motosapiens Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Add to that the "take it or leave it" attitude from Joyce and the fact that the sport is being guided by Marksman classified shooters and dinosaurs from the "tactical" training realm who went out of their way to run off the competitive shooter I've only been shooting competitively a couple years, but that was also the impression I got. Which is fine... I'm not bitter about it, I probably would never have discovered competitive shooting without IDPA. I still think it's a good venue for newcomers to competitive shooting who may not have 8713984709812374 magazines and a race belt and spandex shirt and cleats and stuff. I would love to see IDPA find its way again because we have 2 great clubs locally with wonderful people who put on wonderful matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTDMFR Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 What if an HTN resulted in an automatic DNF instead of a measly 5 seconds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I think that would be fine for gunfighting school or police academy training, but is severe for a sporting event. It would run people off faster than a standing reload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Tompkins Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 After shooting IDPA for several years and being an MD for about 3 years I think to many IDPA "leaders" lose sight of the fact its a GAME, just a GAME. The more you write rules to restrict shooters flexibility to find different / faster ways to play the GAME the more they will leave the sport. The more subjective SO calls become the more shooters will leave. IMHO the last rules revision hurt the sport. Many of the suggestions I saw will help improve the game, others not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RePete Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I tried to get on an hour ago and they have closed the suggestions. It's still the 6th until midnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Nesbitt Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I got in this afternoon and there were 1274 suggestions. Looks like over 400 of them were to free the feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1274 suggestions...to me that would indicate that the rules in their current form are just not that big of a problem to the vast majority of IDPA shooters. Those of us wanting a little tweaking to the rule book are clearly in the minority. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ES13Raven Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 This website tallied the results: http://idpamembersuggestions.azurewebsites.net/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Koski Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) # of suggestions: 1288 # of people : 534 Avg # of suggestions per person: 2.41 1 5 1.1.2. 1 1.1.3. 1 1.1.4. 1 1.1.5. 1 1.1.6. 1 1.1.7. 1 1.2.1. 1 1.2.3. 1 1.2.4. 1 1.3.2.3. 1 1.3.2.4. 1 1.3.2.5. 3 1.3.2.8. 1 2 9 2.1. 2 2.2.1. 1 2.2.1.1. 1 2.2.3. 2 2.2.4. 2 2.3.3. 1 2.6. 1 2.6.1. 3 2.8. 1 2.9.2.2. 1 2.10. 1 2.10.7. 3 2.11. 2 2.11.2. 1 2.12. 1 2.12.3.1 3 2.12.3.2. 2 2.12.8. 2 2.12.9. 1 2.12.10. 1 2.12.11. 1 2.14. 1 2.15. 1 3 11 3.1. 1 3.1.1. 1 3.2. 8 3.3. 13 3.3.1. 1 3.4.1. 3 3.4.2. 1 3.4.3. 1 3.4.3.2. 1 3.5. 16 3.5.1. 19 3.5.2. 8 3.5.3. 2 3.6. 15 3.6.1. 1 3.7. 15 3.7.1. 4 3.7.2. 12 3.8. 28 3.8.1 1 3.8.2 7 3.8.4 1 3.8.6. 1 3.8.7.2. 1 3.9. 146 3.9.1. 95 3.9.2. 25 3.9.4. 152 3.9.4.1. 1 3.10. 8 3.11. 2 3.11.2. 2 3.12. 1 3.13. 1 3.14. 1 3.15. 1 3.16. 1 3.17. 2 3.19. 1 3.19.2. 1 3.19.3. 1 3.19.4. 1 3.19.5. 2 3.20.1. 2 3.20.2. 1 3.21.13. 2 3.22. 2 3.22.4. 2 3.22.15. 1 4 3 4.0.1. 1 4.0.2. 21 4.1. 4 4.2.1. 3 4.2.2. 1 4.3. 2 4.3.1. 2 4.4. 1 4.4.1. 2 4.4.3. 1 4.5. 1 4.6. 1 4.7. 2 4.8.1. 1 4.9. 1 4.9.1. 1 4.9.2. 1 4.9.3. 1 4.11. 1 4.11.2. 2 4.13. 1 4.14. 5 4.16. 6 4.16.2. 1 4.17. 1 4.17.1. 1 4.17.4. 1 4.17.5. 1 4.17.7.1. 1 4.17.7.5. 1 4.17.7.8. 1 4.19. 2 4.22. 4 4.23. 1 4.24.6. 1 4.24.8. 1 4.24.9.5. 1 5 7 5.1. 3 5.1.1. 2 5.1.2. 3 5.1.3. 2 5.1.4. 1 5.1.5. 2 5.2. 2 5.3. 1 5.4. 3 5.5. 3 5.6. 2 5.7. 1 6 7 6.1.1. 3 6.1.3. 7 6.1.5. 1 6.2. 1 6.2.1. 2 6.2.2. 2 6.3. 35 6.4. 1 6.7. 1 6.8. 1 6.9. 5 6.9.1. 1 6.9.2. 5 6.10. 2 6.11. 4 6.12. 1 6.13. 11 6.16. 1 6.21. 5 6.23. 2 6.24. 2 6.25.1. 1 6.25.2. 1 7 3 7.0.1. 3 7.0.1.1. 1 7.0.1.4. 2 7.1. 2 8 6 8.1. 3 8.1.1.1. 11 8.1.1.2. 5 8.1.2.1. 1 8.1.2.3. 2 8.1.3.3. 1 8.1.3.4. 1 8.1.3.5. 1 8.1.4. 1 8.1.6.3. 2 8.1.7. 2 8.1.7.1. 1 8.1.7.3. 2 8.1.7.4. 4 8.1.7.5. 5 8.1.7.6. 3 8.1.7.7. 3 8.2. 14 8.2.1. 7 8.2.1.1. 2 8.2.1.1.1. 3 8.2.1.1.2. 2 8.2.1.1.3. 1 8.2.1.1.4. 4 8.2.1.1.5. 3 8.2.1.1.6. 2 8.2.1.2. 1 8.2.1.2.3. 2 8.2.1.3. 1 8.2.1.3.3. 1 8.2.1.3.4. 1 8.2.1.3.12. 1 8.2.1.3.16. 2 8.2.1.4. 1 8.2.1.4.5. 1 8.2.1.4.9. 2 8.2.1.4.12. 2 8.2.2 2 8.2.2.1.3. 3 8.2.2.1.6.1. 2 8.2.2.1.7. 2 8.2.2.2.1. 2 8.2.2.2.9. 1 8.2.2.2.18. 1 8.2.2.2.21. 1 8.2.2.2.24. 1 8.2.2.3. 1 8.2.2.3.1. 7 8.2.2.3.2. 1 8.2.2.3.3. 1 8.2.3. 9 8.2.3.1.2. 16 8.2.3.1.3. 1 8.2.3.3. 1 8.2.4. 1 8.2.4.1.3. 1 8.2.4.1.4. 2 8.2.4.3.2. 2 8.2.5.1.1. 2 8.2.5.1.3. 1 8.2.5.1.4. 3 8.2.5.1.5. 2 8.2.5.1.6. 1 8.2.5.2.5. 1 8.2.5.3.2. 1 8.2.6. 4 8.2.6.1. 6 8.2.6.2.1.4. 1 8.2.6.3. 1 8.2.7. 1 8.3.0.1. 1 8.3.1. 5 8.3.1.2. 1 8.3.1.3. 1 8.3.1.4. 6 8.3.2. 2 8.3.2.1.1. 3 8.3.2.1.2. 3 8.3.2.1.4. 1 8.3.2.2.2. 1 8.4. 1 8.5.1.2. 1 8.5.1.17. 2 8.5.1.18.1. 1 8.5.1.18.2. 1 8.5.1.18.4. 13 8.6.1.2. 1 8.6.1.5. 1 8.6.2.5. 1 8.6.2.7. 6 8.6.3. 1 8.6.3.2. 4 8.6.3.5. 1 8.7.8. 1 8.8. 2 8.8.1. 2 8.8.1.1. 1 8.8.1.2. 40 8.8.2. 1 8.8.4.2. 2 8.8.4.4. 2 8.9.3. 1 8.9.4. 1 9 3 9.0.1. 1 9.2.1. 8 9.4.2. 1 9.6. 2 9.7. 2 9.7.5. 1 9.7.6. 2 10 1 10.4. 2 10.4.2. 1 10.5. 2 10.6. 1 10.6.2. 2 11 2 11.2.5. 1 11.3 1 MA1.1 1 MA1.1.2. 1 MA1.1.4. 2 MA1.1.5. 1 MA1.2. 2 MA1.2.1. 1 MA1.2.1.1.5. 2 MA1.2.1.2. 1 MA1.2.1.2.11. 2 MA1.2.1.5.10. 1 MA1.2.1.5.17. 1 MA1.2.3. 10 MA1.2.4. 2 MA1.2.4.8. 1 MA1.2.4.10. 6 MA1.4.1.13. 1 MA2.2.1.5. 1 MA3.10 1 Well that didn't turn out very pretty. Edited October 9, 2014 by Steve Koski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1274 suggestions...to me that would indicate that the rules in their current form are just not that big of a problem to the vast majority of IDPA shooters. Those of us wanting a little tweaking to the rule book are clearly in the minority. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it... I know you like to defend everything IDPA inc does, but I would come to the exact opposite conclusion. Since only a small percentage of shooters is really that active on web forums, that many suggestions indicates to me that the last rulebook revision was a complete disaster. I'd guess it's hitting their bottom line at IDPA inc, which is why they've suddenly switched their stance from "if you don't like it, GTFO" to "Hey, we could use some suggestions for how to make more money." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Tompkins Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1274 suggestions...to me that would indicate that the rules in their current form are just not that big of a problem to the vast majority of IDPA shooters. Those of us wanting a little tweaking to the rule book are clearly in the minority. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it... Sir, you either an IDPA shill or you have mastered the art of subtle sarcasm. I chose the latter. Bravo. I wonder how many others took the cynical route that I followed and said “someone else made the comment I’d have made so I won’t bother, they’ll ignore it anyway”. Now if there were a VOTE on a rule change, I’d say early and often! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Agree with motosapiens and Rob. If they don't take the high proportion of objections to the standing reload seriously, they are missing the boat. I know a lot of people who complain of it but do not follow the boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1274 suggestions...to me that would indicate that the rules in their current form are just not that big of a problem to the vast majority of IDPA shooters. Those of us wanting a little tweaking to the rule book are clearly in the minority. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it... I know you like to defend everything IDPA inc does, but I would come to the exact opposite conclusion. Since only a small percentage of shooters is really that active on web forums, that many suggestions indicates to me that the last rulebook revision was a complete disaster. I'd guess it's hitting their bottom line at IDPA inc, which is why they've suddenly switched their stance from "if you don't like it, GTFO" to "Hey, we could use some suggestions for how to make more money." What exactly do "web forums" have to do with the suggestion process? The suggestion procedure was sent out to all IDPA members via email, not just the ones on the forums. All members had an opportunity to make suggestions if they saw the need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1274 suggestions...to me that would indicate that the rules in their current form are just not that big of a problem to the vast majority of IDPA shooters. Those of us wanting a little tweaking to the rule book are clearly in the minority. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it... Sir, you either an IDPA shill or you have mastered the art of subtle sarcasm. I chose the latter. Bravo. I wonder how many others took the cynical route that I followed and said “someone else made the comment I’d have made so I won’t bother, they’ll ignore it anyway”. Now if there were a VOTE on a rule change, I’d say early and often! I'd bet that number is considerable. I did make a suggestion, even though it was a duplicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) 1274 suggestions...to me that would indicate that the rules in their current form are just not that big of a problem to the vast majority of IDPA shooters. Those of us wanting a little tweaking to the rule book are clearly in the minority. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it... I know you like to defend everything IDPA inc does, but I would come to the exact opposite conclusion. Since only a small percentage of shooters is really that active on web forums, that many suggestions indicates to me that the last rulebook revision was a complete disaster. I'd guess it's hitting their bottom line at IDPA inc, which is why they've suddenly switched their stance from "if you don't like it, GTFO" to "Hey, we could use some suggestions for how to make more money." What exactly do "web forums" have to do with the suggestion process? The suggestion procedure was sent out to all IDPA members via email, not just the ones on the forums. All members had an opportunity to make suggestions if they saw the need. over 500 members is a HUGE response to an internet based survey. The vast majority of people are too lazy to respond. It's safe to say that 10 times that many or more agree those responses. At any rate, the mere fact that IDPA inc chose to have a survey indicates that the rules disaster has been costing them money. Perusing the local results shows a pretty steep dropoff in attendance. Edited October 9, 2014 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Agree with motosapiens and Rob. If they don't take the high proportion of objections to the standing reload seriously, they are missing the boat. I know a lot of people who complain of it but do not follow the boards. Its just like voting...if they don't want to get involved in the process to change the status-quo when given the opportunity, then they have little right to complain about the changes or lack of them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1274 suggestions...to me that would indicate that the rules in their current form are just not that big of a problem to the vast majority of IDPA shooters. Those of us wanting a little tweaking to the rule book are clearly in the minority. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it... I know you like to defend everything IDPA inc does, but I would come to the exact opposite conclusion. Since only a small percentage of shooters is really that active on web forums, that many suggestions indicates to me that the last rulebook revision was a complete disaster. I'd guess it's hitting their bottom line at IDPA inc, which is why they've suddenly switched their stance from "if you don't like it, GTFO" to "Hey, we could use some suggestions for how to make more money." What exactly do "web forums" have to do with the suggestion process? The suggestion procedure was sent out to all IDPA members via email, not just the ones on the forums. All members had an opportunity to make suggestions if they saw the need. over 500 members is a HUGE response to an internet based survey. The vast majority of people are too lazy to respond. It's safe to say that 10 times that many or more agree those responses. Seriously? That's way less than 3% of their stated membership. That doesn't seem like a "huge response" to me, but I'm sure no statistician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1274 suggestions...to me that would indicate that the rules in their current form are just not that big of a problem to the vast majority of IDPA shooters. Those of us wanting a little tweaking to the rule book are clearly in the minority. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it... I know you like to defend everything IDPA inc does, but I would come to the exact opposite conclusion. Since only a small percentage of shooters is really that active on web forums, that many suggestions indicates to me that the last rulebook revision was a complete disaster. I'd guess it's hitting their bottom line at IDPA inc, which is why they've suddenly switched their stance from "if you don't like it, GTFO" to "Hey, we could use some suggestions for how to make more money." What exactly do "web forums" have to do with the suggestion process? The suggestion procedure was sent out to all IDPA members via email, not just the ones on the forums. All members had an opportunity to make suggestions if they saw the need. over 500 members is a HUGE response to an internet based survey. The vast majority of people are too lazy to respond. It's safe to say that 10 times that many or more agree those responses. Seriously? That's way less than 3% of their stated membership. That doesn't seem like a "huge response" to me, but I'm sure no statistician. I think we can agree on that. If you had some experience with web/email based surveys it would be more obvious to you. I have no doubt you would continue to pretend everything is going well tho, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I have a feeling that after the response to the last input period "we hear you but you are wrong we are right" many just didn't bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1274 suggestions...to me that would indicate that the rules in their current form are just not that big of a problem to the vast majority of IDPA shooters. Those of us wanting a little tweaking to the rule book are clearly in the minority. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it... I know you like to defend everything IDPA inc does, but I would come to the exact opposite conclusion. Since only a small percentage of shooters is really that active on web forums, that many suggestions indicates to me that the last rulebook revision was a complete disaster. I'd guess it's hitting their bottom line at IDPA inc, which is why they've suddenly switched their stance from "if you don't like it, GTFO" to "Hey, we could use some suggestions for how to make more money." What exactly do "web forums" have to do with the suggestion process? The suggestion procedure was sent out to all IDPA members via email, not just the ones on the forums. All members had an opportunity to make suggestions if they saw the need. over 500 members is a HUGE response to an internet based survey. The vast majority of people are too lazy to respond. It's safe to say that 10 times that many or more agree those responses. Seriously? That's way less than 3% of their stated membership. That doesn't seem like a "huge response" to me, but I'm sure no statistician. I think we can agree on that. If you had some experience with web/email based surveys it would be more obvious to you. I have no doubt you would continue to pretend everything is going well tho, Not sure of the reason for that comment, but whatever... Like I said, I made a suggestion also. I don't think the rule book is perfect...far from it. But I also don't think that the complaints on a web forum mainly geared toward USPSA shooting is necessarily indicative of the IDPA membership as a whole. It's difficult to accurately judge the real reasons for member apathy regarding the rules. Maybe they don't think anything will change; maybe they didn't want to duplicate a suggestion that was already made. There are a host of possible reasons that more suggestions were not made. But I don't think that anyone should completely discount the possibility that for many members the rules are acceptable as they are. Most are not serious or hard core competitors. IDPA's demographic studies indicate that the majority are SS or MM in classification, and are "older" (50ish) shooters. Many people in "that" (my) age group are used to simply following whatever the rules are and enjoying the game for what it is. Can IDPA be changed for the better? Absolutely! Is it a deal-killer that would cause most folks to not support the sport? It sure doesn't appear that way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Like I said, I made a suggestion also. I don't think the rule book is perfect...far from it. But I also don't think that the complaints on a web forum mainly geared toward USPSA shooting is necessarily indicative of the IDPA membership as a whole. It's difficult to accurately judge the real reasons for member apathy regarding the rules. Maybe they don't think anything will change; maybe they didn't want to duplicate a suggestion that was already made. There are a host of possible reasons that more suggestions were not made. But I don't think that anyone should completely discount the possibility that for many members the rules are acceptable as they are. Most are not serious or hard core competitors. IDPA's demographic studies indicate that the majority are SS or MM in classification, and are "older" (50ish) shooters. Many people in "that" (my) age group are used to simply following whatever the rules are and enjoying the game for what it is. Can IDPA be changed for the better? Absolutely! Is it a deal-killer that would cause most folks to not support the sport? It sure doesn't appear that way... member apathy? lol. You are in serious denial. I don't know if the numbers I'm seeing locally are reflected in other places too, but if they are, they may indeed be a deal-killer, and that's why IDPA inc is suddenly backtracking and admitting the disaster. Hopefully it's not too little/too late. I'd like to see IDPA succeed but there's little question they've been headed the wrong direction the last year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Like I said, I made a suggestion also. I don't think the rule book is perfect...far from it. But I also don't think that the complaints on a web forum mainly geared toward USPSA shooting is necessarily indicative of the IDPA membership as a whole. It's difficult to accurately judge the real reasons for member apathy regarding the rules. Maybe they don't think anything will change; maybe they didn't want to duplicate a suggestion that was already made. There are a host of possible reasons that more suggestions were not made. But I don't think that anyone should completely discount the possibility that for many members the rules are acceptable as they are. Most are not serious or hard core competitors. IDPA's demographic studies indicate that the majority are SS or MM in classification, and are "older" (50ish) shooters. Many people in "that" (my) age group are used to simply following whatever the rules are and enjoying the game for what it is. Can IDPA be changed for the better? Absolutely! Is it a deal-killer that would cause most folks to not support the sport? It sure doesn't appear that way... member apathy? lol. You are in serious denial. I don't know if the numbers I'm seeing locally are reflected in other places too, but if they are, they may indeed be a deal-killer, and that's why IDPA inc is suddenly backtracking and admitting the disaster. Hopefully it's not too little/too late. I'd like to see IDPA succeed but there's little question they've been headed the wrong direction the last year or so. Denial? Less than 3% of the total membership chose to suggest any rule changes when given the opportunity. To me that indicates that not many people (percentage-wise) are dissatisfied enough with the rules to get involved in the potential change process. Apathy is defined as unconcerned or indifferent...sounds pretty accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Like I said, I made a suggestion also. I don't think the rule book is perfect...far from it. But I also don't think that the complaints on a web forum mainly geared toward USPSA shooting is necessarily indicative of the IDPA membership as a whole. It's difficult to accurately judge the real reasons for member apathy regarding the rules. Maybe they don't think anything will change; maybe they didn't want to duplicate a suggestion that was already made. There are a host of possible reasons that more suggestions were not made. But I don't think that anyone should completely discount the possibility that for many members the rules are acceptable as they are. Most are not serious or hard core competitors. IDPA's demographic studies indicate that the majority are SS or MM in classification, and are "older" (50ish) shooters. Many people in "that" (my) age group are used to simply following whatever the rules are and enjoying the game for what it is. Can IDPA be changed for the better? Absolutely! Is it a deal-killer that would cause most folks to not support the sport? It sure doesn't appear that way... member apathy? lol. You are in serious denial. I don't know if the numbers I'm seeing locally are reflected in other places too, but if they are, they may indeed be a deal-killer, and that's why IDPA inc is suddenly backtracking and admitting the disaster. Hopefully it's not too little/too late. I'd like to see IDPA succeed but there's little question they've been headed the wrong direction the last year or so. Denial? Less than 3% of the total membership chose to suggest any rule changes when given the opportunity. To me that indicates that not many people (percentage-wise) are dissatisfied enough with the rules to get involved in the potential change process. Apathy is defined as unconcerned or indifferent...sounds pretty accurate. As I've already mentioned, as someone with a background in statistics and surveys, 3% is a pretty large response for an internet-based survey. I know you don't believe that, and that's ok. You are simply wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Like I said, I made a suggestion also. I don't think the rule book is perfect...far from it. But I also don't think that the complaints on a web forum mainly geared toward USPSA shooting is necessarily indicative of the IDPA membership as a whole. It's difficult to accurately judge the real reasons for member apathy regarding the rules. Maybe they don't think anything will change; maybe they didn't want to duplicate a suggestion that was already made. There are a host of possible reasons that more suggestions were not made. But I don't think that anyone should completely discount the possibility that for many members the rules are acceptable as they are. Most are not serious or hard core competitors. IDPA's demographic studies indicate that the majority are SS or MM in classification, and are "older" (50ish) shooters. Many people in "that" (my) age group are used to simply following whatever the rules are and enjoying the game for what it is. Can IDPA be changed for the better? Absolutely! Is it a deal-killer that would cause most folks to not support the sport? It sure doesn't appear that way... member apathy? lol. You are in serious denial. I don't know if the numbers I'm seeing locally are reflected in other places too, but if they are, they may indeed be a deal-killer, and that's why IDPA inc is suddenly backtracking and admitting the disaster. Hopefully it's not too little/too late. I'd like to see IDPA succeed but there's little question they've been headed the wrong direction the last year or so. Denial? Less than 3% of the total membership chose to suggest any rule changes when given the opportunity. To me that indicates that not many people (percentage-wise) are dissatisfied enough with the rules to get involved in the potential change process. Apathy is defined as unconcerned or indifferent...sounds pretty accurate. As I've already mentioned, as someone with a background in statistics and surveys, 3% is a pretty large response for an internet-based survey. I know you don't believe that, and that's ok. You are simply wrong. Here's a site that shows maybe I'm not as wrong as you suggest: http://www.joe.org/joe/2008june/rb3.php This site indicates that the average is considerably more than 3%... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joninwv Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Having been part of many surveys (and being a software engineer by trade) most people are happy if they get a couple percent of people to respond. I would say the 3% or so from this survey is pretty average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now