D
I chose the first one but only with the qualification that the training and screening process is improved universally and that all the refs involved in such calls listen, as part of their training, to the difference between what is humanly possible and what some players are using in break modes.
I would also chose the PSP alternative if qualified with using the ROF-monitoring technology being developed by NXL which is purported to be able to read ROF from a distance and with acceptable selectivity.
I still think a device like I suggested towards the end of the Tontons thread might be the answer and I still would very much like for someone to post sound files of 17 or 18bps compared with 25 or 30.
I would also chose the PSP alternative if qualified with using the ROF-monitoring technology being developed by NXL which is purported to be able to read ROF from a distance and with acceptable selectivity.
I still think a device like I suggested towards the end of the Tontons thread might be the answer and I still would very much like for someone to post sound files of 17 or 18bps compared with 25 or 30.
I chose the first one. I would have gone for the NPPL board one too though, as a more long term option.
I found a conflict between the words 'blatant' and 'proof' though, that made me hesitate. Surely if something is blatant, then that is itself the proof, but I suppose if the player were to claim the ref was wrong (and gay), as they surely would, then the proof would be pertaining to the 100% technology enforced proof that is not actually available.
In which case I definitley choose option one (as a short term interim measure), if for no other reason than the refs need to be able to act on people flounting the rules in front of them, or why bother.
I found a conflict between the words 'blatant' and 'proof' though, that made me hesitate. Surely if something is blatant, then that is itself the proof, but I suppose if the player were to claim the ref was wrong (and gay), as they surely would, then the proof would be pertaining to the 100% technology enforced proof that is not actually available.
In which case I definitley choose option one (as a short term interim measure), if for no other reason than the refs need to be able to act on people flounting the rules in front of them, or why bother.
I chose going a technological route; there is only ONE sure fire method to insure no technologically based cheating and that is if the league in question is the one to supply the software.
No matter what other solution you choose, there are still going to be work-arounds
No matter what other solution you choose, there are still going to be work-arounds
I voted for PSP mode. Honestly with all the inconsistent gun testing I saw this year, biased reffing from teams in previous years I would never trust a league where the ref could pull your gun if its "blatantly" illegal according to his view. Either we have very clear rules with very precise testing procedures or we go PSP full auto. Between last year's trigger bounce tests that were pretty much arbitrary and this year's bounce procedures where you touch / tap / jolt / whack the **** out of the bottle.... well every ref has his own view on how its done.
And there has always been dodgy reffing where dudes either put down some team or player they don't like or turn a blind eye to their mate's / paintball hero's dodgy gat.
All the echos I got from guys who played PSP were very positive.
I would have voted for the NPPL board but after what I have read on these threads its going to pose alot of problems to the manufacturers and what stops some dude from hacking it and modifying the software....
And there has always been dodgy reffing where dudes either put down some team or player they don't like or turn a blind eye to their mate's / paintball hero's dodgy gat.
All the echos I got from guys who played PSP were very positive.
I would have voted for the NPPL board but after what I have read on these threads its going to pose alot of problems to the manufacturers and what stops some dude from hacking it and modifying the software....
D
duffistuta
Guest
I presume the boards would be given to players on registration with some form of anti-tamper seal, and taken back off them after the event. Any boards with the seal broken would be deemed to have been tampered with and the player/team would suffer the same penalty as if he/they had been caught with a non-NPPL board.
The logistics for such a solution would be pretty complicated no? I mean 1'000 players coming to pick up their board at the start of each event, then installing them on their marker, then taking it off again at the end of the event and handing it back. Controlling no board has been tampered or damaged. Storage and transport for such a large quantity of boards. There is a good chance some boards would be broken in the process. And what about all the different guns don't they all take different boards? Wouldn't that be a problem?
D
duffistuta
Guest
I'm no techy, but I've been told by people who are that it is a viable solution...that said, I don't think the industry will wear it.
Although I've seen zero comments on the suggestion I made about a device like this http://www.accucounter.com/timedate.htm, the more I think about it the more I think something like this could be the solution. It seems to me that it would be totally technologically feasible to have a compact device that could be fit to the muzzle of any paintball gun and that would have the capability of:
¤ monitoring the ROF in milliseconds
¤ monitoring the muzzle velocity
¤ store the above information
¤ perhaps (albeit more elaborately) send readings to a local computer via IR
This device wouldn't necessarily be very expensive after the developmental phase and could be handed out just prior to a game, therefore thousands wouldn't be needed at a tournament. That would also mean that there would be less of the interference associated with chrono and shot timer monitoring in the hands of refs who would have to be stuck just to that job.
Even if nobody else is interested I'm going to pursue this.
Any comments or something I may be missing?
¤ monitoring the ROF in milliseconds
¤ monitoring the muzzle velocity
¤ store the above information
¤ perhaps (albeit more elaborately) send readings to a local computer via IR
This device wouldn't necessarily be very expensive after the developmental phase and could be handed out just prior to a game, therefore thousands wouldn't be needed at a tournament. That would also mean that there would be less of the interference associated with chrono and shot timer monitoring in the hands of refs who would have to be stuck just to that job.
Even if nobody else is interested I'm going to pursue this.
Any comments or something I may be missing?
We (PACE) thought about this at the beginning of our first season, but handing these out prior to a game results in longer pre-staging times and the need for a larger staff. After each game the chips will need to be returned and the data must be checked/reset which also results in longer waiting times and again the need for a larger staff.
Also we feel that handing out penalties long after the fact and a game has been played is not the way to go.
If it was possible to hand each player it's own chip at the beginning of a tournament and if the chip could be read out during the game automatically (RF transmitters) then it would be a step in the right direction.
However, like you said there will be a need for several hundreds of chips at the start of the tournament (they only cost a few $) and a way must be found so that players (not ever) could not tamper with it and they all must be handed it after a tournament which agains creates the need for a larger staff....
Also we feel that handing out penalties long after the fact and a game has been played is not the way to go.
If it was possible to hand each player it's own chip at the beginning of a tournament and if the chip could be read out during the game automatically (RF transmitters) then it would be a step in the right direction.
However, like you said there will be a need for several hundreds of chips at the start of the tournament (they only cost a few $) and a way must be found so that players (not ever) could not tamper with it and they all must be handed it after a tournament which agains creates the need for a larger staff....