SC Level II match membership requirement

[Thomas H]

Currently in the SC rulebook (new this year), people who want to shoot Level II SC matches must be members of SCSA/USPSA.  (This wasn't true prior to that.)  I think we should go back to not requiring people to be SCSA members to shoot Level II matches---that it again be "recommended" rather than "mandatory" just as it was prior to this past year.

 

Right now commentary is still open on the USPSA website regarding any possible suggested changes to the rules for USPSA, SCSA, and USPSA Multigun.

 

If you agree, I'd like to urge you to go there ( http://uspsa.org/rulebook ) and comment on it.

 

Appendix F1 in the SCSA rulebook currently states that for Level I matches membership is recommended, and for Level II, III, and IV it is mandatory.  In my area, at least, we have a number of casual shooters who only occasionally shoot matches, but who enjoy SC, and therefore jump at the chance to participate in a Level II match.  Even though the membership fee is small, they don't shoot many matches and thus just won't join.  As such, under the current rules they wouldn't be allowed to shoot our Level II match, even though it is local to them.

 

Now, for things like USPSA, Level II matches are normally run more strictly (whether that is according to the rulebook or not) with more complicated stages, requiring a higher level of understanding of the rules and a higher skill competency level for safety reasons.  In the case of SCSA, however, that isn't true.  It is the same set of stages, with the exact same ruleset (other than no coaching on misses).  There is no higher competency level required.  As such, limiting Level II matches to members-only simply reduces the number of shooters who get to enjoy SCSA, for no appreciable gain.

 

In my opinion.

 

Keeping Level III and Level IV matches member only---ok, sure.  Admin wants to drive more people into memberships, and it isn't like the memberships are expensive, and people generally don't go to Level III+ matches unless they are already dedicated to the sport.  I get that.

 

But level II matches are ones that many local people might still shoot.  We've had people in the past whose first SC match ever was our Level II, and who were hooked by the ability to shoot multiple guns (including rimfire).  In my opinion, our sport would be better served by not requiring SCSA membership to participate in Level II matches.

 

If you don't agree with me, you'd ALSO better go to the site and comment on it, because I certainly did for my point of view. 

 

Thoughts?

[Trent1k1]

Will you charge more for your Level II match than your local Level 1 match?

 

Same stages, same range, right?

 

If you do charge more, perhaps your club could take the extra money and purchase a membership on behalf of the locals.  It would be a good way to take care of those that support your local club.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Trent1k1

[ZackJones]

This change was made to align our rules with the USPSA handgun rules. It’s not being enforced until 2019 even though it is in the rule book. I think you have an uphill battle ahead trying to convince the BoD to reverse the current rule.

[Thomas H]

1 hour ago, ZackJones said:

This change was made to align our rules with the USPSA handgun rules. It’s not being enforced until 2019 even though it is in the rule book. I think you have an uphill battle ahead trying to convince the BoD to reverse the current rule.

 

That wouldn't surprise me.  Entrenched opinions and emotional investment, not to mention a "well, it is already done" attitude is difficult to change.  (Note: I'm not saying that about Zach, I'm saying that about people in general.)

 

However, this isn't an equipment rule, nor a safety rule, nor anything else that needs to be "aligned" with any other sport to create competitive equity.

 

The question is, other than "alignment," is there any purpose to the rule?  Does it make the sport better?  Does it help expand the sport, create a larger membership, or anything like that?  Is there anything positive that occurs due to this rule?

Because there are some negatives to this rule, in that people who would normally shoot a Level II match and enjoy the sport won't be able to do so.

 

I asked about this rule when it first came out, and what I originally heard was "there didn't seem to be any really good reason for it in the first place" along with a "I'm hoping we'll change it back" at the time.

 

What positives are we getting out of it, that matter to the sport of SC?  Was there a reason this needed to be "aligned" with USPSA?  After all, magazine carry, placement, and usage aren't "aligned" with USPSA, because there is no need---it is a different sport.  Was there any reason given to "align" this one?

[Thomas H]

2 hours ago, Trent1k1 said:

Will you charge more for your Level II match than your local Level 1 match?

 

Same stages, same range, right?

 

If you do charge more, perhaps your club could take the extra money and purchase a membership on behalf of the locals.  It would be a good way to take care of those that support your local club.

 

Yes, we charge more.  (Not much, though---far as I can tell, we seem to have one of the cheapest Level II matches around. $35 for the first division, $15 for all additional divisions up to a maximum of 6.)  Our local matches are $15 for the match.

 

Our Level I local matches only have 6 stages.  Our Level II matches have all eight stages, dedicated ROs, awards, random prizes, and the ability to shoot up to six divisions---none of which our local matches have.  As such, there isn't much "extra money."

 

In my personal opinion, taking match money to pay for a group of people's memberships (as opposed to, for example, giving a couple of memberships as random prizes to non-members, which was something Zach suggested originally), would lead to more people not bothering to join, since their membership would be simply paid for by the match.  Don't want that outcome---rather the opposite of what we want.

 

 

[firewood]

Simple solution.

 

Thomas H my advice is for you run unsanctioned tier 2 style matches with the same large prize table and a Lewis Class payout! It can be done. This way you can shoot with your buds and keep their personal costs down and they will walk off with all kinds of freebies donated by sponsors that think the same way. 

 

Actually I'm really conflicted on this not because I agree or disagree with you but because you are critical of a rule change that casual shooters who are not satisfied shooting tier 1 matches don't like. What you are asking is this: You dues paying members of USPSA, I have some friends that don't want to support the SCSA sanctioning body but want to shoot in SCSA sanctioned matches. Kindly let USPSA/SCSA know that you think it's unfair for the borg to require those individuals pay dues to shoot in our matches even though they don't think the borg is a worthy cause.

 

Put another way, I have to cough up yearly dues and I have to take yearly tests to be a NROI certified so your friends to shoot in sanctioned matches without having to be members of the sanctioning body. 

[ZackJones]

Interesting points. I will need to confirm but I believe the USPSA Bylaws State that matches higher than club level require membership. If that is the case then we need to enforce what is in our bylaws. I will check it out tomorrow.

[Hammer002]

15 hours ago, Thomas H said:

Thoughts?

 

7 hours ago, ZackJones said:

Interesting points. I will need to confirm but I believe the USPSA Bylaws State that matches higher than club level require membership. If that is the case then we need to enforce what is in our bylaws. I will check it out tomorrow.

 

It may very well be in the bylaws, and it may very well be an uphill battle.  As I understood it, the idea, in USPSA as well, was statistics based.  What is being shot and by who to decide where focus/money is spent.  I agree with Thomas, it was kind of a discouragement to new/casual shooters.  Sounds like nothing more than a money grab on the surface, and that's bad PR.  I think a simple solution would be a way to record the statistics without having to calculate competitor classifications, even if it was a submission of totals by the MD.  As good as any idea can be, I think you are both right - it would be an uphil battle for change, likely for the reasons Thomas listed.  Personally, at this time, I think there is a difference in level 2 on the west coast vs what we do in the midwest, where it hasnt yet exploded the same.

[Trent1k1]

16 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

The question is, other than "alignment," is there any purpose to the rule?  Does it make the sport better?  Does it help expand the sport, create a larger membership, or anything like that?  Is there anything positive that occurs due to this rule?
 

It sounds like you and your local shooters do not perceive value from membership in SCSA.  SCSA provides a rulebook, in this case all the stages, classifications and a Brand.

 

If you don't believe there is a value associated with the Brand and stages, see if your match fills up by using different rules and stages such as Rimfire Challenge www.rimfirechallenge.org  or International Steel Shoot for your match.  

 

Or, just don't use any of the rules or stages and have it as an Outlaw match.  Nothing says it has to be an SCSA match.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zzt]

6.4.1 of the current USPSA rule books states you must be a member to shoot Level II or above.  I agree with that rule and think it should apply to SCSA as well.  Level I should stay open to non-members as long as members are squadded first.

[Sarge]

4 minutes ago, zzt said:

  Level I should stay open to non-members as long as members are squadded first.

I had never thought of that angle. Makes sense though. Many matches are switching to online registration and capping capacity. USPSA members should have priority unless they wait until last minute to sign up.

[zzt]

Sarge, we have a lot of shooters.  All the clubs in the area use Practiscore for registration.  One club allows a max of 80 Shooters for a USPSA match.  If you are not signed up within 60 seconds of registration opening, you are on the wait list.  That same club hosts Level 1 and II SCSA matches as well.  They open registration for the whole year.  If you haven't signed and paid up at least a month before the shoot, you don't get to.

 

At two other clubs, you have 3-4 minutes before registration is full and you're wait listed.  A fourth club works it differently.  50 shooters are allowed to squad.  Another 15 are allowed to place themselves on the wait list (visible at registration}.  They do make exceptions.  If you could not get on the wait list, but show up, chances are really good you will be allowed to shoot.  That is especially true if you show up early and help set up.

Edited November 27, 2018 by zzt

[Thomas H]

It is interesting reading some of the responses.  I make a post regarding a rule change that was made at the beginning of 2018 that hasn't even been enforced yet, talk about how it may affect shooters interested in Steel Challenge---and what a couple of people say is:
 

"What you are asking is this: You dues paying members of USPSA, I have some friends that don't want to support the SCSA sanctioning body but want to shoot in SCSA sanctioned matches. Kindly let USPSA/SCSA know that you think it's unfair for the borg to require those individuals pay dues to shoot in our matches even though they don't think the borg is a worthy cause. "
 

and
 

"It sounds like you and your local shooters do not perceive value from membership in SCSA.  SCSA provides a rulebook, in this case all the stages, classifications and a Brand."

 

...neither of which is actually related to the topic I brought up, and makes interesting claims regarding both myself and shooters they don't know at all.

 

Other than saying "You guys do realize that everyone who shoots a SCSA match has part of their match fee sent to SCSA HQ to support the sport whether they are members or not, right?" ...I'm going to just ignore all of that, because it is both off-topic in several different ways, and makes a number of personal comments that are both factually incorrect, and insulting.  So not worth a much of a reply.

 

Back to the point:  Zach said:  "I will need to confirm but I believe the USPSA Bylaws State that matches higher than club level require membership."

Looking at the bylaws, I don't see anything like that, so if you can find it, I'll be curious where.  I'd also be curious as to whether or not that actually applies to SC matches, as opposed to USPSA matches.  With both reading through the bylaws and doing a word search on the bylaws, I can't find anything about levels II+ matches requiring anything like that.  Matter of fact, I don't find ANYTHING in the bylaws discussing matches by level at all, really.

 

SCSA originally didn't require any memberships at all (anyone could play) and was hugely successful.  After USPSA bought SCSA and up until the 2018 rules revision, membership was not required for Level II matches--and it was still not required for 2018, and expected to be implemented in 2019.  Given that, I am surprised by the people who think this is suddenly an important requirement given that we've never done it before.  (It also seems to be to make it less likely to actually be in the bylaws, because if it was, we'd have enforced it this year, I would have assumed.)

 

The current USPSA rulebook does indeed requirement membership to participate in Level II matches.  Personally, I'm for that for several reasons, not least of which is that people who are members are much more likely to simply be safe with a firearm under the conditions of an action pistol stage.    SCSA though---the stages aren't any different from a level I to a level II.  And SC is much simpler "entry" type match for many people.  As a match type, it is considerably more straightforward, requiring less gear.  (Not easier to succeed at, as the skill required is just as high.  But the requirements themselves are much more straightforward.)  As such, it is a great way to get "casual" shooters hooked on competition shooting, with many starting in SC and then adding USPSA over time.  (At least, that's what I've seen in our Section, and heard from plenty of other people.)  The fun and excitement of a Level II SC match (with more divisions, more stages than most locals, and awards) is something else that can simply pull more people into the sport.

 

Basically, I still haven't seen any logical reason for NOT letting non-members shoot Level II matches (other than perhaps bylaws?) thus far, other than "they don't support the sport enough for us" (even though a portion of their match fee goes to the sport itself, in addition to supporting their local club) and "to make it match USPSA rules" which doesn't seem necessary to me given that it isn't a safety issue nor an equipment issue.  (And other rules in SCSA don't match USPSA.)

 

Is there (other than possible bylaws issues) a logical reason to bar interested people who aren't SCSA members from shooting Level II SC matches?

 

 

zzt:  It is cool that your clubs have such a high level of participation in your area!  We have been working on getting our numbers up over time---in the last ten years we have managed to triple our average number of shooters per USPSA match, and quadruple our SCSA match participation.  But we aren't anywhere near your area's level yet! 

[GrumpyOne]

Per the current rules, Appendix A1, line 2, competitors MUST be USPSA members in Level II or higher matches. I think SCSA rules are the same?

[Trent1k1]

5 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

 

Other than saying "You guys do realize that everyone who shoots a SCSA match has part of their match fee sent to SCSA HQ to support the sport whether they are members or not, right?" ...I'm going to just ignore all of that, because it is both off-topic in several different ways, and makes a number of personal comments that are both factually incorrect, and insulting.  So not worth a much of a reply.

Right, a portion of the match fees goes to support the SCSA Brand, rule book and organization.  Except for you who want to use that brand, stages and rules to promote your match and charge higher fees.

5 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

SCSA originally didn't require any memberships at all (anyone could play) and was hugely successful.  After USPSA bought SCSA and up until the 2018 rules revision, membership was not required for Level II matches--and it was still not required for 2018, and expected to be implemented in 2019.  Given that, I am surprised by the people who think this is suddenly an important requirement given that we've never done it before.  (It also seems to be to make it less likely to actually be in the bylaws, because if it was, we'd have enforced it this year, I would have assumed.)

There are more people actually in SCSA now than ever before.  Perhaps because there are rules and a Classification System.

5 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

The current USPSA rulebook does indeed requirement membership to participate in Level II matches.  Personally, I'm for that for several reasons, not least of which is that people who are members are much more likely to simply be safe with a firearm under the conditions of an action pistol stage.    SCSA though---the stages aren't any different from a level I to a level II.  And SC is much simpler "entry" type match for many people.  As a match type, it is considerably more straightforward, requiring less gear.  (Not easier to succeed at, as the skill required is just as high.  But the requirements themselves are much more straightforward.)  As such, it is a great way to get "casual" shooters hooked on competition shooting, with many starting in SC and then adding USPSA over time.  (At least, that's what I've seen in our Section, and heard from plenty of other people.)  The fun and excitement of a Level II SC match (with more divisions, more stages than most locals, and awards) is something else that can simply pull more people into the sport.

There are plenty of Steel matches that do not require a membership.

 

 

5 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

Basically, I still haven't seen any logical reason for NOT letting non-members shoot Level II matches (other than perhaps bylaws?) thus far, other than "they don't support the sport enough for us" (even though a portion of their match fee goes to the sport itself, in addition to supporting their local club) and "to make it match USPSA rules" which doesn't seem necessary to me given that it isn't a safety issue nor an equipment issue.  (And other rules in SCSA don't match USPSA.)

There have been many reasons listed, you just don't like them so you ignore them.

 

Brand, Rule book, classification system and in SCSA, unlike USPSA, all of the exact stages are specified in the rulebook.  Even more than in USPSA SCSA requires a rule book to setup the exact stages.

 

Perhaps we should propose to amend the rules that anyone not an SCSA member at a Level II match have 10 seconds added to their match time?  If shooters are members, they get to keep the scores they shot.

5 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

Is there (other than possible bylaws issues) a logical reason to bar interested people who aren't SCSA members from shooting Level II SC matches?

Those shooters are not barred, they are just not supporting the organization and the proposed rule set.  What other rules will they not have to follow?  Should they be allowed to start with their finger pointed at the first steel plate?

 

Will you bring the steel in closer so it is more convenient for those shooters to compete?  

 

My guess is that no you wouldn't because it is against the rules of the SCSA organization which oversee all of the competitors and not a select few.

5 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

You don't want to hear it, but if you don't think membership in the sport, to continue to help drive the success of the sport should be required for the greater good of the sport, then nothing anyone can say will change your mind.

 

Shooting SCSA is a privilege and each of those shooters will spend way more on ammo at one match, then an annual membership..

[firewood]

Thomas H

 

You ask for thoughts, you get thoughts and you don't like those thoughts. And you make it kind of clear you don't appreciate thoughts that disagree with your thoughts.

 

OK

 

Probably due to the fact that I'm not a very nice individual or something but I'm really struggling to care if your friends don't participate.

 

Most likely, I would imagine, the USPSA/SCSA needs to carry a fairly comprehensive liability insurance policy to protect itself in particular for sanctioned events. All it takes it one errant round by some casual shooter. If they are not requiring membership and/or not enforcing this then they should start right now.

[Thomas H]

On 11/27/2018 at 10:34 PM, Trent1k1 said:

 

 

Trent, you just said I lot of things that I don't understand.

"Right, a portion of the match fees goes to support the SCSA Brand, rule book and organization.  Except for you who want to use that brand, stages and rules to promote your match and charge higher fees."

.....whether people are members or not, the same portion of the match fees still go to SCSA.  And a Level II match is different from a Level I match, so unsurprisingly, it costs more for a Level II match. 

 

I'm not understanding your "except for you" part, since again, the exact same match fees still go to SCSA.  For everyone.

 

"There are more people actually in SCSA now than ever before.  Perhaps because there are rules and a Classification System.

There are plenty of Steel matches that do not require a membership."

Okay.  That has nothing to do with the topic, though, or the ability of people to shoot Steel Challenge.

 

"There have been many reasons listed, you just don't like them so you ignore them."

So you should be able to point out logical ones.  Thus far, the logical ones were "make it match with USPSA" and "may be in the bylaws" which is why I specifically said that other things in SCSA don't match USPSA, and there seems to be no need for this one to do so, and asked also about where in the bylaws because I can't seem to find it.

 

If you had another logical point to make, please do so.

 

"Brand, Rule book, classification system and in SCSA, unlike USPSA, all of the exact stages are specified in the rulebook.  Even more than in USPSA SCSA requires a rule book to setup the exact stages."

Ok.  None of that is a logical reason to change our rules from what they used to be which was that membership wasn't required at Level II matches.  (Remember, it was that way for years.)  We didn't have a problem with non-members shooting Level II matches prior to this year...and we bought SCSA awhile ago.  So the fact that we have a rulebook and a classification system (where said classification system isn't used for non-members) and the exact same match fees are forwarded to SCSA whether from a member or not.....isn't a logical reason for the change.

 

"Perhaps we should propose to amend the rules that anyone not an SCSA member at a Level II match have 10 seconds added to their match time?  If shooters are members, they get to keep the scores they shot."

Perhaps we are thinking different things in terms of what it means to be "good for the sport."  I think it means things that will draw more people to the sport while giving our regulating body (a non-profit, I'll note) sufficient income to help do their jobs and promote the sport.  Since member or not, the match fees aren't any different, the "sufficient income" is a non-issue.  In terms of drawing people to the sport, I'm thinking chasing away people who aren't yet members perhaps won't work well.

 

I'm not sure why you think treating non-members as second-class citizens will be helpful.

 

"Those shooters are not barred, they are just not supporting the organization and the proposed rule set.  What other rules will they not have to follow?  Should they be allowed to start with their finger pointed at the first steel plate?"

Um, they are literally barred from shooting the match.  They aren't allowed to shoot it.  And if they were allowed to shoot it, their match fee would support the sport just as much as a member's match fee.

 

Rules they will not have to follow?  My point is that this rule should be removed---specifically, that it should be changed back to the way we HAD been doing it since USPSA bought SCSA.  That would mean that they were following the rules precisely.  Commenting that they are not following rules makes no sense.

 

"Will you bring the steel in closer so it is more convenient for those shooters to compete?"

 

That isn't relevant to the situation at all, nor is it even an analogy that makes sense.  Again:  if we go back to the participation rules as they had been from when USPSA starting running SCSA up until the start of this year, then they would be following the rules.

 

"My guess is that no you wouldn't because it is against the rules of the SCSA organization which oversee all of the competitors and not a select few."

 

That argument literally has no relation to the topic at hand, so my guess is that I wouldn't worry about it in the slightest.

 

You don't want to hear it, but if you don't think membership in the sport, to continue to help drive the success of the sport should be required for the greater good of the sport, then nothing anyone can say will change your mind."

 

I take it you shoot IDPA?

 

I'll note that we don't require membership in either USPSA or SCSA for participation in Level I matches, an the majority (the strong majority) of USPSA and SCSA shooters ONLY participate in local matches.  As such, arguing that Level II requirements such as this (that we've never had nor needed before, nor did we need it this year since it was specifically not enforced) are "required for the greater good of the sport" doesn't have much logical backing, particularly since it is such a small percentage of people.

 

Are you attempting to claim that the few additional people who are non-members who shoot SCSA, who would join SCSA just so they could shoot Level II matches, are the difference between the success of the sport and its failure?  I find that non-convincing.

 

"Shooting SCSA is a privilege and each of those shooters will spend way more on ammo at one match, then an annual membership."

 

Agreed on the ammo part.  That's not the point, though.

 

Here's another way of looking at it:  I looked at the participation in our Level II matches for the last two years.  Of the non-members who shot the 2017 match, 29% afterwards joined SCSA.  In 2018, it was 16%.  (Mostly because we had awful weather and a lot of the non-members who weren't that into steel didn't show.)

 

In other words, getting to shoot a Level II match was something that helped them decide to join, and they have kept their membership ever since.

 

So, again I ask, other than "to align with USPSA" or "bylaws," are there any logical reasons for this change?

 

if there aren't, and we keep the rule anyway, that's how it goes, and that'll be too bad.  If there are, I'd like to hear them.  If there aren't and that makes people realize that it means that fewer people have bigger opportunities to enjoy the sport and thus we shouldn't keep the rule, I think it would be a good thing.

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Thomas H
edited because I typed "Level II" once when I meant "Level I" and "IDPA" when I meant "SCSA" duh me

[ZackJones]

I did a quick skim of the by laws and nothing jumped out at me regarding the membership requirement.

We, as an organization, do want to have consistent set of requirements across our matches. Where it makes sense (magazine placement, for example) our rules are different.

Personally if there was one rule I wish we would get changed is the capacity limit in Production. 10 in mag only makes no sense to me.

Shooting sports, in general, are not a cheap sport. Membership costs either $25 or $40 per year. That’s nothing when you compare it to the cost of most firearms or a reloading press, etc.

I’ve worked a LOT of state level matches this year and not one time has a competitor or spouse or parent expressed any concern over membership requirements. In fact I usually talk with non-members and after our talk and they understand the benefits of membership many join that weekend so they can become classified the following Wednesday.

The rule is in the book. We have a feedback mechanism in place. I would encourage you to share your opinion with the BoD. While Troy or I may draft the rules ultimately it’s the BoD for our organization that approves or disapproves them.

[Ming the Merciless]

"Money grab", " greedy". Seriously?  All this to change the rules over a handful of freeloaders who want someone else to do all the work of creating the rules, organize the events, work the events so they can just show up and shoot?  They probably complain about the match fees as well.

 

How many freeloaders, oops non-members who don't want to contribute to the organization are being held back from shooting level II matches? 10, 20,50,100? times $25. Yup that sure sounds like big money grab greed!

[cferree]

Let's do the typical racing comparison. 

Show up at a monthly Autocross event put on by SCCA, no membership needed.  They hope is you'll have fun and want to race again.

Show up at a regional or national event, membership is required.  

 

What shouldn't that apply to SCCA?

Using the simpler stages excuse at a Tier 1 doesn't hold water.  How many monthly Tier 1's setup Outer Limits?  The one stage the "casual" competitors have the most problem with and the best chance to get DQ'd on. 

 

If you want to play the game at a higher level, step up and "pay your dues".

[Hammer002]

14 hours ago, Thomas H said:

nevermind. Forgot, I was trying to stay away from this place. Got bored.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Hammer002

[IHAVEGAS]

14 hours ago, Thomas H said:

So, again I ask, other than "to align with USPSA" or "bylaws," are there any logical reasons for this change?

 

Curious. I assume that a non-member would not have a classification (same as USPSA) so at any level 2 they would not be eligible for any classification based performance recognition? Competing against those at the same skill level, & working to move up in classification, are carrots for joining USPSA, without the stick.  

[Thomas H]

31 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Curious. I assume that a non-member would not have a classification (same as USPSA) so at any level 2 they would not be eligible for any classification based performance recognition? Competing against those at the same skill level, & working to move up in classification, are carrots for joining USPSA, without the stick.  

 

I agree, those are some of the pluses for membership.  But...at the same time, in SCSA it is only recently that we've started HAVING classification-based performance recognition.  (Matter of fact, I wonder how many Level II matches even do it?  Of the ones I shot last year (three?  four?  maybe three?), ours was the only one that had class recognition.  I wonder what the actual stats on class recognition at Level II matches are...)

 

14 hours ago, firewood said:

You ask for thoughts, you get thoughts and you don't like those thoughts. And you make it kind of clear you don't appreciate thoughts that disagree with your thoughts.

 

OK

 

Probably due to the fact that I'm not a very nice individual or something but I'm really struggling to care if your friends don't participate.

 

Most likely, I would imagine, the USPSA/SCSA needs to carry a fairly comprehensive liability insurance policy to protect itself in particular for sanctioned events. All it takes it one errant round by some casual shooter. If they are not requiring membership and/or not enforcing this then they should start right now.

 

I asked for logical reasons, as opposed to emotional opinions.   I mean, there's nothing wrong with emotional opinions, but just because someone has one doesn't mean it is in any way convincing to anyone else.  Logical reasons tends to be something worth considering.

 

Even better, the number of "I don't care if your friends don't participate," "everyone follows the rules except for you," " you and your local shooters," " you can shoot with your buds " and so on types-of-comments are interesting.  I mean, sheesh, I'm a life member, this doesn't apply to me, and my stated reason for wanting us to go back is that it can help get MORE people interested in the sport.  And yet, people try to make it personal, instead of about the topic.

 

I don't believe that USPSA/SCSA has any insurance that is given to any club holding a match.  I may be wrong there, but I don't think anything of the sort is true.  Clubs are on their own regarding insurance. 

 

In addition the "if your friends don't participate" thing really isn't relevant.  Or do you think this is about me?  Because I've been a life member for years, and most of my friends who shoot have been shooting for a long time, and been members for a long time. 

 

This is about pulling new people into the sport.  Making it about me is....extremely non-relevant.

 

8 hours ago, cferree said:

Let's do the typical racing comparison. 

Show up at a monthly Autocross event put on by SCCA, no membership needed.  They hope is you'll have fun and want to race again.

Show up at a regional or national event, membership is required.  

 

What shouldn't that apply to SCCA?

Using the simpler stages excuse at a Tier 1 doesn't hold water.  How many monthly Tier 1's setup Outer Limits?  The one stage the "casual" competitors have the most problem with and the best chance to get DQ'd on. 

 

If you want to play the game at a higher level, step up and "pay your dues".

 

Well, that's the thing---I agreed that Level III+ events should still require membership, as people who shoot those are already hooked on the sport.  So for regional or national events, I agree, membership should be required.  But Level IIs are not regional or national.

 

As for Tier 1 matches and "simpler stages" --- I was surprised to find out how many people's local matches were all 8 stages, when I asked about it awhile back.  Our locals (as another example) are 6 stages, but we rotate through all the stages over the year and so we do shoot all eight repeatedly.  Similarly for another local match I attend down at the Heartland Shooting Park---their locals are 4-6 stages, and in given match, all eight stages are equally likely.  Aren't there some places that literally leave all 8 stages set up all the time for people?  (There were certainly more that I originally expected when I asked about it.)

 

I agree that a number of clubs can't set up the longer ones.  And yet....is there a huge problem (or even a small problem) at level II matches in the past having DQs on the longer stages?  (Remember, so far there has been no enforced membership requirement at Level II matches.  If there was a problem, we'd know.)

 

11 hours ago, Ming the Merciless said:

"Money grab", " greedy". Seriously?  All this to change the rules over a handful of freeloaders who want someone else to do all the work of creating the rules, organize the events, work the events so they can just show up and shoot?  They probably complain about the match fees as well.

 

How many freeloaders, oops non-members who don't want to contribute to the organization are being held back from shooting level II matches? 10, 20,50,100? times $25. Yup that sure sounds like big money grab greed!

 

Handful of freeloaders...?  Really?  Um, their match fees go to SCSA and their local club just like anyone else's. 

 

I'm curious, at your local matches do you call non-members "freeloaders" and make those comments?  Have you at Level IIs in the past?  Because if so, that's a great turn-off for the sport.  Not really the way to get more people to be interested and join, and not the way we do things out here, either at the club I'm part of, or the clubs around me.  (Or even in states around me, far as I can tell.)
 

When I read things like this:  "It sounds like you and your local shooters do not perceive value from membership in SCSA.  SCSA provides a rulebook, in this case all the stages, classifications and a Brand. "
 

....it occurs me to that people don't seem to understand club membership versus individual membership.  Use of the rulebook, the name, and the brand are all functions of the club membership.  And the reason clubs affiliate is because it draws people in to shoot (whether the club wants money or wants more people interested in the shooting sports, either way, the affiliation is about more shooters).  The reason that individuals get memberships is because they perceive added value from it.  If they don't have a membership, they are still contributing to the sport via their match fees.  (If you call them freeloaders, perhaps you shouldn't be charging them money?)

 

I personally think that the SCSA membership DOES have added value.  But many casual shooters don't necessarily SEE that until they shoot a higher-level match, and I think that is going to become even MORE obvious as more Level II matches start adding class recognition.  (Which, like I said, doesn't seem to be much of a thing YET, though hopefully it will catch on more.) 

 

And again:  Comments like "free loaders" and "don't support the sport" and so on don't make any sense when you think about the fact that so far since USPSA bought SCSA, competitors have NOT been required to be SCSA members to shoot Level II matches.  In other words, people are making those comments about something that's never even been an issue before!  

 

Which is why I was looking for logical reasons to change.  We are taking some people who could always shoot before, and telling them they can't shoot.  Logical reasons for it thus far have been "alignment with USPSA rules" (which I disagree with being necessary, but that doesn't make it a less valid point), and "the bylaws say so" (which doesn't seem to be true, though I certainly also had to look it up to be sure).

 

Comments like "they don't support the sport" and "they are just freeloaders while everyone else makes the rules and sets up the matches and etc" aren't logical as they haven't been true in the past, and just because they aren't a member doesn't mean they don't help set up and tear down matches, plus their match fee percentage goes to SCSA HQ just like everyone else.

 

I was hoping there were other logical reasons for this, or if not, other people might think about whether or not this change will help the sport grow and pull in more people.  Several people discussed it from that standpoint, and I appreciate it.  Others decided to call people freeloaders and so on without discussing the actual topic, and I certainly hope you don't have that attitude at your local matches.  I REALLY hope you aren't any sort of RO or match official at local matches, because that makes our sport look bad.

 

Zach, thanks for checking the bylaws.  I didn't think that requirement was in there, but having someone else look is useful. 

 

[firewood]

2 hours ago, Thomas H said:

I asked for logical reasons, as opposed to emotional opinions.   I mean, there's nothing wrong with emotional opinions, but just because someone has one doesn't mean it is in any way convincing to anyone else.  Logical reasons tends to be something worth considering.

 

Even better, the number of "I don't care if your friends don't participate," "everyone follows the rules except for you," " you and your local shooters," " you can shoot with your buds " and so on types-of-comments are interesting.  I mean, sheesh, I'm a life member, this doesn't apply to me, and my stated reason for wanting us to go back is that it can help get MORE people interested in the sport.  And yet, people try to make it personal, instead of about the topic.

 

 

I get it now. I's ok for you to make assumptions about me but it isn't ok for me to make assumptions about you.

 

2 hours ago, Thomas H said:

This is about pulling new people into the sport.  Making it about me is....extremely non-relevant.

 

In your OP you state:

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 1:40 PM, Thomas H said:

In my area, at least, we have a number of casual shooters who only occasionally shoot matches, but who enjoy SC, and therefore jump at the chance to participate in a Level II match. 

 

I'm confused, are you talking about brand new shooters that just happen to be not interested in unsanctioned matches, only sanctioned events or are we talking about shooters that have been there, done that and simply don't sully themselves with tier 1 nonsense? 

[GrumpyOne]