Bigbadaboom Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Vote for what you want!!!!! VOTE HERE!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 "push poll"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I just read the entire Short Cut thread... It certainly seems (to ME) that we are closing in on the FTDR rule at a high rate of speed..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Yeah, I argued against the short cut thread over on the GV, but the "we must haff a rule!" people could never see that it was a failure of the course design and not a problem that needed a 'while-shooting' rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Well...One thing the rules "discussions" will most certainly do is let all USPSA members see where the (elected) Prez and the (elected) representatives stand on issues. It will also (due to the ongoing polls) let the Prez and the Board know exactly where the members stand. As with any elected person(s) it would bode very well for those elected representatives to pay very close attention to what their voters are telling them. .02 from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 ......people could never see that it was a failure of the course design and not a problem that needed a 'while-shooting' rule. +1 This one proposed rule, and the resistence to logic being displayed by those in USPSA management who support it, frightens and angers the pure hell out of me. I'm worried that it looks like no matter how compelling an argument is made against this bad rule, this one is going to be shoved down our throats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 +1 Well done! We may lose these battles, but the BOD will (hopefully) recognize the passion we have for our sport. If they disregard the thoughts and opinions of the responses they are getting, well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I am 100% in favor of freestyle. BUT Does Freestyle mean that we can completely circumvent the design of the COF, bypass all the obstacles placed there for your enjoyment? If we placed a wall that was to be scaled in a COF, short of building a row of walls from one berm to the other, how do we compel the shooter to scale it? If all we put down is a fault line, the shooter can exit the COF, go around the wall and then re-enter the COF on the opposite side without any penalty. Same goes for a door that doen't activate a target. WHat do we do to compel the shooter to pass through the doorway? Can we just say you must? And if you don't what penalty? One proceedural? Doing hte math, it most likely makes sense to run the fast route and take the single penalty. My real and only problem is that this is set to become the default. I would rather that it were the option. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Yup, I think it should be an option, not the default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I agree that so far Area 8 and NROI are steadfast in their position that 10.2.11 should stand as written. While there's a lot of good examples giving by members so far arguing against this rule there's still an insistence that this is a safety rule. It would greatly help if the people that are currently making good arguments keep making good arguments, but even more helpful if the silent kibitzers would make their thoughts heard as well. The thread has reached a point that the same voices are being heard over and over, I think a wider audience would help our cause. Even if you like the rule, go voice your opinion. If the BOD has the impression that the people arguing the rules only represent a small portion of the membership then the value of the forum is lessened. Yup, I think it should be an option, not the default. Yep, me too. And the penalty needs to be more simple than counting footsteps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Penalty is simple. Use a percentage of the available points on the stage. Without running around in the back yard, I did some basic work and comparrisons and find that 25% of the available points will pretty much negate any advantage gained. Essentially the way to look at this is: All other things being equal, what is the HF of the shortcut? If the shortcut equals a 20% reduction nin the time it takes to shoot a COF, then the penalty has to be at least 20% of the available points. On a 25 second COF, will a shotcut save 6.25 seconds? how about a 10 second COF, will it save 2.5 seconds? Truthfully, I think a 20% penalty is significant enough that very few will take the chance. Remember, this is all based upon everything else being equal.So, If you take the shortcut and shoot a couple less points, you would lose out to the guy that shot heads up and had better points. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I think the biggest problem is going to be the rule gets used waaay too often by bad ROs and lazy stage designers. "sorry, you cut the corner of the fault line back there.. that'll be 25% of your points.. heh heh heh.." "check out this stage... I call it the "Waltz".. you have to follow the footsteps exactly... heh heh heh" How hard is it to string ten feet of 'caution' tape either side of a door the shooter has to go through? two target stands, two sticks and four staples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cheely Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 How hard is it to string ten feet of 'caution' tape either side of a door the shooter has to go through? two target stands, two sticks and four staples? +1 million I've purposely designed courses of fire to take into account running outside of the fault lines. It makes people really think about the course. Now if I have to say that you "may" exit the fault lines, everyone's going to look for it and think it's the faster way. Now I might as well not design it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 (edited) "May Exit" Man I could go on for hours on that one. Yep thats a really stupid rule. No I venture its an idiotic rule. Why are we taking out freestyle and course design. News flash thats one of the core differences in the sport. Am I allowed to discuss it here? Edited December 31, 2006 by BSeevers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihatepickles Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 "May Exit" Man I could go on for hours on that one.Yep thats a really stupid rule. No I venture its an idiotic rule. Why are we taking out freestyle and course design. News flash thats one of the core differences in the sport. Am I allowed to discuss it here? If you discuss it over at the USPSA Forums it'll sure mean a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 My real and only problem is that this is set to become the default. I would rather that it were the option.Jim Jim, I am kinda surprised that you aren't already all over this...as our current rule have this covered already. I know you don't usually like new rules unless there is a clear cut and substantial improvement with new rule What do we do to compel the shooter to pass through the doorway? Can we just say you must? Of course we can. We currently do it that way. (Shooter must pass through Cooper Tunnel before last shot.) And if you don't what penalty? One procedural? Doing the math, it most likely makes sense to run the fast route and take the single penalty. Have you read 10.2.2 lately? It covers the penalty for violating procedures. (it's NOT the rule for shots while faulting, that is 10.1.1). You get one penalty for violating a procedure, and one per shot fired if there is a significant advantage gained. "Per shot fired"...that is huge. Significant advantage isn't hard to figure out. If I write up a stage..."shooter must remain within the FFZ"...if the shooter accidentally stumbles out...that is one procedural. If they short-cut around a wall to cut time...they'll have earned the "per shot fired". (per shot fired is easy to track...we have a current rule for it...and it fits on the score sheets and into EZ without ANY extra work) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 I agree that so far Area 8 and NROI are steadfast in their position that 10.2.11 should stand as written. While there's a lot of good examples giving by members so far arguing against this rule there's still an insistence that this is a safety rule. I think A8's starting to come around........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 How hard is it to string ten feet of 'caution' tape either side of a door the shooter has to go through? two target stands, two sticks and four staples? +1 million I've purposely designed courses of fire to take into account running outside of the fault lines. It makes people really think about the course. Now if I have to say that you "may" exit the fault lines, everyone's going to look for it and think it's the faster way. Now I might as well not design it that way. A point I tried unsucessfully to make. It amounts to spoon-feeding the shooters that there may be a different way to shoot the stage. God forbid we should continue to try to make people think while shooting stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 I am leaning toward making the default position with the course designer or at the local level. Begining today all state/sectional and area matches have to be reviewed by NROI or a designate of NROI. NROI can address these issues with the MD's when they are submitted for approval. If the MD's decide they don't want to address them, well so be it. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFlowers Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 The whole debate over this borders on the truly stupid. How hard is it to put a barrel or four (or posts, or anything else) and string rop across them to create a barrier, stops the problem completely and resolves the whole issue without a new rule that causes as many problems as it solves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory_k Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The whole debate over this borders on the truly stupid. How hard is it to put a barrel or four (or posts, or anything else) and string rop across them to create a barrier, stops the problem completely and resolves the whole issue without a new rule that causes as many problems as it solves. smaller clubs may not have the resources avaible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The simple answer to keeping shooters moving where you want - ie, scaling the obstacle, or whatever - is to use charge lines as others have described, and make sure the shooter has to do something in between, making it a penalty to take a different route... As several have discovered (and voiced in the thread on the USPSA forum) many times the so-called "short cut", where you're circumventing a big chunk of stage (as opposed to cutting across fault lines for a couple of steps), ends up costing a lot more time than it avoids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrell Spicer Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I bet they have some target stands, sticks and someone willing to bring some rope. We are not talking about buying expensive props here. 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