On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:14:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Because you are instead publicly poking at serious, thoughtful, hard working VOLUNTEERS who make this sport what it is, you are generating a lot of ill will. Because you are trying to re-engineer a Nationals contest without giving evidence of having thought through the ramifications of running contests in parallel with dramatically different start, finish & scoring requirements and you haven't come forward with any explanation of how this might be done, you look rather naive.



Constructively,



Evan Ludeman / T8



I applaud the RC on their hard work. There is no doubt these volunteers have spent many hours in serious thought giving us our sport as we see it today. No poking is implied or intended here.



It's understood the scorer would have two scoring programs, one FAI one US Rules. It's reasonably manageable.



Perhaps I'm naive in asking this question. Please help out with explaining how "dramatically" different start and finish might adversely impact a contest site hosting FAI and US Rules classes?



Sean Franke

If that's all you can find to nitpick, then I guess the rest of the message found its mark?

The way I see it, *if* we ran American Sports next to FAI CC at Mifflin (which we won't), we'd more or less double the admin load. That's a solvable problem (maybe a second scorer / assistant CD, whatever). But the point is, our normal process is to try out the bright ideas at the regional level and develop a base of experience that can be shared when it's time to run a Nationals.

Personally, I'm curious to see how shutting out the "killer bees" (that would be ASW-20Bs, Ventus Bs, LS-6Bs) and their kin is going to help participation. The best evidence available so far suggests that it could reduce participation by about 25% (I'm looking at R9 the last couple years). Again, the better environment to sort this out is at the regional level.

Good luck.

T8, out.