Branchwater Jack SASS #88854

Of course, no matter what else happens, we have to be sure that we don't start eating our own young as we go through this process. We can't afford to lose too many more people that are already shooting

So let me get this straight. You can't compare yourself against other people without an 'overall'? And, just for the record, SASS has, at different times, done away with the overall in multiple championship levels in multiple disciplines. And, I'm not necessarily suggesting we do so here. However, if the barrier to opening up things that may be beneficial to the continued well being of this sport is the 'overall', why wouldn't we consider dropping it? @Creeker, SASS #43022 Has a great point with this thread. if we are to examine this sport and look at things to help it continue to survive the next 40 years, we may need to let go of some of the perceptions of things that we think add value while finding and still holding on to those things that actually provide value and identity.

Can they still get what matters to them some other way without having an 'overall'?

Why do we need an overall?

That was more than a decade ago. or become vocal when their feelings get hurt because something wasn't implemented the way they thought it should. @Creeker, SASS #43022 Two things that I also wonder about... Do we need to begin looking at ways to compete in our game in an environment where we may be restricted on the use of lead ammunition? Do we need to rethink how we categorize competitors?

The current rule book has been around for a long time. How many safety issues are there in there now, and why have we not changed them yet? How many of the rule changes that we have made in the past 10 years are to correct safety issues? Please also read the following from @Blackjack Zak : specifically:

Somebody sent me a p.m. saying my timing for a rule change committee process was off, and they very well could be right. I was just spitballing on the screen. Their suggestion was that, if forming a rules committee the way I outlined it to look at the changes the rules, it would be good for the committee to have, at EOT, a forum, where people could discuss with the rules committee any of the proposed rule changes. Sounded like a good idea to me. And, they are right, the rules change committee doesn't work in a vacuum. They will also work with the ROC to ensure that any changes jive with everything else, and are well-defined, without the need for clarification. And, if clarification is needed, they can be included in the rule to begin with. finally, it would be up to the board of directors to accept the recommendations of the rules committee prior to the new rule book being published

The rule was not rescinded because it was a bad rule. It was rescinded because a member of the BOD took issue with how the rule was implemented. Having a process like that helps ensure that they make good rules to begin with that don't need revisions and clarifications ad nauseam later. It helps to have everyone on board with the process, the change, and the effects of that change before it is implemented. honestly, the process that I described isn't something that I came up with, but is used by several other national organizations to great success. Let me ask you, when was the last time they changed the rules of the baseball mid-season? To @Tennessee williams Point Absolutely.. there are many ways that we can reformat the rulebook to ensure that were collecting the rule and the clarifications are better put out all in one spot.

I respectfully disagree with you there, Widder. Part of the problem we have had over the last decade or so are folks not being able to keep up with rule changes and clarifications changing rules on an irregular basis. then, it becomes a luck of the draw and what TO you get before you figure out what rules and clarifications you are going to play by. In order for a rule to become effective, you must give it time to become part of the culture. You must give it time to be implemented around the world, studied, and see it is having the desired effect before it's revisited again. Take for example the fiasco of the lever rule from a couple years ago. They implemented a rule change, a short time later it was rescinded, then it was revisited, then implemented something again. And, just because we didn't learn from that fiasco, we had to do it all over again. Look at the mess that we got with moving with a cocked rifle from the loading table. Rule was voted on by a committee and came out, everybody had it figured out. People started running the matches with what they thought the rule to be. Well, they thought they had it figured out. Come to find out they didn't. A couple months later oh, a rule change comes out. Or rather the clarification on the rule change. And we still have people who don't understand the nuances of this rule. And, depending on what range you go to, will tell you what the rules going to be. Just that whole process created a lot of hurt feelings, and even just distrust of the process. It's something that can easily be avoided.

The Wild Bunch is not your ordinary corporate board of directors. Where else will you find a board, the majority of which, serve together for near 40 years...

I would also suggest that it's time to revamp the rules making process. And in order to start the discussion here, I throw out the following recommendation. Establish the rules committee to explicitly handle changes to the rules of the game. Membership at large can, in writing, recommend rule changes for consideration to the committee. Every two years, those changes are considered by the committee, and any other changes that the committee feels that need to be made will be reviewed and voted on by the committee. A new rule book is then released. For instance, rule changes must be made by January one of odd number years. the committee can have a list of things that it wants comments on released by March. Comments must be in by July. Committee meets to vote in October. Rulebook issued January one of even years. Membership thaen has a whole year to submit changes for consideration. And, no changes will be made to the rule book for another two years when the new one comes out. I would actually prefer it on a three or four-year cycle, but I thought I would at least get the ball rolling.

We also need not to forget that Misty is also member of the Wild Bunch. and, you can read where other members of the wild bunch still continuously speak very highly of her.

A lot of the "traditional" advertising mediums have gone away. People just don't subscribe to magazines any more. There is good to be found in the replacement, though. Much more can be done, cheaper than traditional marketing efforts, with a concerted effort in lifestyle branding through digital platforms. @Jed I. Knight, SASS #36423 is a great example of a start at this. Colion Noir from the NRA is another brand that most 'gun' people are aware of. Look on YouTube for all the 'brand marketing' videos Gibson guitars have been putting out. New, riveting content each week all promoting the Gibson lifestyle. When was the last time you saw something like that from SASS?

In addition to thanking those members of the Wild Bunch who are now retiring, I also remember the contributions of other folks that have served on the WB over the years to give us this great game. General U.S. Grant SASS #2 and Coyote Calhoun, SASS #201 immediately came to my mind.

https://www.sassnet.com/Downloads/20eChron/20JulyChron.pdf