[NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

[Dave Burton]

Please, no!

 No way I'm going to get my practice caller to learn Aresti! It's hard
enough to get her to go out and read the English descriptions from the
lounge chair.

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie
Stafford
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:53 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

 

One thing that might be beneficial for number 2 is the use of Aresti for
sequences.  I HATED it when I first started playing with it in IMAC, but now
that I understand it, it does make life pretty easy.  There are also a
couple of websites that really break it down and make it easy to understand.


 

Arch

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark Hunt
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:43 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

 

I would support 1 and 2.

 

2 will require a good bit of effort in writing downgrade descriptions that
cover all basic manuever concepts that could be put into NSRCA written
sequences.  The IMAC rules are written and illustrated very well in this
regard.  Might be easier if a few people worked together on this to split up
some of the work.

 

-mark

 

  _____  

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:08:49 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

OK Mark I will hold.
I agree with and would support both 1&2.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:36 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

Not that the debate on 2 vs 3 rolls isn't fascinating, but....

Can we wrap up the original discussion regarding advancement?

I heard a semi consensus on 2 things that I think we should aggressively
pursue

1) Removing any forced advancement rules (possibly changing to a guideline,
or possibly eliminating the language altogether)
        Reason: Forced advancement simply harms more people than it helps.
Very few if any abuse the system, while many have been compelled to fly in a
class inappropriate to their skills or comfort, discouraging some, causing
others to quit, and overall reducing the level of enjoyment contrary to what
the rule was intended for.  A guideline would still be valuable to help
those who are trying to make the advancement decision, however that may be
better placed outside of the Rule Book (such as the NSRCA web site)

2) Removal of the pattern schedules from the rule book, in an effort to
simplify the change procedure.
        Reason: In conjunction with the change above, virtually every class
is a "destination" class for some, and as such, some variety is desirable at
every level.  De-coupling the sequences from the rule book would allow
greater ease in changing the schedules, and greater ease of change also
reduces the critical nature of "getting it right" the first time, which
would allow for more creativity and experiementation.



Thoughts??

How do we get this done...

-Mark
_______________________________________________
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/20090511/bb367e4e/attachment.html>