XRe Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Open targets at arms length test nothing. Sure they do... How many misses have you seen on arms length targets? How many errors made in the name of speed??? If all you have are close in, wide open targets, you don't have a very complete test - I'm totally onboard with you there.... But, I think basically every type of target presentation has something to offer in terms of testing skills. Its up to the course designer to use those qualities to build sharp stages.... Putting up shots that NO ONE can make doesn't make YOU a tough guy. +1 - nor does putting up shots that only a guy w/ an Open gun and a benchrest can make, either.... Especially at a local match, there shouldn't be any shots that a new shooter can't make - they may be extremely difficult and require them to take a lot of time to make them - but they should be able to make them. Finally, you should not set up courses contrary to the rules, then get pissed off when someone shoots them within the rules and totally games your course, and then decide the way to handle it is to yell at the shooter, and tell them that you don't want to set it up by the rules, and that they need to shoot it your way or go home. You most especially should not do that to shooters who not only haven't shot the course yet, but are still two stages away from said course <_< The failure of designers to specify every detail doesn't make it better to go outside the parameters you know were intended. So, I'm supposed to be a mind reader? +1... if its not written in the course description, you can't KNOW what the course designer had in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Bell Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 You might have missed the point of the thread...IPSC/USPSA is all about freestyle shooting...and that includes doing what you can to save a second or increase your points withing the rules...if, by chance you find a way to do that which is overlooked by the other shooters and the MD, then good for you...if you don't see one, then, just shoot it and move on...complete and through knowledge of the rules is useful to the shooters as well...better to be a range lawyer and know the rules than becoming a sheep led to the slaughter...think that was the point.. Funny how those that deliberately take advantage of others always seem to justify it by claiming it's not against the rules. Even funnier how quickly they cry when they are the victim of something that they perceive to be unfair. How do you figure that deliberately taking a procedural to save time is shooting according to the rules? How do you figure that deliberately taking a miss penalty that saves more time than it loses in points, is playing by the rules? How do you figure shooting through a picket fence that you know is supposed to be a hard barrier, but is not described that way in the description, is shooting according to the rules? Which of these do you think is OK and which do you think is gaming? Do you apply the same philosophy to property rights? If your magazines don't have your name on them and I find them laying on the ground, is it OK for me to keep them? In life, intent, as determined by our judicial system, is often the difference between a misdimeaner and a felony, between a fine and jail time. In our "practical" sport, which is designed, at least partly, to emulate reality, intent, as determined by our judicial system, should be the difference between penalty points and a DQ. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 How do you figure that deliberately taking a procedural to save time is shooting according to the rules? Where in the rules does it prohibit said action? All that's there is that if you violate the course procedure, you will receive a penalty. Taking the penalty is clearly a choice left to the competitor. How do you figure that deliberately taking a miss penalty that saves more time than it loses in points, is playing by the rules? Where in the rules does it prohibit said action? A miss penalty is punitive enough that except in an extremely rare, extremely poorly designed stage, would it even begin to seem to make sense to leave 15 points on the table - and that would typically imply 40 points, because it wouldn't make any sense at all to only shoot once at a target. If you're talking about leaving a disappearing target, there is no penalty. How do you figure shooting through a picket fence that you know is supposed to be a hard barrier, but is not described that way in the description, is shooting according to the rules? Where in the rules does it prohibit such action? Only an idiot is going to shoot through something hard - hard things deflect bullets, meaning you don't know where they hit. However, since you seem to think we're simulating real life... Are you going to shoot through that same picket fence when there's a bad guy on the other side shooting at you, or are you going to know that its hardcover and you shouldn't do it??? Which of these do you think is OK and which do you think is gaming? None of those things is against the rules, and therefore none of them is cheating. Therefore, none of them are "wrong" either. You think "gaming" equals "cheating" - I submit that your definitions are wrong. There is a wide difference between "gaming" and "cheating", and its called "The Rulebook". Do you apply the same philosophy to property rights? If your magazines don't have your name on them and I find them laying on the ground, is it OK for me to keep them? Am I playing a game, or am I in "Real Life " ??? If the game says I can do anything it doesn't prohibit, and it doesn't prohibit "Finders, Keepers", have I done anything wrong??? We're not playing "Real Life ", Lee, we're playing A GAME.The game has rules that stipulate what is "right", what is "wrong", and what the punishment will be for doing something "wrong". "Real Life " has its own set of rules. Property rights and the rules of USPSA/IPSC have less than nothing in common. There's no ownership of an "engagement order", or an "intention of the course designer". In life, intent, as determined by our judicial system, is often the difference between a misdimeaner and a felony, between a fine and jail time. In our "practical" sport, which is designed, at least partly, to emulate reality, intent, as determined by our judicial system, should be the difference between penalty points and a DQ. So, someone who plays the game within the scope of the rules, and isn't a mind reader, should be DQ'ed?? Excellent, love your thinking So, now, for every penalty that's awarded, you need to assemble a 12 person jury, plus a judge, and lawyers for both sides, to decide upon the intent of the shooter, and then throw him out of the match for following the rules we've laid down before him.... Let's make something clear, Lee - USPSA/IPSC doesn't have a FTDR penalty, and for good reason. We're playing a different game, with different rules, and its one of the key reasons why many of us play the game we play. If you don't like the Freestyle aspect of USPSA/IPSC, I'm told IDPA is a fun game, too, and you don't have to worry about all these people following the rules that don't read the course designers mind - they even give you a big club to hit them with.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott R Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Very well said XRe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Lee, I mean no disrespect to you or IDPA when I say the game you're looking for is IDPA. The entire premise of USPSA is freestyle. This is the second (or third?) attack on freestyle you've made in in the last week and both times people have dog piled on your rant. We get it, you don't like it. Please try and reciprocate this acceptance, because we do like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joecichlid Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Not to offend anyone but the day the USPSA gets a FTDR rule is the day I lay down my guns and take up knitting. Joe W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Bell Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 It's frustrating when people just don't get it. +1 on that, but in a much different way than you mean. The principals of the sport are accuracy, speed and power, not accuracy, speed, power and deviousness. If you can't compete on the basis of accuracy, speed and power, you can't compete. Simple, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 It's frustrating when people just don't get it. +1 on that, but in a much different way than you mean. The principals of the sport are accuracy, speed and power, not accuracy, speed, power and deviousness. If you can't compete on the basis of accuracy, speed and power, you can't compete. Simple, yes? No, that's not how it works. Those are the principals, yes, but if you had been a member longer and went to more shoots you would see that many matches have things like, memory stages that test the shooters ability to think while apply the 3 principals of speed, power and accuracy. Read the course descriptions of any major match and this will become obvious. This is a game and the guy with the highest score wins. If you want it to be tactical, join the army. They shoot back. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 It's frustrating when people just don't get it. +1 on that, but in a much different way than you mean. The principals of the sport are accuracy, speed and power, not accuracy, speed, power and deviousness. If you can't compete on the basis of accuracy, speed and power, you can't compete. Simple, yes? You said it yourself, speed is part of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Bell Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Lee,I mean no disrespect to you or IDPA when I say the game you're looking for is IDPA. The entire premise of USPSA is freestyle. This is the second (or third?) attack on freestyle you've made in in the last week and both times people have dog piled on your rant. We get it, you don't like it. Please try and reciprocate this acceptance, because we do like it. Your entire premise is do anything, anytime, to anyone, anyway to win. The point you're missing is that insisting that the end always justifies the means, you're diminishing the sport for everyone else. Those trying to hold gamers to a higher standard are only looking for a level playing field, a chance to compete according to rules that everyone understands, but not everyone thinks apply to them. Not everyone agrees with you. In fact, I think you'll find most don't agree. The derrogatory use of the term "Gamer" didn't arise because everyone thought it was cool. Take a poll and see who's got the majority of the support and who hasn't. Feel free to use the example of shooting through fancing material that you know is supposed to represent hard cover just because the course description doesn't say it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 (edited) Ok, Mr. Bell. We'll try your little suggestion.... http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...c=44603&hl= ETA... with all the hubbub around removing little bits and pieces of freestyle in the proposed 2008 rules, you'd think you'd realize that at least a large portion of the folks on this forum are all about freestyle... The derogatory use of the term gamer arose when little Napoleon match directors got tired of not being able to be lazy in their course design and setup - not because said gamer was cheating (which is what you're doing everything but saying outright). Edited February 7, 2007 by XRe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott R Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Your entire premise is do anything, anytime, to anyone, anyway to win. The point you're missing is that insisting that the end always justifies the means, you're diminishing the sport for everyone else. Those trying to hold gamers to a higher standard are only looking for a level playing field, a chance to compete according to rules that everyone understands, but not everyone thinks apply to them. Lee, this statement seems to imply the we "gamers" are going beyond what the rules and/or written stage briefing would allow. I say that you are wrong! We "gamers" are simply suggesting that one of the biggest things that attracts us to USPSA matches is the fact that we are not only allowed to think outside of the box, but compelled to do so by good stage design in which we as shooters assess our skills and formulate a plan of attack that will earn us the highest hit factor we are capable of within the bondaries of the rules and written stage briefing. There are many other shooting sports that do not allow a freestyle type of approach, hell some of them want you to stand still and shoot . While I am not suggesting that you give up USPSA for one of the others, it would be nice if you didn't put down those of us who enjoy the freestyle element of USPSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I didn't see XRe's post before I started my poll. Regardless, here's my poll: Is Gaming Cheating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Since you replied directly to me, and since I've provide good clean examples of what I consider legal gaming I'll ask you to do the same thing. Post specific examples of situations you've observed that you feel isn't legal/is cheating/lacks honor. Your entire premise is do anything, anytime, to anyone, anyway to win. That's a leap, I've never said this or implied this. The point you're missing is that insisting that the end always justifies the means, you're diminishing the sport for everyone else. I'm not taking an extreme view that the ends justify the means. I've posted passages from the rulebook specifically stating that we are supposed to think our way through a stage and that this means as much as the shooting skill itself. How is this possibly, by any person's definition an extreme ends justify the means view? Those trying to hold gamers to a higher standard are only looking for a level playing field, a chance to compete according to rules that everyone understands, but not everyone thinks apply to them. Every rule applies to me. You haven't posted one reference to a rule that I've broken, I'm beginning to think you haven't read the rules and you're going on pure emotion. Not everyone agrees with you. In fact, I think you'll find most don't agree. The derrogatory use of the term "Gamer" didn't arise because everyone thought it was cool. We'll see what the public opinion is soon enough. My opinion is the term gamer was tagged onto shooters that made the local majordomo unhappy. They found a way to cope or left the game and either way we're richer because of it. Take a poll and see who's got the majority of the support and who hasn't. Feel free to use the example of shooting through fancing material that you know is supposed to represent hard cover just because the course description doesn't say it is. I did just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 There is a time for everything. For this thread the time to die is now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Capizzo Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 [quote name='XRe' date='Feb 6 2007, 07:01 PM' post='509866' The derogatory use of the term gamer arose when little Napoleon match directors got tired of not being able to be lazy in their course design and setup ... This is certainly true. Having competitors come to a match that WILL think instead of just doing the obvious makes me put more effort into course design and set up. Like one of them WIN-WIN things I've heard about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdragon Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Shoot it all!!! Let the RM sort it out!!! Ivan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eerw Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Shoot it all!!! Let the RM sort it out!!! Ivan now that's good... this sport is about using your mind and your body..learning to push the limits of both. FREESTYLE BABY!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I didn't see XRe's post before I started my poll. Regardless, here's my poll:Is Gaming Cheating? I posted my opinion on your poll because it is a shorter thread than this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWGDVC Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 You might have missed the point of the thread...IPSC/USPSA is all about freestyle shooting...and that includes doing what you can to save a second or increase your points withing the rules...if, by chance you find a way to do that which is overlooked by the other shooters and the MD, then good for you...if you don't see one, then, just shoot it and move on...complete and through knowledge of the rules is useful to the shooters as well...better to be a range lawyer and know the rules than becoming a sheep led to the slaughter...think that was the point.. Funny how those that deliberately take advantage of others always seem to justify it by claiming it's not against the rules. Even funnier how quickly they cry when they are the victim of something that they perceive to be unfair. How do you figure that deliberately taking a procedural to save time is shooting according to the rules? How do you figure that deliberately taking a miss penalty that saves more time than it loses in points, is playing by the rules? How do you figure shooting through a picket fence that you know is supposed to be a hard barrier, but is not described that way in the description, is shooting according to the rules? Which of these do you think is OK and which do you think is gaming? Do you apply the same philosophy to property rights? If your magazines don't have your name on them and I find them laying on the ground, is it OK for me to keep them? In life, intent, as determined by our judicial system, is often the difference between a misdimeaner and a felony, between a fine and jail time. In our "practical" sport, which is designed, at least partly, to emulate reality, intent, as determined by our judicial system, should be the difference between penalty points and a DQ. Lee Lee, In all competition, there is a certian amount of "suspension of reality". In the real world, there is no 180, yet we all agree not to break it, and accept the consequences if we do. We all agree that a wall is hard cover, even though we all know a bullet will pass through it. We have quantified this suspension of reality by creating a book of rules. This rule book, in conjunction with the stage briefing, defines this altered reality. We present a shooting challenge, the same shooting challenge, to all competitors. No one is being taken advantage of if the challenge is being consistently presented. Each shooter has the same opportunity, under the same rules. If a shooter's solution includes accepting a penalty to save time, the shooter has taken a decision based upon the real world principle that a reward outweighs it's cost. The intent of our sport is to present a shooting challenge to a shooter, along with whatever specified tasks to be performed, and allow the shooter to solve the challenge the best way. We measure best in points per second (hit factor). Highest hit factor is the name of this game. With respect, I believe you would benefit greatly by attending a level 1 range officer course as offered by USPSA. Regards, Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny hill Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Ditto on mike's reply. Have been shooting uspsa for 17 yrs & it has not changed much. They give you a problem & you solve it. Just because I may solve it better than someone else. If you want a game where everyone has to do EVERYTHING the same move to IDPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty whiteboy Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 If you want a game where everyone has to do EVERYTHING the same move to IDPA. +1 and don't forget the fishing vest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSMITH Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 MWGDVC, that is absolutely THE best explanation of the sport I have ever heard. That is incredibly well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Bell Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 In all competition, there is a certian amount of "suspension of reality". In the real world, there is no 180, yet we all agree not to break it, and accept the consequences if we do. We all agree that a wall is hard cover, even though we all know a bullet will pass through it. We did not all agree that a wall is hard cover. Quite a few that responded to the poll thought it was quite alright to shoot through it. We have quantified this suspension of reality by creating a book of rules. This rule book, in conjunction with the stage briefing, defines this altered reality. The problem with that approach is twofold. First, nobody wants rules to cover every possibility. That's the problem with IDPA right now. Winning at any cost, particularly when you KNOW that what you're planning is not what was intended, is the surest way I know of to ensure that new, more restrictive rules, are imposed. The second problem is the stage description itself. In any sport, including this one, people are expected to use a little common sense in figureing out out what the stage is all about. If every stage designer had to detail every item in the stage, there's be no more stages designed. We present a shooting challenge, the same shooting challenge, to all competitors.No one is being taken advantage of if the challenge is being consistently presented. Each shooter has the same opportunity, under the same rules. If a shooter's solution includes accepting a penalty to save time, the shooter has taken a decision based upon the real world principle that a reward outweighs it's cost. The philosophy is called "The end justifies the means," and it's been the the basis for every dictatorship in history. The intent of our sport is to present a shooting challenge to a shooter, along with whatever specified tasks to be performed, and allow the shooter to solve the challenge the best way. We measure best in points per second (hit factor). Highest hit factor is the name of this game. With respect, I believe you would benefit greatly by attending a level 1 range officer course as offered by USPSA. We certainly agree on this. I'll attend the first one available. Don't get me wrong. I hate rules as much as anyone. I simply do not do well in a tightly constrained environment. I live to be given a challange and the responsibility to meet it however proves best. It is precisely this fact that makes it so imperative that every competitor is honest and ethical. It is precisely to keep from suffering the death of a thousand rules, that each competitor must consider what he knows to be right and compete accordingly. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWGDVC Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 MWGDVC, that is absolutely THE best explanation of the sport I have ever heard. That is incredibly well said! Thank you Sir, You are most kind. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now