This Millennium 15BPS rule...
- Thread starter Buddha 3
- Start date
Nick,
you are confused (as usual).
This debate is really just an big old cirlcle isn't it?
There are now at least 4 sets of rules. Players now have to change the way thier markers shoot for each series they play. There will be the NPPL rules, CFOA rules, Millennium rules and PSP rules. Each will claim that their rules are 'industry standard' and the great divide will continue to grow until even the most optimistic players realise that there will never be a standard format for paintball, which is damaging in that standardised rules are essential for any sport to become universally recognised and more importantly, understood by the public and the media. Imagine a TV viewer who gets interested in paintball by watching a Spike show, and then tunes into a S7 show. How confusing.
Imagine trying to explain these 9 pages of drivel to the casual observer!
The NPPL robot is far from perfect based on its capabilities last year. These new rules everyone is talking about come from not being able to control cheats. Making new rules is not the answer.
How about this:
The Challenge rule (as used in some motor sports)
A team may challenge another team (at a cost of $1000)
The challenging team basically has to put up a grand to call an opposing team 'cheats'. That $1000 is held by the NPPL rules commitee until the end of the event.
The team challenged is approached by the judges after the last game and their guns are taken from them. They are told that they will be returned in 2 weeks after being tested by the NPPL rules commitee, as they have been challenged. They get a full receipt for thier equipment.
The awards ceremony happens, but the challenged teams cheque (if they are entitled to one) is not in the envelope.
The board coding is analysed by the committee. If the guns contain designer cheats (those not detectable by the robot) then the team challenged loses all series points accrued to that time. They also do not get the cheque, which would go to the next highest placed team. The challenging team gets thier $1000 back.
If the guns are found to not contain cheating boards they are returned, with the cheque, to the challenged team. The team challenging loses thier $1000. That is the cost of crying wolf and that fee is kept by the NPPL, which funds the testing, shipping etc of the exercise.
The challenged team does not know they have been challenged until the guns are taken from them.
any merits?
I like this one. The penalties are very high, but if you don't cheat you have nothing to worry about.
you are confused (as usual).
This debate is really just an big old cirlcle isn't it?
There are now at least 4 sets of rules. Players now have to change the way thier markers shoot for each series they play. There will be the NPPL rules, CFOA rules, Millennium rules and PSP rules. Each will claim that their rules are 'industry standard' and the great divide will continue to grow until even the most optimistic players realise that there will never be a standard format for paintball, which is damaging in that standardised rules are essential for any sport to become universally recognised and more importantly, understood by the public and the media. Imagine a TV viewer who gets interested in paintball by watching a Spike show, and then tunes into a S7 show. How confusing.
Imagine trying to explain these 9 pages of drivel to the casual observer!
The NPPL robot is far from perfect based on its capabilities last year. These new rules everyone is talking about come from not being able to control cheats. Making new rules is not the answer.
How about this:
The Challenge rule (as used in some motor sports)
A team may challenge another team (at a cost of $1000)
The challenging team basically has to put up a grand to call an opposing team 'cheats'. That $1000 is held by the NPPL rules commitee until the end of the event.
The team challenged is approached by the judges after the last game and their guns are taken from them. They are told that they will be returned in 2 weeks after being tested by the NPPL rules commitee, as they have been challenged. They get a full receipt for thier equipment.
The awards ceremony happens, but the challenged teams cheque (if they are entitled to one) is not in the envelope.
The board coding is analysed by the committee. If the guns contain designer cheats (those not detectable by the robot) then the team challenged loses all series points accrued to that time. They also do not get the cheque, which would go to the next highest placed team. The challenging team gets thier $1000 back.
If the guns are found to not contain cheating boards they are returned, with the cheque, to the challenged team. The team challenging loses thier $1000. That is the cost of crying wolf and that fee is kept by the NPPL, which funds the testing, shipping etc of the exercise.
The challenged team does not know they have been challenged until the guns are taken from them.
any merits?
I like this one. The penalties are very high, but if you don't cheat you have nothing to worry about.
And the non-guilty challenged team gets nothing but annoyance for being a loyal customer and playing by the rules?
Little bit harsh on them to me. Give'em the 1000 bucks, the series is already being paid to provide services like that one
Little bit harsh on them to me. Give'em the 1000 bucks, the series is already being paid to provide services like that one
A.B.
Stupid and weird - but those are the facts.... unfortunately.
A LOT would be easier if FA was legal for paintball guns, because then we could just allow FA at some cap (for instance 15 BPS) - and be done with the whole debate.
But - it isn't
Nick
Those are legal in most countries, and the reason is they do not operate on compressed air, and are classified as "toys" in most countries.
Stupid and weird - but those are the facts.... unfortunately.
A LOT would be easier if FA was legal for paintball guns, because then we could just allow FA at some cap (for instance 15 BPS) - and be done with the whole debate.
But - it isn't
Nick
Intheno
People watching Formula 1 are not explained every little technical rule.... and the rules we are talking about here, will never have any relevance to media/spectators.... they are technicalities governing sophisticated technological equipment.... you try explaining the rules on the software running RPM/gear ratio in a Formula 1 car to a casual observer, and you'll see what I mean
- Opposing teams are rarely the ones observing gun cheats, they are too far away and have other things on their minds than watching how many times an opponent pulls the trigger.
- What when this happens in a prelims game, and the team making the complaing WOULD have made the finals, if their complaint was bonafide - and they are told they were right two weeks after the event?
- How many gun manufacturers have data ports on their boards ? (sorry - couldn't resist that one)
Nick
Well - at least I'm consistent
I agree - a circle is a beautiful thing
I'm not concerned with harmonisation, as long as all 4 sets of rules are so flawed in this area.... first let's find the right format, and then do the harmonisation!
People watching Formula 1 are not explained every little technical rule.... and the rules we are talking about here, will never have any relevance to media/spectators.... they are technicalities governing sophisticated technological equipment.... you try explaining the rules on the software running RPM/gear ratio in a Formula 1 car to a casual observer, and you'll see what I mean
Good idea in theory.... but it is flawed in a number of ways:
- Opposing teams are rarely the ones observing gun cheats, they are too far away and have other things on their minds than watching how many times an opponent pulls the trigger.
- What when this happens in a prelims game, and the team making the complaing WOULD have made the finals, if their complaint was bonafide - and they are told they were right two weeks after the event?
- How many gun manufacturers have data ports on their boards ? (sorry - couldn't resist that one
)Nick
jotajotaz
The challenged team gets the cheque. The challenging team loses money if the challenge was unjustified. Where is the harshness there? If a team challenges a team unjustifyably, then they lose $1000. The worst the challenged team has to do is go without thier guns for a week or two, again standard after many sporting eventsinvolving technical equipment.
It is a proven way of dealing with suspected cheats in other sports.
and no, I don't believe the NPPL is being paid to provide this service, unless you have information to the contrary (which I assume you don't)
Do you think this idea is any more complex that the 9 pages of idea's before it? More difficult than changing a countries firearm legislations perhaps? It demonstrates a willingness and active role in dealing with the underlying issue of cheating, rather than changing all the rules to accomodate it, does it not?
The challenged team gets the cheque. The challenging team loses money if the challenge was unjustified. Where is the harshness there? If a team challenges a team unjustifyably, then they lose $1000. The worst the challenged team has to do is go without thier guns for a week or two, again standard after many sporting eventsinvolving technical equipment.
It is a proven way of dealing with suspected cheats in other sports.
and no, I don't believe the NPPL is being paid to provide this service, unless you have information to the contrary (which I assume you don't)
Do you think this idea is any more complex that the 9 pages of idea's before it? More difficult than changing a countries firearm legislations perhaps? It demonstrates a willingness and active role in dealing with the underlying issue of cheating, rather than changing all the rules to accomodate it, does it not?
Maybe to some teams being markerless for two weeks is not a problem, I can tell you for my team it is. We don't own two markers per player and during some moments in the year we play every weekend, so to us being challenged would be really annoying (maybe harrass was a poor word choice on my side), and we'd get nothing out of it.
And yes, the promoters are paid to provide a service which includes fields, marshals and means to enforce the rules.
And yes, the promoters are paid to provide a service which includes fields, marshals and means to enforce the rules.
ITN is it easy or hard once you have a gun that may cheat do find hidden codes on the board?
Are there any ways in which they may escape detection during the 2 week examination process?
Is the examination process fallible in any way? Or is it a guarentee to catch cheat guns
Are there any ways in which they may escape detection during the 2 week examination process?
Is the examination process fallible in any way? Or is it a guarentee to catch cheat guns
SJT19
its easy once you have the board to see what it is capable of, yes.
Get the board to someone who knows what he's doing and he will tell you what it is capable of. I see no way of escaping detection during the 2 week period.
I believe that this method would identify cheats easily. Its not confusing, its just like a drugs test in the olympics really. The NPPL woudl return the equipment, deducting all series points if a cheat was found. They could even ban manufacturers at this stage if they needed aq bigger stick, as they would have irrefutable evidence of cheating, backed up by hard fact, something lacking in the other idea's put forward. Results could be published, everything is out in the open. As a manufacturer or team would you risk cheating under these circumstances?
jota
Firstly, do you play in the NPPL?
Secondly, Yes being challenged would be a pain, but if you were cheating you deserve it. If you weren't cheating it is highly unlikely you woudl get challenged, because the challengers would not want to waste $1000 on you. Its self regulating, thats the beauty of it.
re the budgetary thing, the NPPL would need an independant tester and sophisticated equipment to reverse engineer the boards. If you think this is already covered in the entry fees you need to get real. It is a new system and as such would have to be funded. Don't forget, the NPPL would get nothing if the team was cheating. The dosh would then be returned to the challenger.
The $1000 disuades unecessary challenges. A team is likely to make sure they are certain of a challenge before instigating it, meaning the NPPL would probably be lucky to cover the cost of policing the rule, as they onlt get funds when the challenge is unjustified.
Nick
You should be concerned with harmonisation of rules, if you are concerned about the bigger picture, This rules thing is bad for the game. It demonstrates a lack of ability to control the technology in the guns. We need to show outsiders that our rules have teeth.
its easy once you have the board to see what it is capable of, yes.
Get the board to someone who knows what he's doing and he will tell you what it is capable of. I see no way of escaping detection during the 2 week period.
I believe that this method would identify cheats easily. Its not confusing, its just like a drugs test in the olympics really. The NPPL woudl return the equipment, deducting all series points if a cheat was found. They could even ban manufacturers at this stage if they needed aq bigger stick, as they would have irrefutable evidence of cheating, backed up by hard fact, something lacking in the other idea's put forward. Results could be published, everything is out in the open. As a manufacturer or team would you risk cheating under these circumstances?
jota
Firstly, do you play in the NPPL?
Secondly, Yes being challenged would be a pain, but if you were cheating you deserve it. If you weren't cheating it is highly unlikely you woudl get challenged, because the challengers would not want to waste $1000 on you. Its self regulating, thats the beauty of it.
re the budgetary thing, the NPPL would need an independant tester and sophisticated equipment to reverse engineer the boards. If you think this is already covered in the entry fees you need to get real. It is a new system and as such would have to be funded. Don't forget, the NPPL would get nothing if the team was cheating. The dosh would then be returned to the challenger.
The $1000 disuades unecessary challenges. A team is likely to make sure they are certain of a challenge before instigating it, meaning the NPPL would probably be lucky to cover the cost of policing the rule, as they onlt get funds when the challenge is unjustified.
Nick
You should be concerned with harmonisation of rules, if you are concerned about the bigger picture, This rules thing is bad for the game. It demonstrates a lack of ability to control the technology in the guns. We need to show outsiders that our rules have teeth.
No, I haven't had the luck to play NPPL yet, but I work for a media that usually covers it and am thus interested.
Anyway, playing that series or not, I see that your system might cause inconveniences to an innocent and I'm deeply against that, be it self regulating or not. It's not a real showstopper, just charge 2000 and give 1000 to the challenged if proven unguilty, oh and make the teams proven guilty pay for the testing costs. Everyone should be happy now.
Anyway, playing that series or not, I see that your system might cause inconveniences to an innocent and I'm deeply against that, be it self regulating or not. It's not a real showstopper, just charge 2000 and give 1000 to the challenged if proven unguilty, oh and make the teams proven guilty pay for the testing costs. Everyone should be happy now.