[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

[Mark Atwood]

Just one of the MANY scenarios that supports just having a guideline
approach.  I like the data that PACSS will have, but again, let's use it to
advise people where they best fit, not force them.

I don't know of many trophy hounds that are so UN competitive that they
would fly beneath themselves just for a plaque.  I'm sure they exist...but
I'm also sure they have other more serious problems in life than me worrying
about making them "move up".  lol


On 2/2/09 3:43 PM, "Tom Simes" <simestd at netexpress.com> wrote:

> Mark Atwood wrote:
>> I¹m coming in very late to this discussion, but regardless of the system,  I
>> really think the primary change needs to be that instead of ANY mandatory
>> system, we change the key word to be ³Guideline²...meaning it¹s a guideline
>> for when to move, but not a fast rule.  This is pattern...a hobby.  Yes, a
>> competitive one, but there¹s no huge money riding on it (certainly not at
>> the levels that are subjected to this) and there will always be valid
>> exceptions that no system can take into account.  So while we can and should
>> work on improving the advancement system to be as accurate as possible, I
>> will likely submit a proposal that simply changes the existing system to be
>> a guideline, rather than mandatory.
>> 
>> I personally think that fixes almost everything. (well...with regard to
>> pattern advancement). :)
>> 
>> -Mark
> 
> In PACSS, Gene already has the underpinnings built and working for
> national results reporting.  I'm not advocating one way or another,
> just throwing out a data point that one of the hardest parts to
> coordinate is already in place.
> 
> With regard to mandatory advancement, one aspect that I think deserves
> careful attention is how to handle people getting back into pattern
> after an absence or people who have reached a point in their lives
> where their skills are in decline for one reason or another.
> 
> It's sad to see a competitor who progressed into the higher ranks
> years ago and feels obligated to stay there but whose skills are
> obviously not adequate for the class anymore.  If mandatory
> advancement is being considered, there should also be a mechanism to
> move downward as well - instead of just leaving the hobby.