San Angelo Scoring

[EricW]

Gee, I have an idea, instead bastardizing 3 gun into irrelevance, let's write software that works. M14's aren't being dug out of the armories because M4's are in short supply.

What's more important? Worshipping at the altar of some bullshit software program, or building up a healthy, popular, shooting sport?

How hard can this really be? You could probably pay somebody to write the doggoned thing in Filemaker in a couple of weeks. Mickey's big hand says that it's time to get a clue.

[jkmccoy]

Thanks for the kind comments, but my scoring work-arounds aren't really a solution. They are a functional temporary stop-gap until we get a scoring program that works.

There are people in various thread advocating doing away with PF, and/or instituting time-plus scoring for all the wrong reasons. We should change scoring ONLY if it does a better job of representing differences in the relative skill of the shooters. The USPSA scoring system (IMHO) does the very best job possible of representing and recognizing differences in relative skill of shooters. It achieves a good balance of speed and accuracy and appropriately recognizes weapons that are more difficult to shoot quickly (i.e. major PF).

Yes, the scoring software currently available can make it a royal PITA to score some multi-gun stages. You can use my work-arounds or you can limit stage design (e.g. all steel targets for one gun as in the provisional rules), but you CAN score multi-gun stages with the USPSA system. DON'T throw out the system just because it is slightly more difficult to implement. Work to make it easier to implement.

If you think USPSA scoring is not appropriate because it doesn't recognize differences in the skill of shooters or it is in some manner unfair then explain your argument and I'll consider it. If you don't like it because it's "too hard" then you're just whining. Look at it from the other side. Do you want to use a scoring system that doesn't really reward Power, Speed, and Accuracy but is REALLY easy to score? How about "fire a minimum of one shot in the general direction of each target, fastest time wins"? It would be really easy to score/record, but it DOES NOT work.

I would also hope that USPSA 3-gunners (and interested non-USPSA members, they are welcome in San Angelo) would work to try to fix the problems with the USPSA system. It's a good system (I think it's the best), but there are problems in application. Right now the problems are:

1 - WinEZScore doesn't support multi-gun stages. I don't have the expertise or the time to modify the program myself. I do have the expertise to make the (fairly educated) guess that it can be done. We need to have it done soon.

2 - The "provisional" rules. I've said before (and will likely say again) kudos to the BOD for their efforts to solve a bunch of obvious problems and try to establish rules that allow real 3-gun matches. OTOH, shame on the BOD for adopting a set of silly and clumsily worded rules that prohibit clubs from solving those problems in ways that actually work. Not that I'm bragging, but SAGC had already solved the problems of accurately scoring multi-gun stages and safely grounding weapons in multi-gun stages and our solutions are prohibited under the "provisional" rules. If these rules really were to test solutions to difficulties with 3-gun matches wouldn't it have made sense to allow clubs the lattitude to seek other solutions.

And Bruce,

I did check the archives. You were there for many of the discussions before the provisional rules were adopted and you were there for discussions after adoption when we pointed out the flaws. It has been a year, but I don't recall seeing a draft of the "provisional" rules before adoption (so I couldn't provide specific input), but I was there commenting as soon as they were public. The "provisional" rules suck!

Cheers,

Kelly McCoy

[jkmccoy]

EricW,

AMEN!!!

We have reached the astoundingly silly point of writing stupid rules that limit stage design so that stages can be easily scored with an outdated software program!?!? It isn't that hard. Maybe the BOD could authorize me to spend $500 to find a Computer Science senior to rewrite the program over the weekend. Send the money and the source code and I'll have it done.

I'll have them fix a bunch of silly glitches in the program too...

Try entering a negative time and see what the hit factor is.

Change a stage design from IPSC targets to Classic targets after there are scores entered (yes, it will let you do that) and the "B" hits don't go away. You can't see them anymore (since there is no "B" zone on the Classic target), but if you enter the appropriate number of other hits you get "too many hits".

I've done enough programming to understand know that these shouldn't happen and can be fixed.

Kelly McCoy

[kimel]

The outdated software was written by volunteers (at least some of which have passed on) and is maintained by volunteers. Make you a bet it is total spagetti code and just about to the point of no longer being maintainable. It was somehow ported from DOS to Windows awhile back but it still is largely not a true Windows program...at least it sure doesn't behave like one.

Filemaker is NOT the answer. It needs to be re-written from the ground up in a modern language...preferably object oriented in nature driving a REAL, truly relational, ODBC complaint database (which Filemaker isn't).

Yes, this will cost money but not nearly as much as many people think. I'll bet that with a decent set of design docs in hand a good .Net programmer could bang this out in a couple weeks and it would kick serious buttocks. Coding isn't what takes the time...it is the design docs.

A properly designed program would only need maintenance to a few objects and maybe a few tweaks to the db structure to handle whatever scoring changes are made.

Do it in .Net and you gain all manner of functionality and integration into handheld devices, web stuff, and so on very, very easily.

Or do it in Java and make it portable to any device which can run Java. Macs, PCs, LinUX, whatever. The development cycle with Java tends to be longer than with .Net but the trade-off is that it is totally platform transparent (if the programmers don't suffer from cranial-recto-insertion).

Of course clubs would have to stop trying to run this on 486's with Win95. But that is a whole different rant.

I am not a programmer but I work closely with several of them doing lots of analysis, design and QA every day. I know how fast these folks can take a well thought out idea from zero to done.

And no, my development team is not available.

[EricW]

Kevin,

The only reasons I suggest Filemaker is that's it's way tougher for someone to "spaghetti-ize" and it's cross-platform.

==================================

I'll make a prediction: If USPSA doesn't get off its butt and SOLVE (read SOLVE, NOT band-aid) the scoring issue by this time next year, USPSA's membership numbers will start declining, no, plummeting would be the word. 3-gun is where the overwhelming market demand is at from both shooters and sponsors. The 2005 DPMS TriGun match was sold out BEFORE the 2004 match was even over for crying out loud. Carl Carbon's match sold out in what, a month?

There are more than few rumblings about why local clubs should even be affiliated with USPSA anymore. The handwriting is on the wall in big block letters.

USPSA: Get off the dime, PAY someone who is a PROFESSIONAL to write good, documented code that is extensible, and SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

/Rant Off

[ap3]

I agree with Eric, 3gun is the fastest growing shooting sport, and we(uspsa) have a unique opportunity to get in on the growth. Since the software is the hold-up for us to have multi-gun and keep all that is DVC(which does sound like a good idea), I would be willing to make a donation to get this project going.

3 gun is the best opportunity for us to grow our membership, and to drag our feet on multi-gun is foolhardy.

While we are ranting. I am not a fan of the multi-gun rules,the USPSA scoring system(with good software) makes a lot more sense. Between, IDPA, USPSA and MULTi-Gun my range bag is more like a book bag for all the rule books.

[bgary]

Allow me to suggest that we not let the cart get *too* far in front of the horse.

First priority is to make some decisions about how USPSA mult-gun scoring should work (call that the "requirements doc")

Second priority is to get that approved by the Board (call that "project approval")

*THEN*, we can hire a programmer to either code-branch a multi-gun version of EZWS, or write a new program.

But... since we don't have agreement yet on what the scoring should be, it seems a bit premature to start talking about who is going to code it and what it is going to be written in.

$0.02

Bruce

[bgary]

And Bruce,  I did check the archives. You were there for many of the discussions before the provisional rules were adopted and you were there for discussions after adoption when we pointed out the flaws. It has been a year, but I don't recall seeing a draft of the "provisional" rules before adoption (so I couldn't provide specific input), but I was there commenting as soon as they were public.

Agreed. There was not a draft of the provisional rules before they were adopted by the Board. The provisional rules were a *result* of all the discussion on the benos forums, not the *beginning* of that discussion. Put bluntly, what I did was float ideas on the forums, saw things that I thought I could get approved by the board in the [very small amount of] time that was available before a go/no-go decision had to be made for the Nationals, and took a swing at it. They had to be approved at the April-04 Board meeting, or the match would have been pulled or reconfigured as a "traditional" 3-gun "tournament" (a pistol match, a rifle match and a shotgun match). Once the approval took place, the rules were necessarily frozen until after the match... and realistically, until the end of the season.

The "provisional" rules suck

Again, agreed. I have never contended that they were great rules... only that they were rules that allowed us to experiment with multigun stages at the 2004 match. It has *always* been the intent to solicit input and make them better.

Bruce

[3GunF1Guy]

From my point of view rewriting the software will not fix the problem. Here is an example:

stage1- we have 6 paper targets, 1 Texas star, 1 plate rack, 2 pigeon flipper poppers and 4 clays holders(the little steel holder that holds 1 clay). start position is behind a table with 3 hot guns on the table you must stay behind the table for the stage. The paper targets must not be engaged with bird shot ,the 2 pigeon flipper and the 4 clays must be engaged with bird shot. all other targets are the shooters choice of weapon to engage the remaining targets.

Its the paper targets thats the problem. They may be engaged with

1:shogun slugs-major

2: pistol - major or minor

3: rifle - major or minor.

4: Any number with rifle and any number with pistol - major AND minor.

I think that USPSA encourages the shooter to think and solve the courses of fire for themselves, unlike other shooting sports that require you stand in places to reload and such.. USPSA encourages free thinking ( I know.. some people call this gaming). I think that should include the shooter having the choice of what targets to engage with whatever gun when the stage design allow it.

How do you do it with major and minor guns? You can't. 3-gun is a different animal. I do not think you can make a set of rules that works great for 1 gun fit in to the 3-gun hole.

Scott Peterson

[EricW]

Scott,

If you're going to have free-for-all stages the only way you can possibly do it is all major / all minor. And software COULD fix that issue by allowing targets to be assigned those types of scoring values.

I've been hearing "but we can't do that because EZ WinScore won't allow it" since I started 4 years ago. It's time to write something that's flexible and extensible instead of perpetuating the current kludgeware.

I like the simplicity of time plus scoring, but the reality is that the neutralize/time plus scoring turns 3 gun into a rifle shooting and shotgun reloading contest with a few extra penalties for those who are such lousy pistol shooters that they can't hit a metric target twice at 5 to 15 yards. USPSA major/minor scoring forces pistol mastery without having to resort to massive amounts of hardcover.

The problem that really needs to be addressed in USPSA scoring is the minimal penalties for skipping targets, such as flipped clay pigeons. This is where the non-USPSA matches shine. Until USPSA gives course designers penalties for FTE/missing that force shooters to shoot the entire course of fire, a lot of the big 3 gun matches are going to pass on USPSA affiliation. 3 gun matches need to recognize power and give credit for A hits, but they also demand modified scoring in order to compel shooters to complete the course of fire.

Both systems have merit, and they need to meet in the middle to make USPSA 3 gun work.

[bgary]

How do you do it with major and minor guns? You can't.

Hesitating to make this thread too circular, that's what San Angelo scoring does.

Count up the hits on the paper. Take off one point for each non-A rifle hit, if the rifle is minor. Take off one point for each non-A pistol hit, if the pistol is minor. Put those points into the "additional penalties" box on the EZWinScore screen.

Done.

Doing it that way *preserves* major/minor for each individual firearm, and *additionally* opens up the potential that USPSA could make multigun "freestyle" in terms of which gun is used for which targets. It can be done with EZWS without changes. And my thought is, it is not inconsistent with the additional need to be able to assign variable penalty values to make sure a target is "worth shooting"

It *seems* like a great solution. I'll be talking to Kelly as soon as I can get my head above water on some other things, to get his insights into how to make it work on the ground, and what pitfalls there are (if any).

Bruce

[diehli]

My take:

Multigun stages should be freestyle. If nothing else, make that happen.

Scoring:

Shotgun slugs should be scored best single hit per paper, double value. (A= 10, B/C= 8, D= 4)

Leave the PF requirements where they're at.

Leave rifle and pistol scoring values where they're at.

Leave steel values where they're at.

Allow clays as acceptable targets (don't know if they're officially allowed or not) and score 'em like steel.

Write a program that will allow the total number of (paper) hits to be input and then recorded as either best two pistol, best two rifle, or best slug.

[EricW]

Count up the hits on the paper. Take off one point for each non-A rifle hit, if the rifle is minor. Take off one point for each non-A pistol hit, if the pistol is minor. Put those points into the "additional penalties" box on the EZWinScore screen.

It *seems* like a great solution.

Right up until someone like me shows up with a 9mm and a borrowed FAL, which I *will* do, just to make a point if that method of scoring is ever adopted. I have visions of overlays and calipers...

[bgary]

OK, Eric

So far in this thread you have said

instead bastardizing 3 gun into irrelevance, let's write software that works

[quit] Worshipping at the altar of some bullshit software program

Mickey's big hand says that it's time to get a clue.

If USPSA doesn't get off its butt and SOLVE.. the scoring issue by this time next year, USPSA's membership numbers will start plummeting

USPSA: Get off the dime

It's time to write something that's flexible and extensible instead of perpetuating the current kludgeware.

the reality is that [time-plus] the neutralize/time plus scoring turns 3 gun into a rifle shooting and shotgun reloading contest

which I *will* do, just to make a point if [san Angelo] scoring is ever adopted

I GET that we have a problem. I GET that you believe everything we've done has sucked. Thank you for that.

What I have NOT seen yet, is any actionable suggestion from you about how to actually make it BETTER.

Want to chime in with some constructive ideas?

Bruce

[glockster96]

Bruce,

Let me start off by saying I appreciate the job you are doing (which is probably often thankless) and can appreciate how difficult it can be to make a set of rules that most folks are happy with.

-- should .223 make major? - Nope

-- should we try TimePlus or some other scoring? - Change may be good. Try it and see if it works.

-- should we allow grounding of "hot" guns? - YES, DEFINITELY!

-- should we allow any target to be shot with any gun? - YES, DEFINITELY!

-- what should Iron Man / Heavy Metal be?

*Singlestack 45, .308 or larger rifle with a single optic, Pump 12 gauge shotgun.

Thanks for the oppurtunity to give some input into this decision making process.

[jkmccoy]

ErikW, Scott P. et al.,

I don't think the scoring system is the problem. Your hypothetical stage and your (unusual) choice of weapons really don't pose any problem.

How about this...a 60 round stage, 20 paper including some swingers and beartraps, 15 steel, and 5 static clay pigeons. Rifle, pistol, or shotgun (birdshot doesn't count on paper) - your choice. Start with any one, end with any one, ground weapons safely when you transition. I'll run you and 99 other shooters through that stage and 9 other stages in a two-day match. 30 minutes after the last shot scores will be posted - and everyone will get the correct score with the correct power factor for every shot fired in the whole match. One hour later we'll have final results and hand out the trophies.

An FAL and a 9mm pistol? Come on give me a real challenge...Use an 8mm Egyptian Hakim for a rifle and a 9mm minor pistol...Even better - enter open division with a .357 carbine (minor) and a .38 Super pistol (major). I'll still get your scores correct.

There are two problems:

1 - I haven't really solved anything in EZWinScore. I've just figured out how to trick it into giving the correct score. The problem is that not everyone is willing to fiddle around and make it work. You can't just "fill in the blanks" and get the correct score.

2 - The "provisional" rules restrict course design so that the course I describe above isn't legal. The restriction was put in place BECAUSE not everyone is willing to work around the WinEZScore problems.

I really think we need to solve both problems. The provisional rules could be fixed with a few changes to wording (I suggested some last year), but there doesn't seem to be any pressure to do so.

I think EZWinScore could be fixed (or rewritten) to give us a really functional software platform. It needs to be a higher priority than it appears to be now.

Cheers,

Kelly McCoy

[benny hill]

You go kelly, they[ uspsa] still does'nt get it. They need to come to San Angelo, pay attention, & go home & start scoreing multi gun stages RIGHT.

[ap3]

Since a 9mm would only be legal in Open, I don't see where a FAL and a 9mm would give a person any advantage to an Open rifle and Open pistol even if which gun shot which hole is missed. At the end of the discussion ther are no perfect systems of scoring, but the USPSA system is the best determination of a shooters skill.

Bruce, I think you already have the best constructive idea, the San Angelo system(assuming better software geared toward it). Three years from now when we are on version 6.O of our 3 gun software who will remember this thread.

My final opinion is:

Start with the San Angelo system and let it evolve.

No, to time plus scoring.

Keep Major/minor power factors for rifle and pistol as they are.

Heavy Metal: Single stack 45,308 minimum with 1 optic, pump shotgun.

Ground hot guns with workable safety precautions.

Allow course designers to create stages that can be shot with any gun or not.

Allow for bigger points for targets at significant disance.

Failure to engage rule for all target disappearing or not.

Ok, I'm done with the thread.

Good Luck Bruce

[EricW]

OK, Eric

So far in this thread you have said

instead bastardizing 3 gun into irrelevance, let's write software that works

[quit] Worshipping at the altar of some bullshit software program

Mickey's big hand says that it's time to get a clue.

If USPSA doesn't get off its butt and SOLVE.. the scoring issue by this time next year, USPSA's membership numbers will start plummeting

USPSA: Get off the dime

It's time to write something that's flexible and extensible instead of perpetuating the current kludgeware.

the reality is that [time-plus] the neutralize/time plus scoring turns 3 gun into a rifle shooting and shotgun reloading contest

which I *will* do, just to make a point if [san Angelo] scoring is ever adopted

I GET that we have a problem. I GET that you believe everything we've done has sucked. Thank you for that.

What I have NOT seen yet, is any actionable suggestion from you about how to actually make it BETTER.

Want to chime in with some constructive ideas?

Bruce

Bruce,

You're taking the quotes out of context, especially my last post. Here is the full quote from my last post:

I like the simplicity of time plus scoring, but the reality is that the neutralize/time plus scoring turns 3 gun into a rifle shooting and shotgun reloading contest with a few extra penalties for those who are such lousy pistol shooters that they can't hit a metric target twice at 5 to 15 yards. USPSA major/minor scoring forces pistol mastery without having to resort to massive amounts of hardcover.

The problem that really needs to be addressed in USPSA scoring is the minimal penalties for skipping targets, such as flipped clay pigeons. This is where the non-USPSA matches shine. Until USPSA gives course designers penalties for FTE/missing that force shooters to shoot the entire course of fire, a lot of the big 3 gun matches are going to pass on USPSA affiliation. 3 gun matches need to recognize power and give credit for A hits, but they also demand modified scoring in order to compel shooters to complete the course of fire.

Both systems have merit, and they need to meet in the middle to make USPSA 3 gun work.

The criticism was directed toward *time plus* not USPSA, so why do you feel attacked? The point that I was *trying* to make is that USPSA has a LOT to bring to 3 gun. That's the shame in all this. Match directors openly admit that some 3 gun matches simply aren't a handgun shooting challenge because of the "neutralizing". USPSA scoring can help.

I'm pretty much an outsider to 3-gun. What I'm seeing is this huge, gigantic tidal wave of competitor approval for non-USPSA sanctioned matches. It will be a pity to see USPSA be left behind.

I don't think "everything USPSA has done has sucked." Actually, it's more of "what USPSA *hasn't* done yet is really frustrating." It's pretty obvious to me, the outsider, that the maturation of a 3 gun scoring is being held back by the system used to tabulate results. Why do I say that? Because you can't test the scoring systems on the fly. It's going to take match experience to vet out a good scoring system and the ability to quickly reconfigure based on past experience is essential to USPSA succeeding in becoming THE leader in 3-gun.

EZ Winscore is obviously the result of a volunteer effort with all the pitfalls that free software entails. Kevin is 110% correct that the most important task is that a good specification be written for what USPSA needs to move into the future. Absolutely nobody has "THE" solution to Multi-Gun/3-Gun scoring, so inevitably how its scored is going to change and evolve pretty dramatically over the next few seasons. What USPSA desperately needs is a scoring system that can accomodate that and do so quickly (read days/weeks not months/years). Rarely does something with that type of modularity come from an ad hoc effort. *That* is my suggestion.

And after the 2nd week in May, I'm a free man, and will be all too happy to pitch in and get something going for next year.

And Bruce, even if you're mad at me for being obnoxious, I still love ya man (in the fraternal sense, OK?). Friends?

[EricW]

Since a 9mm would only be legal in Open, I don't see where a FAL and a 9mm would give a person any advantage to an Open rifle and Open pistol even if which gun shot which hole is missed.

??? 9mm isn't legal to shoot as minor in 3-gun?

There goes my plan to get a bunch of 33 round sticks and hose...

[bgary]

What I'm seeing is this huge, gigantic tidal wave of competitor approval for non-USPSA sanctioned matches. It will be a pity to see USPSA be left behind.

Me too!

"what USPSA *hasn't* done yet is really frustrating."

I agree. Some of that, unfortunately, is an artifact of being a non-profit org, with almost everything done by volunteers (volunteer board, volunteer range staff, volunteer software writers... heck, even the whole revenue model is built on the belief that clubs see enough value in being part of the org to 'voluntarily' send in match fees).

But another part of it is that.... well, we can't write software until we have defined what the software should do. I agree - in principle - with a previous poster who said we should make the scoring program modular so that we can adapt it as we go. In principle, though, the loudest screams we get are when we change rules, so... in practice, we need to settle on something that works, and stick with it for a while.

It's pretty obvious to me, the outsider, that the maturation of a 3 gun scoring is being held back by the system used to tabulate resultsnteers.

To some extent, yes. The biggest and ugliest constraints on the 2004 nationals were there to ensure that the match could be scored in EZWS, because... well, the match had to be scored in EZWS. It was the best we could do in a short time.

Now? Heck, if theres a good Excel workbook that will let us score a match well ("well" = completely, accurately and verifiably), Im up for trying it.

EZ Winscore is obviously the result of a volunteer effort with all the pitfalls that free software entails.

Yup

What USPSA desperately needs is a scoring system that can accomodate that and do so quickly (read days/weeks not months/years). Rarely does something with that type of modularity come from an ad hoc effort. *That* is my suggestion.

okayyyyyyy. I get the concept. I'm not sure that having a really "fluid" set of rules is a better approach than.... measurably refining the 1st iteration of the rules, based on all the input weve gotten, putting them in effect for a year (or at least a shooting season), and then refining them again. In other words, I think the rules need to have *some* stability, or we're going to frustrate the exact people we're trying to draw in. But, I'm open to that discussion.

And after the 2nd week in May, I'm a free man, and will be all too happy to pitch in and get something going for next year.

Cool!

And Bruce, even if you're mad at me for being obnoxious, I still love ya man (in the fraternal sense, OK?). Friends?

Absolutely! I wasn't railing at *you*, in particular. What I was really trying to do is get past all of us "preaching to the choir" about what is wrong, and start trying to shift the focus to "how do we fix it?" Sorry if I was harsh in the way I phrased it.

Bruce

[EricW]

OK,

My dream 3 gun scoring system:

- Recognizes major/minor.

- Provides larger penalties for misses for 3 gun matches, so that course designers can set courses that competitors *must* attack in their entirety if they expect to win. The extra penalties would be for 3-gun only and would not affect the pistol-only matches.

- Is written in a modern software language. As much as it pains me to admit, .NERD is probably the correct choice.

- Is written and maintained by a professional firm that can be held to performance standards. (Read: it don't get done and done right, you don't get paid)

As far as the finances go, we probably need to up the dues and maybe add a buck to the match fee contributions. USPSA needs to be able to employ people to get this stuff done. Volunteers doing all this in their spare time will be stretched too thin. The payback will come in dramatically increased membership and sponsorship. 3 gun is where the sponsors and new members are, there is no question.

I'm not so sure about the "total freestyle, shoot any gun at anything" approach to stages. From a time standpoint at matches, that one could become a scoring nightmare from hell. There's only so far one can go to simulating "Boogie Nights in Baghdad." If people want more, they might just have to put on their jammies & hop on a plane.

[kimel]

Bruce: Considering who you work for I am surprised you are still stuck in the "we have to know all the rules to the n-th degree before we can write code" frame of mind. I'm telling!

We only need to know the basic framework and the easily foreseen permutations to write the software. Yes, this makes it a more challenging project but it also makes it a project that won't have to be redone two years from now.

So what if it takes longer to set up a stage for a match in the software because you have to tell the software a bit more about it? I have used EZWinScore precisely twice and I can set up a 6 stage match in 15 minutes (well...that's what it took last time). If that took me 20 minutes because I have to supply more information so what?

The other problem is that the BoD appears to move at a pace that makes glaciers look speedy. If the roster of online and in-person minutes posted on the USPSA website is to be believed the BoD went to sleep last year after the April meetings and only roused right before the January meeting this year. Now, I know that isn't true but that is the way it appears.

What I am about to type is heresy and I will admit it but the BoD needs to be removed from this equation beyond approving the effort to move forward. Get the folks that know the problem in to work on it and then when they have taken care of business the BoD can vote on approving it. Most of the BoD is not technical. Many/most don't shoot 3-Gun so they need to stand back and let everyone else work. This can't be just the Bruce Show because that isn't fair to Bruce or anyone else. Let "us" help beyond just online discussions!

If this means USPSA needs to sponsor a "rules meeting" before or after some of the big non-USPSA 3-Gun matches to get feedback and let those that know this game help create the solution then so be it.

Online collaboration is great but even with the world's best set of online collaboration tools you can still accomplish a helluva not more in a 3 hour face-to-face meeting than in a month of online collaboration. Online has it's place but the way humans are wired we all work better in a face-to-face situation. Feels don't get hurt nearly so easily. People can draw pictures or use other devices to explain points. Yelling and screamin, when appropriate, can be handled expeditiously. And when it is over we can all shake hands and move on.

Hell, pay my way to attend these meetings and I'll help facilitate. It is what I do a lot of at work and I'll help here. I'd pay my own way but I work for a poor state so that isn't gonna happen. If I could afford to travel I'd be shooting these big matches...with I am not.

All USPSA is out is a bit of travel and per dieum, a box of donuts/sandwiches, some soda and a room to meet in. Then we will all go out and have a few beers afterward on Mike V's tab.

Yes, this means another year of the provisional rules with maybe some changes from last year. But if it is worth doing, and I believe it is, then it is worth doing right. If we stay on the current course we will be in provisional rule hell for years.

My 4 cents.

Edited January 29, 2005 by kimel

[jkmccoy]

Thanks Benny! You are absolutely right! "They don't get it." They (all of "THEM") really need to come to San Angelo for the Texas State 3-Gun match. They would get to shoot a really fun match, see some innovative stage designs and target arrays. They would find real multi-gun stages where the shooter has to decide which gun to use on which targets. I think they would see a pretty darned good 3-gun match.

I don't want to brag too much and I don't think we've really done anything all that extraordinary. We're a bunch of guys who love to shoot and we work hard at designing a match that we think would be fun. We all like the USPSA scoring system (although we've shot matches with time-plus scoring) and we like the USPSA safety and equipment rules so we build a match that we would like to shoot within those rules. We design stages with a bunch of us sitting around my dining table saying "...if we put a swinger in there... I think we should make this a low port...what if we added a couple of steel at long range..." until we have stages that we would find interesting and fun (and among the SAGC design team we have shot a LOT of stages). THEN we worry about rules. The only thing we are doing differently is that we're willing to kluge around the scoring program to shoot the stages we want to shoot. We think that that's a really important concept. Decide what the stages/competition should be and then figure out how to score it appropriately.

There have been suggestions for changes to the scoring system. There are other threads on this board that suggest changes. There are polls on this board asking about changes to the scoring system. I want to say NO! NO! NO!

Why do you want to change the sytem? Give me a good, solid, reasoned, logical argument for a change to the system and I'll listen. If it works I'll agree with you and petition the BOD for that change (not that I have any power with them, but I'll add my voice). But all I see is "I think it should be..." or "the scoring should be..." or "it's easier to score if...". Don't give me any more of that cr*p. The USPSA scoring system is a system that WORKS. It does reward DVC (I'll admit that the reward for power is a little too large for pistol and a little too small for rifle, but it's the most fair system I've ever seen).

The problems can be worked out. The BOD showed last year that they are willing/able to step up and hammer out a solution (they hammered out the wrong solution but they did hammer one out). Unfortunately the provisional rules that were passed prohibit clubs from actually solving the problems.

I would like to make a humble suggestion...

The number of posts on this thread tells me that there are a bunch of active 3-gun shooters who find this an important issue. We have argued the issue thoroughly in this venue. What we need is action from the BOD. Let's all begin an email campaign to petition the BOD to amend the provisional rules. Send emails to your area director. Send emails to Mr. Voigt. The BOD has demonstrated that they will respond to serious situations. Let's make them aware that this is a serious situation. If we (USPSA) lose this upcoming 3-Gun season it will be a tremendous loss. I'll be happy to help coordinate efforts and to help explain possible solutions to the current rules problems.

Bruce is absolutely right. Let's begin some constructive efforts to correct the problems instead of hanging out on this forum and whining about it (myself included in the "whining").

Respectfully,

Kelly McCoy

[Wakal]

By the way, I spent a very entertaining hour with Dave Thomas yesterday at the SHOT Show, chatting about 3-Gun scoring. I want to make a few things perfectly clear: this issue has the direct attention of Dave, and Bruce is Da Man (or at least, Da Point Man) on this whole fiasco. Sorry, Bruce, but that is what Dave said

The Powers That Be are listening....

Dave really liked the fact that San Angelo is sticking with USPSA standard scoring on our work-around solution, and loved the "mixed weapon" stages with score sheets laid out with columns for EACH weapon (allowing "mixed scoring"). There isn't a problem with "The Powers That Be" not caring...we just need to get this all written up neatly to be voted on

Yours,

Alex