It's Not Gaming, It's Just Not Being a Sheep

[boo radley]

Suppose -- thinking of an recent match -- from the far side of the shooting area, you can see the upper A of a swinger, in its non-activated (not sure of right terminology) state.

This clearly wasn't intentional as an option as it was blocked by a no-shoot, but who knows? Maybe the no-shoot fell off, and was stapled back slightly out of place, by a previous squad, or whatever.

Fair game?

[vluc]

Suppose -- thinking of an recent match -- from the far side of the shooting area, you can see the upper A of a swinger, in its non-activated (not sure of right terminology) state.

This clearly wasn't intentional as an option as it was blocked by a no-shoot, but who knows? Maybe the no-shoot fell off, and was stapled back slightly out of place, by a previous squad, or whatever.

Fair game?

Absolutely! Happened at the Pit-Mon match in October. Starting in a booth, curtain opens and what do you see? Why a swinger pre-activation...

I point it out to the RO, he accepts the fact they did not catch it in the design stage and not only did we all shoot it that way, but the following squads did as well.

Taking the rules to their extreme is creativity....

Edited November 29, 2005 by vluc

[Mickster]

Gaming, obviously, is a touchy subject. Being a match director and stage putter-upper, when someone "games" a stage just to get the upper advantage by defeating the intention of the stage, well, it bothers me.

A brief example: Start in box A and shoot the stage as the targets become visible. There are targets all over the place out in the open and behind barrels. One shooter runs up the side berm about 2 and a half feet so most of the targets are now visible and hoses almost all from one spot.

Going up the berm was not a safety problem. During the walk-thru no one stated you couldn't go up the side berm. The idea just never occured to anyone. The intention of the stage was the shooter work his way through the barrel maze engaging targets as they become visible. There were several paths the shooter could choose to take to solve this shooting problem.

So was this shooter a tactical genius that made sheep of all of us? Or did he just defeat the guy who got there 2 hours before everybody else and worked to put a stage together?

Gaming. It's a touchy subject.

[wide45]

One shooter runs up the side berm about 2 and a half feet so most of the targets are now visible and hoses almost all from one spot.

This is specifically not allowed

Rule 2.1.9

No penalty is specified.

If am RO'ing any competitor, I'd stop them if they started to run up the berm. Make them reshoot. Make it clear to the whole squad that the berm is out of bounds. Anyone goes up the berm after such a warning may be subject to rule 10.6.1

[shred]

It didn't used to be illegal to run up the berm...

Anyway while this kind of "gaming" thing (as-in doing something outlandish that would ordinarily be prevented if somebody had thought of it first) is fun for burning off your friends at a local match, in any well-designed big match, the occasion to do anything of the sort will be extremely rare, so then the point becomes-- "is this something to keep to myself, or should I point it out and if nobody's done it yet, get approval to change the COF so nobody can?". I lean towards the latter.

[michaels]

I wasn't the one using the words gamer/gaming, somebody else was referring to my manner of competition.

I always try to shoot after Mr. Warren, then you sometimes get to see the 'other' way to shoot a stage, but if I ever get called on doing something, I always say 'that's how Erik did it...' works almost every time.

michaels

[davidball]

Suppose -- thinking of an recent match -- from the far side of the shooting area, you can see the upper A of a swinger, in its non-activated (not sure of right terminology) state.

This clearly wasn't intentional as an option as it was blocked by a no-shoot, but who knows? Maybe the no-shoot fell off, and was stapled back slightly out of place, by a previous squad, or whatever.

Fair game?

At a club match this spring a stage had a door as an activator. It triggered two swingers. You couldn't see the swingers without opening the door so there was nothing blocking the unactivated swinger. However, our squad discovered that it was possible to open the door pretty far, far enough to take decent shots, without pulling the cable enough to activate the swingers. Most of us chose to pull the door and activate the swingers even though we did not have to. Others chose to only open the door part way and shoot the unactivated swinger. I felt the designer intended those targets only to be shot after activation. I did not, however, fault anyone who chose to go the other way. I just felt better shooting it the way I did.

Edited November 30, 2005 by davidball

[jm951]

In other worlds it's called "creative rules interpretation"

[JFD]

I don't think the shooter should care, or have any responsibility toward maintaining the designer's "intent".

Speaking as a stage designer, it's the responsibility of the designer to design a stage that accomplishes whatever goal they have in mind.

If a designer doesn't want their stage "gamed", then they really need to do a better job with the design.

I've learned a hell of a lot just by having a "master gamer" review my stages before the match. I've also learned a hell of a lot by not doing the review process, and getting my stage "gamed". So what if my intent was thrown out the window? I look at it as MY problem, certainly not the shooters.

Not that I like getting my stage "gamed", but it's just another one of those "character building" experiences.

From a shooter's perspective, I feel I'm much better at planning how to shoot a stage now. The things that I learned through experience (getting my stage gamed) and from my "master gamer" about stage design have been used everytime I check out a new stage.

[Steve Anderson]

if you're an MD, you know who your local gamer is...just walk around with him before the match and decide how much work you want to do.

Our circleville crowd is great about pointing these things out to me. Sometimes I change the stage, sometimes I don't.

I take the MD hat off and put the shooter hat on with the cleats. let the games and gaming begin.

SA

[davidball]

I don't think the shooter should care, or have any responsibility toward maintaining the designer's "intent".

Speaking as a stage designer, it's the responsibility of the designer to design a stage that accomplishes whatever goal they have in mind.

If a designer doesn't want their stage "gamed", then they really need to do a better job with the design.

I agree with all of the above 100%. In the example I gave previously, it was at a club match, I was pretty sure all of the other squads had shot it "as intended" and that the stage description had been "verbally" updated. Now I know that all of this is "sloppy" match management, but it was like a million degrees farhenheit and 200% humidity and it was our last stage of the day and the match director was on the other side of the range . . .

Despite my clear right to do so, I just didn't want to take an "unfair" competitive advantage.

[dshooter3]

T1, T2, and T3 where to shot through the port after a 25 yard run, I was aqused of gameing the stage becouse I took the head shots from 25 yards throught the port. I pointed it out to the stage designer and he said that if you can hit the heads at 25 yards go for it. It worked like a charm. My time was half of everbodys else.

[XRe]

T1, T2, and T3 where to shot through the port after a 25 yard run, I was aqused of gameing the stage becouse I took the head shots from 25 yards throught the port. I pointed it out to the stage designer and he said that if you can hit the heads at 25 yards go for it. It worked like a charm. My time was half of everbodys else.

That's the first time I've heard use of superior *shooting* skills as an excuse to be a gamer... sheesh...

[Steve Moneypenny]

dshooter3,

I have seen an IDPA club that runs a lot of shooting solutions like that. I really like them, since i learned accuracy first i can turn it on.

[Barlin]

I had a horrible run where my magazine crapped out so I lost ten seconds. After unloading, somebody in the peanut gallery said something to the effect of, "Gamer's revenge." Baaaa.

Erik's original post, nearly three years ago demonstrates, both the light and dark side of gaming.

The light side being the use of cleverness and stategy to advance your score. And I would submit that the comment from the peanut gallery was unsportsmanlike at best and at worst was an attempt neutralize free thinking of the other competitors with the threat of ridicule, thus adance your score by attempting to keep everyone else's score low.

Clearly a violation of rule 4.18.32 "Don't be a chicken shit" and is worthy of a DQ ,IMHO.

Barlin

[ima45dv8]

Clearly a violation of rule 4.18.32 "Don't be a chicken shit" and is worthy of a DQ ,IMHO.

Barlin

I couldn't find that one in my copy of the rulebook, but I penciled it in 'cause I like it.

[Clay1]

Just having the level I RO class last week and learning the rule book through deep immersion, I think that you quoted the wrong rule number. Section 4 has to do with Range Equipment. Section 10 has to do with penalties. Section 10.2 has to do with specific penalties. I believe the real rule number to be 10.2.12.

Silly comments from a new RO.

Rick

[sargenv]

The problem I see a lot is stages get built that don't have a lot of safeguards put into them. People being people generally want to make stages quickly and hope that people shoot them as they intended. Unless you spell out exactly the procedure (which goes against the freestyle of the sport) then they will find ways to maybe get a slightly better score than the next guy. The door stage that you could open part ways is an example. If you had those targets behind hard cover, no shoots, etc, then you HAVE to activate them since you can't see them any other way. If there is an unactivated target out there that you can see, well, you can shoot it. My take on this is, "is it in the course description?". If there is nothing in the course description saying you can't do that, and it doesn't violate any safety rules, then it's allowed.

I believe that if you design a stage and really do a good job and look at it from different angles, the only way to do it is the way you intended. If you intended someone do something a specific way, then build it with walls and ports so that they have no other way to do it and there is no way for them to game it. Personally, I try and make my stages so that there might be other ways to shoot it. Otherwise it's just kind of boring to watch 30 people do the same thing over and over.

Vince

[tightloop]

Gaming, obviously, is a touchy subject. Being a match director and stage putter-upper, when someone "games" a stage just to get the upper advantage by defeating the intention of the stage, well, it bothers me.

A brief example: Start in box A and shoot the stage as the targets become visible. There are targets all over the place out in the open and behind barrels. One shooter runs up the side berm about 2 and a half feet so most of the targets are now visible and hoses almost all from one spot.

Going up the berm was not a safety problem. During the walk-thru no one stated you couldn't go up the side berm. The idea just never occured to anyone. The intention of the stage was the shooter work his way through the barrel maze engaging targets as they become visible. There were several paths the shooter could choose to take to solve this shooting problem.

So was this shooter a tactical genius that made sheep of all of us? Or did he just defeat the guy who got there 2 hours before everybody else and worked to put a stage together?

Gaming. It's a touchy subject.

The WHOLE point of gaming is to gain advantage...get a grip...if they beat you or the stage design...tough beans..

[sargenv]

Personally, I feel this is bad stage design, what's to say someone could have spent another 20 minutes nailing down a shooting area preventing the shooter from shooting at the angle he or she did? I shoot at a club where we have all kinds of props available for use and I shoot at two other clubs where we pretty much have to tear the stages back down to nothing after the match, I still put in the time to make it as "game proof" as possible. But I also sometimes put things in that shooters might think they are taking advantage of. Say an unactivated swinger that shows the upper a/b zone exposed 15 to 20 yards out, or activating it and shooting the whole target that is now moving from 10 yards. If they think they can hit it, then have at it, I'm going to place targets farther down range to force them to move anyway. I generally attribute incomplete stage design with gamers or people who tend to take advantage of not enough limits being put on the shooting area. Just because you didn't see the easier way, does not mean someone else cannot use it.

This reminds me of a stage I bult one time. I stated n the course description.. Start position: "anywhere outside Area A". So most people were starting on the left rear of the box. One of the RO's had a conniption fit when someone started on the right side of area A outside the box, telling him he couldn't do that. The shooter came and asked me and I said sure, it's legal. You are starting outside area A, have at it. That RO just didn't get it.

Vince

Edited December 27, 2006 by sargenv

[Jaxshooter]

When I first started shooting I was told by many experienced shooters "if it dosen't say you can't do it " you can do it any way you want to as long as it is safe.

[short_round]

When I first started shooting I was told by many experienced shooters "if it dosen't say you can't do it " you can do it any way you want to as long as it is safe.

+1

[Trooper]

So....

Being new to the sport.. AND shooting at a range where EVERYthing has to be set up and torn down everytime.... a question:

Just HOW far can you go with verbal instructions in place of physical/sight/movement barriers? How far that is before you get told "This is meant to be freestyle"?

When there simply is NOT enough time to set it up "properly", what do you do?

When a club doesn't HAVE all the nice props/barriers etc, what do you do?

Personally I am quite happy with "invisible" walls..... and quite happy to hear the INTENT and respect the course designers ideas.. (they are often a lot of fun... and good training for a beginner like me!)

Otherwise most of our courses could be shot from one or maybe two positions MAX.

[sargenv]

If you spell it out exactly like you want them to shoot the stage, and I mean "to the letter" and you are shooting a level 1 match, I have no issue being told "shoot T1-T4 and P1 from Box A only, shoot T5-T7 and PP1-2 from box B Only, and shoot PP3-PP4 and USP 1-4 through port C only".. well, then everyone shoots it the same. But if you put up some boxes without walls and without the stage procedure, or just put up targets without any specific shooting area, don't be surprised when someone shoots everything from one position because you didn't tell them they couldn't do that. It's simple, either make it so they HAVE to shoot specific stuff from one area or another, or tell them what must be engaged from where. How can you game the first example? Seems nearly impossible to me. Though I'm sure someone will show me the error of my ways

One of the problems I run into, is that some clubs will only allow you to set things up as if it's a level 3 match, so you either make simple to throw together stages, or you spend the time to really make it bullet proof. Not allowing people to design a level 1 stage seems silly to me and I personally think that if it's a local club match, you should be able to build stages with the knowledge that it's a level 1 match and hope that people don't take advantage too much. With experience building and designing stages, eventually you will get good enough to "game proof" your stages and you'll find that they will sometimes hose themselves by gaming it too much to their disadvantage.

Vince

Edited January 2, 2007 by sargenv

[spring]

I often find myself thinking something like "Cool! That's a neat way to shoot the stage. I wish I'd thought of holding the poker chips in my buttcrack." (Followed by "Man, I'm glad I already shot this stage.")

I'm not against creative approaches! However, I think there are problems when it goes to the limits. One danger is that new shooters like me quickly assume that ALL the rules are subject to interpretation. So I can use troy ounces and Netherlands feet and dog years to make Major and SuperSenior? Or maybe 10 round mags are only a friendly guideline. At some point, the sport becomes more about being lawyers than shooters and new guys like me get frustrated and leave.

"Good riddance!" some of you will say, until USPSA is only 12 really clever guys. A few days after a recent shooting/shouting match, the MD asked for volunteers to design stages for the next match and the general reaction was something like "Yeah right. I'd rather hit myself in the head with a hammer than spend the afternoon arguing with those guys about the punctuation of written stage descriptions again." The call for new club officers got a similar reaction from a normally gung-ho group. Since ths sport is largely driven by volunteers, blah blah blah....fill in the rest.....

If you hear yourself at the next match saying "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is", that should be your clue that you've stepped over the line.

I'll let you guys start the barrage while start gluing a tiny little table to my slide so that I can start the next "gun on table" stage in a good firing position.