Define "Activate"

[mactiger]

Note to self: Take Jones and Golson off the Christmas card list.

Alright, I concede.

I stand by my other statement, and club match/level one exemption be damned: HIDE THE FRAKKIN' THING! :lol:

Troy

[mactiger]

Hmmm. I think Troy might be my RMI, so I say whatever he says goes.

Suckin' up won't get you anywhere. Tribute! I demand Tribute!

Troy

[JThompson]

Hmmm. I think Troy might be my RMI, so I say whatever he says goes.

Suckin' up won't get you anywhere. Tribute! I demand Tribute!

Troy

ROFLMAO! I have a very special box of stogies, I've been saving for an occasion. We might be able to work something out.

[Singlestack]

Hmmm. I think Troy might be my RMI, so I say whatever he says goes.

Won't be the first time he was wrong...

[Chris iliff]

So let me get this clear, if we think of the moving target as being everything up to and including the device used to activate it, then we can shoot away once activated, regardless if it has moved yet?

[mactiger]

Hmmm. I think Troy might be my RMI, so I say whatever he says goes.

Won't be the first time he was wrong...

OUCH! Well, I guess that's true...I've been wrong about that Golson guy. Mark told me I was giving you way too much credit.

Oops. I see "Loctite" is watching this thread....

Edited August 24, 2010 by mactiger

[Singlestack]

Hmmm. I think Troy might be my RMI, so I say whatever he says goes.

Won't be the first time he was wrong...

OUCH! Well, I guess that's true...I've been wrong about that Golson guy. Mark told me I was giving you way too much credit.

Oops. I see "Loctite" is watching this thread....

I made that reply before I saw your "I concede" post.

[JThompson]

So let me get this clear, if we think of the moving target as being everything up to and including the device used to activate it, then we can shoot away once activated, regardless if it has moved yet?

I guess that depends on who your RM is............

JT

[Rob Boudrie]

Time for a reductio ad absurdum proof.

Consider the case where a poppper knocks out a stick holding a swinger that is exposed and bobs behind hard cover once activated (yeah, Troy is right - it is best for it to be hidden at rest).

The impact of the popper on the support stick is what activates the swinger, not the impact of the bullet on the popper. This is not unlike the activation performed by the bowling ball, but with a smaller delay.

If the interpretation that the bowling ball moving is not "activation", one would also have to conclude that a competitor who made a solid hit on the popper could not take a shot at the paper target until the popper made contact with the stick - even though it may be possible for a fast shooter to hit the target before the popper impacts the support stick.

[Bergie]

Hmmm. I think Troy might be my RMI, so I say whatever he says goes.

What if George is your RMI?

[sfchorn]

Time for a reductio ad absurdum proof.

Consider the case where a poppper knocks out a stick holding a swinger that is exposed and bobs behind hard cover once activated (yeah, Troy is right - it is best for it to be hidden at rest).

The impact of the popper on the support stick is what activates the swinger, not the impact of the bullet on the popper. This is not unlike the activation performed by the bowling ball, but with a smaller delay.

If the interpretation that the bowling ball moving is not "activation", one would also have to conclude that a competitor who made a solid hit on the popper could not take a shot at the paper target until the popper made contact with the stick - even though it may be possible for a fast shooter to hit the target before the popper impacts the support stick.

Here are my thoughts on the issue:

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss

penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates

the target movement. (The emphasis on the words competitor and initiates are obviously mine).

The competitor can only perform the action on the first part of whatever Rube Goldberg device makes the target move. Doesn't matter how many steps the contraption has to complete (or how long it takes) between the competitor performing the action and the instant the target begins to move. The competitor has already fulfilled the requirement, and will be looking for other things to shoot until the target is visible. If I feel it is to my advantage to take a marginal D or C hit on a partially obscured target because of a time savings, I'm gonna' start blasting.

These (sometimes tiny and incremental) time savings are what separate me from a GM. Oh, and talent. Forgot to add talent.....

If the intention had been otherwise, the rule would have been simpler to word: ...if the competitor engages the target before the target has begun its movement.

[jmorris]

60 plus posts and no one broke out the dictionary to "define" activate.

activate [ˈæktɪˌveɪt]

vb (tr)

1. to make active or capable of action

2. (Physics / General Physics) Physics to make radioactive

3. (Chemistry) Chem

a. to increase the rate of (a reaction)

b. to treat (a substance, such as carbon or alumina) so as to increase powers of adsorption

4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Physiology) Physiol to prepare by arousal (the body or one of its organs (e.g. the brain)) for action

5. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Microbiology) to purify (sewage) by aeration

6. (Military) US Military to create, mobilize, or organize (a unit)

It doesn't have to have any action, you just have to make it capable of action.

[George Jones]

Hmmm. I think Troy might be my RMI, so I say whatever he says goes.

What if George is your RMI?

Same tribute!

[JThompson]

Hmmm. I think Troy might be my RMI, so I say whatever he says goes.

What if George is your RMI?

Same tribute!

I'll hold up on the cigars until I find out who my mentor is... those of you that aren't burdened with my training; may still have a shot at the tributes if you are going to be at the oral for SS Nationals.

[CHA-LEE]

I have an associated activation question. Is there a rule against activating a step pad by means other than stepping on it? Such as throwing a magazine on it to trip it instead of actually stepping on it? This is all assuming that the WSB does not mandate that it has to be stepped on.

[George Jones]

I have an associated activation question. Is there a rule against activating a step pad by means other than stepping on it? Such as throwing a magazine on it to trip it instead of actually stepping on it? This is all assuming that the WSB does not mandate that it has to be stepped on.

Perhaps a bit short of 10.6, but certainly subject to 4.5.1.

And I foresee a Forbidden Action in your future.

[Schutzenmeister]

4.5.1??? I'm not sure I see how that would apply, George ...

[Skydiver]

I think George sees dropping the mag on the step pad as interfering with range equipment.

I tend to see as dropping a mag on the step pad is okay, but pulling on (stepping on, or tripping on) the cable that attaches the step pad to the activated target as interfering. (I know it's a bit arbitrary. )

Imagine a step pad that activates two disappearing targets simultaneously, one could instead of stepping on the pad, first pull on the left cable to activate the first target, and then pull on the right cable to activate the second one. It'll be a little hard to say that the targets were not activated since the targets obviously activated.

Or alternately step on one of the cables, then step on the step pad: engage the first disappearing target, than at your leisure, index on the next target and lift the foot. In this case, I don't think that an argument can made that the targets were not activated, they were just "interfered with".

[George Jones]

CHA-LEE said "throwing", not "dropping". Rule 4.5.1 says "at anytime".

I have no problem with a dropped mag, although it might just be a premature activation (4.6.1). Throwing a mag at an activator is something else altogether.

As to "fondling the cables", I would say "STOP!" due to premature activation and call the RM. Then, I suspect the shooter would have to reshoot with a Forbidden Action in effect.

[Schutzenmeister]

CHA-LEE said "throwing", not "dropping". Rule 4.5.1 says "at anytime".

I have no problem with a dropped mag, although it might just be a premature activation (4.6.1). Throwing a mag at an activator is something else altogether.

As to "fondling the cables", I would say "STOP!" due to premature activation and call the RM. Then, I suspect the shooter would have to reshoot with a Forbidden Action in effect.

I'm not entirely convinced that "throwing" or "dropping" a mag to activate the pad is covered under 4.5.1 ... I don't necessarily see this as "interferring" with the prop (a key requirement under 4.5.1), but perhaps a creative approach. (I'm not 100% sure of that answer, either! This may be a case for a FA ... Though I am still loath to invoke that rule.)

I would disagree with the FA for "fondling the cables" ... I see that as a clear case of unsportsmanlike conduct and would strongly consider invoking 10.6.1 ... JMHO.

[George Jones]

I'm not entirely convinced that "throwing" or "dropping" a mag to activate the pad is covered under 4.5.1 ... I don't necessarily see this as "interferring" with the prop (a key requirement under 4.5.1), but perhaps a creative approach. (I'm not 100% sure of that answer, either! This may be a case for a FA ... Though I am still loath to invoke that rule.)

I would disagree with the FA for "fondling the cables" ... I see that as a clear case of unsportsmanlike conduct and would strongly consider invoking 10.6.1 ... JMHO.

I'm not a big fan of FA either, except for safety issues. But, it can be all that's left prior to going to a 10.6 DQ.

For me, a 10.6 DQ means I have to have evidence of shooter intent. I don't read minds well and the intent of "fondling" can be in the eye of the beholder.

[Flexmoney]

Plenty of precedent of shooters using mags to activate stomp pads , open window and such.

If 4.5.1 applied at "any time" then we'd never get the activator activated.

I tend to see as dropping a mag on the step pad is okay, but pulling on (stepping on, or tripping on) the cable that attaches the step pad to the activated target as interfering. (I know it's a bit arbitrary. )

Right. And, not so arbitrary. I'd have to go read up, but I believe we would cover this "activate the mechanism" (9.9.3?) In this case, the stomp pad would clearly be "the mechanism".

[Singlestack]

Plenty of precedent of shooters using mags to activate stomp pads , open window and such.

If 4.5.1 applied at "any time" then we'd never get the activator activated.

I tend to see as dropping a mag on the step pad is okay, but pulling on (stepping on, or tripping on) the cable that attaches the step pad to the activated target as interfering. (I know it's a bit arbitrary. )

Right. And, not so arbitrary. I'd have to go read up, but I believe we would cover this "activate the mechanism" (9.9.3?) In this case, the stomp pad would clearly be "the mechanism".

And unless specifically spelled out in the WSB how to "activate the mechanism", it's up to the shooter what to do.

[Skydiver]

Plenty of precedent of shooters using mags to activate stomp pads , open window and such.

If 4.5.1 applied at "any time" then we'd never get the activator activated.

I tend to see as dropping a mag on the step pad is okay, but pulling on (stepping on, or tripping on) the cable that attaches the step pad to the activated target as interfering. (I know it's a bit arbitrary. )

Right. And, not so arbitrary. I'd have to go read up, but I believe we would cover this "activate the mechanism" (9.9.3?) In this case, the stomp pad would clearly be "the mechanism".

And unless specifically spelled out in the WSB how to "activate the mechanism", it's up to the shooter what to do.

Yup. You may have the shooter who trains with Cirque du Soleil decide that tumbling forward and hitting the step pad with his hand/shoulder/back/knee maybe more efficient than stepping on the pad.

[Schutzenmeister]

[...]

For me, a 10.6 DQ means I have to have evidence of shooter intent. I don't read minds well and the intent of "fondling" can be in the eye of the beholder.

I agree ... I can't read minds either. I've always been taught to read actions and make a determination based on them. A shooter who, in your example, reaches down and "fondles" the cables by hand clearly does not so do by accident. The only other logical inference is that he "intended" to "fondle" them. Hence, in the instant case, I would be satisfied the prerequisit "intent" had been present.