Paintball

[10-shot kid]

The cigar selection for this post is the pigtail lancero Rocky Patel Summer Blend

I decided to write this critique of the new "group responsibility doctrine" (I made that up :P) after a long time paintball friend of mine from IPR (interceptor) PMed me saying he was moving on due to the high level of cheating in his area. Up until I got this message I didn't really take note of the increasing dishonesty on the field, it's never bothered me personally too much as it's pretty much gone up at a very slight incline. Put a frog in boiling water and it'll jump out, slowly heat the water to a boil and you'll have some tasty legs to eat... or so I hear. I also figured it would be a good way to indirectly plug my new bit on mousetrap radio (go listen nao!).



A new trend I've seen lately on the scenario scene has been holding teams and sometimes even sides responsible for the actions of individuals on the teams/sides at the game. I want to say Viper was the one that started this trend with the "if someone on your team makes a boo-boo your whole team made a boo-boo" for the first run at the VIP game but I'm honestly not completely sure. For the sake of simple deffinition this doctrine is when someone on a side/team cheats and/or commits a saftey violation the side/team is penalized. This can done through two diffrent methods; voluntarily and mandated. I think that the common application of this doctrine, that it's both mandated and holds teams/sides responsible for individuals actions is flawed.

Reasons and cause for the new doctine

The main cause of this new policy is that cheating is becoming more prevalant in scenario than it has been before. I'm not hazzarding to say that cheating didn't exist back in "the good old days" or that there wasn't some games where cheating was bad but it's certainly on the proverbial incline. This increase in cheating shows more and more the flawed soft underbelly of scenario, you can't possibly have refs all over the field, ever. I don't feel like going into the well known fact that reffing in scenario can never be as "eyes on" as it is in rec. games and tourny so don't be obnoxious and go "no wai!"

The reasoning behind this policy is that by making the players responsible for other players they will be more likely to police their own. The idea of promoting community enforcement is a good one, even real life law cannot function without participation in it's enforcement by the citizenry. I agree with this reasoning, as I said in my recruitment thread for blackcats sept 11-14th game "I believe cheating will continue to plague our game until both the people who practice it and the people who allow it to continue get the boot."

The flaw in the doctrines premise; the cause

I think the flaws in the common application of this new doctrine are disturbing albiet understandable in my personal opinion. The doctrines premise is that personal responisbility has ceased to exist or sharply declined on the paintball field thus cheating has proliferated. Popular opinion, and perhaps the reality of today, is that personal responsiblity has gone down in general in American culture as of late. This belief has transfered from everyday life to paintball by perception; many players from all over the US have told me this, producers have mentioned this on both the puplic forum and to me, and media wise the most recent issue of Jungle had an article by the hunter where he complained about it.

I disagree that personal responsibility has gone down on the paintball field though. Look at saftey for example. Anywhere in the US, bar a select few fields, if a player takes off or lifts their mask the players around him will correct the mistake. Now it could be argued that the players have a personal stake in the saftey of the field, from the game being stopped to medivac the player to the field being hurt by the players eye getting shot out but I don't think that 99% of the time this is the first thing that enters our mind. We're more careful in cronographing our guns than in times past in my personal experience. We're far, far, far more observant of the saftey of our airsource. The reason for this is that it has been pounded into just about every paintball players head that safety is everyones responsibility.

I think the reason for the rise in cheating on the field is that new players entering paintball is not that they have lower personal responsibility than before. It's them not understanding what being a responsible person on the field entails. They think that while it might not be ok for the dude a couple bunkers away to cheat it's not on them to correct the player. For some reason the belief that stopping other people cheating is the players responsibility didn't transfer from the older generation to ours.

my point

The problem therefore is not the output but the input. You can blame this on whatever you want, I think that the reasons are so personally based and varried that it's rather irrelivant to fixing the problem. The new doctrine attempts to adjust the imput on a group basis by saying if your group cheats, you get stung, you have no choice. This is perhaps good looking on paper but this manner of attempting this policy causes limitations which are counterindicative to a soultion.

There is no real way to get this doctrine to work on a game side v. side basis. The main reason for this is that your average reasonable person will not agree that he is responsible for actions of others he could not possibly have control over. A player who doesn't yet know the game will most likely percieve that if dude X cheats it's not his fault and he doesn't deserve to get whacked so he better try and distract the ref or get him out of his sides area. You also get a lot of pissed of people when you try this which is bad.

Therefore your stuck with making teams responsible for themselves. It's someones choice to be represented by a team, they have some controll of it's conduct, and they can leave a team. There are two fundamental problems with this though. First your sending out the message that players are responsible only for their group. Secound your totally neglecting the group that needs to be educated, the new masses, as they generally arn't on a team.

conclusion

These flaws in the manditory application of the doctrine are fatal in my personal opinion. The doctrine itself is good though, community enforcement is nessecary for a good game. When I went to military school for a year there was a simple code of conduct that could easily transfer to the paintball field; A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal nor tollerate those who do. I adopted this code to the game I'm generaling simply stating ""In accordance with the rules written by Black Cat for the September Doomsday Warrior Scenario; I will not cheat nor tolerate those that do."

You can't stop the cause, be it lowered personal responsibility, lack of ethics, or just wanting to win so bad you can't help but be a douche. You can attack the fundamental reason, that cheating is allowed to prosper, we the players allow it to. By making it voluntary you avoid the "I was forced to sign that so it's meaningless" arguement that people who's views need to be changed hold valid. By limiting it's scope only to what the player personally does and can affect your making it not a group responsibility but a personal group responsibility.

Of course it's easy to argue that the main flaw with this application of the doctrine is that the dishonest people won't sign on. That's fine. It's fine if even only 25% of the players of the field sign on. Because that secound part "nor tolerate those that do" is the kicker. It's the part that makes people lift themselves up to the higher standard that we used to have. Even better the existance of such a voluntary doctrine at any game will tell any new or inexperienced player to our side of the game that "this exists, this is the standard." Instead of just hoping he picks it up somehow.

discuss

[Surge-NS]

I disagree with the doctrine for the reason that especially in scenario, punishment from on high for an offense a member of your side commits is unfair to the players who were not present to prevent it.

Maybe the 12 players with the guy could theoretically get punished for not preventing or discouraging the cheater from doing his dirty thing, but a player a quarter mile away should not feel the punishment for something he neither knew about nor was able to assist in preventing. This breeds rumors and contempt, and the last thing scenario needs is more drama of that type.

A lot of new players have this idea that it is the referees responsibility to stop them from cheating, and not their own. This is a direct carry-over from the poor habits of some tournament paintball players. The best and safest tourney and scenario teams are the ones that police themselves.

Add: The waiver you sign at most games including Viper's says that you read and understand the rules, and consent to being removed if you cannot follow them.

[AngelChaser]

Originally Posted by 10-shot kid

the existence of such a voluntary doctrine at any game will tell any new or inexperienced player to our side of the game that "this exists, this is the standard." Instead of just hoping he picks it up somehow.

This is exactly what is needed. ^^

The ruleset Viper implemented at the VIP game was tailored specifically for that game. It was an invitational, with some of the top teams in scenario paintball, and was designed to foster team-policing. If one of yours was caught in the act, your team captain was warned that his players were acting in an unsportsmanlike manner and if it were to continue it would result in expulsion from the event.

Like you, I do not believe that this style of enforcement would work in a more traditional scenario environ. There are simply too many walk-on players, or players with no team affiliation.

Lead by example has always been the best way to keep the cheating to a minimum. This includes pushing that 'gray area' of the rules.

[russc]

I ref at a rec field and I occasionally have to deal with cheating. The problem is that refs can't be everywhere and can't see everything, so I deal with what I see and make examples out of the ones I can catch. If someone starts hollering mid-game about some guy wiping, I'll usually ignore it.

On the other hand, if I catch someone wiping I boot them for the day and tell them I'd rather not see them at the field again. There are plenty of other players out there to take their place.

[Viper Paintball]

Viper Invitational Paintball is the only event I've tried this at and, as stated above, it was introduced to raise the bar a bit on responsibility and accountability. As this was a different crowd I felt that it was a good plan, and I think everyone agreed and appreciated it. From the reports I was getting from the field it seemed to be one of the most sportsmanlike games most of the players and refs had ever attended.

It was also to make sure that, while Team X got invited for five slots, they needed to make sure that they didn’t bring any “iffy” players along to fill one of the slots.

But, note, that it was team accountability...not an entire side. I have had that suggested to me before and I never felt it was a good idea.

But I think that, as 10 Shot said, it all comes down to individuals. I can tell you frankly that I have shot players I didn't know from Adam that were standing within eyesight of me and that I saw, blatantly, wipe off a hit. That act is usually followed by them yelling "Hey man, I'm on your side!" to which I reply "Not if you're going to wipe hits like that! Hey! I need a ref over here!"

Does that make me an arrogant, self-righteous a**hole? I don't know. I do know that I have plenty of reasons for my actions:
* I won't play alongside those who cheat
* I don't want to be part of a cheating-assisted victory
* When someone cheats I'd prefer EVERYONE around them know they did, and that there are players who won't stand by and let it happen
* It tickles the crap outta me to do it (I hate cheaters)

At Viper events there are also a number of “Player Refs” who carry ID stating that they are designated player refs. These are our “undercover cops” who monitor safety and sportsmanship. They can’t sign off on missions or anything else that has to do with that end of the game, but they will sure as he** nail anyone who is cheating and bring them to a ref or myself, or the ref to them, or at least follow them until they can direct a ref to them and let the ref know what happened.

But, no, you won’t likely see me enacting any sort of penalty for an entire side due to the actions of one player…or even an entire team.

However, the most prudent advice I ever give team captains is to watch who you let wear your colors. A team can work hard for years on building a strong reputations as stand up balers, only to have someone loan their cousin a jersey for the weekend so he can come play paintball for the first time, only to have that cousin wipe paint and run his mouth all weekend. No one will care that “it was his first time” or that “he isn’t really on the team.” All that will matter is that he was wearing a Team Whatever jersey and playing like a jerk.

PS: By the way, Russ...you should keep your hand on your pump handle when you fire. If you don't the bolt kicks back and you lose some of your air (and velocity) through blowback.

[russc]

Originally Posted by Viper Paintball

Does that make me an arrogant, self-righteous a**hole? I don't know. I do know that I have plenty of reasons for my actions:
* I won't play alongside those who cheat
* I don't want to be part of a cheating-assisted victory
* When someone cheats I'd prefer EVERYONE around them know they did, and that there are players who won't stand by and let it happen
* It tickles the crap outta me to do it (I hate cheaters)


PS: By the way, Russ...you should keep your hand on your pump handle when you fire. If you don't the bolt kicks back and you lose some of your air (and velocity) through blowback.

Words to play by!

As for bolt kickback - I've always found that my Sheridans (and Snipers) shoot better when I don't hold the pump handle. This KP doesn't blow back because it has a big *** Macmurray handle on it, but the chrono results are inconclusive at best.

[Dave Cameron]

Group responsibility is a good idea for teams and those folks who are "into" scenario, but if somebody's just an a-hole who goes to scenarios just because there's lots of folks to shoot at, they really won't care if their team is docked points or if folks on their side don't like them much. There should be some group punishment as you mentioned, but it should also include sit out time or expulsion for the offender depending on the circumstances.

[10-shot kid]

Viper it wasn't ment at all as a dig on you, looking back on my post I can see how someone could take it that way though. VIP was a special enviroment obviously, the problem is with promoters copying you, as we know promoters generally do, and incorrectly applying the idea. I was simply trying to give credit for the inspiration of this post to you and Norwich.

I'll add a disclaimer at the bottom of all the threads I posted if you think it's prudent. My b.

Surge-NS: Your basically agreeing with exactly what I wrote

[russc]

Originally Posted by Dave Cameron

Group responsibility is a good idea for teams and those folks who are "into" scenario, but if somebody's just an a-hole who goes to scenarios just because there's lots of folks to shoot at, they really won't care if their team is docked points or if folks on their side don't like them much. There should be some group punishment as you mentioned, but it should also include sit out time or expulsion for the offender depending on the circumstances.

Expulsion! Why bother coddling some nimrod who will probably just go back out and be a little more careful as to who he cheats in front of?

[Viper Paintball]

Don't worry 10 Shot. No harm, no foul. I didn't take it as a dig at me at all.

As far as "sit out time or expulsion for the offender depending on the circumstances" here is the first paragraph from from the official Viper Scenario Rules:

The second signature on your registration form acknowledges that you know, and understand, the rules contained herein. It is important for reasons of your own safety and enjoyment, as well as that of your fellow players, that you know these rules and abide by them.

And a quote from the registration form:

By signing this form, I hereby swear that I have read the rules provided and will abide by them as well as help others to abide by them. I will conduct myself in a sportsmanlike manner and play fair and honest at all times. (snip) I understand that violations of the rules or unsportsmanlike conduct may also result in my ejection from the event and property without refund.

Additionally, all players have a laminated badge that they must wear, or have with them, at all times. It has a place at the bottom that says "Judge" and, beneath that, a "1" and a "2." Any violation of safety, rules, or sportsmanship will usually earn you a "judge punch" which means the judge takes a hole punch and punches out the number. There are only two. Therefore it's simply a matter of "three strikes and you're out."

Yeah...I'm pretty big on maintaining the proper environment, and expecting the players to help. There is one entire state that I have completely abstained from playing in due to the fact that the overall attitude has gone to hell. The seasoned players act like , which means that the young players see them as examples of "how folks play" and act accordingly.

Last year I had someone who was to command a game in that state offer to fly me out and take care of my lodging, food, admission, paint, and everything else if I would play for him. It was hard to explain that I simply refuse to play in that state. He knows me, so he understood. But that is how distasteful I find the behavior of paintballers in that state. I simply cannot enjoy playing, even with a complete "free ride," if most every player follows every string of balls he throws with "Get off my field you cheating piece of !" I have, literally, heard them shouting that. I even had one tell me (he didn't recognize me) that I needed to "read up on the GSRP" (General Scenario Rules of Play). I told him that was pretty laughable since I had co-authored them.

Don't ask what state I'm talking about. For business and political reasons I won't say. If you've ever travelled there to play you already know. If you go there you will find out.