Who Has The Onus?

[XRe]

Inspired by: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4289

[Merlin Orr]

In my opinion the question (#1) is ambiguous and needs to be reworded. You are going to have a lot of people give an answer they don't really want to because of the wording. Again...IMO

[smokshwn]

+1 with Merlin.

the other two are fine.

[Hoofy]

The stage designer presents the problem, the shooter solves the problem.

A good problem has more than one solution.

Too many times, we as stage designers, are just trying to put together good stages for a local match, we don't take the time to critique our own work. That's when we usually get beat up by the shooters in walk-thru, which we deserve.

As a shooter, if I see a solution which the designer didn't want to allow, but made no provisions in the descrip or layout, I label it a poor stage and move on. As a designer, I learn from their mistake.

[XRe]

Apparently, I can't edit the poll

[RePete]

Part 1 is covered by the rulebook - FREESTYLE. The designer can control the way the stage is shot just by his/her stage design, and placement of barriers and fault lines.

Part 2 is part of the stage design.

Part 3 is self explanitory.

[uscbigdawg]

# 1. Yeah, it's a little confusing, but I put the onus on the designer. It's their stage and if they have an intended way to engage a stage they can control how a shooter will go through it.

# 2. It's on the designer, but as stated in the other thread, I'll ask the question if the WSB isn't clear.

I went with Sometimes on # 3. Only because at the club level, especially if it's a new stage designer I'll get with them before the match and get their intent and then work them on correcting/improving to meet that intent but also still allow for other solutions.

Edited February 7, 2007 by uscbigdawg

[Skywalker]

#1: IMHO there's no such thing as "how a stage is to be shot" in IPSC. The stage designer foresees one or multiple ways his stage will be shot, and throws in barricades and obstacles to force the shooters shoot it that way. Mostly, the stage designer should start designing a stage by determining which shooting skills he wants to test, then he should design the stage accordingly.

Once the start signal beeps, the competitor is entitled to solve the shooting challenge in his own way (according to the rulebook).

#2: initially it's the stage designer decision; ultimately it's the RM's one, depending on safety/consistency/scoring considerations.

#3: NO! See rule 1.1.5 - Freestyle, especially the part that says:

Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an "as and when visible" basis.

My 2c worth.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Skywalker

[Lee Bell]

All of the questions are of the "have you quit beating your wife" variety, designed to return a predetermined result. No matter what the response, it will suit the gamer's ends.

Gaming a poll about gaming. Nice.

[HSMITH]

Lee, would you put a poll up that asks what you want to know?

[XRe]

All of the questions are of the "have you quit beating your wife" variety,

Aw, what's the matter, Lee?? Upset that people agree with us about Freestyle??? The only guided, inflammatory question in the poll is perhaps the last one - and people still get that one wrong.... How in the hell someone is supposed to read someone else's mind is beyond me....

I agree with HSMITH, Lee - if you don't like the polls we put up, why don't you put one up? If not, then let the subject drop and admit that you don't understand the full breadth of the challenge involved in this game - and that you're not the voice of the majority.

Edited February 7, 2007 by XRe

[Lee Bell]

Question 1: Both. It is the stage designer's responsibility to design the stage and include reasonable explanation of how it is to be shot. Reasonable means using terms presumed by logical, thinking, experienced shooters, to have specific meanings. It does not mean defining every term or describing every prop pictured in the stage diagram.

Question 2: Both. If snow fence is normally used as hard cover and everybody knows that's what it's intended to be, then the stage designer, the shooter, the range officer, and the scorer are obligated to recognize it as such. It is no more necessary to include this known fact in the course description than it is to include any of the host of other understood conditions that everybody knows. Shooting through it is no less a violation than shooting through a closed door, knocking a wall or barrel down to give a clearer field of fire, or any of the other things that everybody knows are not acceptable but a few extreme gamers try to make us think are OK because they are not detailed in the course desription if it means they can beat people who, otherwise, might out shoot them.

Question 3: No. Like any other game, participants are expected to make the effort to understand the rules of stage construction employed and base the stage plan on reasonable interpretation of them. They are expected to know what is hard cover and what is not, know what is a window and what is not, know what is a door and what is not, know what is a no shoot and what is not. Failing this, they are expected to ask before starting the stage. They are not expected to deliberately ignore what they know simply because nobody held their hand, telling him every detail of every thing, just to make sure that there is no possible way they can deliberately misinterpret anything.

Those that do their job, understand the perameters of the stage, comply with them and still win are known as champions, looked up to, respected and emulated. They write books about shooting that others buy. They are the foundation of this sport, the standard to which others aspire. Those that choose, no matter what they know, not to comply with what they know to be right, are called gamers, are looked on with disgust, and have a strong tendency to whine when they are revealed as what everyone knows they are. They are the reason why more and more complex rules are imposed every year.

There's a difference between someone that, understanding the intent of a stage, finds a better, faster way to complete it and someone who deliberately uses methods that he, and everyone else, knows were not intended. The line is not always clear, but you know it when you see it. Each of us gets to decide where, along that line, we stand. Each of us will be judged according to that decision. If you don't like the label, make sure it doesn't apply.

Lee

[Lee Bell]

Lee, would you put a poll up that asks what you want to know?

It's already been done by I Hate Pickles. He did a reasonable job. I'm not sure I can do it better without introducing my own bias.

One of the three questions is running against me, as I expected it would. Most think it's fine to fail to engage or accept a procedural when the penalty is less than the value of the time/score gained. As someone pointed out, the opportunity to do that is a clear indication that the stage is poorly designed. Then again, everybody, including stage designers, are volunteers. You take what you can get. I knew this was a common practice when I mentioned it. I can accept the majority opinion without agreeing. Who knows, maybe some day I'll want to win badly enough to do it too . . . but not today.

Another of the questions was running for me, as I hoped it would, until Flexmoney posted that it was specifically covered by the 2004 rulebook. Notice how many people answered, in this poll and the other one, that is fine to shoot through fencing even though it's specifically addressed in the rulebook. I presume that those that thought it was OK made an honest mistake, but the effect is the same. It wasn't a coincidence that I specified that technique for the poll. I assume that every person who answered that it was OK, felt justified when they did. Perhaps now, they see why others perceive them differently.

ON the third question, dealing with whether it was OK to have a box containing a gun in it open if the instructions didn't say closed, I agreed with the freestylers conditioned by saying that I didn't know the right answer and, therefore, would ask. At least one other responded the same way. Most are voting that is OK, which strongly suggests that this is something that really is tacitcal thinking rather than gaming. I would still ask and abide by the answer. I would expect that answer would be applied to everyone. If the range officer I asked agreed I was legal, and shared my proposal with others, I'd see what I could do about ensuring that RO didn't control any stages I shot in the future, but I'd still ask.

At risk of being called a gamer myself, I recently shot a stage that required a start in box A, that specified targets that were to be engaged, including two poppers that had to be down, before crossing a fault line well in front of box A, and that the stage started with a football in both hands (Superbowl week). The instructions did not specify what to do with the ball, that anything was to be shot only from Box A or that visible targets beyond the fault line could not be engaged from behind it. Most threw the ball away, moving their hand well away from their holstered guns. I simply dropped it, probably gaining a couple of seconds by doing so. While it was clearly impossible to shoot all of the targets required before crossing the fault line from within the A box, several shooters shot as many of them as they could before moving. Because this required them to shoot around a barrier, it was a bit harder, but made little difference to anyone whose magazines held 10 rounds or more. It made a big difference to those of us shooting 9 round magazines. Rather than shooting only the nearby targets, including those that had to be engaged before crossing the fault line, I shot two of the targets on the other side of the fault line as I crossed the stage from right to left. Since it was a significantly longer shot that it would be after crossing the fault line, those with larger capacity magazines thought I was nuts. Some that also had 9 round magazines realized that, by shooting them from further out, earlier in the stage, I managed one less magazine change and managed to do all my changes while moving between positions rather than accept the need for two of the changes to be static, as all the other Single Stack shooters did. I knew, from the start, that I had a better plan, but I did not know if I was violating the intent of the stage designer. Some would suggest I should have shot it my way without asking. Obviously, that's not my way. I chose to ask. I won that particular stage so decisively that I took first in my division even though another shooter edged me out in both of the other stages fired that night.

I think I had a good plan and, at least partly because I asked before I shot, I don't think I gamed anything. Some will probably disagree. I can live with that.

I hope this serves to clarify my position. I'm not against freestye shooting or taking advantage of better tactics. I favor and support both. I am not, however, in favor of tactics that violate established rules (shooting through hard cover) or rules that are generally understood, but are not specifically detailed in the course description. If you know how it's supposed to be, I don't accept that it's OK to do it differently anyway. That includes my opinion that it's wrong to deliberately take a procedural or fail to engage a target when doing so saves more time than it costs in points, but I can live with the fact that I'm in the minority on this one.

Lee

[LPatterson]

Lee

You can't seem to get past the intent aspect so I would like to ask you a simple question. When the state, county or city posts a speed limit on a section of road that is below what it needs to be for safety or population, Do you still obey it? If you don't why not? If you do, why?

[Flexmoney]

I hope this serves to clarify my position. I'm not against freestye shooting or taking advantage of better tactics. I favor and support both. I am not, however, in favor of tactics that violate established rules (shooting through hard cover) or rules that are generally understood, but are not specifically detailed in the course description. If you know how it's supposed to be, I don't accept that it's OK to do it differently anyway. That includes my opinion that it's wrong to deliberately take a procedural or fail to engage a target when doing so saves more time than it costs in points, but I can live with the fact that I'm in the minority on this one.

Lee

Lee, that is pretty well said. You...as a shooter...are looking to take on the "responsibility". The flip side of that is many that are posting here believe that the "responsibility" falls on the shoulders of the stage designer. And, many here are the stage designers.

You've mentioned a time of two that we ought to focus on the shooting test, on DVC. That is fine and I doubt anybody would disagree with that belief. But, the truth is, we can practice/test Accuracy, Power & Speed at any number of different shooting games. Some of those games will favor different aspects of DVC over the others, but we can find plenty of shooting tests outside of USPSA/IPSC.

That, to me, begs the question...What makes USPSA shooting so special ?

Some might say it's the higher round counts, some might mention the ability to choose which equipment division to shoot, etc. For me, it's a bit more fundamental than that. It's the ability (and challenge) of attacking a shooting problem in a freestyle manner. It's the thinking and the problem solving.

I can get shooting tests in a bunch of different shooting games, I can't get the challenge of freestyle shooting in any other game like I do in USPSA.

I posted this before, but I think it fits here as well:

Practical shooting is distinct from other shooting disciplines in that the responsibility for determining the best, safe solution to the problem presented by a course of fire is the competitor's. In other words, practical shooting intends to test the ability to think in addition to testing the ability to shoot rapidly and accurately. That intent is formalized in the Practical Shooting Handbook, in which IPSC 1.1.5 says, "IPSC matches are freestyle".

- National Classification Course Book, 2004

[Micah]

All of the questions are of the "have you quit beating your wife" variety,

She beats me...that wasn't a option

[folsoml]

The stage designer can make it how they WANT it to be shot, but someone will always find a different way, so I said it is up to the shooter.

[smokshwn]

My only question for these "gaming" discussions is

"HOW DO YOU KNOW THE STAGE DESIGNER"S INTENT, UNLESS IT HAS BEEN EXPLICITLY WRITTEN/EXPLAINED IN THE STAGE DESCRIPTION"

Whether you argue for or against gaming, it never ceases to amaze me how some people think THEY know what someone else intended.

[ima45dv8]

The poll wouldn't let me vote just in the third question, so here's my slightly reworded version:

Who owns the responsibility has the opportunity to determine how a stage is to be shot?

The stage designer

The shooter

Both

If a stage has walls made of snow fence, who's responsbility is it to determine declare that the snow fence is hard or soft cover?

The stage designer

The shooter

The Stage Designer

Should the shooter be required to be able to read the stage designer's mind?

Yes

No

Maybe

Sometimes - it depends

And the Great Karnak says, "No"

[XRe]

Excellent answers, and question modifications, Mark

[Grump]

I voted mindreader just to be obnoxious. NO ONE should be required to read the stage designer's mind. But if you can anticipate your opponent's thinking and counter it, that's tacticool!