Read all about it: $500 Fine for Cheaty Guns, no team DQ

[paintballma]

Fair enough, cynicism granted. Believe me when I tell you I am the Don Quixote for the lower levels. I went to the meeting with a bit of a chip on my shoulder admittedly (having multiple strikes against me, being female, blonde and being a lower level rep), with some major concerns for the upcoming year. I was pleasantly surprised that they did listen, and are concerned with all levels and not just the Pro division, my cynicism dissipated, well at least for now

Testing is at a refs discretion, but if the gun passes the robot, no penalty. Pretty fair.

 

[Steve Hancock]

Hmmm, it may not turn out to be a problem, but on the other hand it could and what happens if it does. I agree with stongles points. This needs to be implemented in a fair, and open manner and not open to abuse. The money should also be used towards the problem.

Also players should have the oportunity to test their marker on a robot when they set it up.

I feel that there should be a differentiation between rule-breeches that could be accidental and deliberate ones. Yeah, bitch-slap the custom chip, and hidden function cheats all you like. But don't go O.T.T. on the rookie errors, or genuine equipment failures.

Yes ignorance is not a excuse but it is often accepted as at least partial mitigation of the severity of the offence.

 

[John C]

Factors as simple as paint/shell inside your trigger can cause trigger bounce.

I would hate to be banned and fined $500 just because I was shot in the trigger frame and didnt manage to clean every last bit of paint from the trigger before the next game...

 

[Intheno]

the NPPL is not looking to hit players directly in the pocket Strongle. They are looking to hit cheaters directly in the pocket, instead of punishing the entire team. What is your problem with that?
Desperate times lie ahead. You can look up on this very page and see cheating, ramping boards advertised. The acceptability of cheating has reached unacceptable levels.

There would have been about 6 people penalised this season, and I think all of the teams would rather have seen the players fined $500 rather than get a DQ. There were a load of DQ's in Toulouse, but that was not the NPPL, and they did not have the robot, so your argument there is not a valid one.

As for the money, I think it should go to finance refs training, which is a legitimate area that needs continuous development. I have a pretty good idea that is exactly what it will be used for too, but like the man said, they don't actually have to tell you, and perhaps have chosen not to (the cheek of it!).
Anyway, $3000 in a year does not train many refs, so I wouldn't get excited about it.

$20,000 per event indeed, you should be ashamed of yourself. do some research before you post...

 

[shamu]

Bounce vs. cheat

I agree with Stongle that this needs to be implemented correctly. However, I disagree on a couple of other points.

First - I still prefer the team DQ. A $500 fine? Most players will look at that as an acceptable risk, especially if the teams gets to stay in the tournament. I like the "hang 'em all" rule, but then I'm a ref and gun cheats piss me off.

You talk about customer service and being responsive to the players. What do you think this change is? Players bitch a lot about the DQ rule (even though only 5 teams got caught all year - makes you wonder who the cheaters are out there) so the NPPL changes the rule to something less draconian. And still you're going to bitch about it. OK - how do you want gun cheats handled? Remember, it needs to be severe enough to not only punish but also deter cheating. It has to be fair to the players. And it has to be enforcable at the event.

Second - the question of 'unintentional' cheats. Couple of things here.
a - a bouncing gun is not grounds for a DQ. The only grounds for DQ is more than one shot per trigger pull, or velocity increase above 300 FPS (ramping velocity, not the occasional fat ball). That's the whole point of the robot - it counts how many times the trigger is actually activated vs. how many shots are fired.
b - if you're going to tell me a player doesn't know when his gun is stacking shots, I'll tell you that player shouldn't be playing a national level event. A team at the Denver event was caught with an Angel in shot storage mode. Do you know why we checked his gun? Because every time he came out to shoot, he shot his bunker on the way back in. If you're so oblivious that you don't realize the gun is shooting when you're not pulling the trigger, you shouldn't be on the field. And if you do realize it, don't whine or lie about it when you get busted. The "I didn't know" excuse doesn't work when I 1for1 your ass for playing on with a goggle hit, either
c - The chrono ref is responsible for testing trigger bounce. Once a marker passes the chrono ref, the player won't be busted to bounce. do you think we only pulled 5 markers to send to the robot all year? I pull more than that each event. Most have bouncy triggers and the Scrutineer tells the player to turn the bounce down. They don't get DQ'd. Let me repeat that for those who are obsessing over this - they don't get DQ'd for bounce.
d - if you read the comments from a certain chip manufacturer after a certain NPPL event, where he said the user of his custom chip got DQ'd for "excessive bounce" - keep in mind the source of this statement. Also, his idea of bounce is 30 shots for 21 trigger pulls (that's almost 1.5 shots per pull). That's not bounce, that's adding shots.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. I'm at work so I have to write this quickly.

 

[Steve Hancock]

That sounds a bit more reasonable.

 

[stongle]

Originally posted by Intheno
the NPPL is not looking to hit players directly in the pocket Strongle. They are looking to hit cheaters directly in the pocket, instead of punishing the entire team. What is your problem with that?
Desperate times lie ahead. You can look up on this very page and see cheating, ramping boards advertised. The acceptability of cheating has reached unacceptable levels.

There would have been about 6 people penalised this season, and I think all of the teams would rather have seen the players fined $500 rather than get a DQ. There were a load of DQ's in Toulouse, but that was not the NPPL, and they did not have the robot, so your argument there is not a valid one.

As for the money, I think it should go to finance refs training, which is a legitimate area that needs continuous development. I have a pretty good idea that is exactly what it will be used for too, but like the man said, they don't actually have to tell you, and perhaps have chosen not to (the cheek of it!).
Anyway, $3000 in a year does not train many refs, so I wouldn't get excited about it.

$20,000 per event indeed, you should be ashamed of yourself. do some research before you post...

Errrr,

As I had nicely caveated myself, I stated I had yet to see the full definition of the ruling, and since the definition of FA, bounce etc is so open to interpretation, how do you propose to catch the intentional from the non? It's a very nice sound bite though granted (raises more questions than it raises though).

I was merely using Toulouse as an example of when you spring new rules for player penalties on people the likely consequences (the next tournament the techs were having to perform mountains of work to legalise markers). If those 40 odd suspensions were all punishable by fine (I believe they were nearly all illegal markers although there was a couple for fighting), I think my maths is good enough to work out that this is 20 grand. And really the MS organisers are now the bedfellows of the NPPL so are you hinting to a possible quality control gap?

Before Martyring yourself in shock horror, perhaps you should have read the post and digested fully. I stated numerous times I agreed, but that ruling on its own is dangerous and likely to alienate and over penalise the poorer players. Blimey I even caveated that by saying "ignorance is not an excuse". Or maybe your horror is I'm yet to sacrifice myself and importantly hard earned on the mere promise of how great NPPL expansion into Europe is going to be. A lot of teams are sick to the teeth of the contempt we get treated with as regards to organising and planning, and as the league billed as the players league shouldn't the NPPL be trying to reassure it's paying customers (you know the ones who make the whole event viable), that their views are important?

I've watched young players scrimp and save all year to play MS events, to get what in return? Fair enough the NPPL is not the MS, but there's only so much people are willing to accept before they think sod-it, I'll give motor sport a go (as expensive as balling). A lot of the instability was caused by the political bumming between leagues, and that's resulted in people wasting cash. As someone as Intheno as you, it might have been wiser to think hmmm "this could hit some teams and players quite hard, better think preventative measures and help / guidance". And as the peoples SuperMod, I'd have thought some concern for your Euro brethren with your friends in high places may have been abound.

Oh, and please don't moralise on the Advantage PB Chips (or how the site generates a pittance). Just cos they're not UK or even NPPL legal, does not mean they are illegal everywhere and can't be sold. I mean shock horror I've heard some guns are sold in the US with firing modes other than semi.

Thanks for the response Shamu, sounds a little more balanced. The "sound bite rule", implemented badly plus the Toulouse scenario (which was with best intentions), gives cause for concern.

 

[Baca Loco]

Interesting addition to the discussion, Whale, but it really sounds like a matter of degree to me the way you describe responding to "bounce" or "ramping; ie: intentional cheats."
Right now I can make any top end gun bounce like a sunofabitch. 10 pulls, 15 shots. Easy. Just with bounce and if all I'm getting is a slap on the wrist and a warning to turn it down I'm golden. Nor is it hard to do. Alot of the markers have suitably sophisticated programming options nowadays that it can even be done in such a way the gun will pass muster at the chrono most of the time.

Not suggesting this invalidates the new rule but I think it makes the boundary fuzzier than you seem to think it is. Unless of course my "bouncy" gun results over Robbie earns the DQ, too.

 

[shamu]

Sorry Baca, I was unclear...

To clarify - A team can only be DQ'd if a round (or two or three) on the robot shows the marker to be shooting more than one shot per pull. Human referee tests are only valid prior to the start of the game to keep a bouncing gun off the field, and after the end of the game to determine if the gun needs to be sent to the robot.

Edit added - Yes, there are wunderkinds out there who can get any electro to bounce. Luckily for the players, I'm ham-fisted and slow fingered, and certainly no wunderkind.

 

[Beaker]

are guns that get sent to the robot opened up and their boards/chips checked for stuff like the advantage boards? or is it purely if it clears the robot?

I vote
fails over robot
$500
Player ejected
Play short
Can't play another event until fine paid.