[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Fri May 8 13:46:21 AKDT 2009

 Do it!

-----Original Message-----
From: Snaproll4 at aol.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:22 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

I second the motion.

Steve Miller

In a message dated 5/8/2009 11:20:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
burtona at atmc.net writes:

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] 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, 
  t
here 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 gi
ven 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 clas
s.)

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

A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

____________________________________
___________
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/cb4059e1/attachment.html>