George Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Kelly, I am very interested in a detailed accounting of the changes you say need to be made in the provisional rules and the tournament rules. We really need to get the specific wording of the problem area(s) delineated publicly so we can all see exactly what the problem points are that San Angelo scoring solves with workarounds and "EXACTLY" what in the rules is preventing this from happening. Let's get some hard text examples of the changes needed here instead of: The provisional rules could be fixed with a few changes to wording (I suggested some last year) and Several of us also suggested wording changes that would allow us to continue scoring stages as we have done for several years without altering the intent of the rules. We were thoroughly ignored and Several of us suggested wording changes that would have allowed "San Angelo Scoring" while still providing a method of running multi-gun stages at clubs where the scorekeeper couldn't/wouldn't use similar work arounds. Those comments were universally ignored I am interested in exactly what those changes that are needed are. I am all for fixing the rules and think an "Open Source" methodology could help a lot here. Just post the whole rules text as a Word doc, or a PDF that isn't password locked. Let it get marked up and/or alternate versions posted for all those involved to see/use as a basis for further developement. A good set of final options should be available to go up for board/member approval pretty durned quick considering how interested in this we all seem to be around here. I will even offer some space on my server and some user accounts for a web folder interested parties could all work out of. There are a lot of ways to get stuff done, one of them is to just go ahead and do it. Let's get this stuff written up right and submitted to our leaders before a different version gets approved without the fixes we want getting implemented. I think I would much rather see open developement of the next set of rules than wait for a "here they are again" presentation to see what is still wrong with them. -- Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Bruce is Da Man Actually, Bruce is one of several people on a sub-committee, charged with fixing the multi-gun rules. Also on the committee are Michael Voigt, Don Bednorz (Area-2 director) and some others. Having said that, though, Bruce is firmly of the opinion that "someone" needs to drive this thing, because my experience with committees is that they ... well... someone needs to drive this thing, or we'll still be talking about it next year. I really want to fix this thing. So, I've "volunteered" to drive it. While you can certainly feed input to Michael and Don and the other Board members (and I encourage you to do so), I'll be taking on the job of collecting all these ideas and organizing them into the next draft of the rules. So, whoever else you send input to, make sure to include me Bruce (still wearing the shirt with the bullseye on the back...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 We really need to get the specific wording of the problem area(s) delineated publicly so we can all see exactly what the problem points are that San Angelo scoring solves with workarounds and "EXACTLY" what in the rules is preventing this from happening. Ab-so-LUTE-ly! I'd propose two approaches: 1) if you have suggestions about rules that we should add/modify/remove from the text of the current draft, please pass those to me. 2) separate/additional, if you have "conceptual" ideas about how to frame multi-gun competitions, please pass those along to me, and I'll take a stab at wording rules to support them. For example, the idea of "freestyle" stages where shooters can use whatever firearm they want on whatever target they want... we'll have to find a way to codify that in rules-speak, but ... more fundamentally, we need to settle on the definition of the concept, first. It is getting close to time to fish-or-cut-bait. The more specific we can be in suggesting rules-changes, the easier it will be to pull them together into a coherent proposal for the Board. bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3GunF1Guy Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 In San Angelo scoring how do you handle clays popers. Are the clays a "disapering target" that is not a miss. Or are they a required hit. if you do not shoot at them you get the miss with the FTN? Scott Peterson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry White Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Aerial clays are a dissappering target,just like a drop turner, no penelaty miss. In USPSA scoring there is no ftn, its just hits and misses and count the points, and subtract the penalitys. San Angelo scoring is just USPSA scoring with a way(via the score sheet) to score both minor and major in the same stage.----Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 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. Actually, it was a re-write and was the original author's-- oh what the hell, it was Charlie Funk, the late NE Section Coordinator. Anyway, it was his first and only windows application and as such, I think its pretty damned good. Are there outstanding problems? Sure. But it seems like it gets the job done nicely on regular pistol matches. The, um, quote-language-unquote is powerbuilder. (That's no great secret, either; it doesn't take much to look at the infofile address space that starts up alongside ezws to see that Sybase's name is all over it, and goto their website to see what they have to offer.) Believe me, there is no 'porting' to be done between a dos-based CA-Clipper application and windows powerbuilder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 OK, In the interest of contructive assistance, I've put out the call to get some of the local 3-gunners together to work on revised rules, then actually run a mini-match based on what we come up with. We'll then give Bruce and da boys a report on where we think USPSA should go. Most of the criticisms I've heard for why match directors refuse to accept USPSA rules center around creating courses of fire that competitors must complete in their entirely, and the gun grounding issue. I'm sure more will come up around the 3rd or 4th beer. I'll keep ya'll posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I got your call to action (in separate email), and the only thing I'd add is: If y'all are going to get together over pizza and beer and doodle on some napkins, let me know when and where. With a little advance warning, I'm well within driving distance of most of you... Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny hill Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 If you guy's would just shoot the 3-gum state match & go in & watch them score, all your problems will be solved, if not it won't get done right this year. If you wonder why other big 3-gun matches draw more shooters just look at your scoreing & stupid grounding rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Bruce, I'll keep you posted for sure. Uncle Bill will be back from SHOT tomorrow and I'm planning an ambush at the airport. What I really would like to come out of the meeting is a list of every "gamer" stage we can think of, so that we can shoot and re-shoot them and figure out how to set the penalties for various targets. And the outcome might also very well be showing how it is better (score-wise) to shoot stages straight and well, rather than game them. Once that's done. We need to sell the bejeezus out the USPSA rules as being THE standard. I'm also wondering if USPSA could sell the scoring system as a service to bring in some of the "outlaw" matches into USPSA. i.e. "Not only will we give you the software free, but tell us what you want and (for a fee) USPSA will have standardized, carbonless scoresheets printed up and delivered to your match in time for game day." Make it effortless for match directors to adopt USPSA rules. FWIW. P.S. Just got an email from Mark Carbon and he's volunteered his range - which will be a plus over trying to do it at Fernan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 If you guy's would just shoot the 3-gum state match & go in & watch them score, all your problems will be solved, if not it won't get done right this year. If you wonder why other big 3-gun matches draw more shooters just look at your scoreing & stupid grounding rules. Benny, Most of us are too far away to make that match conveniently, but we're going to work on ALL of that up here. Mark Carbon is using modified USPSA rules. The grounding rules have got to change. I HATE not being able to reholster my pistol. I hate speed unloading my shotgun most of all. And, if I have my druthers, race holsters will be illegal at USPSA 3 gun matches. We're all on the same team and we're going to make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3GunF1Guy Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 O.K. lets say I'm on board for San Angelo scoring and the USPSA adopts it, I have some questions? (BTW I have shot in a match with San Angelo scoring, USPSA scoring and IMGA scoring.) What about some of the rifle steel that is available to shoot like the one I got last week for our club, it is a MGM Precision rifle target. You need to shoot it open and then closed. This is technically not a legal USPSA target. Do we eliminate all target's that are not the standard USPSA targets? How about steel swinging targets? AKA flash targets. Clays.... Wow I do not like that one AT ALL!!! Yes I know it looks and acts like a disappearing target, but I would like the wording of the USPSA 3-Gun rules to specify that flying clays targets are scored like steel targets. The next thing is Long range targets, How do we in the wording of rules make a 400yrd target worth more points ("All rifle targets over 150 yards are worth double the points if assigned by the match director"). Can something like this be easily done in San Angelo scoring? I hope that this thread does not get locked and that for the rest of this thread we can ask constructive questions with ways to work out the problems for USPSA 3-gun. Scott Peterson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 ...I HATE not being able to reholster my pistol. ... Okay, humor me with a possibly dumb question. Where does it say you can't reholster a pistol? I've never thought it was a good idea to do so under time, but I've also always thought there was no rule disallowing it. Thx. Bn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 ...I HATE not being able to reholster my pistol. ... Okay, humor me with a possibly dumb question. Where does it say you can't reholster a pistol? I've never thought it was a good idea to do so under time, but I've also always thought there was no rule disallowing it. Thx. Bn It's not in the USPSA pistol rules. It is a match by match issue. It is verboten at some 3-gun matches - your pistol MUST go into a box just like an abandoned long gun. I won't go into my opinion of whether or not someone who is too clueless to safely reholster a hot pistol has any business shooting 3-gun matches. /Diversionary Rant Mode OFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 If you wonder why other big 3-gun matches draw more shooters just look at your scoreing & stupid grounding rules. Thanks for the constructive input, Benny. I think if you'll read the whole thread, you'll find that nobody here - starting with me - has any desire to leave the "stupid grounding rules" in place. Those were a band-aid, which allowed us to make multi-gun legal in USPSA last year. This year is the year we're working to make itright. And, while I may not make it to your state match (don't know what state you're in), I *do* plan to travel to the Rocky Mountain 3-gun, the Superstition Mountain 3-gun, and probably the Iron Man, so... if you're at any of those, feel free to bend my ear about how USPSA ought to do things. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 It's not in the USPSA pistol rules. It is a match by match issue. It is verboten at some 3-gun matches - your pistol MUST go into a box just like an abandoned long gun. There's nothing in the USPSA rules that says you can't re-holster. There is a rule that says that a course of fire cannot REQUIRE you to reholster, and there's a rule that says if you reholster, the gun has to be in a "ready condition" (eg, safety on), but... course description notwithstanding, you can CHOOSE to reholster any time you want. At the same time, though, there's nothing in the rules that says a course designer can't *require* you to put your gun in a box at some point in the course of fire... just like a course designer can require you to *start* with your gun in a box. ...and, I'd note that one of the strongest bits of consensus we've been able to gain in this thread is around the idea that providing bunkers that hold a gun in a safe position/direction are a reasonable method for grounding a hot gun, and better than requiring that the gun be empty. Are you now saying that we should *not* allow a course-designer to put a "bunker" on the stage to give the shooter a place to abandon a hot handgun? Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Bruce, You guys keep thinking I'm attacking USPSA. I'm not. I'm not opposed to bunkers. I trying to say that USPSA can bring some sense and uniformity. I can't write the rules anyway, so my personal opinon has absolutely ZERO bearing on what the final USPSA rules look like. I'm just giving you my newbie's perception here. I just wasn't fond of the mandatory "speed unload" for handguns instead of being able to return my handgun to the safety device that was perfectly OK to keep my loaded handgun in before I fired it. That is all. The mandatory handgun "hot box" seems like a way to accomodate race holsters, which IMHO have no business in 3 gun matches. (My god, I sound like Bill Wilson...) Reholstering also would speed up matches as it's one less gun to retrieve. I'm sorry that I'm raising USPSA's hackles. Maybe I just want to shoot the outlaw matches only and just say to hell with it. I really never did care about having a classification anyway. I'm sick of the politics already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 You guys keep thinking I'm attacking USPSA. Dude! Cut back on the caffeine! I'm on your side! I'm not looking at things as attacks, Im (A) trying to make sure I get good input, and ( trying to make sure I understand it well enough to put rules around it. The only politics here are "the voice of the people" - I'm trying to figure out how to get written into the rulebook what you say you want. bg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkmccoy Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Bruce et al., OK, I haven't been suggesting specific wording of rule changes (partly because this started as a scoring thread, partly because I was trying to address philosophical questions regarding scoring system instead of specific rule changes, partly because I was too lazy to retype a bunch of stuff I typed in a thread last year and that was resoundingly ignored at the time). Following (from last year's thread) are suggestions to change the rules regarding stage design that really must be changed: "D(v) - currently mandates (in essence) that the designated weapon for a stage is determined by which weapon accounts for more the majority of the stage points. This severely restricts the design of stages where a shooter is allowed to choose which weapon is used to engage which targets (some of the most fun 3-gun stages). My suggested revised version: D(v) For scoring purposes each stage will be designated as either a "rifle" "pistol" or "shotgun" stage and that designation will be clearly published in the stage description and the match booklet. It is suggested that the designated firearm for each stage be based on the firearm likely be used to account for the majority of points for most shooters D(vi) - currently mandates that all shots will be scored with the power factor of the designated firearm. Although this is the reality of how the hits are entered into EZWinScore it is NOT a useful rule. My suggested revised version: D(vi) Each shot fired in a multi-gun stage will be scored according to the declared power factor of the firearm used to fire that shot. D(viii) - Suggested revision: When it is not possible to properly score "B" "C" and "D" hits to reflect the declared power factor of the firearm used (as required by D(vi)) stage designers must use only "A-zone only" targets for the non-designated firearm - followed by the list of allowable targets and the suggestions as currently in the provisional rules. I suggest that these revisions will still allow most clubs to conduct good 3-Gun matches within the current capabilities of WinEZScore, but will not restrict the stage designs at scores where we are already working around the inadequacies of the software." I think it would be a GREAT idea to ask for suggested changes to the multi-gun rules. The proper venue for that would probably be the USPSA website, although it could be publicized here. Is there any plan to do so? If we spend a lot of time working on suggested changes will there be any action on those suggestions? Are revisions to the multi-gun rules on the BOD agenda? Cheers, Kelly McCoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Dude! Cut back on the caffeine! How did you know that I typed that from inside a Starbucks?! My god, USPSA has put me under surveilance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Eric dude...you live near a former SAC air base. It is SO simple to put you under surveilance..... Eric: Mark or Carl Carbon? As in...Ephrata or Spokane Carbon? One will damn near require a hotel room, one not. There is an awesome pizza place in Moses Lake and that's about as mid-way between us and Bruce as you can get. Disallowing grounding of hot guns just leads to DQs for silly reasons. Unloading on the clock is, IMHO far more dangerous than just grounding a gun that will be treated in every respect like a hot gun. People that DQ for silly reasons don't have much fun and if they do it they are very unlikely to come shoot under those rules again. People that have to DQ people for silly reasons don't have much fun. Last year ROing a 3G match I was extremely relieved when at the end of they day I had DQ'd zero people for grounding hot guns. I was just sure going in that I would set a new personal record for # of DQs issued in a single day and I was not happy about that thought. So....let's all just agree that the "stupid grounding rules" are history and move on. Eric and I are hashing out a scoring idea right now via email. Brush up on that 7th grade matrix theory boys and girls.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Eric: Mark or Carl Carbon? As in...Ephrata or Spokane Carbon? One will damn near require a hotel room, one not. I'm sorry, it was Carl. Carl offered the Ephrata range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Ahhh...figured as much. Mike gets those two confused too. And they look so much alike and all.... Ephrata should be warmer...although given the current weather I am not sure either would be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 D(viii) - Suggested revision:When it is not possible to properly score "B" "C" and "D" hits to reflect the declared power factor of the firearm used (as required by D(vi)) stage designers must use only "A-zone only" targets for the non-designated firearm - followed by the list of allowable targets and the suggestions as currently in the provisional rules. I like this a lot. As you mentioned, it will allow clubs some options - if they can score the different power factors, great. If not, here's how you handle it. The proper venue for [discussing proposed changes] would probably be the USPSA website, although it could be publicized here. Is there any plan to do so? Not sure. My plan at this point is to collect all the ideas I've collected from here, from on-the-ground observations, and from email, and collate them into a new draft. While there is a committee charged to do this, I think it will happen sooner if one person does it, rather than waiting for the committee to gain momentum. I then plan to vet the draft in three ways: with the Board, to build consensus; with a small group of people (RMs, "name" 3-gunners, known multi-gun MDs, etc) to identify the glaring holes; and then when that draft is suitably stable, post it to the world at large for a finite comment period. My personal opinion is that this forum is a far more effective venue for the broad feedback than the USPSA website would be, but I'm open to other approaches. If we spend a lot of time working on suggested changes will there be any action on those suggestions? Are revisions to the multi-gun rules on the BOD agenda? Multigun rules were on the agenda for the Board meeting a couple of weeks ago; that was basically a forum for discussing what went right and what went wrong, and laying the groundwork for us to develop some revisions. Having said that: *I* will personally guarantee that the revised draft will hit the BOD agenda, and I will personally evangelize them to get action on them. Bruce (on a mission) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkmccoy Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Go Bruce, Tilt those windmills. Kelly McCoy 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