[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

[John Gayer]

The rule concerning advancement can be written very simply.

"The class you fly in your first contest of the calendar year 
establishes the minimum class you are qualified to participate in for 
the calendar year"

Archie Stafford wrote:
> I don't think we can make the rules just for the possibility of having someone drop back 2 classes to win a trophy.  I with Verne.  I don't see that happening.  I don't think you punish the guys that aren't ready to move up, just so that the possibility exists of someone in a higher class dropping back to win a trophy.  I just don't see that many guys with that mentality.
>
> Arch
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of verne at twmi.rr.com
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:07 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up
>
> Richard,
> Do you actually know a Masters pilot that would do that? If someone tried that in D4/D5, the heat would be unbearable.
>
> Verne Koester
>
>
> ---- Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
>   
>> In this case there is no need for any guideline/recomendation in the rulebook since it carries no weight. The rulebook should conatin only the rules.
>>     
>
> But, I still think you need to give a CD something in the rulebook to back him up in the case of the occasional bad apple.  As a CD, I don't want to have to explain to 6 Intermediate pilots that show up at my contest, that a Masters pilot is perfectly within the rules to fly in Intermediate.
>
> Richard
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 9:46:24 AM
> 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] 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
> 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
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090508/24e0e93e/attachment.html>