[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Fri May 8 07:31:09 AKDT 2009

Please be careful in the rules survey and provide some of the background.  When people read that, they don't often process the entire conversation and get focused on not punishing the 1 in a million abuser.

The reality is, we don't have trophy hounds.  And if we do have one, well, I would argue that getting beat is getting beat.  Yes, they should move up, but that will happen.

As for COMPLETELY removing the points system as a guideline, while that would be preferable to having it be mandatory, I do think there is some value in having a guideline that people can look to for advice on when to consider moving up.  It's hard to know when the time is right and I think there's value in having some advice out there for people.  Maybe that doesn't belong in the rule book though and is better left to the NSRCA web site for info.

I would be VERY in favor of eliminating the forced advancement altogether.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:23 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Dave,

I think the timing (in the past) hasn't been right.  Now, obviously is the time to do this.  I'm going to add this question to the rules survey and lets see what the membership wants to do.

-Derek
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net<mailto:burtona at atmc.net>> wrote:

Let' just remove all the wording about advancement and points from the rule book and let anyone fly any class they want for any reason they feel is appropriate. I've been advocating this for years and have written rules proposals in the past that got shot down by NSRCA.

I'll volunteer to write the proposal and submit it to AMA if NSRCA will support it. Without the support of NSRCA it would be pretty futile effort.

Dave Burton

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:46 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

I really do think this is easy.

Change the advancement rule to be a guideline, not a rule.

People should be able to change what class they fly when they want to.  Yes, there could be the occasional A$$ that changes for the wrong reason, but let's not make rules just to capture idiots, and make more work for everyone else in the process.

People move between FAI and Masters ALL THE TIME based on who's at a contest, or the overall contest make up and no one cares.  There's no reason that the same can't happen in the lower classes.  Let's just try it for a bit.  Please??

All we need is a proposal to change the wording on advancement to be a guideline, a recommendation.  And remove any language that refers to mandatory advancement or prevents people from moving back down a level.

Let's see what problems it causes.  I'm betting NONE, and it will eliminate numerous problems.

-M

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 9:33 AM
To: Discussion List, NSRCA
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Lots of good observations and comments that are on topic.

Also, adjusting the sequences / classes may be a fix to the root cause of poor skill fits in a given class that would dictate moving up or down.

IMHO, I believe the immediate focus should be on changing the advancement system so that folks who find themselves in a class way beyond their skill level have a mechanism to move to a class better fitting their skills. I'm not proposing that the focused competitor who moves up and then finds themselves not competitive for a few years should move back. I do believe that the casual competitor who finds that age / career / family / increased sequence difficulty should be able to easily move to a class where they're comfortable. As the discussions regarding sequence content indicate, the consummate competitor wants (needs) an increasing level of difficulty to maintain challenge & interest. This increase in difficulty can (and apparently does) overwhelm some casual competitors who then leave pattern. Possibly they can be retained if it were easy for them to drop back a class.

I don't perceive that this discussion has reached a consensus on how best to handle the current advancement system, previous discussions have ended similarly and nothing much has changed. The options seem to be:

1. Leave the current system alone & adjust sequences / classes. (Appears to concede to the lowest skill pilots per class.)

2. No official advancement system, peer pressure is adequate. (Might actually work, most pattern folks are honorable.)

3. Variant of current system with provisions for casual competitors to move back basis their comfort / performance. (Probably OK and would seem to have a good chance with the CB.)

4. Performance based system where folks float between classes basis performance. (Actually my favorite as it would both satisfy providing comfort to the casual and prestige to the consummate. Unfortunately logistically most difficult, someone would need to manage the data and assign classes.)

So - the trick is to reach some sort of consensus and move it to a rules proposal. Discussion alone won't get the job done.

Earl

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/>
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.19/2099 - Release Date: 05/07/09 18:05:00

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.19/2099 - Release Date: 05/07/09 18:05:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090508/d836f005/attachment.html>