boz1911 Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Not totally opposed to the mandatory reload deal. Basically, it's something added without really taking away. So long as it's done the "right" way. 28 round stage with like 4-6 pieces of steel will usually get you a reload out of everyone.Rich Maybe so, but I like the option to do it without a reload.......freestyle baby!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Everyone please keep in mind that all of us in the US now shoot the USPSA Rulebook rather than the IPSC Rulebook unless it is a IPSC match. By virtue of my USPSA membership am I not a member of IPSC? Was there not a potential (at least perceived by some) shift in the value of that membership? To suggest that this has no effect on us --- by virtue of the fact that the U.S. region shoots primarily USPSA matches under USPSA rules --- seems a bit shortsighted.... Nik, I have to disagree with your comment about being short sighted. Gary, you misread my comment --- short sighted referred specifically to Charles suggestion that the change doesn't affect us at all, since we shoot under the USPSA rulebook. I believe that a change of this significance at the international level does affect me --- and that it changes the value of my membership in IPSC, even while it doesn't affect my membership in USPSA in any meaningful way. That was all I was trying to convey. I never meant to imply that the BOD was shortsighted in its approach to IPSC..... I believe that your BOD has been very far sighted in their actions. When one observes that the direction you are heading may be bad, but does not possess the tools to change the direction, alternative measures have to be taken.By the BOD's actions USPSA is not being dragged down the rabbit hole to a new place. USPSA has the option to visit the rabbit hole, if they wish, and then return to their home where they are hopefully happy. Gary I'm a very big fan of the separate yet not divided concept that the Board of Directors pulled off a couple of years ago. I continue to think that it was the best solution to a sticky problem --- but that's also why a change a at the IPSC level of operations affects me, because we are part of the larger organization, and because we do derive value from that association. Unfortunately with this change, we derive less value than we used to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Dog gone Nik, as much as I try, I can't find a thing in that post to argue about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandro Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Why? Every time IPSC does something stupid like this, they just sink further and further into irrelevancy. Instead of fighting for their rights they rather take the easy path by giving it away hoping it will prevent them from being target as a non sport organization. It is foolish and they know it! Sandro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Instead of fighting for their rights they rather take the easy path by giving it away hoping it will prevent them from being target as a non sport organization. It is foolish and they know it!Sandro Unfortunately, I don't think they do . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Okay, the original question about the proposal has been answered by it not even making the agenda and this thread is headed where we don't want it to go. If anyone has anything relevant to the actual discussion PM any Mod and they will assist you in getting your info posted. CLOSED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts