Timeframe allowed for reviewing new rules

[Neil Beverley]

Had this approach been used with the Handgun Rules, we would have saved hours of typing and no one knows how much discussion from the too quick adoption of rules. Thank you BOD, this is the way it should be done!

The IPSC rules were posted on the USPSA web site last year for some considerable time in a special section and comments were invited and discussed. Indeed a number of changes were made as a result. Eventually a date had to be set for final comments and a line was drawn.

Additionally there were a number of discussions on these forums and Vince posted links so all could access the rules for consideration.

[Jim Norman]

Neil,

When were the "FINAL" Ipsc rules accepted.

And since most of us here in the USA shoot USPSA, not IPSC, there area lot of people that don't ever visit the IPSC site.

It is my understanding that he actual FINAL rules were not adopted until after the GA in Sept 2003, that there was some "tweaking" of wording after the vote and that the final edition came into being in Novemeber.

I do not have any problem with that. I don't care if IPSC Changes its rules every match. I care about how USPSA handles rules updates. And I think it was handled poorly, esecialy in light of the manner in which the new MG rules are being introduced. I don't think we needed a two year review, but I do think that a "Final" set should have been made availalbe and presented tothe membership wit h a 3-6 month comment period, after which we would have accepted the final rules with certain changes, or as originally presented depending upon the resultrs of the comment period.

Seems you all over in IPSC land had 9 months with your new rule book to make comments, we had no months. We all assumed to some degree that we would have exceptions and exemptions to "Stupid" rules. We were wrong. Guess what, we won't make that mistake again.

Now, lets turn this thread BACK TO TOPIC, it is about the MG RUles.

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

Had this approach been used with the Handgun Rules, we would have saved hours of typing and no one knows how much discussion from the too quick adoption of rules.

In your opening post above, you cast the first stone by taking yet another swing at the Handgun Rules and the vetting process, and Neil responded to your allegations accurately and courteously.

Moreover, if you care to examine this link (USPSA Members Only password required), you will see that Neil is 100% correct in that many other USPSA members managed to find the draft rules and make comments thereon as early as May 2003, and that's three months before the final draft rules were presented to the General Assembly for consideration and ultimate adoption.

And, as Neil already stated, many comments submitted by USPSA members during that period resulted in changes being made to the draft rules.

Bottom line: You had 3 months to comment on rules which took 12 months to write, and I think that a 25% review period seems entirely reasonable to me. However since you didn't participate at the appropriate time, don't blame the system.

[shred]

I agree-- anybody that says "we didn't get to comment on the new USPSA rules" was asleep at the switch. The comment form and links thereto was posted both here and on the IPSC e-mail list, many times.

What I would have liked is a bit more feedback-- I posted many of my comments in the form of questions, but got nothing in reply.

[Vince Pinto]

What I would have liked is a bit more feedback-- I posted many of my comments in the form of questions, but got nothing in reply.

Since I was Chairman of the IPSC Handgun Rules Committee, I began replying to handgun rules questions and comments, in an effort to explain the rationale behind proposed changes, however I was asked to "cease and desist", which I did.

[Neil Beverley]

Neil,

When were the "FINAL" Ipsc rules accepted.

And since most of us here in the USA shoot USPSA, not IPSC, there area lot of people that don't ever visit the IPSC site.

It is my understanding that he actual FINAL rules were not adopted until after the GA in Sept 2003, that there was some "tweaking" of wording after the vote and that the final edition came into being in Novemeber.

I would like to respond to the query about the rules not being adopted until after the World Assembly.

The rules were adopted unanimously at the WA to become effective I January 2004. No changes that affected the meaning of any rule were permitted. However, the motion below was approved:

21. Motion:

That the IPSC Executive Council be allowed to make minor grammatical corrections to any spelling, punctuation and formatting errors in the Rules adopted above, providing such changes do not alter the meaning or intent of any rule. Likewise, rule cross references may be changed if clearly in error. Any such changes as a result of this motion are subject to ratification or modification at the next IPSC Assembly.

Moved: Germany Seconded: Brazil

Carried For-34 Against-O Abstain-2

The work was carried out by the rules committee and they then submitted their recommendations for approval.

[Nik Habicht]

What I would have liked is a bit more feedback-- I posted many of my comments in the form of questions, but got nothing in reply.

Since I was Chairman of the IPSC Handgun Rules Committee, I began replying to handgun rules questions and comments, in an effort to explain the rationale behind proposed changes, however I was asked to "cease and desist", which I did.

Vince,

can you tell us who asked you "to cease and desist," and offer any insight into why you were asked to stop responding?

[Nik Habicht]

Vince and Shred have that correct --- there was considerable discussion on this board, and folks here were actively encouraged to comment on the proposed rules, as they were being hashed out last year. I seem to remember similar threads from the IPSC list....

In addition, as a relativley new match director I was queried on the new rules, on more than occasion last fall, by George Jones, my area director, prior to the board meeting(s) were US rule ammendments were discussed and voted upon....

[Vince Pinto]

Vince, can you tell us who asked you "to cease and desist," and offer any insight into why you were asked to stop responding?

I'd prefer not to publicly identify the person (other than to say that he's a person of authority), because there's nothing to be gained by reopening old wounds - I was merely responding to Shred who asked why he never received an answer to his questions, at least from me. Also, given that the matter is "political", it's best not disussed here.

Anyway, as you can see from this example, I responded to comments because, apart from being the IPSC Handgun Rules guy, I was also the architect of that particular rule.

[Vince Pinto]

And since most of us here in the USA shoot USPSA, not IPSC, there area lot of people that don't ever visit the IPSC site.

What about the USPSA website? I did some digging and found that an announcement in respect of the new draft rules being available on the USPSA Member's website were made as follows:

• On the IPSC Digest on 17 May 2003
  

• On the BE Forums on 20 May 2003
  

As I said earlier, don't blame the system (either IPSC or USPSA). We all did our part.

[Nik Habicht]

I'd prefer not to publicly identify the person (other than to say that he's a person of authority)....

Vince,

fair enough --- it was mostly idle curiosity on my part anyway....

[bgary]

Hey, Vince!

Thanks for the info - and the email. I don't know why, but my email reply to you bounced, so I guess all I can do is thank you here for the heads up.

How are you? You never call, you never write.... ;-)

Bruce

[Vince Pinto]

Hi Bruce,

You're welcome, and I know you're as fed up as I am with the totally unjustified "lack of consultation" whining. I think Rob did a fantastic job in uploading the rules and providing a simple feedback interface.

Hey, maybe next time we could hire The Pony Express (Western Union?) to hand deliver a copy of the rules to the curmudgeons. You know - take the mountain to Mohammed.

Anyway, I don't know why your reply email bounced (insufficient postage?), but I've just tried again, so let's see if it works.

[bgary]

Nope, no joy on sending you email; I get one of two messages

This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:

Your message was not delivered because the return address was refused.

or

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

pinto@selpro.com.hk

(reason: 550 5.7.1 Mail from addresss has been block, not allowed to send messages.)

(expanded from: <pinto@ipsc.org>)

Not sure why. Did you put my name in your "reject" file? ;-)

Bruce

[Vince Pinto]

Bruce,

Please try emailing me directly at pinto@selpro.com.hk not by going through pinto@ipsc.org. I suspect the gremlins are back in residence in Toronto.

And sorry for the technical drift guys - I'll delete these messages shortly.