Multi string stage with target engagement order issue

[Nik Habicht]

We're talking about a classifier here -- so there's absolutely no gaming allowed.......

And yes, sometimes there are inherent possible conflicts in the rulebook -- that's why we have an RM, who can decide on the least bad of a list of bad options......

I think you'd agree that obtaining an accurate score matters -- why else would you be participating in the discussion? The shooter in question here should have shot T2 only on that first string. He shot T1 instead and stopped. You can't seriously argue that him shooting T2&T3 on the second string and having us score that after both strings are shot is equitable to all of the other competitors in the same division who managed to shoot the COF correctly?

[austex]

We're talking about a classifier here -- so there's absolutely no gaming allowed.......

What? I'm starting to think I've been baited, but I'm in too deep now to get out.

In USPSA, the name of the game is gaming. In everything, even classifiers, as long as the sport's liberal rules are not violated.

And yes, sometimes there are inherent possible conflicts in the rulebook -- that's why we have an RM, who can decide on the least bad of a list of bad options......

There's no conflict in the rulebook here. The rulebook has an express, unambiguous, internally consistent provision in rule 6.1.1. setting forth the procedure for scoring multi-string stages. The only conflict comes from choosing to ignore that provision.

I think you'd agree that obtaining an accurate score matters -- why else would you be participating in the discussion? The shooter in question here should have shot T2 only on that first string. He shot T1 instead and stopped. You can't seriously argue that him shooting T2&T3 on the second string and having us score that after both strings are shot is equitable to all of the other competitors in the same division who managed to shoot the COF correctly?

Absolutely agree that an accurate score as prescribed by the rulebook matters. And absolutely think the rulebook requires scoring the targets after the COF, not between strings. The rulebook can handle this situation equitably without ignoring 6.1.1. The shooter would have no extra hits, no extra shots, no mikes, and no failures to shoot at. Instead, the shooter would get a procedural for string 1 for not engaging the arrays as required, and a procedural for string 2 for not engaging the arrays as required. If you really think the shooter got a significant advantage, you could impose per-shot procedurals for string 1. To me, though, that seems excessive. All the shooter saved was an 6' in turn sweep from T1 to T2. A loss of 20 points on a 90 point stage seems enough to offset that 6'.

[Nik Habicht]

We're talking about a classifier here -- so there's absolutely no gaming allowed.......

What? I'm starting to think I've been baited, but I'm in too deep now to get out.

In USPSA, the name of the game is gaming. In everything, even classifiers, as long as the sport's liberal rules are not violated.

Nope you're not being baited -- apparently you are ignorant of the introduction to the National Classifier Course Book -- which provides guidance on administration and set-up of classifiers. To quote:

Practical shooting is distinct from other shooting disciplines in that the responsibility for determining the best, safe solution to the problem presented by a course of fire is the competitor’s. In other words, practical shooting intends to test the ability to think in addition to testing the ability to shoot rapidly and accurately. That intent is formalized in the Practical Shooting Handbook, in which IPSC 1.1.5 says, “IPSC matches are freestyle.” It is, however, necessary to establish an exception in the case of the classification system. The classification system is able to determine a competitor’s accuracy and speed as those abilities are quantifiable. The system is not able to measure the ability to “game” a stage as those intangible skills are not quantifiable. If competitors are allowed to outsmart the classification course designer the results are meaningless.

The primary responsibility for honoring this concept of fairness as it applies to the classification system lies with the competitor. The secondary responsibility is that of the match directors and range officers to ensure that the stages are run properly. If the stage description leaves any doubt as to the proper procedure, please call the office for clarification before the match.

That language has been in the NCCB since I started in the sport, and it remains unchanged in the current 2013 4th edition.

As a result, if I was officiating a competitor's run of this particular classifier, and the competitor engaged T1 with six rounds, I would have no choice but to score T2 with 6 misses, irrespective of whether the competitor attempted to fix his error on the next string. I can't ignore what I see after string 1. To do so, would be to disadvantage every other competitor in the division, as well as to allow the competitor to generate a classifier score and resulting percentage that does not accurately reflect what happened.

BTW -- we've lost classifiers before for that reason -- because it came out after multiple sets of scores had been uploaded to the database, that match directors were allowing them to be gamed. That hurts all of us......

And I'll maintain that Chapter 6.1 is nothing but a set of definitions -- as opposed to rules -- because the heading tells me so, and because the language used is different from language used in later sections of Chapter 6.....

[austex]

Nope you're not being baited -- apparently you are ignorant of the introduction to the National Classifier Course Book -- which provides guidance on administration and set-up of classifiers.

I’m aware of the NCCB introduction, just don’t think it has any application here. It’s not the rulebook.

The NCCB says that “[e]very possible effort has been made to ensure that all the stages in this book are ‘game proof.’” It also says that the “system is not able to measure the ability to ‘game’ a stage as those intangible skills are not quantifiable,” and for that reason the freestyle rule 1.1.5 doesn’t apply to classifiers. It doesn’t say a competitor must execute the COF exactly as written, or get a zero score—the true “no gaming” solution. It doesn’t even say a competitor can’t try to improve his score on a classifier after making a mistake, for example by making up a mike in one string by taking an extra shot on the next string and taking a penalty for the extra shot. More importantly, the NCCB gives absolute no specifics on how to actually score multi-string COFs. Instead, the NCCB at most expresses the underlying philosophy of the stage designs and their administration.

In contrast, the “General Principles” of section 6.1 are much more specific, giving the precise procedure for multi-string standards in section 6.1.1.

As a result, if I was officiating a competitor's run of this particular classifier, and the competitor engaged T1 with six rounds, I would have no choice but to score T2 with 6 misses, irrespective of whether the competitor attempted to fix his error on the next string. I can't ignore what I see after string 1. To do so, would be to disadvantage every other competitor in the division, as well as to allow the competitor to generate a classifier score and resulting percentage that does not accurately reflect what happened.

BTW -- we've lost classifiers before for that reason -- because it came out after multiple sets of scores had been uploaded to the database, that match directors were allowing them to be gamed. That hurts all of us......

I can imagine what the arbitration request would look like: “Rule 6.1.1 states that scores and penalties are recorded following completion of the course of fire, unless the course of fire specifies otherwise. This COF does not specify otherwise. The RO, however insisted on scoring after the first string instead of after completion of the COF. When I asked why, the RO said 6.1.1 was only a definition and didn’t require him to do anything because it wasn’t in Chapter 9, but that the NCCB required him to score after the first string for fairness. So he ignored a clear, specific rule in the rule book because it isn’t in Chapter 9, and instead looked completely outside the rule book to a different document to come up with some vague, ambiguous language about fairness but no specifics on scoring multi-string stages. I want a reshoot and to be scored at completion of the COF.” If I were the shooter being buried by all of the procedurals you want to impose, I’d put up the arbitration fee without hesitation, at any match level.

In our hypothetical, imposing 2 procedurals accurately reflects what happened under the current rules. Imposing 20 points in procedural penalties on a 90 point stage surely doesn’t disadvantage any other shooters in the division. For two competitors shooting this COF and getting the maximum 90 points, the one shooting the arrays wrong and getting 2 procedurals would have to shoot it 2/9 as fast to get the same hit factor. Another topic on this forum indicates that the HHF for CM 13-04 in limited may be about 12, giving a 100% time for 90 points of 7.5 seconds. At the 100% level, then, the screw-up shooter would have to shoot the COF 1.67 seconds faster to get the same percentage HF. The screw-up shooter only benefited by shortening the transition to T3 in string 2 (if there were any benefit), because the start-position-to-first-shot transition was merely transposed between the strings—certainly there’s no 1.67 second benefit, or anything even close to that. Switching the engagements of T1 and T2 between strings 1 and 2 hardly offers a winning gaming strategy.

Edited January 20, 2014 by austex