Originally posted by Missy Q
1--Agreed. It is overshooting. I would argue that at the very least it is a whole lot easier to do so with ramping (it requires fewer trigger pulls to overshoot someone).
2-- ... While the act is the initial and pervading issue, the extra capacity can not be removed from the equasion.
3-- We often debate this and have a fundamental difference of opinion. You know that I feel more should be done to catch cheats, rather than accomodate them. While your point is valid this year. I have hopes that this will change. a ROF cap can be enforced without ramping being allowed. If a league caps its ROF, why would it still not police gun cheats? Because it can't! In this respect the PSP is in a no better position than the NPPL, they just have different opinions on how to deal with gun cheats. One wishes to make the problem go away by allowing cheats, the other wants to keep cheating 'ilegal' and is trying to bring in ways to give refs more power to prevent it. You like the one way, I prefer the other. I think I am right, I have no doubt you do too.
4-- Allowing cheating/ramping has, I feel, adjusted the balance of power between refs and players. Players really feel that they can cheat obviously and in plain sight of a ref so long as the cheat times out before the ref can 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt' the player is cheating. They feel that can say what they want, act how they want and cheat how they want. I think this is wrong. If a player is obviously cheating they should be pulled. Thats what I look forward to, some accountability.
5-- The 'backing up' of the refs has to start with the ramping. They need more power. This applies to overshooting too. Ban the player, It's dangerous. Simple as that. If a ref is assaulted, the player is banned for life. If a ref is verbally abused, thats a 6 match ban (now THAT would be interesting).
6--we still have to respect them all because they wear the uniform and do things we would not want to do, and when we need them, we want them to be there.
7-- Your argument oon the capacity to overshoot not being the same as the act is a strange one. If I apply the same ethos to ramping, then the capacity of a marker to ramp/cheat is not the problem, it is the players fault for actually doing it. Is this not a departure from your earlier arguments on this? I mean, can't you blame the industry for any of that?
Harlem must agree with you, Missy, as you're dangerously close to being sensible if sometimes in error.
(I'm not sure yet if I like it or not since there is seldom anyone else about to argue with and I always have appreciated your willingness to get in there and fight a bit. And, no, I'm not coming on to you ... )
1--without debating the essence of ramping I agree.
2--actually I think it can by virtue of repeated observation. (Admittedly this is only anecdotal so hardly conclusive but even so.) After seeing literally hundreds of games and matches this season alone I can say unequivocally that players using ramping guns are no more likely to overshoot unintentionally than players with presumed semi only guns. Players are no more likely to be and in fact are no more often overshot in the PSP or NXL than anywhere else. The fact that it might be seen as easier to do doesn't appear to make it happen more often. And I would welcome anyone else's opinion on the subject if they have a reasonable amount of experience with both.
3--yes we do but my views have nothing whatsoever to do with what I prefer. My view is predicated on what is possible and what maintains, today and tomorrow, the most enforceable order. And the reason I hold to that opinion is because I see most, if not all, the other evils currently bedeviling the game stemming primarily from the failure to consistently enforce the rules.
4--here I don't disagree philosophically but think you are blaming the wrong cause. Players have always cheated but back in the day it seemed less egregious because it was mostly confined to a certain strata of players. The simple fact is however when the pros were out of control, and they were, nobody did anything substantive to stem the tide. The attitude widened across the scope of all players. The only thing ramping/bouncing/etc. did was make a new scale and type of cheating more accessible and nearly impossible to stop. And over the early period as this was getting worse and worse nobody lifted a finger to act. The root cause of all this is a nearly complete, systemic failure to have and enforce rules and the fact that it became easier to cheat only demonstrated more readily the inability or unwillingness of those responsible to act. (Of course there's lots of reasons for that too and it isn't my point here to assign blame, only to characterize the situation.)
5--this is a lovely thought and again, I have no objection in theory, only in how it is done in practice. The foundation of all the leagues is pay-to-play with literally thousands of dollars committed by every team to each event. After a lifetime of failing to adher to the rules or changing them in other places to accomodate various interests an attempt now to impose Draconian and subjective rules on the customers will create chaos and run the risk of any league that does so foundering in short order. Everyone participates voluntarily and ultimately they will only follow rules voluntarily which demands the rules you have and enforce be seen by nearly everyone as fair and impartial. (and to date the ideas put forward by the semi only crowd haven't been which is why I don't favor them.)
6--respect isn't given, it's earned. But if you imagine supplying the refs with more sweeping, subjective power is the answer you will be horrified at the result. However, there is nothing at all wrong with demanding accountability from the players with regards their behavior towards the officials.
7--it isn't a departure for a very simple reason. There is a world of difference between supplying a legal mode of operation and actively subverting the existing order. While I realize it ain't easy, perhaps impossible, to put the genie back in the bottle the manufacturers simply rubbed their hands together at the thought of all the money they were gonna make and left picking up the pieces to somebody else. Does that make them responsible for how peeps used their guns? No, but it still leaves them culpable for some of the result.
