Upcoming Proposals for Member Comment

[-JCN-]

On 9/3/2022 at 3:26 PM, Darqusoull13 said:

I would also like to see a detailed plan on recruitment and retention of new shooters with emphasis on NO prior SCSA experience. 

I’ve been shooting USPSA proper for a few years and shot my first steel challenge match recently. 
 

These changes would keep me coming back. I can go back to USPSA and keep working my game, then “spot check” with steel challenge not having to worry about starting over every few years. It’s not like I’m not shooting, this would let me pick up where I left off. 
 

I like it. Having more crossover of a pool might help with recruitment and retention as well?

[Hoops]

For what it’s worth….

1.  SCSA should also re-evaluate the percentages required to make classification.  Focus only on GM with 110% max puts unequal downward pressure on B thru M classes.

 

2.  New stages would bring out more shooters.  Many ranges can’t shoot the long stages and eventually 6 stages only tends to get stagnant.  
 

3.  There is a flaw in making class by keeping forever the “best of” stage time.  If I did that in golf my 18 hcp would be par or less.  83% of WSSC shooters did not shoot their class (I think)

 

 

[Joe4d]

3 hours ago, Hoops said:

For what it’s worth….

1.  SCSA should also re-evaluate the percentages required to make classification.  Focus only on GM with 110% max puts unequal downward pressure on B thru M classes.

 

2.  New stages would bring out more shooters.  Many ranges can’t shoot the long stages and eventually 6 stages only tends to get stagnant.  
 

3.  There is a flaw in making class by keeping forever the “best of” stage time.  If I did that in golf my 18 hcp would be par or less.  83% of WSSC shooters did not shoot their class (I think)

 

 

Yeh seems to me making a handful of new stages tailored to indoor or smaller ranges in addition would be better than trying to scale down existing stages.
Id like to see revolver rimfire, vs more centerfire divisions.  Dont know if its the primer or ammo thing, but seems like alot of people shooting 22 at the couple matches I shot.

[JM_]

Meeting was held yesterday so I'm interested to see the results! Maybe @ZackJones could give us a run down on how it went?

[bigdawgbeav]

On 11/30/2022 at 4:41 PM, JM_ said:

Meeting was held yesterday so I'm interested to see the results! Maybe @ZackJones could give us a run down on how it went?

It didn't go well at all...

 

[Thomas H]

3 hours ago, bigdawgbeav said:

It didn't go well at all...

 

 

...which brings up the question, when will these be actually handled? 

 

"Failed for lack of motion" is odd, since if they didn't like the proposal or thought it wouldn't work, they should have made a motion and voted it down. (Like they did elsewhere in the minutes.)  If they didn't have time to talk about it, they should have tabled it.  "Failed for lack of motion" is an interesting way to handle it...and doesn't tell us much about what the commentary from the membership said about it, nor what their thoughts were on it, and why it wasn't voted on during the meeting in which it was on the agenda.

 

I'll note THAT is one of the few things I strongly dislike about how boards handle things like this.  "Ignoring it until it goes away" is not what I vote for.  If that's not what was happening, then there should be more information about this.

 

Anyway:  I think this is too bad.  I didn't necessarily fully agree with all of those proposals, but I think there was some good thought put into them in terms of being good for the sport.  As such, it is disappointing to see them effectively ignored.

 

(Especially given the previous issues with WSSC slots!)

 

I'll be curious as to what happens to the tabled topic.

[EarlKeese]

I recently let mine and my daughter's memberships lapse. This affirms my decision. I know membership is only $40/yr or whatever but I don't even see that much value in the org at this point. I think Zack is a good guy, but he can only do so much.

[-JCN-]

16 hours ago, bigdawgbeav said:

It didn't go well at all...

 

 

@ZackJones

 

That's some BS. They might as well have just said, "who gives a crap about steel challenge...."

[bigdawgbeav]

per a post from my AD there were some concerns about the language of the slot award proposal along with the fact that not all Areas have Steel Challenge matches.  And apparently voting and commenting on the proposals were less than what was expected.  Although I'd have to ask what was expected considering that there was just a special election for president and only 20% of the membership participated.

 

 

[-JCN-]

@ZackJones

 

Any insight into what this is about?

 

• Steel Challenge Reclassification Policy to be similar to USPSA Handgun policy.

[conditionone]

I just listened to the NROI Podcast December 2022 #2.  The reason the proposal didn't move is at the 15:00 minute mark.

 NROI Podcast - USPSA.ORG

 

They basically said that a survey was sent and less than 1% of the active 7900 SC shooters participated, which did not provide enough information to the board to move forward with any of the proposals.

 

 

 

 

[Darqusoull13]

On 1/8/2023 at 9:09 AM, conditionone said:

I just listened to the NROI Podcast December 2022 #2.  The reason the proposal didn't move is at the 15:00 minute mark.

 NROI Podcast - USPSA.ORG

 

They basically said that a survey was sent and less than 1% of the active 7900 SC shooters participated, which did not provide enough information to the board to move forward with any of the proposals.

 

 

 

 

Hahaha! Perfect! 

People can complain online in forums and on social all they want about their idea for improvements. The status quo will never change because of inaction! 

[zzt]

@ZackJones The website is broken.  Last time I tried to leave feedback I clicked on leave comment and immediately got a message thanking me for my feedback.  Tried again just now and same thig.

[Squirrel45]

54 minutes ago, zzt said:

@ZackJones The website is broken.  Last time I tried to leave feedback I clicked on leave comment and immediately got a message thanking me for my feedback.  Tried again just now and same thig.

Z, did you already leave feedback a couple months ago? If so it' blocks you out from resubmitting. 

[Joe4d]

On 9/3/2022 at 4:26 PM, Darqusoull13 said:

Zach, I know you are trying and we all appreciate the time and hard work you are volunteering.

 

However, I'm against pretty much all of this. None of these proposals work towards increasing membership in the new shooter category nor do they grow the RO pool. These are the 2 major issues holding SCSA back and it's going to get worse as Area, Major and Section matches become more popular.

 

These changes are small potatoes, and to be honest, don't add real value to current members. 

 

I'd much rather see the SCSA RO cert independent of USPSA as well as SCSA investing in covering RO Instructor fees for  New ROs.

 

I would also like to see a detailed plan on recruitment and retention of new shooters with emphasis on NO prior SCSA experience. 

This is so on point needs to be quoted again..
These proposals are meaningless to evidently 99% of the SC shooters.
Maybe propose something that actually matters and more than 1% will reply.
 

[conditionone]

The 99% that you speak of had the opportunity to reply and didn't. 

That makes it obvious that they do not care either way.

 

 

 

[Joe4d]

Thats what I said,, the proposals were meaningless.
Propose something meaning full that actually affects things the shooters care about.
Stand alone RO, Making a major different enough to be worth attending, maybe a handful of different approved stages.

 

[EarlKeese]

"Making a major different enough to be worth attending"

They gave out a free morale patch at WSSC last year...what more could you want?

[skip62]

Let's see here, this makes sense.  7900 SC members, 700 people go to World's, that's just about 1%   

Club guys don't care, we're just a bunch of old farts that like to shoot and hang out with friends.

[Joe4d]

15 hours ago, skip62 said:

Let's see here, this makes sense.  7900 SC members, 700 people go to World's, that's just about 1%   

Club guys don't care, we're just a bunch of old farts that like to shoot and hang out with friends.

Ummmm   that's near 10%,, 
But I imagine an awful lot of SC shooters are like me and see zero reason to join. 

[Darqusoull13]

1 hour ago, Joe4d said:

Ummmm   that's near 10%,, 
But I imagine an awful lot of SC shooters are like me and see zero reason to join. 

Just a clarification, that's 700 entries, not unique shooters. For example, I was 4 entries. 

[Gregg K]

I curious what would happen if everyone was asked to comment on proposals again. Maybe folks would see that they need to participate but I'm betting that they wouldn't. I participated as well as some of you and basically were ignored because we didn't have enough of a voice to take any action. I'm not sure I would take the time to comment again since nothing will happen without a large input. It should work like an election to the board, if only 1 percent vote, that 1 percent gets to decide the direction we will go. If only 1 percent of the membership voted and elected a board member would they still take the position with such a small sampling?

[Thomas H]

On 1/13/2023 at 10:07 AM, Joe4d said:

But I imagine an awful lot of SC shooters are like me and see zero reason to join. 

 

It is true that there are a lot of people who take advantage of the creation of the sport, its rules, and how it is administered without supporting the sport by being a member. 

 

It is unfortunate, but indeed, it is true.

 

It is odd to see those same people be angry or upset about a lack of change in the sport, when they aren't actually members supporting the sport, and therefore wouldn't have a voice in the change in the first place.

[Thomas H]

On 1/13/2023 at 12:21 PM, Gregg K said:

I curious what would happen if everyone was asked to comment on proposals again. Maybe folks would see that they need to participate but I'm betting that they wouldn't.

 

I wonder if some of it was "these seem like decent proposals, I don't need to comment on them"?  In other words, people thought they were fine and therefore saw no need to comment on issues or changes that needed to be made?  They figured unless there were a lot of negative comments, it was going to happen, and would be fine?

 

(After all, most of the time people are moved to comment, it is because they absolutely hate something.  Writing in support of something generally only occurs if it is incredibly important to someone.)

[Joe4d]

2 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

It is true that there are a lot of people who take advantage of the creation of the sport, its rules, and how it is administered without supporting the sport by being a member. 

 

It is unfortunate, but indeed, it is true.

 

It is odd to see those same people be angry or upset about a lack of change in the sport, when they aren't actually members supporting the sport, and therefore wouldn't have a voice in the change in the first place.

Support is a 2 way street,,  USPSA basically does nothing to support steel challenge,, when I see that maybe I will reciprocate said support. 
Creation, and rules were around long before USPSA bought the name.