Should Match Results Be Public?

[folsoml]

Post them. The examples of potential downsides I am seeing posted are so remote they border on being purely theoretical. I'm trying to imagine someone who is going to go through all the trouble to look up who is currently at the nationals so they can go break into their house. Or someone who screens all their job applicants by looking on the uspsa site to see if they competed in a local shooting match. I don't think I would want to work for them anyway.

[LPatterson]

I voted no because I don't want to advertise what I do or when I do it. I don't even use my residence address for anything except where it is required; i.e. 4473's. For everything else I use a maildrop. I don't want to come home and find that UPS has left a couple thousand bullets on the front step.

Maybe I am paranoid but a line comes to mind, "For the first time in history a civilized nation has complete gun registration", speaker Adolph Hilter.

[shred]

Post them.  The examples of potential downsides I am seeing posted are so remote they border on being purely theoretical.  I'm trying to imagine someone who is going to go through all the trouble to look up who is currently at the nationals so they can go break into their house.  Or someone who screens all their job applicants by looking on the uspsa site to see if they competed in a local shooting match.  I don't think I would want to work for them anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Theoretical? Years ago some local shooters were burglarized while they were at a match and the story was the burglars had discovered their shooting schedule.

It's extremely common for hiring managers to punch a candidates name into Google as well as all the other background checks they do these days. For some people, a good paying job is more important than theoretically somebody wanting to see how somebody did at a match without being a member of USPSA.

[EricW]

I've always had an alarm system, automatic interior and exterior lights, radio/tv running for noise, then on top of that had family or neighbors keeping a close eye on my home when I left town. Having your name on a scoresheet at a major match does not automatically mean your house need be totally unattended. And I'm sure that for a nominal fee, that you can schedule a private security company to do periodic drivethroughs and inspections for the time that you will be away. Then there's always a house-sitter.

I never left a "Look! I'm not home!" sign out when travelling on business, nor would I to attend a major match.

Don't know what to tell people about the jobs, as I've decided not to work for anti-gun liberals anymore.

And trust me, the government already knows all about what we own and what we do. Unless you've only bought unregistered guns, never applied for a CCW, and paid for all your ammo and components cash, you're busted. They also know you're in the NRA, USPSA, Ducks Unlimited and a member of your local gun club(s).

There's nothing left to hide, so we might as well take the sport out into the light of day and show the world what a bunch of fantastic folks are involved in the world's best shooting sport.

[George]

There's nothing left to hide, so we might as well take the sport out into the light of day and show the world what a bunch of fantastic folks are involved in the world's best shooting sport.

AMEN!

[bruce282]

This is similar to the car dealerships around here (DC area) searching for a name plus "results" plus "SCCA" and pulling up the autocross results then denying warrenty coverage for the person's car because they "raced" it. Now if someone was trying to get a blown engine or trashed transmission replaced under warrenty, shame on them, but I don't believe an autocross or two would cause a power window motor to go bad.

Bruce

[bgary]

There's nothing left to hide, so we might as well take the sport out into the light of day and show the world what a bunch of fantastic folks are involved in the world's best shooting sport.

AMEN!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that we should bring the sport into the light of day.

I *also* agree, however, with those who want to maintain some level of "operational security" over how many details of their personal life they want to expose to the world, whether that be political affiliations, gun ownership, or anything else. I know that when I chose to run for a USPSA office, that was something I really thought hard about - do I want my affiliation with USPSA to be searchable? I decided it was something I could live with... but I *did* give it serious thought.

The current USPSA policy of putting listings behind a member login is sort of the "lowest common denominator" approach - it gets info out there where members can see it, but it does not harm anyone's ability to keep their name from being "searchable" with regard to USPSA participation, if that is a concern of theirs. I think that's a pretty reasonable middle ground, all things considered.

Bruce

[EricW]

Bruce,

I guess my only comments remaining are:

1. Where does that leave non-USPSA members who are interested in the match results? With current policy, match results would not seem to be (legally) distributed, which leaves the match as sort of a cult-members-only status.

2. What happens with this policy during the all-Hades hockey opener when OLN decides that USPSA Nationals deserves extended or (GASP!) live coverage? Is USPSA going to seriously tell the network that they can't use names or post scores for "security reasons?" I know this is years away, if ever, but how is USPSA ever going to be taken seriously by the mainstream if the match results are secret?

What about those who have these security concerns? Are they going to sue USPSA and Jim Scoutten if their faces accidentally appear in the background during ShootingUSA's coverage of the Nats?

Personally, I hate being on TV, hate cameras, and loathe reporters (just ask the few who've met me), but I don't think that my loathing of these institutions grants me wholesale rights to screw over everyone else who depends upon such coverage for their sponsorship livelihood. I also don't think my "privacy" is more important than promoting practical shooting.

Regardless, it seems like Dr. Boudrie has a solution, so beating this horse isn't really neccessary....until ESPN shows up.

[bgary]

1.  Where does that leave non-USPSA members who are interested in the match results?  With current policy, match results would not seem to be (legally) distributed, which leaves the match as sort of a cult-members-only status.

There's nothing - anywhere - that says a club or match cannot post whatever they want on their own website. The USPSA policy only covers what goes on the USPSA website. So.... in my home club, for example, the results are submitted to USPSA for "broad" posting, but they are also posted on the club website, without any password or anything else. The club may also email them out. Certainly non-USPSA members can see them thru either of those methods?

Note, too, that I have *no* philosphical problem with USPSA choosing to provide first-tier member services to *members*. If a shooter wants to avail themselves of services that USPSA provides to members.... be a member! It probably costs less than the ammo they just shot at that match.

What about those who have these security concerns?  Are they going to sue USPSA and Jim Scoutten if their faces accidentally appear in the background during ShootingUSA's coverage of the Nats?

I don't know about ESPN or others, but I know that Scoutten is pretty fanatical about getting releases if someones recognizable likeness or name is going to appear in a broadcast. If someone's face appears in the background? Not sure how far that goes.

I don't think that my loathing of these institutions grants me wholesale rights to screw over everyone else who depends upon such coverage for their sponsorship livelihood. 

I'd characterize my thoughts under the umbrella of "we should do no harm". If someone wants to have their name listed, but we don't, it is an inconvenience but not a life-altering thing. If someone, on the other hand, places a high degree of importance on their "privacy" (for whatever reason, real or perceived), and we publish their name, we have over-ridden their preference in a way that they can't opt-out or un-do. I think (my opinion) that as an org we have a responsibility to be the *least* intrusive we can be, and (as Rob has suggested) provide ways for individuals to opt-in to higher levels of public visibility if *they* choose to do so.

You ask "why should everyone's names be hidden just because a few want it?" I'd turn that around... why should everyone's name be published, just because a few want it? There *may* be reasons why people would not want their name published. Don't they have the right to that choice? Don't we (USPSA) have an obligation to respect it?

Bruce

[Paul B]

Why couldn't those who really want the privacy simply sign up at matches under a different name?

[Rob Boudrie]

To answer the last question: If we required "aliasing" at a match, it would mean that people joining USPSA would have their names displayed unless they took an affirmative action to stop it. To me, that's like being told you've bought something unless you sign up to say you aren't. The nationals were a separate event, and we did have a provision for hiding names upon request in the squadding system.

The "first name only" option for non members is turning out to be a bit of work. I'm rewriting the results display code to make this easier, and and finding out just how much is there - comments from the match director, results, per-shooter summary, point series support, major match uploading link, etc. Also, the directory with the results, stage diagrams, etc. is currently under "members only" password control, and I have to change that to protect each subdirectory with stage or overall results so that non-members will be able to see the stage diagrams and notices from the match director. None of this is difficult - just a bunch of things which need to be done to put the new system in place. I'm about 80% done, which is developer speak for about 50% done .

[EricW]

Note, too, that I have *no* philosphical problem with USPSA choosing to provide first-tier member services to *members*.  If a shooter wants to avail themselves of services that USPSA provides to members.... be a member!  It probably costs less than the ammo they just shot at that match. 

Bruce, I understand USPSA's desire to garner membership revenue by providing features, but having to join USPSA to keep up with how the Nationals are running is like having to join the French Cycling Federation to get the results on the Tour de France. There is a nationwide and worldwide appeal to what we're doing and I really feel that being just a bit more open would be *more* of an incentive toward membership.

As far as the privacy thing goes, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If I was so concerned for my personal security that I didn't want anybody to know who I was or what I was doing, I probably wouldn't enter a national competition and would opt for the trip to Fiji.

[Flexmoney]

Choice is nice.

[Sam]

I'm thinking we could let each competitor sign a waver during the match sign-up if they don't mind having their names published or their faces on film.

Everyone who does not wish to be identified or have their names published in the match results could be alluded to by their membership number only. Or, if that isn't "double secret probationary" enough, just their shooter number for the match.

[Nate]

My first thought was for a local match to help advertise our sport. Lots of divisions, lots of classes, lots of chances to be recognized for improvement. At a local match you could have people check a box if they wanted not to be in the paper. I worry about advertising my home as a location where fire arms are kept, but in Montana I guess you should just assume every house has guns (Gods country).

[shred]

Ok, hands up everybody who knows why 1) you can't search for classifications by name anymore and 2) why they only display first name, last initial.

The press is not always friendly

[Rob Boudrie]

The project to display results "first name, last initial" only to non-members has already been started.

But, one relevant question remains:

If we offer shooters a choice, based on a flag the can set on-line, what should the default be? Unless there is a formal decision from HQ, I will assume non-display of the surname to the the default state of being.

[EricW]

"Hidden Surname" by default seems like a reasonable compromise. Those for whom it is important, will figure out what's up and enable the option either on-line or by checking a box on the scoresheet at the match.

[Rob Boudrie]

The option will not be something handled with your match registration.

If the match gets it wrong, the member will complain to USPSA which is doing the actual publishing. Also, match administrators and stats crews have enough to do without worrying about capturing this additional detail.

If we offer that option, it's going to be under direct control of the member. Also, using a database flag would allow a member to turn their names on or off for all matches in a forward looking as well as ex post facto sense.

Rob

[Flexmoney]

I think that

Rob B.

Erik W.

and

Kyle F.

would be a good default

??

[Sam]

This seems like a good compromise to me.

BTW, in my match results you can list me as "Sam Johnson A-19603, RR1 Douglas, Wyoming."

Bring it on!

[GuildSF4]

I think that

Rob B.

Erik W.

and

Kyle F.

would be a good default

??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like that.

Would member numbers also be on the results?

[Shooter Grrl]

My family really ENJOYS reading the interim results - I've taught them all the scoring system, they are truly involved in my sport and proud of me, but they can't make it to watch me. I want them to be able to see how I"m doing without feeling guilty for giving out a password!

[Jasonub]

im not a uspsa member. Im a IPSC PPSA member though and we are interested in seeing your match results to see how our idols are doing.

but thats the extent of it. I think ipsc shooters are only interested in seeing who is on the top 5 or so in standard open and production on a particular uspsa match.

Maybe uspsa can just publish the top 10 who i dont think will mind since they are always in the gun mags.

My 2 cents

[Jim Norman]

The attitude that many people seem to have; that someone is a criminal just by owning a gun

Heh.

A couple of years back I worked for a *very* liberal-minded company, in (very liberal) Seattle.

At one point, one of the "ladies" I worked with figured out that I was into guns, came into my office (tie-died muu-muu, birkenstocks, unshaven legs and all) and started reading me the riot act, shouting (literally) at me that guns are what is wrong with society, anyone who likes guns should be locked up because they clearly have repressed criminal tendencies, studies have shown that gun-owners murder family members, etc, etc, etc.

I waited until she was done, and said

"you're not being very tolerant of my diversity. Don't you think you should be more respectful of my lifestyle choices?"

Her jaw hit the ground, she sputtered a couple of times, and left. Never said another word to me. *ever*.

[/thread-drift]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Beautiful!

Turn it all back onto them.

Hope I am resourceful enough to remember your reply when this happens to me.

Jim Norman