...
I think I'll leave this debate alone for the moment.
Oh what the hell...I've got a few minutes.
If I read the rules that the PSP posted up yesterday correctly, it in effect legalizes bounce, within limited parameters. This is the passage in question:
3.6. A marker may fire no more than three shots per press and release of the trigger, and no more than three shots between presses of the trigger. A player who carries a marker onto the field of play that fires more than three shots per press and release of the trigger, or more than three shots between two presses of the trigger, will receive a gross penalty and a minor suspension.
I'm guessing this is to give some leeway to players against the freak chrono/bounce refs who have a particular talent for making ANY marker bounce, despite efforts to the contrary.
As for the way the PSP is proposing to measure bps based on time, I'm assuming they're going to have the equipment to actually do this, or will it be depending on expert refs? I'm not doubting the skill of some, perhaps most refs that work the various circuits out there, but the fact remains that refs are human and they do make mistakes...it'd be a shame if a team's tournament was ruined because of an error on a ref's part. I've been around the block enough to know that it does happen, but it's still shameful.
And before Steve and Paul pile on asking what I would propose, I'll say that the event that I'm promoting in Tampa this year will have the NPPL Robot, because I feel it's the most effective way to weed out cheaters available at the moment. I won't delude myself into thinking that the robot is all-powerful...it's not. But it is improving...when I wrote the press release stating that David Zinkam and his robo-ref were going to be there, he noted to me that the picture I used was seriously out of date, as the robot had undergone some serious upgrades in the off-season.
The gollywog rules being put out by CFOA, PSP, and others aren't all-powerful either, so attacking Robo-Ref as being flawed doesn't wash in my book.
Honestly, there really isn't a 'best' solution, other than to insist that all players who participate in competitive paintball play fairly and don't download their skill. However, I would say that everyone present would agree that isn't realisitic. Like other sports, there are players in this sport who will push, pull, bend, and mutilate the rules to suit their needs if they can get away with it.
That leaves people like Steve slogging it out in the pits trying his best to make it fair for everyone, and unfortunately sometimes he's going to fail. When that happens, it's my opinion that Robo-Ref is the way to make an unbiased, non-arguable judgement.
And just to make sure I piss everyone off, the manufacturers themselves have a piece of this problem...wasn't it they who introduced the concept of an adjustable debounce, so that you could make your trigger more or less responsive, depending on the trigger adjustment? Then all the sudden unlocking DB1 became the thing all the cool kids were doing, and now just about everyone's board (including stock ones!) can be set to an illegally enhanced state? What would be wrong with keeping the adjustable filter settings, but resetting the range of adjustability so that even the super-cool DB1 (or TR 9 billion for us Angel freaks) setting is still somewhat safe, while being on the ragged edge of tournament legality, thus making ref's jobs somewhat easier?
Commence flaming, gentleman. I've got my asbestos suit on.
