[NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea

[Ryan Smith]

… If anyone needs to "try" out a class to see if they are ready, then they need to do it at the practice field, not a contest...

 

Amen!

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lewis
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:47 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea

 

I moved back to advanced at the beginning of the season per the method outlined in the rule book.  Easy as could be.  All done via email since the requirement for some obscure AMA form was removed.

 

The procedure was certainly no penalty...

 

If anyone needs to "try" out a class to see if they are ready, then they need to do it at the practice field, not a contest...

Richard

Sent from my mobile device.


On Aug 19, 2013, at 7:28 PM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:

This is correct but only addresses not moving up by inserting "should" in place of "shall" or "will".  It does not address moving down should it be warranted or wanted and certainly does not address trying out a new class without penalty I.e. no way to move back down.

On Aug 19, 2013 6:37 PM, "Richard Lewis" <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I guess everyone has forgotten that the advancement rules were relegated to a mere suggestion in the last rules cycle and as such, pattern no longer has an advancement system.. Lol...

Richard
Sent from my mobile device.

On Aug 19, 2013, at 6:12 PM, "Dave Lockhart" <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

> "While I agree that in most instances peer pressure alone is sufficient to
> convince a sandbagger (or potential sandbagger) to move up, having a rule on
> the books makes the situation 100% impartial and impersonal, and to some
> extent provides the "teeth" for the peer pressure."
>
> Dave L
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 7:07 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
>
> I'll turn the question around on you Dave, without providing any answers
> however.
> What purpose is served by the current points/advancement system?
> Dave B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Lockhart
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 5:26 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
>
> I have to ask the question....what harm is the advancement system causing?
> If someone actually reads the rulebook in detail to the extent they realize
> they may "point out" and be required (by the rules) to move up, would they
> not also realize the mechanism available to stay in their current class?  Is
> sending an email to AMA too cumbersome for those intent on precisely
> following the rules?  Has anyone actually ever achieved enough points to be
> forced into the next class without having the requisite skills AND been
> challenged by peers to move up (not that I know of)?  Has anyone ever been
> denied a request to move down in class (not that I know of)?  Has anyone
> ever achieved advancement points (knowingly or unknowingly) and not moved up
> because they were either not dominating the class or did not have the
> comfort level for the next class (I know several instances of this)?
>
> While I agree that in most instances peer pressure alone is sufficient to
> convince a sandbagger (or potential sandbagger) to move up, having a rule on
> the books makes the situation 100% impartial and impersonal, and to some
> extent provides the "teeth" for the peer pressure.
>
> I think there is merit in the idea of being able to "try out" a higher
> class.  Allow 1 instance per year without penalty or permanent commitment to
> the higher class.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> -----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, August 19, 2013 3:25 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
>
> Strongly agree.
>
> Sent from my average intelligence  phone
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2013, at 9:07 PM, "Ryan Smith"
> <smaragdz at comcast.net<mailto:smaragdz at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
> Agreed. Peer pressure at contests I think is enough to take care of someone
> that is sandbagging.
>
> From:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lis
> ts.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> Dave Burton
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:46 PM
> To: 'mike mueller'; 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
>
> I thought you can do this already.  IMO we should eliminate the whole
> points/advancement system and let all flyers fly the class they feel most
> comfortable with.
> Dave
>
> From:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lis
> ts.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> mike mueller
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:16 PM
> To:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
>
> At the Peoria contest this weekend we had the pleasure of having John Gayer
> from New Mexico attend and fly with us.
> We got into a discussion about ideas to grow the sport.
> One I brought up and it's nothing new is a one time only Amnesty period.
> It would allow any flier who has been a consistent low placer in their
> class the ability to drop down at the end of a season.
> It seems clear to me that this really needs to happen and the residual
> benefit from such a program could very well help to get some guys back into
> the sport.
> What would it take to get such a program instituted?
> What are the barriers that would stop this from being put into the rules?
> Is there a potential downside to this that would make it worse than what we
> have now?
>
> Mike Mueller
> Customer Services
>
> F3aunlimited
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3211/6587 - Release Date: 08/18/13
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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/20130820/713a280c/attachment.html>