.

A round-dumping penalty is not, regardless of whether it's "black and white" in the rule book.

I'm sure my little rant, incomplete as it is, won't change your mind. And you're unlikely to sway my opinion. The fact that that rule has been around for so long and still provokes so much dispute is, to me, enough reason to get rid of it.

YMMV (and obviously does )

Edited March 9, 2010 by Jane

[Bones]

" The fact that that rule has been around for so long and still provokes so much dispute is, to me, enough reason to get rid of it."

Well, I guess that logic rids us of all religions, marriage and the two party republican democratic system as well.

The HP analogy is a good one. I've seen the rule blatently violated and the penalty correctly applied.

Leave it.

Craig

[GForceLizard]

I would like to see the round dumping rule removed. If it's fastest to shoot an extra round then each individual should have to decide if that's part of their plan or not. If you want a RWR or tack-load then design a course of fire where that's the best plan.

Question: Is it within the IDPA rules to have a COF where only certain targets are limited? Target T3 is scored limited vickers, 2 shots only. If this is kosher then that's another tool course designers could use.

[juan]

So is it legal to drive 65 on the freeway.

Illegal to drive 65 if my intent is to get to my destination faster.