Stage Writing Best Wording for............

[Blackey Cole]

IIRC make safe leaves the staging to the shooter anything else the stage tells you what to do with the firearm

[Billy the Avenger]

Shotgun make ups???

Anywhere...

 

Billy the Avenger

[Turquoise Bill, SASS #39118]

Remember short term memory is the 2nd thing to go, geeze I can't remember the 1st

[Billy the Avenger]

I forgot my best wording

As gamey as possible

 

Billy the Avenger

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

Okay my friend, you know I very rarely disagree with you and bicker simply because I enjoy being a pain in the butt, right? So here goes, what's wrong with "Make Safe"? What other words do you feel need to be added?

There is nothing wrong with "make safe". I use it myself.

But as Blastmasters post below illustrates; a brevity of written word can lead to extended verbal discussion.

 

well said,

 

At a recent shoot, there were five pistol targets lined up in a neat row. Stage description said to shoot P1,P2,P3,P4,P5 and repeat with second pistol. A shooter asked if they could start on either end. YES.

 

A seasoned shooter said :

'it is common knowledge and custom to be able to start from either end', no need to ask.

 

I said, you have a 50% change of being correct.

The instruction above does not require any specific sequence of rounds on target. Only to shoot the five targets with five rounds, as a comma is not the word THEN. And the word repeat does not clarify repeat the sequence (shoot the targets in the same order) or simply repeat the instruction. So the "seasoned shooter" that is so secure in his customs and application of common knowledge perpetuates improper stage instructions.

This is the issue when stage writers decide to strive for brevity instead of clarity. And shooters apply misinformation and misunderstanding.

At best, the incomplete and poorly written instructions lead to extended stage readings and debate. At worst, they lead to inconsistent stage engagements and differing experiences.

All of which can be avoided by a couple extra words, a clarifying sentence and some supporting direction.

[Nasty Nels]

No matter how well you write a stage, something I have never been guilty of doing, there will be issues.

 

I specify "start on the either end" or "start on left" to eliminate a direction issue. Still get questions.

 

I also state, "make safe" or "make safe on ______ table" if I don't want it moved.

 

I also try to specify where to stage the weapons. I will stay "stage weapons where desired" if I don't care where they put them. Otherwise, I am specific about where to stage.

 

A few extra words should not be necessary but should eliminate questions.

 

This is supposed to be fun. Therefore, spelling out what shouldn't be necessary only takes a few extra minutes and makes some people more comfortable.

 

NN

[Blastmaster]

There is nothing wrong with "make safe". I use it myself.

But as Blastmasters post below illustrates; a brevity of written word can lead to extended verbal discussion.

 

 

The instruction above does not require any specific sequence of rounds on target. Only to shoot the five targets with five rounds, as a comma is not the word THEN. And the word repeat does not clarify repeat the sequence (shoot the targets in the same order) or simply repeat the instruction. So the "seasoned shooter" that is so secure in his customs and application of common knowledge perpetuates improper stage instructions.

This is the issue when stage writers decide to strive for brevity instead of clarity. And shooters apply misinformation and misunderstanding.

At best, the incomplete and poorly written instructions lead to extended stage readings and debate. At worst, they lead to inconsistent stage engagements and differing experiences.

All of which can be avoided by a couple extra words, a clarifying sentence and some supporting direction.

The diagram in the shooters book showsTarget P1 on the left,side and advancing to P5 on the right side, or visa versa.;The diagram in the shooters book is the clarity. Thus, a possible order of engagement. Some shooters don't bother to read the shooters book. On the other hand, I've seen the same diagram/description and the it didn't matter which end to start on, it wasn't not the intent of the stage writer. Poor stage writing? Happens frequent eough that it is best to ask and of course, it would be better yet for stage writer to add a few words.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

The diagram in the shooters book showsTarget P1 on the left,side and advancing to P5 on the right side, or visa versa.;The diagram in the shooters book is the clarity. Thus, a possible order of engagement. Some shooters don't bother to read the shooters book. On the other hand, I've seen the same diagram/description and the it didn't matter which end to start on, it wasn't not the intent of the stage writer. Poor stage writing? Happens frequent enough that it is best to ask and of course, it would be better yet for stage writer to add a few words.

I still maintain that shoot t1, t2, t3, t4, t5 is not a shooting order.

It is solely an offering of the targets you will engage.

As the instruction stands, without the additional verbiage "in that order" or "from either end", I can shoot the targets in ANY random order that I choose. If that possibility is the stage writers intent, than the additional wording is unnecessary, but if the stage writer wanted a certain sequence or a consistent engagement; his brevity has lead to differing outcomes.

 

Drive on Main street, Elm street, 5th Ave, N.W. Washington simply tells me to drive on those roads in no specific order and in no specific direction.

Which is a vastly different instruction than drive west on main St. Then go north on Elm, then left onto 5th Ave. And then merge onto n.w. Washington.

 

Use enough words to ensure you achieve the outcome you desire.

[Deuce Stevens SASS#55996]

After writing stages for a our state match for 10 years my wife and I can attest that more is better when you are dealing with 200+ shooters. In a perfect world everyone knows the stage conventions and gets a gold star, but that is not the case. Around here "make safe" is meant to communicate to the shooter that they have the flexibility in choosing where to make the firearm safe. If your stage instructions are minimal you WILL get questions even in the smallest matches. I gave up on trying to educate the shooters using a trial by fire method and prefer to educate them while in the RO 1 or 2 classroom.

[Rye Miles #13621]

On the posse marshal's walk through, we come up with some ridiculous questions because you someone's gonna ask that very thing!!

[Blastmaster]

I still maintain that shoot t1, t2, t3, t4, t5 is not a shooting order.

It is solely an offering of the targets you will engage.

As the instruction stands, without the additional verbiage "in that order" or "from either end", I can shoot the targets in ANY random order that I choose. If that possibility is the stage writers intent, than the additional wording is unnecessary, but if the stage writer wanted a certain sequence or a consistent engagement; his brevity has lead to differing outcomes.

 

Drive on Main street, Elm street, 5th Ave, N.W. Washington simply tells me to drive on those roads in no specific order and in no specific direction.

Which is a vastly different instruction than drive west on main St. Then go north on Elm, then left onto 5th Ave. And then merge onto n.w. Washington.

 

Use enough words to ensure you achieve the outcome you desire.

Creeker,

 

Right;, wrong, or indifferent, you would be in the 50% group of shooting that target sequence example at those random clubs. It is the way they do it,,,, picture and labeling on stage description can mean everything to them.

 

Other clubs, would frown at you for even asking which end to start,,, of course you can start at either end. The diagram and labels mean nothing.

 

My point was only to show that extra wording can remove doubt and to show that it isn't world wide common custom that a certain description is known by all.

 

 

Edit, the above engagement could be written as: Sweep T1-T5, start on either end.

or

Sweep T1-T5, start on right side.

 

It is interesting to watch shooters try to shoot something different that what they are custom too. Such as Start on right side. A whole new, different and complex stage, even though it is a simple sweep but in the opposite direction. LOL>

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

There is nothing wrong with "make safe". I use it myself.

But as Blastmasters post below illustrates; a brevity of written word can lead to extended verbal discussion.

 

 

The instruction above does not require any specific sequence of rounds on target. Only to shoot the five targets with five rounds, as a comma is not the word THEN. And the word repeat does not clarify repeat the sequence (shoot the targets in the same order) or simply repeat the instruction. So the "seasoned shooter" that is so secure in his customs and application of common knowledge perpetuates improper stage instructions.

This is the issue when stage writers decide to strive for brevity instead of clarity. And shooters apply misinformation and misunderstanding.

At best, the incomplete and poorly written instructions lead to extended stage readings and debate. At worst, they lead to inconsistent stage engagements and differing experiences.

All of which can be avoided by a couple extra words, a clarifying sentence and some supporting direction.

I see repeat instruction a lot. I think that one word, instruction, fends off multiple questions.

[Boggus Deal #64218]

 

I shot a match last month and there was LOTS of confusion with this stage. And I am posting it complete. I remember it well... There 3 pistol targets, 3 rifle targets and a shotgun gong to be hit twice.

 

Rifle and shotgun staged in window.

With pistol

2 on left

2 on right

1 on middle

repeat

with rifle, repeat pistol on rifle tagets

shoot gong twice

 

 

That was it. It was frowned upon when when I shot a 2-1-2 sweep twice with pistols and a 2-1-4-1-2 sweep with the rifle.

[Blastmaster]

I can not speak for other clubs/states/regions of SASS, BUT when you have to send Vanna White substitute from Wheel of Fortune out to the targets to physically lay her/his hands on each target, in the sequence the stage instruction attempts to spell out, you may have problems. Especially if it is a Nevada Sweep. LOL

[Blastmaster]

I shot a match last month and there was LOTS of confusion with this stage. And I am posting it complete. I remember it well... There 3 pistol targets, 3 rifle targets and a shotgun gong to be hit twice.

 

Rifle and shotgun staged in window.

With pistol

2 on left

2 on right

1 on middle

repeat

with rifle, repeat pistol on rifle tagets

shoot gong twice

 

 

That was it. It was frowned upon when when I shot a 2-1-2 sweep twice with pistols and a 2-1-4-1-2 sweep with the rifle.

Yep!

 

I bet they didn't even consider the SXS shooter pulling both trigger(s) about instantaneously.

[Cypress Sam, SASS #10915]

Thanks for everyone's input. I want to have my instructions clear but brief. Saying "make safe" seems to convey the same message in most parts of the country. It's slightly redundant, but seems to avoid the questions that being silent raises.

 

I'll just try to strike a balance between Bogus Deal's example stage in Post 48 and the other extreme of defining the shooters every move. (Of course I'd have given BD 2 misses for not shooting the gong twice!)

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

I shot a match last month and there was LOTS of confusion with this stage. And I am posting it complete. I remember it well... There 3 pistol targets, 3 rifle targets and a shotgun gong to be hit twice.

 

Rifle and shotgun staged in window.

With pistol

2 on left

2 on right

1 on middle

repeat

with rifle, repeat pistol on rifle tagets

shoot gong twice

 

 

That was it. It was frowned upon when when I shot a 2-1-2 sweep twice with pistols and a 2-1-4-1-2 sweep with the rifle.

Hi Boggus,

 

I've heard something like that explained as a "round count scenario," which means hit the targets in any order as no order is specified. I think what you did is efficient and appropriate with those instructions.

 

Regards,

 

Allie

[Boggus Deal #64218]

The problem, Allie, was that the stage writer intended 2 on the left, then two on the right and then one in the middle. Afterwards, I explained that wasn't what was written OR read. I was sure to state that I could not read their mind to figure intent.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Yep! Intent was not clear. The word "sweep" was missing.

[Diamond S Doug]

And the word repeat does not clarify repeat the sequence (shoot the targets in the same order) or simply repeat the instruction.

 

And that starts the repeat vs. repeat instructions debate...

[Blastmaster]

The problem, Allie, was that the stage writer intended 2 on the left, then two on the right and then one in the middle. Afterwards, I explained that wasn't what was written OR read. I was sure to state that I could not read their mind to figure intent.

We had a similar stage scenerio last week. During the PM walk through, it was asked what the intent of the Stage Writer was? Outside, outside, center? or just sweep it? No one knew, but the Stage Writer was at the match. We went to the SW and asked what his intent was, because there was a couple of different ways to shoot it.. He thought a moment, and relayed his intent at the time of writing it. We said fine and when that stage was read word for word to the posse, his intent on how to shoot it was stated at the end of the reading. and that is how everyone engaged the stage. I am sure if we had not of asked the stage writer, someone would have asked if they could take the 'short cut'. Very common at that club to ask about 'short cuts';. Why cann't the PM ask these clarifications through the walk through, or someone ask during the reading?

[Lost Trail]

In my short time shooting CAS, I've heard several variations of the "make safe" statement. I'm hoping to get enough experience to begin writing stages also and will most likely use the "make safe" phrase.

 

I have also seen a couple of shooters that I would label "gamers" since they seem to nitpick phraseology of the stage instructions, apparently to gain some sort of technical advantage, edge or possibly a re-shoot. Most of these "challenges" have come after their stage and receiving a "P".

 

It appears that putting as many details and qualifiers to cover every question or argument is almost mandatory for some.

 

This makes me think of the people that cause the windshield sunscreens to have the warning: "Do not drive with screen in windshield". You can idiot proof a thing, but then along comes a better idiot.

[Boggus Deal #64218]

We had a similar stage scenerio last week. During the PM walk through, it was asked what the intent of the Stage Writer was? Outside, outside, center? or just sweep it? No one knew, but the Stage Writer was at the match. We went to the SW and asked what his intent was, because there was a couple of different ways to shoot it.. He thought a moment, and relayed his intent at the time of writing it. We said fine and when that stage was read word for word to the posse, his intent on how to shoot it was stated at the end of the reading. and that is how everyone engaged the stage. I am sure if we had not of asked the stage writer, someone would have asked if they could take the 'short cut'. Very common at that club to ask about 'short cuts';. Why cann't the PM ask these clarifications through the walk through, or someone ask during the reading?

Well... I did ask ahead of time and I was told, "JUST LIKE IT'S WRITTEN!" In a not so very nice tone. Not "in that order". Not "any order". So, I shot it like I said. Then found out what the intent was.

[Col. Cornelius Gilliam, SASS#5875TG]

It's all about balance. I fall into the camp of being as clear as possible on how to shoot the stage, without detailing every single motion. If you want to start a sweep from either side, write it that way.

 

Adding an extra word to clarify (like repeat instructions, or sequence) makes a huge difference in explanation time.

 

One of our stage writers used to go into excruciating detail on every portion of the stage - very time consuming to read, way over done. A lot of eye rolling.

 

Based on a huge amount of complaints, he went to the other extreme, no detail at all. It is now very confusing with a huge amount of questions every time. So little detail it is hard to understand what to do at all. In his mind, however, there is only one way to do it right and when he reads the stage, everybody wants to argue about it and tell him that's not what he wrote. End result, lots of discussion and time wasted.

[Blastmaster]

Well... I did ask ahead of time and I was told, "JUST LIKE IT'S WRITTEN!" In a not so very nice tone. Not "in that order". Not "any order". So, I shot it like I said. Then found out what the intent was.

You did all you could.

 

Thanks for the reply

[Cholla Bob]

(I will preface this with the fact that I am just a grasshopper at writing stages)

 

I try to use the KISS method, "Simplicity should be a key goal in design and unnecessary complexity should be avoided."

 

That being said if I write a stage and see some questions/ issues arise with how I perceived the stage being shot versus how the posse members perceive it should be shot. I just make a note to myself and next time provide a better explanation. Also a quick question to a shooter on how would you make it better can go a long way in helping.

 

This is a racing game and as such competitors will always push the limits.

[Billy Boots, # 20282 LTG-Regulator]

Yep! Intent was not clear. The word "sweep" was missing.

SWEEP is a very important word in stage writings. IMO, writing that a stage is a "round count" stage is benificial also.

[Short Term Emory]

Remember short term memory is the 2nd thing to go, geeze I can't remember the 1st

 

Wait just a dog gone minute. What do I have to do with this and where am I goin?

[Shooting Bull]

Wait just a dog gone minute. What do I have to do with this and where am I goin?

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

[Ventura Slim, SASS #35690]

In the grand scheme of things, does it make sense to take a long gun to the next station?

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

In the grand scheme of things, does it make sense to take a long gun to the next station?

It does if that's where you're going to shoot it.

[Smokestack SASS#87384]

In the grand scheme of things, does it make sense to take a long gun to the next station?

Absolutely. Especially with a sxs shotgun. Sometimes with a rifle depending on staging options.

[Boggus Deal #64218]

Absolutely. Especially with a sxs shotgun. Sometimes with a rifle depending on staging options.

+1

[Chuckaroo #13080 Regulator]

If you tell them what to do, there is no question.

 

"Make Safe" is a shortcut to writing and it is not the ultimate answer.

 

The problem a stage writer has is putting in writing what your intent is for the shooter. Make safe on this rest or this window is a better choice, it just takes more typing.

 

In the long run, it reduces questions and should make it perfectly clear what you want them to do.

[Shooting Bull]

If you tell them what to do, there is no question.

 

"Make Safe" is a shortcut to writing and it is not the ultimate answer.

 

The problem a stage writer has is putting in writing what your intent is for the shooter. Make safe on this rest or this window is a better choice, it just takes more typing.

 

In the long run, it reduces questions and should make it perfectly clear what you want them to do.

 

But what if I don't care where they make their gun safe?

 

I'll go along with the crowd that says one or two extra words to avoid confusion is a good thing. In that vein I'll suggest, "Make safe anywhere". Now I know for a fact you'd have shooters complain that "anywhere" might not be safe. That's exactly right. If the location you want to put your gun isn't safe then you didn't follow the stage instructions, did you? Make SAFE anywhere. Seems pretty clear to me.