Yet another selfless contribution to the FT and AGN community

[AirNGasman]

Friends, I gift you (all) the following tool to immensely reduce the amount of clutter, clamour, confusion and contention on/in the Field Target section of this forum. Given the sheer volume of (often contentious) debates over AAFTA rules, why this or that one exists, and especially, HOW THEY COME ABOUT, this tool I gift you (all) can be used to abort many, if not most, such rules threads soon as they raise their ugly heads.

Of course that assumes One cares to abort ugly rules debates, and understands a simple outline format. Regardless, feel free to copy and save the outline below, and wield it as an effective learning tool/weapon as needed.

You're welcome.


1. A potential rule change is communicated to the BoG through email by:
a. a club,
b. an individual,
c. a Board Member, or
d. an issue that arises during a match that requires the BoG’s attention.

2. The potential rule change or issue is presented to the BoG along with any information supporting the argument for a rule change.

3. The BoG meets and discusses the potential rule change or issue.
a. If the BoG determines that no rule changes are required, the issue is closed and the club or individual who suggested the rule is informed of the decision.
b. If a rule change is needed, the BoG develops the rule change wording.

4. Once the BoG has the wording for the proposed rule change, it will be sent out to the member clubs in good standing via email along with a description of why the rule change is being considered.

5. The communication to the clubs should include a rationale, “From: rule” and “To: rule” format, so they can easily see the change being proposed.

6. The clubs are given 30 days to respond via email directly to the BoG.

7. Suggestions by the member clubs will be discussed by the BoG and the proposed rule change will be updated accordingly.

8. After the club updates, the proposed rule change will be shared to the AAFTA email subscription list.

9. The airgun community is given 15 days to respond via email directly to the BoG. Posts on any of the forums about the rule change will be ignored.

10. Suggestions by the airgun community will be discussed by the BoG, and the proposed rule change will be updated accordingly.

11. The final proposed rule change will be voted on by the BoG. If the rule change passes the BoG vote:
a. The rule is formally announced to member clubs in good standing (so competitors / industry can prepare for upcoming changes)
b. The rule is added to the following calendar year rule book and is effective after the Nationals


To close, I feel compelled to confess that, having been involved in this AAFTA rules-making/rules changes process for many years, I've simply been too lazy to go to aafta.org, locate the proper link to the rule-book ('handbook' in AAFTA vernacular), comb through the 28 page rule-book ('handbook' in AAFTA vernacular) to locate the outline quoted above, copy and paste it to this forum; until now. I beg your forgiveness for my laziness, and offer this post in reparation(s).

Happy Shooting,
Ron

P.S.- In proof-reading this post for errors, I visited aafta.org . Sure enough, I mis-stated the length of the AAFTA rule-book ('handbook' in AAFTA vernacular). It's 31 pages.

.

 

[Scotchmo]

Ron,

Our club has not been an AAFTA member for a couple of years now, so I no longer get involved in the process. What you outlined above would be great if that’s how it always worked. But there are instances of rule changes being snuck in without following the procedure.

 

[Solo1]

Ya like when it was ok to shoot slugs then suddenly not ok to shoot slugs

 

[Motorhead]

Ya like when it was ok to shoot slugs then suddenly not ok to shoot slugs

This is correct

Tho in rebuttal as a MD and one who fixes / maintains the SVFTC targets ... Slugs Did more damage than pellets shot at equal power. It was a needed rule that honestly was a good call by the BOG

 

[Scotchmo]

I remember a few of the other instances. Here’s a gem that was snuck into the 2018 rule book:

Almost certainly directed at me. I told them why/when I had my foot on the seat, and what would happen if they left that rule in place. The rule book had already been released, but for one reason or another, they revised the rule book and took it out. A pertinent question is why did they add it in the first place?

 

[AirNGasman]

A pertinent question is why did they add it in the first place?

Though I expected to be able to provide clarity on many questions bound to arise in this thread, afraid I can't on that one. Could speculate, but won't.

BTW, the other Scott makes good points (above) about slugs.

And FWIW, this thread is/was intended to demonstrate to all those suggesting the BoG is a politburo... that it isn't. As I often say about my own quirks, foibles and idiosyncrasies, "there are methods to my madnesses". I suspect the BoG's, as well.

Cool; I just figured out why I'm often compelled to defend the BoG!

Truth is, I defend anyone I know is falsely accused. In fact, have done so even for my worst nemesis. FYI- he was banned from AAFTA field target some years ago, based on preponderance of evidence.
.

 

[Scotchmo]

Ron,
There may be a process that the BOG follows - sometimes. Bottom line is that they are not required to follow that process, and they often don’t. For better or worse.

You outlined the process. But later admitted that there is no clarity on a typical example that did not follow the process. And there are many more examples lacking clarity. You, I, and many others are left to speculate. And this forum is a great place to do so.

 

[Arzrover]

"BTW, the other Scott makes good points (above) about slugs."

I agree with that as well, Ron, but the MOST damage to our targets was CPH's @ 20 ft lb. The closer targets were always peened into funnels and had to be hammered back or welded after a couple of years of abuse... brand didn't seem to matter except HOW LONG that took.

Bob

 

[Airgunoregon]

Ron,
There may be a process that the BOG follows - sometimes. Bottom line is that they are not required to follow that process, and they often don’t. For better or worse.

You outlined the process. But later admitted that there is no clarity on a typical example that did not follow the process. And there are many more examples lacking clarity. You, I, and many others are left to speculate. And this forum is a great place to do so.

And why is it that this process for a rule change is not followed EVERYTIME ???? Can we make it into a LAW and not a choice for the BOG???

Look at all the issues that might have been avoided if the BOG had put out the rule change about scoring the Grand Prix to all the clubs for review and consideration.... IF that process was used to consider the new point scoring system.. before enacting it without testing it first.

 

[Tpatner412]

And why is it that this process for a rule change is not followed EVERYTIME ???? Can we make it into a LAW and not a choice for the BOG???

Look at all the issues that might have been avoided if the BOG had put out the rule change about scoring the Grand Prix to all the clubs for review and consideration.... IF that process was used to consider the new point scoring system.. before enacting it without testing it first.

Maybe it’s unclear from Ron’s post, but the BOG sent this to clubs yesterday as their new methodology for rule changes going forward. This was not in place before then. Im glad to see something formalized from the BOG for these processes.

 

[Airgunoregon]

This years Grand Prix scores are really not fair to the competitors.

This years scores depended on whether or not the match director knew or didn't know about how important it was to set a course that was set for the most possible points a shooter could get.

That was not the intention of the BOG but that was the outcome of the decision and all the clubs were not informed about the importance of the rule change.

Hopefully, all the match directors are now informed and will set courses accordingly in the future if the rule change remains.

Competitors will soon learn to ask the MD what the troyer is expected to be if the wind blows of the match they are attending... and attend or not depending on the answer.

I think the intention of our well intentioned BOG was good. The old rule did have some flaws especially for the piston classes, but the new rule will only be fair when ALL the match directors set optimum GP scoring courses.

 

[Scotchmo]

The “process” is for club initiated proposals. The most pertinent parts:

3a. If the BoG determines that no rule changes are required, the issue is closed…

3b. If a rule change is needed, the BoG develops the rule change wording…

11. The final proposed rule change will be voted on by the BoG.

So the BoG is the ultimate decider. Proposals such as combining Hunter and Open, allowing high mag scopes in Hunter, allowing sticks in Open, an official Freestyle,…very unlikely that they would make it past step 3a. So the clubs will never know if such a proposal has been submitted.

There is no way currently to force a referendum, even if a majority of the clubs support a proposal.

I’m assuming BoG initiated proposals are handled in house, so no need to follow the process?

My opinion - it’s best to have a small group such as the BoG making the important decisions. As long as they are savvy. So when you get a chance to vote for BoG members, choose carefully.

 

[Garrettkq]

Friends, I gift you (all) the following tool to immensely reduce the amount of clutter, clamour, confusion and contention on/in the Field Target section of this forum. Given the sheer volume of (often contentious) debates over AAFTA rules, why this or that one exists, and especially, HOW THEY COME ABOUT, this tool I gift you (all) can be used to abort many, if not most, such rules threads soon as they raise their ugly heads.

Of course that assumes One cares to abort ugly rules debates, and understands a simple outline format. Regardless, feel free to copy and save the outline below, and wield it as an effective learning tool/weapon as needed.

You're welcome.

To close, I feel compelled to confess that, having been involved in this AAFTA rules-making/rules changes process for many years, I've simply been too lazy to go to aafta.org, locate the proper link to the rule-book ('handbook' in AAFTA vernacular), comb through the 28 page rule-book ('handbook' in AAFTA vernacular) to locate the outline quoted above, copy and paste it to this forum; until now. I beg your forgiveness for my laziness, and offer this post in reparation(s).

Happy Shooting,
Ron

P.S.- In proof-reading this post for errors, I visited aafta.org . Sure enough, I mis-stated the length of the AAFTA rule-book ('handbook' in AAFTA vernacular). It's 31 pages.

.

Ron... Hahahah "gifting". "wield it" LOL, Dude, the BOG just released this yesterday.

 

[Garrettkq]

Being a part of the Association provides the opportunity to be involved in the rules process. The BoG understands the significance of transparency. Although most rules are pretty straightforward, some are complex. Even though every rule is pretty well vetted for months before making a decision, this new process allows Members of the Association to contribute to the collaboration. Every decision will always result in an opinion. And we all know there is no shortage of them on the forums. This NEW (note 'new', ron LOL) process hopes to streamline valid, well-thought-out perspectives and proposals and hopes to filter out some of the reactive emotions typically found online while simultaneously tapping into the great resources that can be found in our FT community. This is not to diminish forum discussions, however, as they are crucial for collaboration. This new system allows for an open, concise, and streamlined process for actionable items.

 

[Scotchmo]

…. This new system allows for an open, concise, and streamlined process for actionable items.

Garret,

Are new rule changes that are developed in-house by the BoG (not submitted by a member club) also going to be sent out for a 30 day review by the member clubs?

 

[Garrettkq]

Garret,

Are new rule changes that are developed in-house by the BoG (not submitted by a member club) also going to be sent out for a 30 day review by the member clubs?

Great question; I believe that's the intent.

 

[Franklink]

So is this the right place to point out that 5/6 governors are WFTF shooters?
And just for good measure, there's also a WFTF rep in addition to that 83% majority of the governors.

Asking for a friend.

 

[Garrettkq]

So is this the right place to point out that 5/6 governors are WFTF shooters?
And just for good measure, there's also a WFTF rep in addition to that 83% majority of the governors.

Asking for a friend.

Cole,

I don't understand your post. Please explain.

 

[Franklink]

Cole,

I don't understand your post. Please explain.

With this in mind.....


I'll preface this by stating that I understand you guys are volunteer and that you're voted in. And furthermore, I personally want no part of the politics. Somehow I'm already far more aware of all the airgun community politics than I wish I was. Blissfully unaware is where I wish I could have stayed.

With that being said.....

11. The final proposed rule change will be voted on by the BoG[/I].

So the BoG is the ultimate decider. Proposals such as combining Hunter and Open, allowing high mag scopes in Hunter, allowing sticks in Open, an official Freestyle,…very unlikely that they would make it past step 3a. So the clubs will never know if such a proposal has been submitted.

There is no way currently to force a referendum, even if a majority of the clubs support a proposal.

Seems there should be some Hunter class representation, when looking at participation.

Running the PA Cup numbers I'm seeing 59 names listed in Hunter (65 in Hunter if we do PCP and piston) and 38 in all the other classes combined, and that being generous and not just looking at WFTF versus Hunter numbers.

Run the AZ State match numbers (not on the scale of PA Cup, I just happen to have easy access to them)....15 Hunter and 15 everything else.

So, if Hunter class shooters are 50-60% of all field target shooters but not one of the BOG members who have the final say are Hunter members.......poor Hunter class doesn't even get a "Hunter class rep"

And I'd wager that WFTF numbers are actually inflated right now with Worlds. Come December I'd expect most clubs will have a couple go back to Open or Hunter where they came from.

In summary, Hunter class is the majority (and not by a small margin) yet has no representation in the current BOG.

And again, I'm not announcing my candidacy nor any intent (couldn't pay me to do it actually). Just sharing some observations.

 

[Airgunoregon]

With this in mind.....
View attachment 500476

I'll preface this by stating that I understand you guys are volunteer and that you're voted in. And furthermore, I personally want no part of the politics. Somehow I'm already far more aware of all the airgun community politics than I wish I was. Blissfully unaware is where I wish I could have stayed.

With that being said.....



Seems there should be some Hunter class representation, when looking at participation.

Running the PA Cup numbers I'm seeing 59 names listed in Hunter (65 in Hunter if we do PCP and piston) and 38 in all the other classes combined, and that being generous and not just looking at WFTF versus Hunter numbers.

Run the AZ State match numbers (not on the scale of PA Cup, I just happen to have easy access to them)....15 Hunter and 15 everything else.

So, if Hunter class shooters are 50-60% of all field target shooters but not one of the BOG members who have the final say are Hunter members.......poor Hunter class doesn't even get a "Hunter class rep"

And I'd wager that WFTF numbers are actually inflated right now with Worlds. Come December I'd expect most clubs will have a couple go back to Open or Hunter where they came from.

In summary, Hunter class is the majority (and not by a small margin) yet has no representation in the current BOG.

And again, I'm not announcing my candidacy nor any intent (couldn't pay me to do it actually). Just sharing some observations.

Possibly, the AAFTA BOG needs more members. There is certainly a lot... maybe too much work to do for 6 volunteers. More BOG members.. maybe 12 would increase the chance of Hunter class shooters running and getting elected. I would also bet that your instinct that a lot of WFTF shooters will go back to Hunter after the worlds... I might be one.

But also consider that all the BOG members at one time might have competed in the Hunter class as well and are not as bias or un informed about the class as one might think..