SteveZ Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Now why would you do that Mr Bond? A proposed "Stock" Division? A big thanks to Bruce for sticking up for L10! http://www.uspsa.org/bodminutes/20061121.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 You have to be careful how you read such things. Sometimes a motion is brought so that it can purposefully be failed in order to move conversation on from what appears to be a stuck point. Without being there, and hearing the discussion, it would be hard to assume (from just reading the minutes) that Mr. Bond (Bond... Charles Bond) wants to be rid of L10... Interesting changes to SSD... For instance, I'm now an A class shooter in SSD, instead of an M... Will there be a listing of the items that are being looked at (officially) for Production? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 (edited) You have to be careful how you read such things. Sometimes a motion is brought so that it can purposefully be failed in order to move conversation on from what appears to be a stuck point. uh.....yeah like eliminating L10. "There was discussion on eliminating L10 altogether." It appears they're also taking a close look at the existance of Revolver division. Edited November 17, 2006 by SteveZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Steve, You may want to talk to Bruce and get the straight scoop on how things went down. It may not be what you think. E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 Steve,You may want to talk to Bruce and get the straight scoop on how things went down. It may not be what you think. E Hi ya Eric...actually I already did talk with Bruce about it....and without naming any names...it IS what I think. PM me if you want more info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 That's cool. Without naming names, I know that certain people had agendas in that regard. I see both sides of the issue. I've spoken to proponents and opponents of dumping L-10. Both have good points and it's really a moral tale about thinking through unintended consequences when rulemaking. Of course, I don't have a couple hundred bucks invested in 10 round mags, so I'm a bit emotionally detached from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 (edited) Of course, I don't have a couple hundred bucks invested in 10 round mags, so I'm a bit emotionally detached from it. I'm now financially divested of L10. Back in the spring when the chatter became much louder regarding the perceived "offing" of L10, I started to formulate a game plan. That plan went something like this....I like L10, I don't like Single Stack. If L10 goes away, I'm left between choosing Single Stack (see previous comments) and Limited (yeah...real competitive there with 10 rounds)....then there's the political side of things. I felt back in the spring that eventually the gun pendulum would swing back to the left some day (some day BTW started back a couple weeks ago) and hi-cap mags would be difficult to get. So I made the difficult decision to dump L10, sell the gun, sell the magazines....and go buy an STI Edge from Dawson Precision, buy some hi-caps while I can...and don't look back. It's too bad because I really like shooting L10...it just doesn't seem that the powers that be in the USPSA and I have the same view on the division. I'm carrying the torch for L10 because it seems that the USPSA is doing it a great injustice. I will say this.....I sure do like shooting Limited with all those extra rounds in the gun! Seems like shooting a stage now is more about "shooting" and less about "reloading". Edited November 17, 2006 by SteveZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 No more DOH for Single Stack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I guess they will change it for production too. I guess they gave in to Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 You have to be careful how you read such things. Sometimes a motion is brought so that it can purposefully be failed in order to move conversation on from what appears to be a stuck point. If Robert's Rules of Order are followed, an individual making a motion must vote for that motion. An individual seconding a motion need not vote for the motion as he/she may be seconding it to allow voting so that it fails at the vote. But I don't know if the BOD follows RRoO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket35 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 This is too bad...I too am fond of L10. What happens if we ever get hit with another ban, would they reinstate the division?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 If Robert's Rules of Order are followed, an individual making a motion must vote for that motion. An individual seconding a motion need not vote for the motion as he/she may be seconding it to allow voting so that it fails at the vote. I'm quite aware of that. My point still stands - if there's a lone voice purporting something, and for whatever reason will not yield, a second person can propose a vote, even knowing they have to vote for something they don't agree with, just to move things on. As I said before, I have no idea what the point was, here, but... Frankly, I think sweeping changes to anything involving SSD before the provisional period is up (including eliminating L10 ostensibly to be replaced by SSD) is not good policy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I guess they will change it for production too. I guess they gave in to Richard. That would be one of the dumbest moves ever. I would say that is the most popular holster for Production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Wonder Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 You may want to talk to Bruce and get the straight scoop on how things went down. Does this mean that the minutes go thru a "spin" process to make them non intuitive and difficult to determine as to what exactly was discussed? If there is an official recorder present at the meeting, the minutes should be published to include the exact conversations that took place, period. Of what value are the minutes if one needs to speak with someone to get the "straight scoop". Although the BOD now allows members to attend, most cannot commit the travel time or expense. It would be a simple matter for the BOD meetings to be video conferenced via the web for any and all members to see. Members could sign into the conference via their USPSA website password. The cost would be minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 It appears they're also taking a close look at the existance of Revolver division. Did you catch this comment? Limited/L10/Revolver at PASA. We had the best weather in years, with the most Revolver shooters ever entered in a USPSA Nationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 If there is an official recorder present at the meeting, the minutes should be published to include the exact conversations that took place, period. No, it shouldn't, period. Taking minutes is a review of the actual decisions made. What you want is a transcript. I don't see the benefit of paying a local stenographer $2000 to record the meeting if the ultimate reasoning is to fuel Internet arguments. It would be a simple matter for the BOD meetings to be video conferenced via the web for any and all members to see. Members could sign into the conference via their USPSA website password. The cost would be minimal. It would not be simple and it would not be a minimal expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COF Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Although the BOD now allows members to attend, most cannot commit the travel time or expense. It would be a simple matter for the BOD meetings to be video conferenced via the web for any and all members to see. Members could sign into the conference via their USPSA website password. The cost would be minimal. Outstanding idea!! Minimal expense for the organization and would add a level of transparency to safisfy all but the most conspiratorial. "Did you catch this comment? Limited/L10/Revolver at PASA. We had the best weather in years, with the most Revolver shooters ever entered in a USPSA Nationals." Mike, I think a large part of the reason for that comment can be laid at your feet. Thanks for your efforts the last couple of years to get the wheelgunners moving. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricBudd Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 If there is an official recorder present at the meeting, the minutes should be published to include the exact conversations that took place, period. No, it shouldn't, period. Taking minutes is a review of the actual decisions made. What you want is a transcript. I don't see the benefit of paying a local stenographer $2000 to record the meeting if the ultimate reasoning is to fuel Internet arguments. It would be a simple matter for the BOD meetings to be video conferenced via the web for any and all members to see. Members could sign into the conference via their USPSA website password. The cost would be minimal. It would not be simple and it would not be a minimal expense. How about making the meeting open as a 'listen in' conference call like almost all major companies do when communicating with investors/analysts? If you post the agenda and times when an item is being discussed, interested members can call in and listen. This isn't rocket science guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZ Bagger Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 You have to be careful how you read such things. Sometimes a motion is brought so that it can purposefully be failed in order to move conversation on from what appears to be a stuck point. If Robert's Rules of Order are followed, an individual making a motion must vote for that motion. An individual seconding a motion need not vote for the motion as he/she may be seconding it to allow voting so that it fails at the vote. But I don't know if the BOD follows RRoO. Don't want to drift this thread too much, but Bob's Rules does not prevent one from voting against his own motion...only barred from "speaking against" his own motion and can withdraw any motion while it's still pending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 (edited) How about making the meeting open as a 'listen in' conference call like almost all major companies do when communicating with investors/analysts? If you post the agenda and times when an item is being discussed, interested members can call in and listen. This isn't rocket science guys. Call bridges are expensive. 8-10 hour days x3 would mean 24-30 hours of call bridge time, if 200 member call in that could be 6000 minutes. This isn't a cheap idea either. If you simply wanted a voice record for later download that would be easier - but again: to what end? To fuel an Internet argument? How does any of this produce a better BOD meeting? Are you worried your feelings aren't being correctly represented? Edited November 17, 2006 by ihatepickles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Minutes are not a transcript, they are a record of the itmes discussed and the decisions regarding said items. A conference call or video might work, but would be very expensive and I really doubt that very many people would actually take their entire weekend and listen or watch. L-10 should remain as a division, SS is not needed, yo can easily play in L-10 with a SS. Revolver really is a no cost division, we have a small but dedicated group that shoots revolver. They get tagged onto any other match, if there are enough, they get a prize, if not, they don't. They contribute to the organization with their dues, their work and thier ideas. (Sort of like L-10) We need rules stability! We need divisional stability! We need equipment stability! If it has been made specifically legal, it should remain so, unless there is an overbearing reason for a change. Such change should, unless related to safety, have a minimum of a two-year phase in. Some of us buy the latest/greatest every month. others do not or cannot. Remember, there are many people that shoot with us that have a gun and a holster. Not everyone has multiple safes to store their toys! This is an expensive hobby with out us or the BOD going out of our way to make it even more so. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricBudd Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 OK, what is 'stock' division and how is this different from Production division? I always keep hearing that we have too many divisions yet the BOD added 'provisionally' (yeah, right) Single Stack and now is talking about adding another division. I can only assume (and you know what happens when you assume ) that both revolver and L10 are on the chopping block. In my opinion, this is a bad idea. Revolver is gaining in popularity - slowly, and L10 is necessary for people who choose not to break the law who live in restricted states like CA, NJ, and NY. I see signs that we are either going to have 15 divisions (BTW, if you can have a 1911 only division, can you have a Glock only division? And maybe Single Stack should be renamed 1911 since they are the only single stacks allowed?) or we are going to change the rules to make some shooters gear illegal or uncompetitive. Didn't IDPA do this a few year ago with bad results? Why can't we just leave well enough alone? Right now (and even before Single Stack) there is a place where almost every gun can be completive. Can't we just leave well enough alone and just shoot? How about making the meeting open as a 'listen in' conference call like almost all major companies do when communicating with investors/analysts? If you post the agenda and times when an item is being discussed, interested members can call in and listen. This isn't rocket science guys. Call bridges are expensive. 8-10 days x3 would mean 24-30 hours of call bridge time, if 200 member call in that could be 6000 minutes. This isn't a cheap idea either. If you simply wanted a voice record for later download that would be easier - but again: to what end? To fuel an Internet argument? How does any of this produce a better BOD meeting? Are you worried your feelings aren't being correctly represented? I just want to know what is proposed and why so I can plan ahead and know how to vote when the next elections happen. You shouldn't have to know someone who knows someone to get the real scoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Wonder Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Displaying a video feed from an inexpensive camera for viewing in a window via Internet Explorer costs nothing other than the cost of the camera and someone setting up a web page. I'm not advocating using a video conferencing service where everyone could be a part of an interactive meeting. The meeting could also be recorded with a normal video camera and the images converted to an MPEG or other format for download from the USPSA's member area so that members could review the meeting at their own convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I just want to know what is proposed and why so I can plan ahead and know how to vote when the next elections happen. You shouldn't have to know someone who knows someone to get the real scoop. I totally agree, this shouldn't require "the good ol' boys network" to be informed, but... I don't think that's where we are today. I'm nobody in the sport but I have my emails returned by my area director and NROI. Ask your area director to call for a record of votes during the next meeting. That's how you're going to know how every member of the BOD voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
open17 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Anybody notice that the box specified for SS is the IDPA box? They also said that they were looking into a box for Production. G34/35 will fit the IDPA box, but will not fit the IPSC box. SO--With the proposal out there to have IPSC rules club level matches as an option that would mean everybody needs to possibly have 2 boxes? One box for SS and possibly USPSA Production A different box if you choose to shoot some IPSC rules matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts