IPSC Oversight

RUPZUK said:
I you don't like the rules, or the lack of "mechanisms" stand up like a man and try to change them from within.
I would imagine that starts at the AGM.
Otherwise STFU and be happy other people are doing the legwork that allows you to compete.
The choice is yours.
Click to expand...

I have been thoroughly admonished by you and others and thank you. One needs a good admonishment every now and again. Don't you think?? Although chastened I feel several comments are due.

I have been standing up as you have noticed, and been subject to much invective for my efforts. I am reminded of a line from a Leonard Cohen song:"They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom trying to change the system from within". Trying to change the system from the outside is preferable.

I imagine it starts well ahead of the AGM so that people can have a well thought out position prior to attending.

I do not understand the meaning of STFU but likewise I' sure. Also, I have done plenty of legwork that has allowed others to compete.

Have a great day, eh? :D
 
arancio said:
People volunteer for many reason, most of which are self serving on some level.
Click to expand...
And there's the rub from arancio's point of view. Don't confuse him with facts - his mind is already made up.

I'm just wonder why he pretends to be a Canadian but writing "eh?" at the end of many questions. Most of my friends use "eh?" in speech, but never in writing.

Anyway, another 5 pages of dead cyberspace cells ......
 
alcatraz said:
And there's the rub from arancio's point of view. Don't confuse him with facts - his mind is already made up.

I'm just wonder why he pretends to be a Canadian but writing "eh?" at the end of many questions. Most of my friends use "eh?" in speech, but never in writing.

Anyway, another 5 pages of dead cyberspace cells ......
Click to expand...


Friend Alcatraz;

Give me a verifiable fact and we will see if it confuses me. Change my mind with the beauty of your irrefutable logic and incontrovertible facts.

Actually, I am seventh generation Canadian, eh? Old Henry crossed the border in 1784 to take up a land grant from the crown. I use the 'eh?' because I am more comfortable talking than writing. We call it a device, eh?

The five pages of dead cyberspace are mostly replies similar to yours, eh?

Have a great day, eh?
 
stormbringer said:
But surely Arancio.......the lack of support should indicate something should it not?
Click to expand...

Stormbringer;

There are about 40 replies counting my own and about 840 views. For sure, most of the 30 odd are not supportive. The PMs from shooters past and present are very supportive. I feel like 'lui che porta le tempeste', I have never being accused of being 'lui che porta la calma'.

All's well as ends better, eh?
 
The irony here is palpable!!


Go gettem Alberta!!!


1615387-Don-Quiote-1.jpg
 
Although I may not agree with Arancio about being R.O'd by non-shooters (Hell I don't see any official of any other sport being a competitor and game official at the same time... I would argue that our sport is unique in this manner).
He does bring to mind (at least my limited mind) the restrictions of BB qualification in Ontario ...one other section,I believe BC, requires x number of matches per year to maintain qualifications (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I know It's been covered in other threads before but it touches on "Spirit" of this thread. If Safety is the paramount concern for the requirements of re-qualifying for BB... more than 2 years review by BBI over 3 refresher course and over 4 or 5 yrs retake complete BB course.

However, someone who hasn't fired a shot for 5 years or more but has maintained membership can walk onto the range step up to the firing line and we should all feel safer because s/he has maintained their membership??

Is this person any safer than the person who chose to play in a different sport? or because of the Messed up classification system in Ontario chooses not to renew membership until it's been fixed and in the meantime shoots local club matches only which follow the same safety rules as sanctioned IPSC matches?

I understand that there is no way that this can be tracked or verified.

My concern is that if BB qualifications can be maintained solely by paying membership dues and not being a competitor validates the fact that your BB qualification never expires and it's not a safety concern at all but an issue of money, because if members are not required to update or maintain their skills by participating in x number of level I's per year then past BB qualified shooters reneweing after 5-10 years shouldn't have to jump through hoops to rejoin.

Keep it the same, if you've been away from competing for more than two years whether because of not being a member or a member but not being able to participate due to lack of interest, costs, or physical limitations you either need to demonstrate abilities or you can't shoot or the reverse as long as you have successufully completed the BB course in the past you are good to go.
I've been an R.O., Competitor, local league director , IPSC local Rep,MD for Level II and all around general helper Patching score keeping and coffee getter...

sorry for the hijack but I felt I had to speak on this... so let the flaming begin
 
Good point Max..........not sure how we can address that without some REAL EXTENSIVE record keeping.

Also how do you separate showing up at club level events that are not tablulated at all and larger registered matches?
 
Another twist on that is that you can keep your RO status by never holding a timer, by working stats.
I think his main point is that we should ensure that the people who we put in a position that effects our game, the BOD's, should be playing the game to some extent, otherwise how can we expect them to make an informed decision on matters pertaining to it.
 
Can you actually name anyone who keeps their R/O status and only works stats??

Otherwise why bring up an non existant problem.

Unless your mission is to alienate stats folks.......which would result in even more problems.
 
If youve passed your BB and only shoot once in awhile..whats the problem.. to many rules and regs..lets not add more of them...
 
I wouldn't say extensive... but some extra work is required for sure. Checking based on Level I's would be more paper work for sure but not terribly over burdensome ( I would volunteer to take care of this if that's what was chosen).

Level II's or ICS or Provincial or National championships would be ideal and easiest. Because we (Ontario)currently use all of these to calculate our Classifications a score entered for any of the above and submitted for classification would demonstrate you have shot/competed at one or more IPSC sanctioned matches and thus satisfy the requirements of having to compete without DQ, x number of matches per year or 2 years ...

As for previously BB'd returning members... domonstrating that you either participated in local club matches either by a signed letter from Local Ipsc Club Rep or if we accept previously BB'd shooters who moved to IDPA/USPSA during the absence the shooters would be required to obtain a letter or some other varifiable proof of participation during their time away.

To re-iterate I'm just avocating that if a person has taken the course and participated in a sport whether IPSC USPA or IDPA the skills are there. if they are maintained they pose no significant risk to safety especially versus the members who haven't participated in a match more than 2 years and continued to pay their dues as only requirement to keep their BB current.
 
Last edited:
^your adding a level of unecessary BS to the game... if youve passed the BB...you shouldnt be mandated from shooting x amount of matches every year.. the 2 year number is arbitrary and not based on any evidence that skills have deteriorated during that time frame...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom