mactiger Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 If you can decide far enough out to teach it in classes...included in the course work...then it can be published as a rule interpretation.We must score our game by the book. Not by the buddy system. I think that John published this in Front Sight, but I'm not sure, and I can't check from here. If not, I'm sure he'll publish it-both in the magazine and on the USPSA page as a rules interpretation. If that's your main concern, that's fine, but comments like this aren't warranted. You might want to moderate yourself a little bit. Both George and I have tried to explain the reasoning and the process for making this scoring call. If you don't agree, that's fine, too. Bull butter and horse puckey not withstanding, your implications that this was some sort of back-room, good ol' boy process are insulting. That's it for me. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 ...your implications that this was some sort of back-room, good ol' boy process are insulting.. Troy, As I told George in an earlier post, I don't think it was done in a manner to slip one by on anybody. I do think it was done wrong. Absolutely wrong. Look. You all decided to reverse how this has been called. A 180d change in direction. None of the rules changed, just how you were going to call it. Who did you tell? It went out to new students. And, it trickled down by word of mouth (which is how it get here, apparently). How long has this been teaching policy? I looked up some of the new RO's here...those that said they had learned this in their class. Seems like it's been in the course work for a number months now. How is it then that we just had one RM candidate and one seasoned CRO (who have posted here) that just got tuned in on this because they were at the Nationals? How can a shooter get due process on this? There are no supporting words written down. Every rule we have has been signed off on by the BOD. Every official interpretation has been vetted by BOD. This hasn't. The rules we use to call matches are written. This isn't. We have the same wording, by now the policy is to call differently from before? I'm sorry if you all feel insulted. I feel you all should follow the same rules as everybody else. If you want an interpretation, send it through channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Meek Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 ...your implications that this was some sort of back-room, good ol' boy process are insulting.. Troy, As I told George in an earlier post, I don't think it was done in a manner to slip one by on anybody. I do think it was done wrong. Absolutely wrong. Look. You all decided to reverse how this has been called. A 180d change in direction. None of the rules changed, just how you were going to call it. From the info that I have seen there were RO's calling it both ways. Then RMI's reached a consenous on how they would teach. The failing here was NROI was not asked for an official interpertation at that time. Well nobodys perfect. Who did you tell? It went out to new students. And, it trickled down by word of mouth (which is how it get here, apparently). Flex, at the leadership conference that you and I and a few others attended in Nov 2007 this was covered as part of the segment on the new rules coming out. I even raised questions about this exact call and George Jones explained it there. How long has this been teaching policy? I looked up some of the new RO's here...those that said they had learned this in their class. Seems like it's been in the course work for a number months now. From the info that was presented in the Nov 2007 Leadership Conference, it was to be taught in the all Level 1 RO seminars starting in 2008 How is it then that we just had one RM candidate and one seasoned CRO (who have posted here) that just got tuned in on this because they were at the Nationals? How can a shooter get due process on this? There are no supporting words written down. Every rule we have has been signed off on by the BOD. Every official interpretation has been vetted by BOD. This hasn't. The rules we use to call matches are written. This isn't. We have the same wording, by now the policy is to call differently from before? I'm sorry if you all feel insulted. I feel you all should follow the same rules as everybody else. If you want an interpretation, send it through channels. The tone of this thread has been accusatory at points and I am posting this with reservations. I suggest that all take a 48 hour time out on this thread. It appears that there is no explanation that will satisfy all interested. I know one of the previous posters in this thread has requested a ruling from NROI, now let's all let it run it's process. Flex or any other Mod, can you temporarily close this thread. While there have been some good discusion points raised by both sides, it appears to have run it's course at the moment. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Baier Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Kyle, I believe that this will be resolved soon. I agree with Alan that this thread should be closed for now. This is starting cross the line into the "us against them mentality" and none of us wants to see that. Thank you, John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 ...your implications that this was some sort of back-room, good ol' boy process are insulting.. You all decided to reverse how this has been called. A 180d change in direction. False. There was an obvious situation where it was called differently. Some your way, most the way that we have now described. That's why it was addressed. Not to change direction, but to bring consistency. It would help if you didn't launch this kind of inflamatory, uninformed comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Flex or any other Mod, can you temporarily close this thread. While there have been some good discusion points raised by both sides, it appears to have run it's course at the moment.Alan Kyle, I believe that this will be resolved soon. I agree with Alan that this thread should be closed for now. This is starting cross the line into the "us against them mentality" and none of us wants to see that. Thank you, John We don't close threads by request --- we close them because the rules have been broken or because the people posting in them can't play by Brian's cardinal rule: Be polite! I do think y'all are skating back and forth over that politeness line --- at least in writing. I suspect that if this discussion was taking place over beer in a bar, nobody'd be getting too fired up...... Feel free to contact me if you have anything new to add to the thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts