Stirring the Pot. Stage Writing

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

49 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Agree on the T. O., but often they do participate in spotting, since they are in the best position to be able to see.  

 

Disagree about the unimaginative, boring game.  Good and challenging stages can be written without the spotting problems, if the writers give consideration to  spotter positioning in the design.  My experience is that most stages get written at home at a computer, and then have to be adjusted spatially to fit into their intended bays, as the targets, tables, etc get set up.   I do that second adjustment task a lot, in advance setting targets for monthly matches.  Some designs just don't lend themselves to effective spotting, and that problem is multiplied where there is no set start point or course of fire.   Those designs should be moved to the more open bays  where props do not occlude spotters' view.   It's not about simplifying the game.  It's just about good stage planning that considers all of the needs.  

And you knows this how???

 

From your vast amount of experience???

[Captain Bill Burt]

I think the consensus is that you're pushing solutions without fully understanding what are and aren't problems in SASS.  If you can make a statement like "organizationally we make no effort at training or credentialing spotters" not realizing what the RO1 class is for, that should be a heads up to you that you're not in possession of all the relevant facts, so your prescriptions are likely to be flawed.

 

As GK stated, most of the things you bring up have been discussed on the Wire before.  I chalk your comments up to exuberance about the sport and a desire to talk about it with other like minded people, which is great. 

 

As I've said before, a little more humility and recognition of the fact that you really are pretty new to SASS will go a long way.  That's not personalizing things, that's offering you a perspective on how more experienced SASS members view some of your comments and recommendations, ie uninformed.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Excuse me; but, I don't think this has been mentioned. If the shooter doesn't trust the spotters to correctly call round-count or any-gun-order scenarios, the shooter may announce how he or she plans to shoot the stage.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

7 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I think the consensus is that you're pushing solutions without fully understanding what are and aren't problems in SASS.  If you can make a statement like "organizationally we make no effort at training or credentialing spotters" not realizing what the RO1 class is for, that should be a heads up to you that you're not in possession of all the relevant facts, so your prescriptions are likely to be flawed.

 

As GK stated, most of the things you bring up have been discussed on the Wire before.  I chalk your comments up to exuberance about the sport and a desire to talk about it with other like minded people, which is great. 

 

As I've said before, a little more humility and recognition of the fact that you really are pretty new to SASS will go a long way.  That's not personalizing things, that's offering you a perspective on how more experienced SASS members view some of your comments and recommendations, ie uninformed.

Touchet!

The irony that many of us "inexperienced" shooters (as you are so prone to label us) see, is that on one hand, you "highly experienced" folks are posting often here about your worries that the sport which you designed has declining participation, but then  when you do get new shooters, every suggestion they post here is met with this condescending "inexperienced" labeling, followed by a defensive dog- pack attack from the ones who designed what we have, apparently believe it cannot be improved upon, but ironically worry about its decline.   

 

I personally don't see the participant decline as very consequential, but since you are talking humility, perhaps a little of that on your part might allow some new ideas that might help reverse that decline (if it really exists).   

 

To believe that our current spotting reliability is beyond improvement seems more argumentative than constructive to us "inexperienced" players. 

 

Recall that all I originally said was that it (spotting) can be helped by good stage design and hindered by poor design.   Sorry if you found that observation to be arrogant and offensive.  I meant it to be constructive, if that is possible here. 

 

  .  

[Dusty Devil Dale]

11 minutes ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

Excuse me; but, I don't think this has been mentioned. If the shooter doesn't trust the spotters to correctly call round-count or any-gun-order scenarios, the shooter may announce how he or she plans to shoot the stage.

Exactly

[Dusty Devil Dale]

58 minutes ago, Gateway Kid SASS# 70038 Life said:

Sorry for the long post but most of what you have  brought up has been discussed many times. The general solution proposed is to make sure your writers KNOW what stage/club they are writing for so as to best take advantage of available bays/props/targets/viewing positions. Make sure your spotters are at least familiar with the mantra of If you think it hit it is a hit, if you know it hit it is a hit, if you think it is a miss it is a hit. The only time they should call a miss is if they are absolutely positively certain it was a miss. Don't be afraid to fire the spotters if they are having a bad day, are unfamiliar with the venue, have repeated obvious errors etc.(of course be respectful and tactful)

So go forth and enjoy the amateur game we have knowing that sometimes things happen. And if you think professional referee's/game officials/announcers always get it right you should probably go see a professional football, basketball, hockey, baseball game sometime.

Respectfully

 

  

 

Gateway Kid

IJAFG

 I agree with everything that you posted.  You've reiterated several of my own posts.  Thank you.  

[Captain Bill Burt]

1 minute ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Touchet!

The irony that many of us "inexperienced" shooters (as you are so prone to label us) see, is that on one hand, you "highly experienced" folks are posting often here about your worries that the sport which you designed has declining participation, but then  when you do get new shooters, every suggestion they post here is met with this condescending "inexperienced" labeling, followed by a defensive dog- pack attack from the ones who designed what we have, apparently believe it cannot be improved upon, but ironically worry about its decline.   

 

I personally don't see the participant decline as very consequential, but since you are talking humility, perhaps a little of that on your part might allow some new ideas that might help reverse that decline (if it really exists).   

 

To believe that our current spotting reliability is beyond improvement seems more argumentative than constructive to us "inexperienced" players. 

 

Recall that all I originally said was that it (spotting) can be helped by good stage design and hindered by poor design.   Sorry if you found that observation to be arrogant and offensive.  I meant it to be constructive, if that is possible here. 

 

  .  

LOL.  It's touche, no second t.  I'm not sure where you get the 'us' from.  I was speaking directly to you and no one else.  I'm not trying to be condescending to you, in fact I said I think that your enthusiasm for the sport is great.  I've said previously that I went through some of the same things you are.  You're encountering the same things many new shooters do.  One you're rehashing things that have previously been beaten to death, two you're proposing solutions to things that aren't really problems, and three you're focusing solely on the perceived benefit of your proposals without giving thought to the costs. 

 

The bottom line is, you're a new shooter, probably in the game for a year or two, maybe 30-50 matches under your belt.  You've never run a club, probably never written stages, or not many of them.  Probably never served as a PM or higher at a major match, might not have ever shot outside the geographic area you're in. 

 

Time will cure all that, but for now, my 14 year old has tons more experience than you do in SASS.

 

Your statement that spotting can be helped, or hurt, by stage design is a truism, nothing new there.   With respect to your comment about humility, when you come up with a 'new' idea I'll certainly give it all the consideration it's due.  When you propose things that are already in existence, or which aren't feasible, I give those ideas the consideration they're due, close to zero.

 

Please point out where I said our current spotting is beyond improvement.  I didn't, I just took issue with your assessment of the severity of the problem and your proposed solutions to it.

 

As Allie mentioned, you already have the option to describe what you're going to do on a round count stage.  I almost always avail myself of that if I'm going to be doing something differently than those before me have done.  There's no need to create a requirement that shooters do so.

 

I've always felt that making someone angry by accident was a bad thing, but if I'm doing it on purpose I'm OK with that. 

 

If you're OK with the image you're portraying fine, I just hope you are aware of how you're coming across.

[Sedalia Dave]

All I want to know is who decided the pot needed to be stirred with an outboard motor? 

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

2 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I intended, and then edited my post to say "A STAGE requirement". 

Examples:

Written stage directions:

Any gun order, but rifle cannot be last.  Shooter will inform T. O. and spotters of chosen order in advance of the beep.  

 

Or announce your gun/ shooting order as a starting line.  TO can then pause, as needed for spotters to reposition themselves. 

 

Or  just say it in posse instructions.  

 

This is all pretty doable - - just consider spotting in designing stages and instructions.   

(This one really doesn't need to become a personalized argument.) 

Still a bad idea.

 

Some black powder shooters, when given the choice of how you can shoot a stage, may change their plan once the beep goes off based on what targets they can see (or not)

[McCandless]

We routinely have stages that have no order, just a round count, (e.g. 5 on X, 10 on X, or 20 on X, no triple taps, etc.)   Our spotters, R.O.'s and shooters don't seem to have a problem with that.   It is so common that 'd expect to see this at any time at local, state, or regional matches.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

I think this is a situation where less is more. The less you mandate, the more individualization and choices the shooter has. If someone wants guidance on how best to shoot the stage, they could ask.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

As a club's new stage writer, one of the biggest problems I am having is getting my big ideas to work given the limitations that I have. Stage writers are limited by existing stage front/bay design, available steel, stands, props, and so many other variables.

 

Luckily, I have the benefit of working with a board who are willing to move beyond the mantra of 'this is the way it has always been done.' By being willing to change some things, we have been able to buy new stands, build new tables, utilize old, forgotten props and build some new ones. All in an effort to give shooters more options when approaching a stage.

 

I am still trying to find the balance between great ideas and what is practical for the given stage, but some times you don't know until you try and set it up.

 

For instance, I have two adjacent bays with cowboy fronts on them. The bay on the left is built up with a boardwalk about 8" off the ground. The bay on the right has no boardwalk. That 8" boardwalk can make a big difference in what you can put behind pistol targets in order to see what you put behind. To make matters worse, the ground on that bay on the right slopes away downrange. You don't notice it just standing there, but when you are setting steel, you will!

 

Good stage writers cannot write stage instructions in a vacuum. In addition to thinking about how the shooter will shoot, you think about spotters, right and left handers, BP shooters, short shooters, tall shooters, older shooters, and so much more.

 

Once, I was setting steel sitting on a small stool. I was asked if we were going to be shooting from that stool. My answer was no, but it put my eyesight at the right height for a buckaroo who shoots with us. I was making sure he could see the targets.

 

Although some of the things in it are a bit dated, the SASS match design manual does have some good pointers in it. https://www.sassnet.com/Downloads/Match Dir Guide-Match-Adm-H.pdf

[Major BS Walker Regulator]

No order stages is just another way to have fun. Just don't over do it. 

 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

1 hour ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

As a club's new stage writer, one of the biggest problems I am having is getting my big ideas to work given the limitations that I have. Stage writers are limited by existing stage front/bay design, available steel, stands, props, and so many other variables.

 

Luckily, I have the benefit of working with a board who are willing to move beyond the mantra of 'this is the way it has always been done.' By being willing to change some things, we have been able to buy new stands, build new tables, utilize old, forgotten props and build some new ones. All in an effort to give shooters more options when approaching a stage.

 

I am still trying to find the balance between great ideas and what is practical for the given stage, but some times you don't know until you try and set it up.

 

For instance, I have two adjacent bays with cowboy fronts on them. The bay on the left is built up with a boardwalk about 8" off the ground. The bay on the right has no boardwalk. That 8" boardwalk can make a big difference in what you can put behind pistol targets in order to see what you put behind. To make matters worse, the ground on that bay on the right slopes away downrange. You don't notice it just standing there, but when you are setting steel, you will!

 

Good stage writers cannot write stage instructions in a vacuum. In addition to thinking about how the shooter will shoot, you think about spotters, right and left handers, BP shooters, short shooters, tall shooters, older shooters, and so much more.

 

Once, I was setting steel sitting on a small stool. I was asked if we were going to be shooting from that stool. My answer was no, but it put my eyesight at the right height for a buckaroo who shoots with us. I was making sure he could see the targets.

 

Although some of the things in it are a bit dated, the SASS match design manual does have some good pointers in it. https://www.sassnet.com/Downloads/Match Dir Guide-Match-Adm-H.pdf

We agree.  What you described is exactly what I do for every Club match.   But I also look carefully at locations of targets, shooting positions, target array widths, etc., in relation to available locations, windows, etc for spotters.  If you don't specify the course/order of fire, you need to set the design so that spotters can be in position to see at the right time.   That's all I started out to say here.   Everyone jumped in to say how unnecessary that is.  

Whatever.   

I feel like I accidentally hijacked yet another OP here.   I apologize to the original author for that.  I really did not expect such a surge of objection or adrenalin to such a simple statement. 

I do apologize. 

Since everyone seems to agree that it's all been hashed over previously, then let's just be done with it.   

[Captain Bill Burt]

6 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Organizationally, we make no effort at training or credentialing spotters.   Anyone who is willing to hold the flag or baton ends up doing that important job.  Short handed posses even pressure folks into spotting, even knowing their eyesight and or hearing may be impaired.    But spotters are just as important to our game as Posse Leaders and Timer Operators.  When spotter calls are bad, it ceases to be fun shooting for everybody.   But shooters politely just accept it and move on, or maybe never come back. 

 

Writing free wheeling and complex stages with no target order may be fun shooting, but it greatly adds to the spotting challenges and likelihood of errors.   

 

6 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Does anybody check RO credentials for spotters, in practice? 

Do the RO 1 trainers check hearing or eyesight as a part of the class? 

 

I wonder what kind of training and credentialing happens with professional baseball referees, or other sports officials-- just wondering.   I bet it is substantial, along with accountability reviews. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

That might be considered as a stage requirement (shooter declaring how he plans to shoot the stage CBB), so spotters know where to position themselves and what to watch for.  Nothing is more frustrating than to shoot an innovative course on a stage, and be given misses or a P,  because spotters or the T. O. don't understand what you did.  I'd say 75% or more of those cases never get appealed up the line.  And even under appeal, there is no data to review--just he said-she said stuff.  

 

4 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

To believe that our current spotting reliability is beyond improvement seems more argumentative than constructive to us "inexperienced" players. 

 

Recall that all I originally said was that it (spotting) can be helped by good stage design and hindered by poor design.   Sorry if you found that observation to be arrogant and offensive.  I meant it to be constructive, if that is possible here. 

 

  .  

 

36 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

We agree.  What you described is exactly what I do for every Club match.   But I also look carefully at locations of targets, shooting positions, target array widths, etc., in relation to available locations, windows, etc for spotters.  If you don't specify the course/order of fire, you need to set the design so that spotters can be in position to see at the right time.   That's all I started out to say here.   Everyone jumped in to say how unnecessary that is.  

Whatever.   

I feel like I accidentally hijacked yet another OP here.   I apologize to the original author for that.  I really did not expect such a surge of objection or adrenalin to such a simple statement. 

I do apologize. 

Since everyone seems to agree that it's all been hashed over previously, then let's just be done with it.   

Right.  That's all you were saying and lots of people jumped in and said it was unnecessary.  Could you please point out one person on this thread who said that designing stages so spotters can be in the right position is unnecessary?  Just one person.   

 

When you have to resort to straw men it's a bad sign.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

I just wanna know what the penalty would be for not engaging the targets in the announced order... Cuz that NEVER happens

 

And I'm still waiting for an new idea that hasn't been brought upon and discussed 15 billion times.

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

I want to know who will administer the hearing and vision tests at RO classes, how long that will take and what it will cost.

[Tyrel Cody]

I'm kind of impressed that Phantom and CBB are on the same side...

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Just now, Captain Bill Burt said:

I want to know who will administer the hearing and vision tests at RO classes, how long that will take and what it will cost.

And I think we need to add flogging as a punishment for missing a call.

 

That'll get is a bunch of people willing to be spotters.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Just now, Tyrel Cody said:

I'm kind of impressed that Phantom and CBB are on the same side...

We agree with a lot... Doesn't mean we like each other

[Captain Bill Burt]

2 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

We agree with a lot... Doesn't mean we like each other

I think somewhere in your tiny little black heart there’s a soft spot for an old, bald, slightly pudgy, two faced, stoopid, ignorant cowboy!

[Captain Bill Burt]

17 minutes ago, Tyrel Cody said:

I'm kind of impressed that Phantom and CBB are on the same side...

It may be a sign of the apocalypse.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

9 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I think somewhere in your tiny little black heart there’s a soft spot for an old, bald, slightly pudgy, two faced, stoopid, ignorant cowboy!

 

You left out 'hungry'........

OLG

[Tyrel Cody]

19 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I think somewhere in your tiny little black heart there’s a soft spot for an old, bald, slightly pudgy, two faced, stoopid, ignorant cowboy!

 

I don't recall anyone calling you old or pudgy...

[Captain Bill Burt]

2 minutes ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

I don't recall anyone calling you old or pudgy...

I came up with that myself!  If needed I have pictures to prove it!

[Tennessee williams]

9 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I came up with that myself!  If needed I have pictures to prove it!

No photos or video evidence will be allowed...

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

And I think we need to add flogging as a punishment for missing a call.

 

That'll get is a bunch of people willing to be spotters.

I sometimes carry a quirt. I never thought of using it for that purpose.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

3 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

I sometimes carry a quirt. I never thought of using it for that purpose.

My hat band is a quirt...I'm prepared.

 

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

2 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I feel like I accidentally hijacked yet another OP here.   I apologize to the original author for that.  I really did not expect such a surge of objection or adrenalin to such a simple statement. 

Hmmm, "yet another"? maybe that should be taken into consideration.

The simple fact that so many had something to say about your opinions should make you think...

Jussayin 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Right.  That's all you were saying and lots of people jumped in and said it was unnecessary.  Could you please point out one person on this thread who said that designing stages so spotters can be in the right position is unnecessary?  Just one person.   

 

When you have to resort to straw men it's a bad sign.

From the above, are you saying that everyone agrees with me, and I'm just being combative here?  If so, then what is the issue?

 

I suggest you start reading at the point where I originally entered on this thread, and read below it.   Just about every one of your highlighted sentences was challenged by one or more of you, usually with a dose of childish sarcastic insult added.   I'm not going to go back and requote everyone's statements.  You can read the thread more easily yourself.   And I'm realizing that whatever I write will just stimulate more sarcasm, and argument from a handful of you here, ad nauseum, so what would be the point? 

 

I'm hoping the whole array of posts here goes much further, and is read by the large majority of the 30,000 or so grassroots CAS shooters who never or rarely post here.   With a few exceptions, they, not the few posting here, are the ones who can and will consider and put folks thoughts and suggestions into practice at their local club level.    

 

 

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

18 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I'm not going to go back and requote everyone's statements.  You can read the thread more easily yourself.   And I'm realizing that whatever I write will just stimulate more sarcasm, and argument from a handful of you here, ad nauseum, so what would be the point? 

 

I'm hoping the whole array of posts here goes much further, and is read by the large majority of the 30,000 or so grassroots CAS shooters who never or rarely post here.

No, but you WILL continue to press your conclusions and attempt to enforce your point, no matter how many disagree with you.

 

And I hope many more read as well, then more will see YOUR ad nauseum bla-bla, bla-bla, bla-bla...

 

I, too, appreciate your enthusiasm but sometimes it's better to sit back and absorb rather than press lesser-informed opinions.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

24 minutes ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

Hmmm, "yet another"? maybe that should be taken into consideration.

The simple fact that so many had something to say about your opinions should make you think...

Jussayin 

"So many" actually turns out to be about 1-1/2 dozen of the same people who always seem to find excuse for argument.   The vast majority of posters here don't weigh in on these verbal contests.  Moreover, most CAS shooters never post here, but many do read our writings.  In conversations I have recently had, CAS folks rolled their eyes at the rudeness and closed-mindedness, and say they don't bother with the Wire.     

   

 

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

And... my point is made. Thank you

[Dusty Devil Dale]

5 minutes ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

No, but you WILL continue to press your conclusions and attempt to enforce your point, no matter how many disagree with you.

 

A half dozen posts ago, I asked to simply let it rest.   It was folks like you who apparently wanted to continue to press your point.  I'm fine with just agreeing to disagree.   Nobody wants to spend their evening reading this stuff.  So let's just let it rest. 

[Krazy Kajun]

To get back to the original subject.....two interesting and a little different stages that I ran across this weekend.

 

1. For both rifle and pistol shooting positions there were 3 targets, instructions said place at least 3 rounds on each target with no triple taps.  Most folks on the posse scratched their heads a little but came up with some interesting shooting combinations.

 

2. Rifle and pistols were shot from behind the same table. Round count was 10 pistol and 9 rifle. There were 4 targets in a row all the same distance away.  Instructions said shoot an 1,8,7,3 round count stage(not a sweep) using rifles and pistols such that the first target got 1 round, the second got 8 rounds, the third got 7 rounds and the fourth target got  3 rounds.  That stage had several combinations and it was a little hard to spot but you could do it.  When I was spotting I started asking each shooter how they "intended" to shoot the stage so that I could follow their various combinations being used.  It was a fun stage and one that I hadn't seen before....I liked it.

 

Kajun