Awesome. I wish you the best of luck. As pointed out dealing with the HO, and making THEM happy, is the most important thing.
A must read - PA rule change for the 2005 season
- Thread starter Russell Smith
- Start date
Well I didn't vote for devolutionOriginally posted by swave_gav
what about the police in scotland??
sorry could'nt help it
.But it is the UKpsf so Bully will do what he can and if we can help we will.
Russ
just a thought...
does anyone ever been arrested for a fully auto paintball gun?
i'm not suggesting that we ignor it or anything like that... just a random curiosity
does anyone ever been arrested for a fully auto paintball gun?
i'm not suggesting that we ignor it or anything like that... just a random curiosity
Baca, no mate. I have played 2 tournaments. The Welsh and a yorkshire 3-man. ( Though I aim to play the PA with a new team in the not-too-distant-future) I don't have much in the way of on-field experience except training vs Epoch here on the island and as I said, I am drawing on what I read, hear, watch or receive telepathically when very drunk at 3am.
Some of my concerns about this ruling have been well answered. And you've made some points that have encouraged looking at the objection from a different angle. I still have "feelings" that this ruling shouldn't be the answer to a difficult problem and don't think that this ruling will stop other abuses springing up around it, but as you say, that's down to personal views and can probably be left be. Cheers for the debate though
Sweet, keep up the good work with the home office. Could be one of the most important changes to pb since sup-air.
The research and legwork Russell has done about this issue is truly admirable and I think this is definitely the right way to go. And it is a major step to discuss this with UK's Home Office. I also believe that there is a good chance all three major leagues (PSP, NPPL and Millennium) will go with approximately the same program. I had proposed this to Laurent during the World Cup (and he agreed that it is the only way to go), to Lane Wright just after the World Cup and I understand that this was or is being discussed by NPPL. The CFOA league in America and the Nordic Series are also considering adopting these rules. So there is a good chance this becomes universal.
This is specifically what I proposed:
____________________________________
¤ 15 BPS cap enforced by ball-counting instrument
¤ no full auto (two fingers walking)
¤ no stored shots (only one shot within 250MS after release of trigger)
¤ no excessive bouncing (simple slow-pull bounce-test while held in tight shooting position to make sure that no more than one double discharge takes place per five or six pulls; also no discharges when tapping on back of air tank)
This would be monitored by radar speed guns which can take reading from behind players without them knowing and with ball count detectors.
Don't know what penalties would be applied for violators but they must be severe and, perhaps, escalating for repeat offenders.
_____________________________________
Steve
(Just to be sure, my suggestions don't represent any official position of Millennium. I don't know yet if I will be involved with them in Season 2005.)
SM
This is specifically what I proposed:
____________________________________
¤ 15 BPS cap enforced by ball-counting instrument
¤ no full auto (two fingers walking)
¤ no stored shots (only one shot within 250MS after release of trigger)
¤ no excessive bouncing (simple slow-pull bounce-test while held in tight shooting position to make sure that no more than one double discharge takes place per five or six pulls; also no discharges when tapping on back of air tank)
This would be monitored by radar speed guns which can take reading from behind players without them knowing and with ball count detectors.
Don't know what penalties would be applied for violators but they must be severe and, perhaps, escalating for repeat offenders.
_____________________________________
Steve
(Just to be sure, my suggestions don't represent any official position of Millennium. I don't know yet if I will be involved with them in Season 2005.)
SM
Which would be harder to detect:
whether there is any form of ramping, (current situation)
whether the ramping is beyond a stipulated legal level. (proposed rule)
Hidden software applies equally to both, making it impractical and not cost-effective to catch. Non hidden software, i would say it would be harder to detect the latter.
However this rule is not solely about making enforcement easier (as this example perhaps show) it goes some way to de-incentivise cheating.
The benifits of having illegal software (be it hidden to avoid detection or not) are reduced. In the currrent situation a the rof a players can achieve legally compared to illegally are greatly different. making cheating worth the risk, cost and perhaps conscience.
In the new situation with legal levels of ramping very few people won't be able to achieve the rof cap. Software that allows rof above 15, can easilly be detected (Can they? That is what is claimed, another strand of the argument perhaps) making them to risky to use. And boards that allow the ramp to kick in at lower rate-of-trigger-pulls, aren't neccesary as very few people won't be able to achieve this anyway, and those that can't aren' likely to be playing at the level where the there is such an incentive to cheat.
whether there is any form of ramping, (current situation)
whether the ramping is beyond a stipulated legal level. (proposed rule)
Hidden software applies equally to both, making it impractical and not cost-effective to catch. Non hidden software, i would say it would be harder to detect the latter.
However this rule is not solely about making enforcement easier (as this example perhaps show) it goes some way to de-incentivise cheating.
The benifits of having illegal software (be it hidden to avoid detection or not) are reduced. In the currrent situation a the rof a players can achieve legally compared to illegally are greatly different. making cheating worth the risk, cost and perhaps conscience.
In the new situation with legal levels of ramping very few people won't be able to achieve the rof cap. Software that allows rof above 15, can easilly be detected (Can they? That is what is claimed, another strand of the argument perhaps) making them to risky to use. And boards that allow the ramp to kick in at lower rate-of-trigger-pulls, aren't neccesary as very few people won't be able to achieve this anyway, and those that can't aren' likely to be playing at the level where the there is such an incentive to cheat.
Good stuff. Only one question. Have you shot a gun set up with software to come close to these rules?
If you have, I don't think it will ever be ''storing shots' it will literally just be adding them.
And getting it to stop within one shot of finishing a pull is unlikely.
So this part of the rule "¤ no stored shots (only one shot within 250MS after release of trigger)" may need some more consideration.
Again one reason why the NXL rules ARE actually better.
Otherwise I think it's a necessary evil and a step in the right direction.
I agree and would prefer the NXL gun rules myself but don't think it would be realistic to try because of legal and insurance issues in Europe.
I was really hoping it would be technically possible to get the last shot out no more than 1/4 of second after trigger release. One full second is a long time and not safe or fully under control IMO.
Can't you program a gun to follow the suggested rules, Simon?
But I understand it would be much simpler to do it the NXL way.