Ton Tons @ CC

[Missy Q]

I would have hoped you could halve it, but I'm not the best qualified to answer that one.

 

[Missy Q]

Mr Inflictor,
I don't know if there was a penalty against Ed. Presumably it would go to the Rules committee, which of course he is a member of....
Also, should the team be penalised for something that did not happen on the field and was not perpetrated by a player on the team? Debatable I suppose.
Frankly, if telling the ref to F-off carried a significant penalty, there would be a lot of 1 on 1 match-ups in the NPPL. If I were him, thats the way I would argue it.

 

[Missy Q]

2. Not being contrary deliberately here, but do the players not accept the solution that the NXL has adopted? I haven't heard anyone moan about it.

No I don't suppose you have, because the players want to cheat, and the NXL has allowed them to shoot full-auto, so whats to moan about? Add to that the velocity ramping - the new advantage is always sought when the playing field is leveled - and you have a problem that is far bigger than the one they started with. Full Auto guns that ramp velocity. Good luck in court with that one!! Especially if full-auto is allowed within the leagues' rulebook.

The liability issue with this has not gone away. It's just that I haven't brought it up for a while.

Also, it is MY opinion that allowing ramping guns is allowing cheating guns. There are many more ways to cheat that still go un-noticed, and a rate of fire cap does nothing to combat these. If the leagues have to change the rules or come out with new 'policing technology' every time someone finds a new way to cheat then it becomes farcicle. The dedicated 'NPPL boards' would get around all those issues, and the rules of the game would be enforced rather than changed to suit the problem in hand.

It may be that ROF capping is the only sustainable thing to do, but lets not kid ourselves that it's an 'answer' or 'solution', its just giving in to the cheats, while leaving your arse hanging out in a legal sense.

 

[duffistuta]

Originally posted by Missy Q
1. No I don't suppose you have, because the players want to cheat, and the NXL has allowed them to shoot full-auto, so whats to moan about?

2.Add to that the velocity ramping - the new advantage is always sought when the playing field is leveled - and you have a problem that is far bigger than the one they started with. Full Auto guns that ramp velocity. Good luck in court with that one!! Especially if full-auto is allowed within the leagues' rulebook.

3.The liability issue with this has not gone away. It's just that I haven't brought it up for a while.

4. Also, it is MY opinion that allowing ramping guns is allowing cheating guns. There are many more ways to cheat that still go un-noticed, and a rate of fire cap does nothing to combat these. If the leagues have to change the rules or come out with new 'policing technology' every time someone finds a new way to cheat then it becomes farcicle.

5. The dedicated 'NPPL boards' would get around all those issues, and the rules of the game would be enforced rather than changed to suit the problem in hand.

6.It may be that ROF capping is the only sustainable thing to do, but lets not kid ourselves that it's an 'answer' or 'solution', its just giving in to the cheats, while leaving your arse hanging out in a legal sense.

1, It's not cheating if it's within the rules. You, or I for that matter, may not like it, but cheating is one thing that it isn't.

2. Is velocity ramp occurring in NXL? I was under the impression that they were policing it pretty well, as witnessed by the old Miami Effect getting busted for some very hot shots IIRC.

3. I bow to your superior knowledge here, and I have used this as a caveat before - I only support the idea of capped FA IF it doesn't impact upon insurance, venue selection etc.

4. ROF cap and a way to measure velocity would seem to me to adequately police all eventualities - what am I missing?

5. I agree, and if that solution is practical I could see players happy to adopt it. The industry, however...

6. Again, I can't speak for the legality, but if it is the only sustainable thing to do then it is the de facto solution.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

The NPPL cut all the bad eggs and have done after aany and all events. Did you get asked to ref again after HB? That was the only event you went to, right?

Wow - you've got to be one of the most transparent people I've ever debated with

I'm not going to dignify that with a retort, because those that know a little about the game, know the statement is just silly

Nick

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Red Ring Inflictor
We take certified true-semi-only setups and combine them with the fastest fingers known to the sport.

The only problem with this--and the one issue the true semi crowd never addresses--is defining true semi in today's electro gun environment. Since the top end markers aren't actually fired by pulling the trigger (which only initiates the firing sequence) and the actual operation is governed by programming that has a whole boatload of firing parameters built in the old definition is worthless. So, you can't judge what a person can shoot semi-auto until you codify what EXACTLY semi-auto is and isn't.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Missy Q
No I don't suppose you have, because the players want to cheat, and the NXL has allowed them to shoot full-auto, so whats to moan about?

Add to that the velocity ramping - the new advantage is always sought when the playing field is leveled - and you have a problem that is far bigger than the one they started with.

Full Auto guns that ramp velocity. Good luck in court with that one!! Especially if full-auto is allowed within the leagues' rulebook.

The liability issue with this has not gone away. It's just that I haven't brought it up for a while.

SEE Duffy's response. If it's in the rules it ain't cheating.

Seems to me all the velocity ramping issues are in the NPPL and the MS as the NXL and PSP can and do have the means to catch such cheats and I can confidently say it happens, if at all any more, very infrequently in the NXL--otherwise you'd hear me screaming about it daily.

Which circumstance demonstrates less regard for potential liability--actively pursuing measures of control within the means available or claiming to hold fast to outmoded rules that aren't actually enforced?

 

[Missy Q]

Nick,

Wow - you've got to be one of the most transparent people I've ever debated with

thats the nicest thing a 300lb woman could ever hear. Thankyou very much.

Steve,

1, It's not cheating if it's within the rules. You, or I for that matter, may not like it, but cheating is one thing that it isn't.

You know what I mean

2. Is velocity ramp occurring in NXL? I was under the impression that they were policing it pretty well, as witnessed by the old Miami Effect getting busted for some very hot shots IIRC.

The fact that teams are getting caught with velocity ramping guns prove that it is occurring, rather than that it is being policed well. People get caught for ramping in the NPPL, but no-one seems to think it is well policed...

4. ROF cap and a way to measure velocity would seem to me to adequately police all eventualities - what am I missing?

The 15bps is being stretched, the velocity ramping is optional rather than permanent (and so more difficult to catch), then there is the issue of break-out modes, which I do not believe are effectively policed (I could be wrong). Also, once you rely solely on technology and revert to a 'prove-it' mentality, I think you are getting into a dodgey area and setting a precedent that cannot be maintained. Whats next? Video evidence of playing on?

Your number 3 point negates your number 6 point.

 

[Red Ring Inflictor]

Originally posted by Missy Q
...should the team be penalised for something that did not happen on the field and was not perpetrated by a player on the team? Debatable I suppose.
Frankly, if telling the ref to F-off carried a significant penalty, there would be a lot of 1 on 1 match-ups in the NPPL. If I were him, thats the way I would argue it.

Thanks for the answer, and again, not having a go at you, just a point I think is germaine to this multi-faceted discussion:

Excerpted from the current NPPL rulebook:
_________________________________________

21.03 Three-Game Suspension. Players may be suspended, causing the team to play
short for three games for the following infractions:

(3) Verbal Abuse. Verbally abusing any individual during or after play.
_________________________________________

(legalists would say that a captain, coach or owner is not a player, I suppose, in which case the rule needs re-wording.)

Sometimes a finger has to be cut off to save a hand. If all the refs followed their leagues' rules, and NPPL has by far the harshest for this violation, then there would be some teams playing short, for one or two games, then the refs would gain some respect and the abuse would be curtailed significantly. Then, as Baca and Duffy--among others--point out we need to only have rules that we're going to substantially enforce or bin the rules in question. Also, the leagues need to back up the refs if for no other reason than to ease at least a little pressure on the refs in their precarious position.

I'm still curious about if or how often and what the penalty would be in rugby?

 

[Missy Q]

Which circumstance demonstrates less regard for potential liability--actively pursuing measures of control within the means available or claiming to hold fast to outmoded rules that aren't actually enforced?

In a paintball context or a legal context?
My answer would be different depending on your choice of context.