Member Proposed Rule Changes is now open!

[elguapo]

BillR1 I

V

Edited October 9, 2014 by elguapo

[BillR1]

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.

Interesting...and you can actually extrapolate the wishes of the majority from such a small sampling? I guess I learned something today.

[motosapiens]

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%...

If you think those results are pertinent, you may be even wronger than I suggested. That doesn't bother me however. The proof is in the pudding. IDPA participation appears to be down, and IDPA inc appears to be concerned about their income stream and the effect that the rule revision disaster had on that income stream.

[motosapiens]

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.

Interesting...and you can actually extrapolate the wishes of the majority from such a small sampling? I guess I learned something today.

In a random sample, yes, you could easily extrapoloate from 3% or far less.

However this is a non-random sample, so you are only getting the most tech-savvy and motivated respondents. Probably not picking up any of the folks who simply moved on to other shooting sports last year.

[joninwv]

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.

Interesting...and you can actually extrapolate the wishes of the majority from such a small sampling? I guess I learned something today.

How accurate are the results? Hard to say. But real companies and government organizations make decisions every day on this sort of data. Speaking from my own, direct, experience here...not even going to try to guess what IDPA will do with the results, or the weight they place on them.

[BillR1]

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.

Interesting...and you can actually extrapolate the wishes of the majority from such a small sampling? I guess I learned something today.

In a random sample, yes, you could easily extrapoloate from 3% or far less.

However this is a non-random sample, so you are only getting the most tech-savvy and motivated respondents. Probably not picking up any of the folks who simply moved on to other shooting sports last year.

Agreed. But you're also not picking up any/many of the new members that joined recently and have never known anything BUT FFRs and the current rules. I think you nailed it with "motivated". You got responses from people that were motivated or felt strongly enough to want changes. The rest of them are, for whatever reason, satisfied with the current rules/structure. Maybe they're not personally limited by doing an FFR or having to shoot .40s in SSP/ESP.

Edited October 9, 2014 by BillR1

[MWP]

I think people stopped caring when the organization made a comment about people can just move on along if they don't like it. 1 person in my club made a suggestion, the rest aren't motivated or tech-savvy enough to do it.

IDPA is a tough game to keep the motivated crowd as it is, so by definition, 500 is a huge response.

[elguapo]

I think people stopped caring when the organization made a comment about people can just move on along if they don't like it.

This

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

The knee pad/knee brace issue is one of fairness. Seldom will you have time to put on your pad or brace if needing to use your weapon. If braces are allowed and not pads who will decide if a brace that is padded is really a brace or a way to cheat the intent of the rule. If the shooter insists he needs a brace (and that brace "happens" to be padded) who will decide the result? The only way to control that is more rules that describe what a brace can be and there will complaining about that also.

I have bad knees. Real bad knees. When I shoot action sports, if a stage requires I kneel, I NEED pads. After 12 years in IDPA I left because of the rules on knee pads and I left in the middle of a major match after the last knee injury I will ever suffer because of a stupid rule and ignorant stage design.,

Before they lose more people or injure more, they need to get their heads out of their butts and into the daylight.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Round_Gun_Shooter

[M1911]

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.

Interesting...and you can actually extrapolate the wishes of the majority from such a small sampling? I guess I learned something today.

That is exactly what statistics and polling is all about -- making inferences about a large population based upon a small sampling.

[M1911]

In a random sample, yes, you could easily extrapoloate from 3% or far less.

However this is a non-random sample, so you are only getting the most tech-savvy and motivated respondents. Probably not picking up any of the folks who simply moved on to other shooting sports last year.

Yup, this is a serious issue with this type of poll/survey. Since the respondents are self-selecting, they aren't random. As a result, they may not be representative of the population as a whole.

[wgj3]

I didn't even know about this until I happened upon this thread...

...because I chose to not renew my membership in light of new rules trying to turn a game into something else.

[BillR1]

In a random sample, yes, you could easily extrapoloate from 3% or far less.

However this is a non-random sample, so you are only getting the most tech-savvy and motivated respondents. Probably not picking up any of the folks who simply moved on to other shooting sports last year.

Yup, this is a serious issue with this type of poll/survey. Since the respondents are self-selecting, they aren't random. As a result, they may not be representative of the population as a whole.

I understand about the "self-selecting" part and that makes sense. What I'm trying to determine is why a certain person would choose to be a part of the process. It would seem that they see a need and feel strongly enough about the issue to work the process toward the goal of change. I completely agree that this group that chose to respond "may not be a representative of the population as a whole".

Edited October 9, 2014 by BillR1

[Bill Nesbitt]

I think people stopped caring when the organization made a comment about people can just move on along if they don't like it. 1 person in my club made a suggestion, the rest aren't motivated or tech-savvy enough to do it.

IDPA is a tough game to keep the motivated crowd as it is, so by definition, 500 is a huge response.

I made 14 suggestions myself. But I don't have high hopes. I noticed that very few of the old timers went to the Nationals this year. Those are folks who rarely miss a Nationals. Maybe IDPA will still have a large number of members, but it will be new people, not the people who have supported IDPA since the early years. If they don't get it right this time, IDPA will not be the same as it has been since the beginning. I think lots of folks, including myself, renewed last year in hopes that things will get better. We will see.

[logiztix]

I'm going to have to agree with the rest of the nerdery here on the response percentage being pretty good considering:

1) The average age of an IDPA member is in their 50s. That's outside the age group of those most comfortable with the web.

2) Most remember how important their suggestions were to IDPA during the LAST comment period. (Not at all.)

3) In order to comment you had to:

a ) Log into the IDPA web site. (See #1 above. What percentage of IDPA members renew by phone or mail?)

b ) Have a rule book in front of you. (IDPA hasn't printed any, so you either have to print 70+ pages yourself or download it.)

c ) Figure out how to have a rule book AND the web site in front of you. (Two web accessible devices at once?)

d ) Write an essay on what is wrong with a specific x.x.x.x rule and how it should be changed. (People like multiple choice.)

I submitted over 10 suggestions, encompassing everything from the Flat-Footed Reload to CDP inclusion of .40 S&W, .357 SIG, 45 GAP and allowing Match Directors to use a simple fault line to keep from having to build elaborate blockades with props we don't have. I would love to tell you the rest, but they disappeared from the IDPA site once again.

Call me Charlie Brown, but I suspect that when Lucy brought the Wilson football out for us to all take a run at, a few may have decided it wasn't worth the pain this time around.

Now, if they actually wanted our opinion, they would now take every rule that gained traction in the comments, park them on the public IDPA site and put a 'thumbs up/down' clicky. That may actually be simple enough for most people and would allow those that already voted with their wallet the opportunity to share with HQ the items that may actually bring them back.

Edited October 9, 2014 by logiztix

[Chuck D]

The number of suggestions is not only adequate but in my experience represents the core beliefs of the ACTIVE membership and by ACTIVE I mean those that care enough to comment and those that are hoping IDPA ACTIALLY pays attention this time around.

Most of the members I speak to don't bother with "suggestion polls" because they believe in the end that IDPA's minds are already made up especially with the FFR rule. In a game that discourages the "gamer" from playing. The rules are written by Marksman classified shooters and so called Tactical Instructors who are VERY set in their ways.

It took longer than I expected for someone to enter this thread, ignore the obvious, and support IDPA's position. Fact is IDPA and the Tiger Teams messed up an already workable set of rules and the volume of shooters who left the organization over it and Joyce's arrogance pertaining to the "leave if you don't like it" comments have adversely effected the "bottom line." There is NO hiding this fact....it's as plain as day.

...and it was predicted by MANY who saw it coming from a mile away.

[BillR1]

The number of suggestions is not only adequate but in my experience represents the core beliefs of the ACTIVE membership and by ACTIVE I mean those that care enough to comment and those that are hoping IDPA ACTIALLY pays attention this time around.

If that's how you define ACTIVE, then I completely agree with your statement.

You said "those that care enough to comment...". That's actually been my point all along. The vast majority of members obviously DIDN'T care enough to comment. It simply didn't matter to them. There are no doubt a lot of different reasons why that was the case, but one of them could possibly be that there was nothing they felt strongly enough about to get involved in any change process. The rest of us had our "pet issues" that we disagreed with and took the opportunity to suggest change. From the survey results, there was quite a variety of suggestions. A couple of issues got more "votes" than others and I would think those suggestions will at least get some serious consideration.

IDPA is no doubt well aware that their core membership is not the "gamer" as you call it, so I wouldn't expect that many rules are made or changed to facilitate that demographic. I guess we'll see what comes from the suggestions...

[BillR1]

I think people stopped caring when the organization made a comment about people can just move on along if they don't like it. 1 person in my club made a suggestion, the rest aren't motivated or tech-savvy enough to do it.

IDPA is a tough game to keep the motivated crowd as it is, so by definition, 500 is a huge response.

I made 14 suggestions myself. But I don't have high hopes. I noticed that very few of the old timers went to the Nationals this year. Those are folks who rarely miss a Nationals. Maybe IDPA will still have a large number of members, but it will be new people, not the people who have supported IDPA since the early years. If they don't get it right this time, IDPA will not be the same as it has been since the beginning. I think lots of folks, including myself, renewed last year in hopes that things will get better. We will see.

I think you're exactly right Bill! The IDPA membership does seem to be changing. I've seen it just in the short time I've been a member. (since 2010) A lot of the "more seasoned" shooters are moving on to other things, and new people with new ideas are taking their places. Change is inevitable...

IDPA has a tough task on their hands. They have to try to accommodate the new shooters with their fresh ideas and wants, while also trying to remain true to their core beliefs. I sure wouldn't want that job!

Edited October 11, 2014 by BillR1

[elguapo]

IDPA has a tough task on their hands. They have to try to accommodate the new shooters with their fresh ideas and wants

That is a mistake: taking a cue from people who don't know what they don't know.

[Chuck D]

Yes Bill...that's how I define active.

I might add that a number of people USED to care and probably still do care but they are fully aware that anything they suggest will be either discounted or flat out ignored by IDPA and then told to pound salt.

The "gamer" thing is where IDPA truly shows its hypocrisy. I noticed that to this day there is NO shortage of "sponsored logo" custom shooting jerseys being worn by IDPA participants regardless of the fact that less than 10% of those wearing these billboards actually receive ANY factory sponsorship what-so-ever.

So...I guess that the "gamer" perspective that equates to shooting better scores through careful and efficient stage manipulation is a bad thing in IDPA but looking like a billboard for firearms and accessories manufacturers and wearing a logo plastered fishing vest is A.O.K. with IDPA ?

I guess those won't get you "killed on the street" but wearing a soft knee pad with shorts is a big NO-NO still.

If IDPA is training for an actual gunfight which is exactly what Joyce and the Tiger Teams want all to buy into...when was the last time you heard of or saw on the evening news a firearms owner who was engaged in a "dynamic critical incident" wearing their logo plastered fishing vest and sponsor logo laden billboard shooting jersey ?

[BillR1]

Yes Bill...that's how I define active.

I might add that a number of people USED to care and probably still do care but they are fully aware that anything they suggest will be either discounted or flat out ignored by IDPA and then told to pound salt.

That could very well be one of the reasons that such a large number of members declined to be part of the suggestion process...not debating that at all. The potential for changes to their liking was not worth the hassle. Many people, when they get to that point, simply move on to other activities or sports. There's nothing wrong with that...this is supposed to be a fun activity and not something that brings excessive stress. We've heard many instances of this happening just from the forum members here. When/if someone decides to get involved and work towards change, they need to CARE enough about an issue to make the effort even though their suggestions may not be taken.

Your comments about the vests was also interesting. Vests are not required in IDPA. You can use a variety of concealment garments and are not restricted to "fishing vests". There were 3 guys on our squad at the Michigan state match that wore Hawaiian shirts as their concealment. It was awesome, and they had a great time. (and shot pretty well!)

[Bill Nesbitt]

. There were 3 guys on our squad at the Michigan state match that wore Hawaiian shirts as their concealment. It was awesome, and they had a great time. (and shot pretty well!)

I used to wear Hawaiian shirts, but the new rule book said I couldn't use tie wrap stiffeners.

I put in a request to allow stiffeners.

[Chuck D]

"Your comments about the vests was also interesting. Vests are not required in IDPA. You can use a variety of concealment garments and are not restricted to "fishing vests". There were 3 guys on our squad at the Michigan state match that wore Hawaiian shirts as their concealment. It was awesome, and they had a great time. (and shot pretty well!)"

Your subtle obscuring of my point regarding a distain for "gamesmanship" and it's relation to the wearing of sponsor logo covered "fishing vests" or "purpose designed" concealment vests is "utter genius."

Fact remains....embroidered vests which are used by I'd dare say 95% of IDPA competitors and 100% of the IDPA "GAMER" (those that are left or are alligned to the organization through event sponsorship a.k.a. S&W, Safatriland, Comp-Tac team members) crowd are a.o.k. BUT soft knee pads worn with shorts are not.

I notice you didn't offer a retort for the "billboard" shooting jersey.

You cling to the "it's ok to leave something if you don't like it" mindset which I agree with. It's being DRIVEN out of a sport that you actually liked because a group of Marksman class shooters at the request of H.Q. crafted a rulebook that singled out those with a "competitive mindset" is what I and others have a problem with.

I'm certain Joyce Wilson thoroughly enjoys your posts and it's supportive verbage regardless of the fact that there exists no rationality or common sense perspective why some of the rules are what they are and the inception of ANOTHER comment period on the current rulebook is proof positive that the work of the Tiger Teams and Joyce herself have cost IDPA not only members but long time SUPPORTIVE members.

The "tactical" craze will come to an end...every marketing concept has a shelf life. Some are longer than others but everything eventually comes to an end. When the tactical craze declines and the newbies take on other interests who will catch the blame for decreased membership ? Can't be the gamers, they were all run off. Can't be the old vanguard, they all left and were ENCOURAGED to leave by Joyce.

Inquiring minds wondering outloud....

Edited October 12, 2014 by Chuck D

[BillR1]

Yes Bill...that's how I define active.

I might add that a number of people USED to care and probably still do care but they are fully aware that anything they suggest will be either discounted or flat out ignored by IDPA and then told to pound salt.

"Your comments about the vests was also interesting. Vests are not required in IDPA. You can use a variety of concealment garments and are not restricted to "fishing vests". There were 3 guys on our squad at the Michigan state match that wore Hawaiian shirts as their concealment. It was awesome, and they had a great time. (and shot pretty well!)"

Your subtle obscuring of my point regarding a distain for "gamesmanship" and it's relation to the wearing of sponsor logo covered "fishing vests" or "purpose designed" concealment vests is "utter genius."

Fact remains....embroidered vests which are used by I'd dare say 95% of IDPA competitors and 100% of the IDPA "GAMER" crowd are a.o.k. BUT soft knee pads worn with shorts are not.

I notice you didn't offer a retort for the "billboard" shooting jersey.

I didn't comment on the jerseys because I have little personal experience wearing one, unlike the vest. My only "logo" shooting jersey is a BrianEnos.com Techwear shirt I bought a year or so ago. It's nice to shoot in here in AZ because it breathes well. I have no comment whether or not it's "gamey", although I'm not sure how any shirt (or a vest) can be assumed to give any type of competitive advantage regardless of the printing on it. Is that what gamey is?

Don't expect a debate from me on the knee pad regulation...stupid rule for sure!!

[BillR1]

. There were 3 guys on our squad at the Michigan state match that wore Hawaiian shirts as their concealment. It was awesome, and they had a great time. (and shot pretty well!)

I used to wear Hawaiian shirts, but the new rule book said I couldn't use tie wrap stiffeners.

I put in a request to allow stiffeners.

I like that idea! I wear Hawaiian shirts a lot...I'd be really incognito!!