[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

[J N Hiller]

I tend to agree that guidelines would be great. Before normalized scoring we
say total scores for other contests including the NATS. This gave me a real
good understanding of how I compared to others and what kind of spread there
was between the top placing fliers. Published normalized scores hides or
masks the performance indicator (total K). At the time there was real value
in reading contest results from all districts, beyond seeing people
mentioned that I knew or met somewhere.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Mark Atwood
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:55 PM
To: General pattern discussion; Tom Simes
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

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.

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion