Turd Furgeson. Doesn't he post on Doodie? Not that I have ever been there.
Turd Furgeson. Doesn't he post on Doodie? Not that I have ever been there.
That's what I was thinking, not that it matters. He is welcome to post here so long as he follows the COC.Originally Posted by Bill Nesbitt
Turd Furgeson. Doesn't he post on Doodie? Not that I have ever been there.
#RESIST
He is quite welcome to post here. Civil disagreement is not something we ban people over. I am not at all impressed by what you posted from him. I think that the points he made about proficiency, working under stress, and safe gun handling all equally apply to UPSA.
#RESIST
Valid points, but only to the extent that change in scoring is going to effect shooters' behavior in an intended way. The point I am trying to make that in gaming environment all rules will be tested whether they can be gamed and shooters' behavior is defined by the game, not rules' intentions. Consider this: current 0.5 sec penalty makes it generally not worth it to make up a -1 hit with a 0 hit. From standpoint of a winning strategy, the absolutely best way is to get two 0 zone hits right off.
1 sec penalty shifts the balance to where a miss and makeup shot at high speed could be as effective winning strategy as slowing down to guarantee two 0 zone hits. Doubt this is what was intended in the rule change, but it could easily become a counterproductive consequence. Time will tell.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
Well duh, obviously, but it makes them (the IDPA organization, not the members) hypocrites for claiming to be about competing as you carry but disallowing AIWB. Then they added insult to injury by changing the rules to REALLY disallow it and telling us to GTFO. So fuck them. Until IPDA is willing to repent its sins against Timmydom, I'm not going to participate and they (the IDPA organization, not the members) can enjoy the animosity and derision they have earned.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
I was thinking this too. The 1s penalty may make it worthwhile to scan targets for points down, and shoot makeups. It will be an interesting experiment to see what the effect is.
But, I have to say, the constant rule changes in IDPA makes it seem like the folks in charge don't know what they are doing...
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
I wasn't mag dumping. Just making up a missed shot four times [emoji41]
Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk
Last edited by 45dotACP; 10-06-2015 at 04:09 PM.
For that matter, I would not be terribly surprised to hear about folks blazing 3 shots at close targets as fast as they can and hoping for at least two in the -0 zone. +0.15 second is considerably better than +1 second, after all, and it would basically be a bet-hedging maneuver. It's no skin off my back one way or the other, as I don't shoot IDPA (USPSA is both more appealing and more geographically accessible for me personally), but I am curious to see how it shakes out.
I don't know if we'll see hopeful blasting but I do think that fast aimed shooting + makeup shots will often, if not most of the time, be a better competitive choice than slowing down to guarantee zero hits. This goes to the core of discussion of what "guaranteed" speed means, as GJM mentioned somewhere above. Biil Rogers believes that it is in excess of 1 sec. If people were to slow down that much, they'll be definitely not competitive. If people slow a bit less, they'll close the time gap with faster shooters but then there is no hit guarantee. So the question still stays, why not just shoot at current speed and make up your misses. That's exactly what I am going to do.
The "beauty" of 0.5 sec penalty was that, for the most part, it made makeup shots a wash, if not a losing proposition; had to hit your 0 zones. Not so under 1 sec rule. Unintended consequences are fun sometimes.
Even though I'm no "tactical" expert or even an advanced shooter, I just have to toss my impressions into the mix. I enjoy IDPA as a very fun pastime and would hate to see my enjoyment of it reduced by the effects of the risks it looks to be taking.
To be truthful, I don’t know whether this is a good change or not. I strongly suspect it isn’t due to the constant churn in rules over the last few years. I also strongly suspect it wasn’t well thought out, since no one can answer the questions about classifications and no one has come forward with any statistical analysis indicating a problem.
I have several concerns and I am sensitive to them because I recognize the symptoms from where I have worked for the last 35 years. Where I work, we are in a state of constant organizational churn due to regularly scheduled leadership turnover and the need for them to make some change so they can go away with an award or medal at the end of their time here. I’ve seen huge reorganizations because of the simple reason that we didn’t have a recent phone book. IDPA appears to have pretty static leadership, but the cavalier attitudes to change (or simply not evaluating the effects and risks) are similar.
Successful improvements are not done by announcing a solution and then seeing what problems it may help with. You may get lucky, but you usually cause more problems than you fix when working that way, (like with the flatfooted reload). This just happens to be a very big fix with many obvious long reaching implications, hence the many unanswered questions.
For successful change, you start with a specific problem you identify, can really describe and verify (with an emphasis on verification, not a few bubba’s drinking some beers at a bar). You then come up with potential solutions (usually by something akin to brainstorming). You look at the potential effects, costs, implications and benefits of each potential solution and throw any out that don’t specifically address the problem you originally had. You weigh the costs and benefits, and make sure the implications don’t cause additional problems past what you can address. That’s all before you try it on a small scale and analyze what happens as a result…all before implementation. I don’t see any of that here so the risk of the unknown effect is apparently large. You don't announce a change of this magnitude without being able to answer questions about the obvious impacts. You just don't.
I also see a huge push, in doing this, by people who could definitely benefit financially by creating more interest in their "tactical" training courses. I'm a little suspicious of the motive. I don't really believe the hyped inference that this is being done in an effort to make me a better shooter so I will survive "on the streets". Sorry, but I don't have enough cool-aid for that.
