<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Very, very well put to both of you. Unfortunately,
this doesn't well address the occasional "trophy hound" out there. And,
yes, I believe we've all seen them. I'm sure there can be arranged a
compromise/combination "cure" for this, short of kneecapping the offender.
For a long time, I've advocated keeping points. But--what do we do with
them, and just who is to be tasked with this? The latter is the big
stopper. I do feel, like Jon, that more frequent changing of sequences
would help keep interest up, while ending premature advancement. The
changing of sequences would also, (and this is big) let the lower classes know
that they are highly regarded--enough so to be treated with respect verging on
that given Masters and FAI. I feel that respect is deserved; last time I looked,
dues were the same for Sportsman, Intermediate, and Advanced. The idea of
2 classes of Masters would also seem to have some validity. We need to
change the old way of doing business! Still thinking. And sitting
behind an inch of heat-treated armor plate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Bill Glaze</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>NSRCA 2388</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>AMA 2221</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=anthonyr105@hotmail.com href="mailto:anthonyr105@hotmail.com">Anthony
Romano</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:48
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Advancement System</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Good idea Earl. I think peer pressure alone will
suffice but if we want an organize system this has merit. <BR> Do we
realize if we allow the other classes to become destinations then the
sequences should change more
frequently. <BR> <BR>Anthony<BR> <BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
From: <A href="mailto:ejhaury@comcast.net">ejhaury@comcast.net</A><BR>To: <A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>Date:
Thu, 7 May 2009 09:24:18 -0500<BR>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
System<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
</STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>In the discussion regarding the Masters sequence /
length a few competitors mentioned that increasing the difficulty would cause
them to stop competing. Folks, this needs to be addressed! We can't tolerate a
system where folks are forced to a level where they can't enjoy pattern and/or
chose to quit. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>There are generally two views of the current system. One
is that it is cast in stone and needed to force the "trophy hound" to
move to the proper class. The other is that peer pressure alone will result in
proper classification. I think that there's a third possibility, some folks
prematurely move to a higher class for the "prestige" of that
class. There's likely reality / unreality to each view which
supports that some process is needed. While there have been some changes to
smooth the advancement process, nothing has changed for a person who
finds themselves in a class that exceeds their skills. I know - there's a
process to petition for dropping to a lower class, but it's intended for
hardship cases rather than being uncompetitive.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>OK - going back to the first paragraph - how might we
fix this? My suggestion is to change the rules so that folks who gather points
in the lower percentile of a class for X number of events (or rounds, or time
span?) have the option to stay where they are, or move back a class. The
current advancement rules would be applied to folks in the upper percentile.
It seems that this would provide an option for the casual competitor to seek a
comfort level and retain a reasonable advancement process for the serious
competitor. Of course there are administrative issues, probably best to simply
use data within each district, as most already track points for district
championships. A district based data set would also best weight performance
within one's local peer group.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Just my thoughts - how about the group discussing this
some.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Earl</FONT></DIV><BR>
<HR>
HotmailŪ goes with you. <A
href="http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009"
target=_new>Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.</A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>