Has XSV changed the face of tournament Paintball forever?

[MissyQ]

Which brings everyone back to the question most have long pondered, which is, 'Why the **** don't the NPPL do 15BPS cap FA and have done with it?'.

I believe its an insurance issue. There is no way I am going to go through it yet again, but that issue hasn't gone away either. The fact that I have mentioned it 100 times still doesn't get people to remember it huh? Does no-one else think its important? Should the NPPL just say '**** insurance, we'll just go to 15bps to get rid of gun cheats?' Seriously. is that what they should do?

And Steve, the cheating issue, as regards morality, does not bother the yanks. Much the same as it doesn't bother the dirty Porto's in the footie.
The British have a higher moral code and I have found it is better to be proud of that, and honour it, than to try to get the 'win at any cost' yanks to accept/agree that by cheating, they are actually breaking a moral code as well as a rule - that of fair play - and irreparably exposing their character. They just don't get it and I feel that their moral caliber has been eroded, perhaps due to the lack of quality role models in their brief history, or rather the increasing presence of the wrong kind of role models.
Perfect example - OJ Simpson. The guy is a celebrity and americans still ask him for his autograph. He hasn't had to buy a drink in a bar since he murdered his wife in cold blood.

 

[MissyQ]

It's not cheating if you don't get caught, right?

See? Chicago proves my point perfectly.

Chicago, I happen to agree with you about the dedicated chips, and have done so from the beginning. I don't think I agree with a single other thing you have said in this thread though, but perhaps I should read again, as I have started skipping your posts altogether...

 

[shamu]

Missy -

Have you thought about "semi-auto" (the phrase alone should set Baca off) combined with a BPS cap? So you still have the semi-auto rule, but you limit the impact of cheats by restricting markers to shooting no faster than x BPS.

That gives you the "skill" of shooting manually while not causing problems with the insurance companies. At the same time, you create an enforcable standard for markers. if it's capable of firing faster than the legal limit, it's assumed to be illegal. It's also much easier to spot the dumbass shooting 18 BPS when everyone else is shooting 14 - 15 BPS.

PS - re: the holding/cheating debate, maybe you should look at the NFL restrictions on stick'um. That's a good example of a technology cheat that can be very subtle or totally blatant, depending on how it's done.

 

[Wadidiz]

I believe its an insurance issue. There is no way I am going to go through it yet again, but that issue hasn't gone away either. The fact that I have mentioned it 100 times still doesn't get people to remember it huh? Does no-one else think its important? Should the NPPL just say '**** insurance, we'll just go to 15bps to get rid of gun cheats?' Seriously. is that what they should do?

With absolutely no disrespect intended what they really ought to do is provide some education to the insurance guys. First take them to a PSP tournament and get them used to the sound of 15bps, 'cause that's all they're going to hear. Then take them to an NPPL tournament (if things are the way peeps here are describing it) and point out certain teams/players on the break. Ask if they note any difference in ROF between the different guns and players. They should then be able to decide more intelligently which system they would rather undersign.

And Steve, the cheating issue, as regards morality, does not bother the yanks. Much the same as it doesn't bother the dirty Porto's in the footie.
The British have a higher moral code and I have found it is better to be proud of that, and honour it, than to try to get the 'win at any cost' yanks to accept/agree that by cheating, they are actually breaking a moral code as well as a rule - that of fair play - and irreparably exposing their character. They just don't get it and I feel that their moral caliber has been eroded, perhaps due to the lack of quality role models in their brief history, or rather the increasing presence of the wrong kind of role models.
Perfect example - OJ Simpson. The guy is a celebrity and americans still ask him for his autograph. He hasn't had to buy a drink in a bar since he murdered his wife in cold blood.

I think you might be generally right about Yanks compared with Brits (at the risk of again being called an America apologist by Baca). Just look at a replay of some of Rooney's moves from a few days ago. There's high moral calibre.

But I do think American sports institutionalize cheating and dirty tricks much more than most other nationalities. You and I could probably fill up pages speculating about all the various historical, cultural and business factors that contribute to that. But then we Southerners generally put you Brits to shame in this area. You should know, Missy, because most Americans of your flavor are Southerners at heart and God fearing. And I know that many like you, Missy, truly dispise the role-model OJ has projected among your people.

I can also think of some other nationalities that are as scrupleless as Americans--again, grossly generalizing. When I think of alleged velocity cheating and some other tricks I personally don't necessarily think of the nation a lot of people here love to bash. But whatever nations or players that such talk conjures up, the support such teams have received from their sponsors should rightly be put into that picture. And it ain't a pretty one.

 

[Chicago]

With absolutely no disrespect intended what they really ought to do is provide some education to the insurance guys. First take them to a PSP tournament and get them used to the sound of 15bps, 'cause that's all they're going to hear. Then take them to an NPPL tournament (if things are the way peeps here are describing it) and point out certain teams/players on the break. Ask if they note any difference in ROF between the different guns and players. They should then be able to decide more intelligently which system they would rather undersign.

That's a horribly bad idea. What if the answer is 'neither'?

 

[MissyQ]

Steve - before you condemn Rooney, and with him, the moral fibre of the British public, visit www.ihateronaldo.com and check out the evidence again.

My point was that Baca and Chicago are never going to agree with Duff and I on the issue that cheating is wrong.
We believe that whatever the rules, or the standard of reffing, it is not possible to separate the responsibility of action from the player due to the fact that 'everyone else is doing it', and blame everyone else except the person commiting the infringement. It is naive to think you can do so. I don't say this to deflect any responsibility from the refs, or the league.

I am fully aware that southerners are nicer people, and that People from Central Florida are a little simple (in general - I am sure there are exceptions).

Steve, I admire your 'Southern' opinion of insurance companies. Do southerners also think Lawyers are largely misunderstood?

 

[Wadidiz]

That's a horribly bad idea. What if the answer is 'neither'?

Probably no risk since who we're talking about here is obviously Mr Magoo with tinnitus.

 

[MissyQ]

Insurance companies like to work in specific categories. Unfortunately, the category marked 'Fully-Automatic' does not have many precedents for insurance companies, and the only precedents they do have are not good ones. Insurance companies do not wish to be educated, they want to make as much money as they can while exposing themselves to as little risk as possible.

"as little risk as possible" and "fully automatic paintball guns" don't look too great in the same sentence....

 

[Baca Loco]

Apparently the air is a bit thin up on those pedestals. Thank goodness it hasn't affected your moral preening, only your mental acuity.
I begin to despair of any of you offering any sort of thoughtful insight when no one can manage anything better than *splutter, splutter* it's unsportsmanlike, cheating and demonstrates a lack of personal responsibility -- none of which addresses the nature of sport or the moral imperative to play "fair."

So let's try one last time--can somebody, anybody take a stab at these?

Define cheating.

Define sportsmanship. And why does it matter?

What is the moral imperative of sport? Is it simply following the rules? And what exactly gives the rules any particular moral force?

I am not btw necessarily disagreeing but all this moral posturing is hardly an effective advocacy for your point(s) of view. It actually stinks of cheap emotionalism and if y'all are prepared to judge players morality and integrity based on their playing of a game best take a long look in the mirror and be sure you haven't gone speeding lately, or lied to your boss, or fudged on your taxes or cheated on a girlfriend, etc. But then those aren't just a game.

 

[MissyQ]

Its OK that you don't get it. I have already explained why you don't. Its the 'sporting Contest', its the 'spirit of fair play' in a competitive environment. Its all the things many Americans teach thier kids to ignore.

Speeding and taxes have no relation to the topic. You are not in a competition. Same goes for GF, although there is at least a moral code involved with that one.

Define Cheating? Deliberate actions outside of the rules of play I suppose.
Define Sportsmanship - Sticking to the rules of fair play, despite opportunities to do otherwise.
Why does it matter? It matters mainly for respect. Self respect, and the respect of your peers. Its how you want to be thought of, and how you want to be remembered.
I am not writing anything longer than that, so quit the nit-picking, as you already know the definitions. In fact, I think both words are in the dictionary, unlike semi-auto it seems..

I am trying to understand your 'stink of cheap emotionalism' comment, but perhaps if one does not understand the specific moral code of 'not cheating', that is how such a code is misinterpreted?

Listen, Paintball is predominantly a US dominated sport, and as such, we have to play by your rules. I get the fact that people cheat as much as they can. I just stop short of endorsing it, and blaming it on everything else other than the persom that cheats.
Are you saying that the contestant should take no responsibility for abiding by the rules of the contest? I fail to see that logic.

The fact is that the league, and the refs, have to counter the cheating players.
The fact is that the players, by and large, consider cheating to be perfectly acceptable in every case (unless of course it was someone on the opposing team - in which case they must be expected to use the foulest language and physical threats to castigate the opposing players, the refs, and anyone else who will listen - naturally.
I am not arguing with these facts. I am merely pointing out that Pure Promotions is ever-so unlikely to switch to a format they can't insure, and open themselves up to possibly disastrous litigation. Do you argue that this is not a danger? How many times have we had this conversation? I bet I have asked you to explain how the Full-auto thing can be legally insured as many times as you have asked people to define semi-auto.