PB Fantasy Governing Committee [Archive] - Automags.Org Online Forums

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 10:50 AM

Let's fantasize for a moment and say that the industry has finally seen the need to establish a Governing Committee that would establish rules and standards and have the necessary enforcement capabilities to make their rules stick (like I said, fantasize ;) ).

Here's my vote.

League - Chuck Hedsch and Paul Sattler
Manufacturer - Tom Kaye, Gino Postorivo, Craig Miller and Dennis Tippmann
ASTM Sub-Com - Bud Orr and JJ Brookshire
Field Operators - Paul Fogal (Skirmish USA) and Debra Dione Kriesche (SP?)
Engineers - Simon Stephens and Dave Zingham
Players - 2 Chosen from a pool provided by the NPPL, NXL, PSP.
International - Laurent Hamet and Robbo
PB Press - Bill Mills and Jessica Sparks

Here's the questions:
Who would like to see on that Committee?
Would you trust the future in their hands?
Would you pay an extra $1 sur charge at your fields to fund this organization.

Muzikman

01-25-2005, 10:57 AM

Hmmm...interesting. I would have to say you got some good people in there. There would be a few that I changed, but I'm going to have to think about it.

MindJob

01-25-2005, 11:01 AM

Mel - you seem to be the one with all of the good ideas...
I say we just make things easy and vote you in a Paintball Emperor.

I would pay the extra $1, provided this ‘fictionary’ body was able to provide something tangible to the common Joe paintballer such as myself. Not just the tourney players.

Lee

01-25-2005, 11:18 AM

agree w/ MindJob. it has to be universal and not targeted at a self considered "elite" group of players.

rec ballers are by far the majority and should be represented accordingly.

isn't Chuck Hendsch already on a sports a committee of some sort? i recently read somewhere that he is.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 11:20 AM

agree w/ MindJob. it has to be universal and not targeted at a self considered "elite" group of players.

rec ballers are by far the majority and should be represented accordingly.I agree with your point Lee but there's no existing mechanism to create a pool to select Rec ballers from. The leagues have that mechanism.....but good point nonetheless.

Lee

01-25-2005, 11:26 AM

PBX: not suggesting a mechanism, just voicing that i would not like to see my dollars spent on promoting a certain venue over others, regardless of who is in a position to make the decisions.
i agree that there are too many rec ballers to choose from and any few of them that are recognized enough to be considered a representative at that level are really no longer rec ballers anyway.

universal promotion and regulation of the game should be the target. my 2 cents.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 11:28 AM

Fair enough sir. Let's hypothetically add a recreational player into the mix.

SlartyBartFast

01-25-2005, 11:53 AM

Sounds like a good idea.

But, you'd have to come up with rules for who can sit on the board in each capacity, conflict of interest limitations, and election guidelines.

You'd need to include scenario promoters and a member from each league.

Tom Kaye isn't a manufacturer anymore, so can't qualify in that category. I'd like to even avoid the category all together. The manufacturers have already shown themselves as inept when it comes to governing bodies and leagues. Too much conflict of interest. But, they do need to be involved and "at the table". The trouble would be defining rules and getting manufacturers from participating without taking over yet again.

As the manufacturers have all the cash anyways, perhaps let them form their own group to lobby this one.

The "engineering" part could probably work best as a "technical subcommitte" without voting right. Any "engineer" (and let's avoid that term as it is controlled by law) will be working for a manufacturer and thus be in conflict of interest on the board.

To make the whole thing binding and universal, there's only one possibility IMO. The insurance companies. Convince the insurance companies of the need for the commite and how it can limit their safety liability and then have only events and fields that are current and up-to-date members of the organisation be insureable.

Pickle

01-25-2005, 12:03 PM

Tom Kaye is an excellent choice for this fictional body. Due to the fact that he was once (and probably still is ;) ) in the business somewhere. Not to mention that if he really isn't then there is no conflict of interest.

Instead of a rec ball player, choose a well known scenario player. Not Bob from the Mayberry Marauders (or other MM) comes to mind.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 12:09 PM

I am well aware of all the potential problems that having so many divergent interests can possibly cause.

I've chosen the individuals I have chosen because of their intellect and vision.

There are too many good people that have been omitted....namely Ged Green, Richmond D'Italia and the Gardners.

But like I said, this is a fantasy type thing.

SlartyBartFast

01-25-2005, 12:28 PM

I am well aware of all the ptoential problems that having so many divergent interests can possibly cause.
I've chosen the individuals I have chosen because of their intellect and vision.
There are too many good people that have been omitted....namely Ged Green, Richmond D'Italia and the Gardners.
But like I said, this is a fantasy type thing.

It's not a question of good people who were omitted.

Discussing such an organisation on a "name" basis is pointless, even as a fantasy exercise, because it shows no foresight. Also, an organisation built on the names and reputaion of individuals is doomed to failure once those individuals lose interest or otherwise drop-out.

The positions/input from manufacturing, promoters, field owners, and league organisers should ultimately be decided by those groups individually. If there is already an organisation representing those interests, then those organisations should determine who their representative is. If there isn't, you've got a very sticky situation on your hands. You'll never get someone to agree to decisions handed down by a representative that they didn't have a hand in choosing.

Players would be tricky, but you could easily use the membership lists from any eligible league and perhaps voluntary membership in a player's organisation (perhaps revive one of the defunct player's organisations).

This has been tried so many times before by different groups on a voluntary basis, and ultimately failed for the same limited number of reasons, that I think the one criteria for any new attempt to succeed is obvious. Obligatory enforcement of standards. Perhaps someone else can think of another way to gain the necessary clout, but the only group I see that could weild enough power is the insurance companies.

Back to the initial composition, I would be vehemently against the manufacturers and technical members both having a say. The only "engineers" are one and the same with the manufacturers (heck, a manufacturer could be considered for the field owner or player position).

You would most definetely have to require that any member hold membership in only one organisation in only one category or otherwise be elegible for condsideration in only one category.

REDRT

01-25-2005, 12:31 PM

Too conservative. I like radical change. I think your list has good people, but they would slow the entire industry down. Kind of boring. Unthrottled, full speed ahead is my want. Class the markers like we class skill levels so everyone has equal opportunity on the field. Keep the 30bps+ markers. Cap it around(give or take) 40/45bps and play on. Everyone should be happy. You don't like electros then play in the rt class per your skill level. Simple idea that wouldn't cost us any money and give the industry some room to grow yet.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 12:34 PM

REDRT, you idea is certainly worth being tabled by such a governing body.

Your points are also well taken Slarty.

Also representation by the Insurance industry is a great idea....any nominees?

teufelhunden

01-25-2005, 12:38 PM

I was just about to post that that board looks very conservative. A lot of old guard paintball names. For a board like that to be accepted by the people who make the news in paintball [read: tournament ballers] there needs to be more than two people who would likely take their side. Furthermore, I could see why what would be considered "high end gun manufacturers" could feel left out of the process.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 12:46 PM

Jeffy-CanCon

01-25-2005, 12:59 PM

I agree that paintball could use a governing body, but I'm not sure how/why it should be industry-dominated. Does Adidas or Nike get a seat on the board of FIFA? Do the makers of the Louisville Slugger get a say in the future of baseball?

The purpose of a governing body is to set rules for competition, determine eligibility of players and equipment, and develop referees and coaches. While industry people are typically former players, and have good technical/legal knowledge, they are in a conflict of interest with regards to competitive play since they all use that play as a way to promote their individual businesses. The industry must be subordinate to any governing body, or the whole exercise is a waste of time.

Also, recreational play should be left out of it. Rec play is too free-form for real regulation, and most players like it that way. About the only thing that a governing body could offer recreational players is a set of safety rules for fields, and the insurance industry already does that.

A governing body will come, eventually. Paintball is still a pretty young sport, and many of the first generation of serious players are still playing. If you look at other sport governing bodies, they tend to be run by people whose competitive involvement is behind them, but whose passion for their sport drives them to stay involved. Paintball will have people like that some day, but I don't think we have them yet.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 01:05 PM

A governing body will come, eventually. Paintball is still a pretty young sport, and many of the first generation of serious players are still playing. If you look at other sport governing bodies, they tend to be run by people whose competitive involvement is behind them, but whose passion for their sport drives them to stay involved. Paintball will have people like that some day, but I don't think we have them yet.
They're already here. Dave Youngblood, Chuck Hendsch, the Gardners and Bobby Long.

Is isn't an exercise in organization. It's one of conceptualization. But I do understand where you're coming from.

Jeffy-CanCon

01-25-2005, 01:08 PM

This fictitious organization can be very well funded if the players all agree to put in an extra $1.00 every time they visit a field. Looking at 2004 SGMA numbers (based on 2003 attendance), there can almost 10 million in its coffers.

That’s enough financial clout to:
1. to engage a battalion of lawyers
2. hire medical professionals to render their findings
3. engage a third-party independent lab to certify safety levels in all products
4. fund a political lobbying group.
5. fund committee meetings.
6. mount industry P.R. ad campaigns.

Where does this lead? Perhaps all of these can lead to paintball being somewhat insulated from outsider intervention.

What are your thoughts on the above?

And what exactly do the 9.9 million recreational and rental players get for their $1/day? Rules and equipment standards for tournements they don't play. Duplicated safety rules already set out by the ASTM & insurance industry. And protective political lobbying already being done by the paintball manufacturers.

BTW - A battalion of lawyers?? :cool:
$200/hr x 35hrs/wk x 48wks/yr = $336K
$10M/$336K = 29.76 (a platoon!)

Jeffy-CanCon

01-25-2005, 01:12 PM

They're already here. Dave Youngblood, Chuck Hendsch, the Gardners and Bobby Long.

Is isn't an exercise in organization. It's one of conceptualization. But I do understand where you're coming from.

Those people are involved in the industry side. They can't be trusted to make impartial decisions with regards to equipment standards or playing rules when they depend on the results of their sponsored teams for advertising. Find their teammates from the late 1980's, or early 90's, who no longer play competitively and don't work in the industry.

The basic concept is a good one, and competitive paintball certainly needs a governing body higher than the league.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 01:17 PM

And what exactly do the 9.9 million recreational and rental players get for their $1/day? Rules and equipment standards for tournements they don't play. Duplicated safety rules already set out by the ASTM & insurance industry. And protective political lobbying already being done by the paintball manufacturers.

BTW - A battalion of lawyers?? :cool:
$200/hr x 35hrs/wk x 48wks/yr = $336K
$10M/$336K = 29.76 (a platoon!)

For starters, let's make the following assumptions that what is derived from the top, trickles down to the base.

Certification beyond contestation on products such as lenses. Quality standards on materials used on hoppers (per se) that ensures it won't snap the very first day you buy it. Intelligently designed products revolving around safety instead of products revolving around low cost of manufacturing......do you want me to go any further how it will impact the players at the base of the totem pole?

If you're paying attorneys to spend that kind of billable hours, they better be also defending the industry against lawsuits. In the practical world, it's highly unlikely that they would bill that many hours......but then again this is an exercise in fantasy, isn't it? ;)

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 01:19 PM

Those people are involved in the industry side. They can't be trusted to make impartial decisions with regards to equipment standards or playing rules when they depend on the results of their sponsored teams for advertising. Find their teammates from the late 1980's, or early 90's, who no longer play competitively and don't work in the industry.

The basic concept is a good one, and competitive paintball certainly needs a governing body higher than the league.Jeffy CC, like I said earlier, this is all a conceptual fantasy discussion. We aren't even looking at the practical execution of how to bring this idea beyond the concept phase. There are most certainly difficulties involved with such an undertaking. ;)

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 01:49 PM

Why Chuck Hendsch and Paul Sattler?
Because they represent the major leagues and they have been thrown into a de facto governing role in paintball. They would bring, by virtue of their current roles, insights that would bridge both the manufacturers’ and the players’ perspectives.

They also both have good vision as to how to take the sport into the next level. Albeit, divergent visions. Both are forward thinkers with a high level of influence in the sport. Both are also two of the most politically savvy gentlemen in paintball.

Chronobreak

01-25-2005, 02:04 PM

Who would like to see on that Committee?
Would you trust the future in their hands?
Would you pay an extra $1 sur charge at your fields to fund this organization.

i dont know enough industry people to make a decision there. the anmes u ahd sound about right. but btw i think tom and budd are done for the msot part although they could probly do the msot good on such a counsel.

would i trust them? yeah for the most part but i think teh organization should be clsoely monitored and kept in check..i think the diff interest woul keep the group in check mostly

would the fee be included in paint fee or a field fee?...people arent gonna want to pay as some others have said ex first timers and people who rarely if ever play.

1$ sounds reasonable for a fee...but its gonna hurt the regular players like me the msot having to pay $1 each time i play...+ paint +my equipment + w/e else...more $ is more $ and p-ball is expenisve enough.

shartley

01-25-2005, 02:06 PM

I understand the reason for the thread, but I will point out that it is useless. What is proposed (even in a “fantasy” way) has far too many flaws, and each time those flaws are pointed out, Mel, you brush them aside as if it does not matter.. because this is all hypothetical. Well it does matter. LOL

If you are simply wanting to discuss it in a fantasy context, why not add Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny on the panel as well?

When developing a group for the stated purpose, you should first look at similar groups formed for other sports or industries. You also have to determine what your goals are. And you have to remove all conflicts of interest as well. It seems as if none of those things have been done so far.

Also keep in mind that folks want to lump “Paintball” into one huge group with one common interest. But that is far from how paintball really is. The same with any sport or activity. How many “governing bodies” are there for Football? One? Two? And at each level of play, how many governing bodies are their? How about basketball? Or how about target shooting?

Simply put, I think one problem should be taken care of at a time, not all in ONE giant swoop. Because if you tried to pull ALL of paintball under one governing body, nothing would get done. And no, NO manufacturer should be on the board of ANY governing body, period. You bring them in to ask them questions and get input, but they are not on the board.

And I would not want to pay even one cent more at a field to pay for any committee even close to what has been proposed in this thread. As was pointed out by another member, there have been more than enough chances given to groups in the industry to “do the right thing” or try to “control” the industry in a responsible manner…. And they all failed (IMHO).

So again, I say pick a certain area and attempt to correct it. That is a realistic goal, and one that could work. You can’t jump over the Grand Canyon, but you sure can cross it by taking small steps down one side and then back up the other.

As it is now (with this thread), we may as well be talking about how we can get to play paintball on the moon.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 02:20 PM

If you are simply wanting to discuss it in a fantasy context, why not add Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny on the panel as well?
LOL. Under the premise of this thread, why not. I'm sure that there's less than six degrees of separation between your candidates and the sport of paintball.

It's not that I'm brushing aside meaningfull comments. What I hope is that the self-effident stuff (i.e. the difficulties of even having all these people in the same room together, let alone working with each other) will be blatantly apparent to all. My apologies if that is not the case.

What's more important is understanding the need for a discussion on this concept, the role of each sector and the potential contributions of individuals named within those sectors. As the thread develops further, I will address recurring comments and take it from there.

There is no right or wrong opinion on this concept.

SlartyBartFast

01-25-2005, 02:21 PM

Duplicated safety rules already set out by the ASTM & insurance industry. And protective political lobbying already being done by the paintball manufacturers.

Well, I'd have to disagree on all those points.

The ASTM is voluntary and currently is ignored by all. It will only be an issue if and when a court case arises and industry standards are questioned.

Insurance is reactionary. Unless something happens they won't write it into their policy. If they are not made aware of possible problems or issues, they may well overreact once an accident happens or a claim is made.

And the paintball industry does painfully little lobbying. Apart from volunteer work of Jessica Sparks and a limited few.

RetroEclipseMan

01-25-2005, 02:26 PM

I can't agree more with what Jeff CC is saying. Even if those guys (Dave YB, Bobby Long, The Gardners, ect.) aren't physically playing pb competively doesn't still give them strong ties to thier teams they sponser and the product they sell is determined whether or not their teams are winning. They just have too much invested in the league that would not allow them to make impartial desicions even if they wanted to. We'd basically end up having what's already in place, company politics screwing over the game.

And really think about it, even if field prices were jacked up only $1, you'd be paying almost $60 a year more if you played 1 time week. Now while it may not seem a lot it is at the rec level, especially if the rec guys really wouldn't be getting a whole lot in return, not mention the whole commity according to what you've set represents the whole tourny scene. Also the other problem with this type of funding is how do you really make sure each field is taking part in it equally with all the other fields.They could just do away with field fees all together and just jack up apint price $15-20 tover what they would lose in entry fees. I know a lot of places have players that only practice there and don't pay for entry but only paint. I think if the rec ballers were going to fund it then you'd have to have the field it self pay a set fee every year that was the same for every field and then let them adjust their fees to make up the cost.

I still think that if you're going to have a commity to govern the whole sport that you just gotta leave out all the big names cause big names are still gonna be influenced by some outside perogative not matter what. Lets say you have manufacturers on the board and trying to put a bps cap for safety a paint manufacture or someone who has a connection with one isn't going to go for that since you know it's gonna decrease paint sales which will be bad for the that board member and really are only caring about personal gains, which is very evident in real politics and government.

shartley

01-25-2005, 02:38 PM

LOL. Under the premise of this thread, why not. I'm sure that there's less than six degrees of separation between your candidates and the sport of paintball.

It's not that I'm brushing aside meaningfull comments. What I hope is that the self-effident stuff (i.e. the difficulties of even having all these people in the same room together, let alone working with each other) will be blatantly apparent to all. My apologies if that is not the case.

What's more important is understanding the need for a discussion on this concept, the role of each sector and the potential contributions of individuals named within those sectors. As the thread develops further, I will address recurring comments and take it from there.

There is no right or wrong opinion on this concept.
Well, in that case I think first there should be clear goals set. And then we need to realize that like other sports and activities, no ONE governing body can control every aspect of it, and more so if there are so many levels to the sport or activity/industry.

As for the problems with having all these people in the same room together…. That is why you can NOT have them all in the same room together. That is unless they are testifying in front of a governing body. But they are NOT the governing body.

I think you stacked up a good list of people who would be great to lend input and opinions TO a governing body of one type or another, but they simply can’t be that governing body. Governing bodies should be OUTSIDE the industry, but familiar WITH the industry. It is like trying to get Congress to “correct” itself, it does not happen. Those who control an industry or help regulate it, should never be knee deep in it themselves.

I think that was one of the biggest flaws you have so far.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 02:41 PM

Please don't take this as a flame, but I could hardly decipher what you're saying. Let me at least attempt to respond though.....

First of, let's accept one thing in life, Politics exists in many levels and there's just no plausible way to function within soceity, business and in your community without it. The same applies in paintball. The problem is not finding what separates people. That's easy. A better approach is that what will bind them together.

In any industry, when outside forces like legislative bodies intervene, usually the biggest casualties are the companies within that industry since they have to carry the burden of any changes to be implemented. If it comes down to that, it behooves each one of the companies within that industry to set their differences aside and find a common ground to rally to.

Second, the Mechanics of collecting those fees. Well one of the things I thought about is to possibly build it into what the fields would eventually give to the insurance companies. But let's not sweat those details for now. Just understand that there are possible means to do so.

Third, if you were to be affected drastically by something that's being done within your community, would you want to have some say on what goes on? If your answer is yes, then shouldn't the same level of fairness and consideration apply to those in the industry who stands to lose the most? Like the "big names" you've mentioned?

I can't agree more with what Jeff CC is saying. Even if those guys (Dave YB, Bobby Long, The Gardners, ect.) aren't physically playing pb competively doesn't still give them strong ties to thier teams they sponser and the product they sell is determined whether or not their teams are winning. They just have too much invested in the league that would not allow them to make impartial desicions even if they wanted to. We'd basically end up having what's already in place, company politics screwing over the game.

And really think about it, even if field prices were jacked up only $1, you'd be paying almost $60 a year more if you played 1 time week. Now while it may not seem a lot it is at the rec level, especially if the rec guys really wouldn't be getting a whole lot in return, not mention the whole commity according to what you've set represents the whole tourny scene. Also the other problem with this type of funding is how do you really make sure each field is taking part in it equally with all the other fields.They could just do away with field fees all together and just jack up apint price $15-20 tover what they would lose in entry fees. I know a lot of places have players that only practice there and don't pay for entry but only paint. I think if the rec ballers were going to fund it then you'd have to have the field it self pay a set fee every year that was the same for every field and then let them adjust their fees to make up the cost.

I still think that if you're going to have a commity to govern the whole sport that you just gotta leave out all the big names cause big names are still gonna be influenced by some outside perogative not matter what. Lets say you have manufacturers on the board and trying to put a bps cap for safety a paint manufacture or someone who has a connection with one isn't going to go for that since you know it's gonna decrease paint sales which will be bad for the that board member and really are only caring about personal gains, which is very evident in real politics and government.

Jeffy-CanCon

01-25-2005, 03:01 PM

Well, in that case I think first there should be clear goals set. And then we need to realize that like other sports and activities, no ONE governing body can control every aspect of it, and more so if there are so many levels to the sport or activity/industry.

As for the problems with having all these people in the same room together…. That is why you can NOT have them all in the same room together. That is unless they are testifying in front of a governing body. But they are NOT the governing body.

I think you stacked up a good list of people who would be great to lend input and opinions TO a governing body of one type or another, but they simply can’t be that governing body. Governing bodies should be OUTSIDE the industry, but familiar WITH the industry. It is like trying to get Congress to “correct” itself, it does not happen. Those who control an industry or help regulate it, should never be knee deep in it themselves.

I think that was one of the biggest flaws you have so far.

Most sports currently have governing bodies on different levels. Some sports have separate amatuer and professional bodies, most divide geographically at the state/province/national level. But to the best of my knowledge, the nature of the separate comittees is hierarchical, and thus there is no theoretical reason why paintball could not have an ultimate governing body the same way that FIFA or the IIHF govern soccer and hockey.

We're agreed on the need to keep industry players off the committee, I see.

Jeffy-CanCon

01-25-2005, 03:08 PM

Regarding financing such a hypothetical committee, I again think it would be wise to see how other sports do it.

I don't need to pay Soccer Canada to set up my intra-office league, and I don't (knowingly)pay a fee to them when I buy new cleats, or a ball. But I'd pay them to take a coaching or refereeing course. I'd have to buy an individual membership in order to vote for the Board of Directors. And any provincial or national championship tournament is organised under their auspices, and I think that is where they make most of their money.

To date, the attempts by players to organize paintball have depended on individual membership fees only, which is not enough. The industry (manufacturers and promoters) has ignored these bodies, so as to be able to make their own rules and keep all the proceeds from the tournaments.

SlartyBartFast

01-25-2005, 03:15 PM

I don't need to pay Soccer Canada to set up my intra-office league, and I don't (knowingly)pay a fee to them when I buy new cleats, or a ball.

You may or may not. "Regulation" balls can only be identified as such if the governing body sanctions them.

And while playing on a random piece of land might not support the governing body, playing on a sanctioned field may.

Jeffy-CanCon

01-25-2005, 04:49 PM

Good catch! I forgot about the balls. It would be a good way for a governing body to make money for paintball, too - licensing fees for approved masks, markers, etc. You'd need to have officially approved gear to play competitively, but not for rec play. So manufacturers could choose to comply, or not.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 04:50 PM

So manufacturers could choose to comply, or not.
For the whole concept to work, the manufacturers needs to see that Compliance is not an option but rather an obligation with consequences for failure.

SlartyBartFast

01-25-2005, 04:59 PM

For the whole concept to work, the manufacturers needs to see that Compliance is not an option but rather an obligation with consequences for failure.

Which means the toughest thing of all: An oversight body that isn't in the back pocket of a vested interest.

Jeffy-CanCon

01-25-2005, 05:23 PM

For the whole concept to work, the manufacturers needs to see that Compliance is not an option but rather an obligation with consequences for failure.

Only actual governments can enforce total compliance. The manufacturers only have to obey the governing body if they want their gear to get exposure at sanctioned tournaments. If they want to cater solely to the recreational markets, they can do that. But with the exception of Brass Eagle, not many have chosen that path so far. The tourneys will continue to drive the marketing, regardless.

shartley

01-25-2005, 05:23 PM

Which means the toughest thing of all: An oversight body that isn't in the back pocket of a vested interest.
Exactly.

Jeffy-CanCon

01-25-2005, 05:40 PM

Answering the original question, as to WHO I would like to see on a fantasy governing body, I did come up with a couple of names:

(1) Jessica Sparks - former head of the IPPA, and a lawyer
(2) Bill &/or Dawn Mills - operators of WARPIG
(3) Durty Dan Leger - rec player since 1984 and former magazine columnist, major proponent of stock-class play, and non-camo uniforms
(4) Col. Jerry Jamison - player since 1983, including the early years of the NPPL with the Wild Geese
(5) Bob Lohmaier - engineer & devil's advocate, player since 1991, tourney experience up to the Millenium Series, but mainly a rec-baller (manike may be his love-child) ;)

I personally know all these people except Jessica Sparks, and am impressed with their intelliegence, experience and integrity. Only Bill & Dawn currently make any money from paintball, and they sell nothing but info & ad-space.

I'm strongly inclined to nominate Mike "Blue" Hanse, as well. He's a former manufacturer and tourney player/promoter, and he has opened the first real paintball museum.

PBX Ronin 23

01-25-2005, 06:24 PM

Well, in that case I think first there should be clear goals set.
The expressed goal of this organization is:

To promote, establish and enact rules and regulations for the benefit of the sport of paintball as a whole. To serve as the standard bearer inissues relating to safety, public relations, legislative matters on behalf of the industry as a whole. To enact the standardization of competitive play in compliance with existing world governing bodies that mandates the governance of play ternational level (i.e. the I.O.C).

Thomas Jefferson…..I’m not. But how’s the above for starters.

Which means the toughest thing of all: An oversight body that isn't in the back pocket of a vested interest.

One of the critical components for this whole idea is Proper Representation for the various sectors of the industry against external forces that may usurp the industry's rights to self-governance through the enactment of restrictive or prohibitive legislation.

There was an economist that won the Nobel prize (his name currently escapes me) perhaps over a decade ago that postulated that the potential cost of doing business is directly impacted by legal issues such as compliance matters and tort litigation. I won’t go deeper on what I remember about his economic theories but suffice it to say, if the industry as a whole is threatened by an increase in potential litigation, it would be to their detriment not to create a unified legal defense front to serve the common interest of all.

Only actual governments can enforce total compliance. The manufacturers only have to obey the governing body if they want their gear to get exposure at sanctioned tournaments.

I beg to differ. Check the NASD in the securities industry. Or any of the major exchanges for that matter. The securities industry is perhaps a good place to examine as far as the divergent forces working together.

PBX Ronin 23

01-26-2005, 09:32 AM

From another Thread

Like I have said before, I would like to see a LAW that required paintball markers to comply with the ASTM standard. In addition, it would be illegal for said markers to be user adjustable such as to make them non-compliant. It will never happen, unless someone wins a big lawsuit because a marker was not ASTM compliant.

Sometimes it takes a major incident for us to find the need to organize and act for the greater good. Perhaps that time is a lot sooner than we would all like to think. When the lawyers representing the families of those who died in last year's CO2 tank incidents gets it in their minds not to quietly settle the suit......WATCH OUT. The potential ramifications should be worrisome to most (if not all) the companies in paintball.

Let's say this does hypothetically happen....what should this governing body do and what should its role be?

rabidchihauhau

01-26-2005, 09:59 AM

PBX -

I entirely agree with Slarty and others who have made the good points that picking people is not the way to go about creating a governing body.

EVERY single effort to do so in the past has failed for one primary reason: each and every individual who was tapped for the effort was a problem for at least one other vested interest in the industry.

I have personal experience with many of those efforts, having been involved with creating the PBGA (Paint Ball Gamer's Association, started by PMI), IPPA (started by Jessica and others) NPPL (started by me) IPFOA, etc., etc. acronyms ad nauseum.

The ultimate purpose of a governing body consists of three things: 1. to establish acceptable standards for competition so that everyone is 'playing the same game'; to the extent necessary to support that goal, the standards can include rules, officiating, safety, etc.

2. to present a cohesive MARKETING organization which is capable of speaking for the majority constituency when it comes to obtaining outside support, be it corporate sponsors, television deals, etc., etc.

3. to represent 70+ percent of competition within the given sport so that it QUALIFIES for consideration by organizations such as NCAA, IOC, etc.

So, in effect, no matter how you slice it, it is OUTSIDE organizations which have set the requirements for what a paintball governing body is/will be. If paintball wants to be an NCAA sport, it must meet THEIR requirements. If it wants to compete with NFL, MLB, MLS, NBA, NHL, NASCAR for television time (as in, the network bids for rights), then it must CONTROL its sport. To qualify for IOC consideration, it has another set of IOC based requirements that it must step up to.

None of the individuals you named (and I'm not denigrating them here) are capable of delivering what is outlined above, if only because they are currently competing with each other for who is going to make it to the goal line first.

Sticking Chuck and Paul together in the same room is not going to make one or the other of them give up control of their respective leagues in order to obtain that 70% number.

"Can't we all just get along?" doesn't fly in paintball because everyone sees the governing body (along with TV) as the holy grail and the pot of gold. And, in fact, it is the pot of gold. If NPPL gets big television numbers and lots of outside corporate support, they will move to secure their position and deliver what they need to - the de facto governing body of the sport. This will leave PSP/NXL out in the cold, with diminishing dollars and lessening prestige. The reverse would be true as well.

The solution is -

an outside organization that is above the monetary considerations of the industry, one that is hired by the industry (or enough of the industry to get close to that 70% number) and that is granted full authority and independance to achieve the goals set for it. The folks you listed might well sit on an advisory council, but would ultimately not have any say.

What I'm saying here is that until it is in the industry's economic interest to rise above the commercial competition, nothing is going to happen and any such efforts will be dragged down by competitors who feel that their interests are not being properly met (as in, the other guy will make more money/have more clout than me) and hire a 'baseball commissioner' who is given full and complete autonomy to do the best thing in the interest of the sport, as opposed to what is in the best interest of one group or another.

I say this as a veteran of many, many, many well-meaning efforts to achieve what you are talking about here.

PBX Ronin 23

01-26-2005, 11:29 AM

What I'm saying here is that until it is in the industry's economic interest to rise above the commercial competition, nothing is going to happen and any such efforts will be dragged down by competitors who feel that their interests are not being properly met (as in, the other guy will make more money/have more clout than me) and hire a 'baseball commissioner' who is given full and complete autonomy to do the best thing in the interest of the sport, as opposed to what is in the best interest of one group or another.
Point well taken. You are but one of many proponents for a a Juge Landis-type personality to stir the ship.

BTW, are you Steve Davidson?

rabidchihauhau

01-26-2005, 12:21 PM

yes, I am.

the reason I propose a 'Judge Landis' type of solution is that I know full well that its the only way to take the business interest and personalities out of the mix.

I also totally reject any of the 'paintball is a new sport' arguments as to why it hasn't or can't happen at this point, since paintball is actually in an extremely envious position:

it has 100+ years of professional sports organization that it can model itself after

it has AT LEAST 24 years of 'in-house' experience in dealing with those things peculiar to paintball

it attracts a key and growing marketing demographic

it has a well-developed infrastructure

in terms of growth, its outpacing all other 'extreme sports'

in terms of market, it is recognized by key organizations, such as SGMA, which provides numbers that other entities trust and rely on

in terms of recognition, it is being heavily looked at by 'wall street', ever since the summit-tippmann deal and the k2-brass eagle deal.

if someone from outside the industry, possessing the proper amount of cash, wanted to "take over", it would literally be an almost 'turn-key' operation.

Unfortunately, no one in the industry is willing to put short-term dollars aside for long-term gain/growth and, unfortunately, the rest of the business world currently agrees with that particular model of doing things. I think it has something to do with MTV...

PBX Ronin 23

01-26-2005, 12:52 PM

Unfortunately, no one in the industry is willing to put short-term dollars aside for long-term gain/growth and, unfortunately, the rest of the business world currently agrees with that particular model of doing things. I think it has something to do with MTV...
Unfortunately, that is undoubtedly the case. Even a company like K2 likes to look at things on a quarterly/bi-quaterly basis in terms of impact to the bottom line.

Good insightful post, thanks.

Lurker27

01-26-2005, 01:50 PM

I'm reminded of a similar situation in which short-term profit is oftentime put far ahead of long term growth. I'm referring to the world chocolate industry. Producers of raw cacao, most saliently the Ivory coast, have been forced, more or less, by the larger production conglomeraes to enter into an organization whose main purpose is to promote chocolate. This ends up benefitting sales, with the trickle down effect benefitting everyone in the long term.

The fundamental problem with paintball right now is the lack of standardization. If such a governing body was formed, you'd first need the cooperation of every major paintball company, and you'd have to convince them that the organization would increase their profits.

The first way to do this, of course, is by the creation of a league format that is marketable. X-ball, as it stands, is a good format for a league (matches are about the right length, Best team is more likely to win, W-L record is compiled over the course of a season rather than a series of largely arbitrary tournaments, where you place)

I would propose that a new league backed by the Paintball Board be created, in which teams are split into 4 divisions, each team has a major sponsor, and each team is affiliated with a city. This allows for rivalries to develop, travel costs to be kept down, and a local fanbase to be established (geographic loyalty is nonexistent in paintball, conversely, Patriots fans in my area are currently in hiding). This has the effect of standardizing team equipment (more marketability), as well as giving the greater effect of uniform. (see: NFL rules on dress)

In addition, a full line of stats needs to be kept: %eliminated, Tags, Eliminations, pulls, and hangs. This will create more marketable stars, which in turn creates more consumer spending. I'm not proposing such ludicrous indulgences as Chris Lasoya action figures, but rather, more specific sponsorship deals (going back to Lasoya, he does have his own Intimidator).

Such a league would have to have bounce/ramp rules policed similarly to the NPPL, with a 1000 round per player team paint allotment. In theory, it seems like that would be not enough paint to get the manufacturers to agree to it, but I think a net effect would see more people trying to get their money's worth in each game, and the overall number of balls would increase.

So, in summation:

Create a governing body composed of major manufacturers, add some salient players/advisors. (once NPS is on board, a 70% field filter-down effect could more than likely be expected)
Have said body create a "halo" league, with well-kept statistics, enforced rules, local loyalties, and an x-ball format.
Let said league guide paintball down the standardization path.

PBX Ronin 23

01-26-2005, 02:03 PM

Why can't more guys your age post inteligent and noteworthy posts like the one above. Good job. ;)

shartley

01-26-2005, 02:10 PM

I will point out again that you can NOT have a governing body composed of ANYONE who is currently tied to the industry. That means NO manufacturers, large or small, can be on the governing body which controls Paintball. Why? Because that is a MAJOR conflict of interest.

You don’t “get” the cooperation of every major manufacturer, you MAKE them follow the direction of the governing body. And we don’t need to convince the manufacturers that any ruling will help profits later in time. That is all irrelevant. They simply must follow the rules set forth… period.

With this said, of course any decisions made BY the ruling body should be made with input from all the parties covered by the rulings. This is similar to what happens with Congress, and any other “outside authorities” as well as governing bodies. They have panels and round table discussions as well as testimony by key people involved in the areas they are going to make rulings on, but those testifying and providing information do NOT themselves make the rules.

Again, this is great to just chat about and muse over various aspects, but until folks get “have major manufacturers on the board” out of their head, it will never even come close to being a rational and productive dialogue. You can not have people directly affected by the rulings of a governing body BE on that governing body (as it pertains to industries and sports).

PBX Ronin 23

01-26-2005, 02:20 PM

shartley

01-26-2005, 02:30 PM

I wouldn't be opposed to a "Judge Landis" type figure but.........

.....what it is that you're saying is tantamount to "taxation without representation" and being that this whole concept is predicated on pre-empting outside intervention, any type of policy making must be done collectively. Mind you, I'm not saying that this would be easy.
That is not what I am saying at all. The governing body WILL take into account the opinions and input of those affected by their rulings. But that is FAR from saying they have to get “their cooperation”.

When a Congressional Oversight Committee makes their rulings, do they let those who are affected by them MAKE the rulings? Or do they have extensive sessions where key figures provide testimony and input on the issues?

I am by far not saying that those in the industry should not have some roll in the process. What I am saying is that they don’t get to BE the process. After all, if they could do the right thing, it would already been done by now.

I hope this clears up my intent better. It is not even close to taxation without representation, it is just HOW that representation is factored and its place.

(Side note: When the American Colonies cried Taxation without representation, King George promptly asked them to send a representative. The American Colonies DECLINED. Hmmmm Kind of makes that argument moot as a battle cry for “Independence from a repressive ruler” doesn’t it? ;) )

PBX Ronin 23

01-26-2005, 02:33 PM

Furthermore, how can any one say that Governance is not predicated on the representation of the interests of those willing to be governed? The concept that we're talking about here is exactly the notion of Self-Governance within the paintball industry.

Citing other industries as an example, take a look at the securities industry. Most of the people sitting on the board of Governors in and NASD and in the major exchanges are prominent members of the industry themselves. They are heavily scrutinized by not just the industry insiders but by governmental regulatory bodies (such as the SEC) as well. They have passed the test of time.....why can't we?

shartley

01-26-2005, 02:37 PM

You bring up some good arguments (in your edited content), but I simply say….. Because it has been shown that the paintball industry can NOT. It is that simple.

All one has to do is look to the history of paintball and the companies that now “control” it, as well as leagues, and you have your answer pretty clear. Of course there are still those out there that thinks the paintball industry was always “pals” and no one did anything wrong or self centered until this past year or so… but that could not be farther form the truth.

I would go on, but I have to clear some snow…… You have to love Mother Nature.

teufelhunden

01-26-2005, 02:38 PM

(Side note: When the American Colonies cried Taxation without representation, King George promptly asked them to send a representative. The American Colonies DECLINED. Hmmmm Kind of makes that argument moot as a battle cry for “Independence from a repressive ruler” doesn’t it? ;) )

Don't misconstrue your history. King George did ask them to send a representative.. a representative. The colonies did not send a representative out of protest because they felt it was an unfair representation. It'd be like California and Alaska both sending one representative to the Senate [and then pretending the House didn't exist]. The Alaskan is far more represented than is the Californian.

On topic: I think that a governing body without manufacturers included on the board would be powerless, kinda like the UN when the US disagrees. They can say all they want, but the manufacturers/US still hold all the playing cards. The governing body could go and regulate all the tourney series they want, but if the manufacturers aren't going to make guns that bow to the regulations set forth, it doesn't really matter. However, having the manufacturers in place on the committee would still cause a problem via conflict of interest. At current, there's a lack of a win-win situation, at least as I can see.

shartley

01-26-2005, 02:45 PM

Don't misconstrue your history. King George did ask them to send a representative.. a representative. The colonies did not send a representative out of protest because they felt it was an unfair representation. It'd be like California and Alaska both sending one representative to the Senate [and then pretending the House didn't exist]. The Alaskan is far more represented than is the Californian.

On topic: I think that a governing body without manufacturers included on the board would be powerless, kinda like the UN when the US disagrees. They can say all they want, but the manufacturers/US still hold all the playing cards. The governing body could go and regulate all the tourney series they want, but if the manufacturers aren't going to make guns that bow to the regulations set forth, it doesn't really matter. However, having the manufacturers in place on the committee would still cause a problem via conflict of interest. At current, there's a lack of a win-win situation, at least as I can see.
First of all, you are correct. But I take that as “If we can’t have it EXACTLY the way we want it, we want nothing at all, and then we will cry that we didn’t get anything”…..

Also, I understand your point about power. But I disagree. You can’t compare the UN with a governing body for Paintball. Why? Because there is NO higher power over the UN that could enforce its rules. But with Paintball there could be. How that would be worked out though would need to be determined. But it is a possiblility.

PBX Ronin 23

01-26-2005, 03:57 PM

When a Congressional Oversight Committee makes their rulings, do they let those who are affected by them MAKE the rulings? Or do they have extensive sessions where key figures provide testimony and input on the issues?

But then again Sam, those affected by such rulings have to worry about such things as the Dept. of Justice, the U.S. Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies that will enforce the findings of such Congressional Oversight Committee.

shartley

01-26-2005, 06:17 PM

But then again Sam, those affected by such rulings have to worry about such things as the Dept. of Justice, the U.S. Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies that will enforce the findings of such Congressional Oversight Committee.
Correct.

So I guess where I stand is still the same, but what needs to be determined is what “higher” force would compel those affected by the ruling to comply with it. For me that is the question at hand.

I just don’t have enough faith in the industry itself at this point. And they have done nothing to show me faith is warranted (across the board). Unfortunately...

PBX Ronin 23

01-26-2005, 06:38 PM

So I guess where I stand is still the same, but what needs to be determined is what “higher” force would compel those affected by the ruling to comply with it. For me that is the question at hand.
This imaginary governing body will be ruled by the "invisible hand". If the collective interest is is based on economics (i.e. fear of outside intervention that would restrict or prohibit the existence of the industry and their respective capacity to make money) then at that point, there would be a common ground amongst the different interests.

Are we at that point? Some would say no but I am keeping an ominous eye towards the direction of the forthcoming litigation concerning the two deaths this past year. The potential for a blanket suit is frighteningly high. The outcome of which can affect the entire industry.

rabidchihauhau

01-26-2005, 07:47 PM

Here's some more mud in the eye for the industry;

as I have been involved in putting together membership orgs and leagues, so I have also been involved in dealing with legislative issues - from testimony before zoning boards/city councils and state senates, to addressing model legislation.

The paintball industry has remained largely self-governing for two reasons: it was too small to care about and it was too small to generate enough taxes to care about.

This is rapidly changing, outside the control of the industry, potentially in a manner which will be detrimental to all of our interests, and its a shame because it doesn't have to be.

There is only ONE WAY to make sure that laws, regulations and legislation that could affect your industry do so in a positive manner, and that is to be directly involved in the drafting of said legislation.

Short historical example: I was once hired as an expert witness to appear before the city council of philadelphia; a local business man wanted to open an indoor field and needed the city's ordnance against air powered guns to be changed or ammended.

I was happy to help - until I found out two things: the business man and a city councilman were working together on this (the councilman represented the area where the field would be) and he had promised his support to the venture in exchange for the city council be allowed to draft and implement the rules and regulations that would determine safe operation, equipment requirements, etc., etc., etc.

As soon as I heard this, I was entirely against the whole thing and was no longer working for my expert's fee.

Why? Because when one city, town, municipality or state drafts laws, other entities look at it and very soon adopt it, then it becomes the law of the land and you're stuck with it for better or worse. Can you imagine a bunch of people who never heard of paintball, let alone played it, telling us that (for a real world example) every field must have a registered nurse or emt on the premises? that x are the fire marshall's requirements for extinguishers, people per square foot, etc? That only this, or that or the other thing can be used for a bunker? Or 180 feet per second was the upper 'safe' limit?

So, I helped to kill the effort, but I became very interested in the possibility of an effort by the paintball industry to draft legislation, where knowledgeable, experienced individuals are working hand-in-hand with government reps to make it happen.

Want your governing body? Find a friend who is a state legislator, city councilman, congressman or senator and fill them in on a few things:

1. the industry is self-regulated and is not doing such a hot job at it right now
2. the vast majority of its adherents don't vote (aren't eligible to)
3. stores and fields pay taxes
4. cities eat the expense of driveby shootings, signposts shot, police responses to 'armed' individuals lurking around, etc.

Draft some reasonable safety requirements, draft the enforcement of those requirements strongly and get yourself a bill up for voting. If its good and your politician friend has a good network, believe me, it will spread like wildfire.

I firmly believe that GOOD legislation will, in the long run (there's that long-term return thinking again) be a very positive thing for the industry, and I believe that it will only be GOOD legislation if people from within the industry help to initiate and draft it.

shartley

01-27-2005, 06:54 AM

SlartyBartFast

01-27-2005, 08:41 AM

I would propose that a new league backed by the Paintball Board be created

:rofl:

Another league?!?

And sorry, but the Xball format is copyrighted and protected, so you can't borrow it.

I think that's the problem though and your proposal is rife with it. A desire for COMPLETE control. The governing body should NOT be operating the tournaments nor getting involved in sponsorship, nor have to be national and international in scope from the beginning.

FIFA, FINA, FIA, IOC, none run the tournaments/competitions.

And REQUIRING sponsors? You've gone right into the trap paintball is currently in. Pandering to big interests.

A successful organising body uses existing local organisations and teams up with promoters and event organisers. They don't try and swing the whole thing themselves.

shartley

01-27-2005, 09:09 AM

:rofl:

Another league?!?

And sorry, but the Xball format is copyrighted and protected, so you can't borrow it.

I think that's the problem though and your proposal is rife with it. A desire for COMPLETE control. The governing body should NOT be operating the tournaments nor getting involved in sponsorship, nor have to be national and international in scope from the beginning.

FIFA, FINA, FIA, IOC, none run the tournaments/competitions.

And REQUIRING sponsors? You've gone right into the trap paintball is currently in. Pandering to big interests.

A successful organising body uses existing local organisations and teams up with promoters and event organisers. They don't try and swing the whole thing themselves.
And I agree with this as well…. and have actually been trying to express that (not too successfully it seems). I see the “goals” set so far in this thread as being goals suited to more than one “governing body”.

It is as if folks want a magic pill that will solve all of paintballs “issues” at once. I don’t see this as being feasible. And often times when people try to do too much at once, NOTHING gets done. To me, it is more important to take smaller steps and set realistic goals.

I will also point out that the pattern thus far has been to start a “group”, state its goals, gather money from players and businesses, then fizzle out. The follow through has been the real problem so far. This almost makes me believe that these groups are set up ONLY to gleam funds from those in the industry (players and businesses) and little more.

This is a problem…. and maybe THE problem.

….. just thinking aloud…..

PBX Ronin 23

01-27-2005, 09:32 AM

I will also point out that the pattern thus far has been to start a “group”, state its goals, gather money from players and businesses, then fizzle out. The follow through has been the real problem so far. This almost makes me believe that these groups are set up ONLY to gleam funds from those in the industry (players and businesses) and little more.
I couldn't agree with you more. Paintball, historically, has consistently failed in the past in creating a similar type of organization. Partially from lack of funding and more because of our inability to create a consensus amongst all the divergent interests involved.

Please site an example if I'm wrong but we've also never had an issue strong enough to bind us all together the way the potential effect of the forthcoming lawsuits stemming from the two deaths last year can.

Jeffy-CanCon

01-27-2005, 12:28 PM

...

FIFA, FINA, FIA, IOC, none run the tournaments/competitions.

...
A successful organising body uses existing local organisations and teams up with promoters and event organisers. They don't try and swing the whole thing themselves.

Doesn't FIFA run the World Cup?

Does paintball currently have any local/national organisations?

I couldn't agree with you more. Paintball, historically, has consistently failed in the past in creating a similar type of organization. Partially from lack of funding and more because of our inability to create a consensus amongst all the divergent interests involved.

Please site an example if I'm wrong but we've also never had an issue strong enough to bind us all together the way the potential effect of the forthcoming lawsuits stemming from the two deaths last year can.

Ronin, you started this thread, so I will ask you to clarify by what you think a hypothetical governing body should be doing. Are we discuissing a body to regulate the paintball industry, or a body to codify a paintball sport? To my mind, we have never really attempted the latter.

PBX Ronin 23

01-27-2005, 01:15 PM

Ronin, you started this thread, so I will ask you to clarify by what you think a hypothetical governing body should be doing. Are we discuissing a body to regulate the paintball industry, or a body to codify a paintball sport? To my mind, we have never really attempted the latter.

Regulation, representation and advocacy on behalf of the entire industry. As for the codification of competitive play, let the "invisible hand" work that out. We don't even have a standardized format and what will likely determine that is who wins the television battle.

SlartyBartFast

01-27-2005, 03:50 PM

Doesn't FIFA run the World Cup?
Does paintball currently have any local/national organisations?

The FIFA website isn't clear, but from what I understand it's like the olympics. While oficially the IOC "organises" the olympics, it's really the sanctioned host that does all the ground work. Even the host doesn't organise each sport in the olympics. Each is organised by the sanctioned world body for each particular sport.

Not saying it's easy, but the FIFA website certainly shows the way on how to organise internationally.

Paintball DOES have local and national organisations. CFOA (and others are local/regioal), NPPL could certainly be considered national for the US. The NXL is a "professional" format and therefor not really a consideration as they "lisence" teams.

Jeffy-CanCon

01-27-2005, 05:43 PM

Regulation, representation and advocacy on behalf of the entire industry. As for the codification of competitive play, let the "invisible hand" work that out. We don't even have a standardized format and what will likely determine that is who wins the television battle.

OK. I totally misunderstood your intention. If we have been talking about an industry governing group, I withdraw my comments about the appropriateness of current industry people taking part. Although I feel compelled to note that if it was left to the auto industry to govern itself, we would not have seatbelts or airbags. I fear the paintball industry will continue in the short-sighted way they have demonstrated so far.

PBX Ronin 23

01-27-2005, 09:13 PM

shartley

01-28-2005, 07:33 AM

The auto industry, by virtue of their reluctance to implement the necessary safety measure, invited outside intervention to mandate by neccesity.

Does the paintball industry want that? Does closer scrutiny from the outside help us at all?
This is true, but I will ask….. Did the AUTO industry WANT that either? ;)

In most cases it is not an issue of what an industry wants, but what they need. And although the paintball industry is relatively young, it has been around long enough (IMHO) to have been able to address a good many issues, but it has been proven that immediate profits and complete (if not almost complete) self interest tends to win out at the end of the day, VS long term strength and industry wide stability (both on the product and actual gaming sides of things).

Now don’t get me wrong, I understand why this has been the case. And this does not make those in the industry “bad”. It is simply natural for those who have for so long not really had to face issues which more established industries or sports (read “older”) have had to deal with for a long time to not jump in and correct things which may not have an immediate impact on their bottom line.

I am a proactive person as opposed to reactive. But this is not the case for many businesses in the industry. And that is honestly why I don’t think the paintball industry as a whole will step up and take care of things. And I do think closer scrutiny form the outside would help us. But again, WITH full input from those currently in the industry.

There are several ways this “governing body” or “bodies” could be set up and work. And from reading this thread I am sure it is clear that there are differing views to which way is better. But as you pointed out, for the sake of discussion, there really is no right or wrong way. Each way has its advantages and disadvantages.

rabidchihauhau

01-28-2005, 10:48 AM

:rofl:

Another league?!?

And sorry, but the Xball format is copyrighted and protected, so you can't borrow it.

Forget another league, but if anyone wants to do an x-ball style format without having to go through NXL, I've got free licensing available for the patented 'uspl' format upon which all of the so-called televisions formats are based.

Once you're 'allowed' to use that rule set, you can modify it anyway you'd like, just don't call it by a trademarked name.

Lurker27

01-28-2005, 01:20 PM

:rofl:

Another league?!?

And sorry, but the Xball format is copyrighted and protected, so you can't borrow it.

I think that's the problem though and your proposal is rife with it. A desire for COMPLETE control. The governing body should NOT be operating the tournaments nor getting involved in sponsorship, nor have to be national and international in scope from the beginning.

FIFA, FINA, FIA, IOC, none run the tournaments/competitions.

And REQUIRING sponsors? You've gone right into the trap paintball is currently in. Pandering to big interests.

A successful organising body uses existing local organisations and teams up with promoters and event organisers. They don't try and swing the whole thing themselves.

Yes, another league, or fix the NXL. As a sport, particularly a spectator sport, the NXL is failing. There is no doubt in my mind that you could devise a format similar to X-ball (multiple games comprising one match) without infringing on X-ball itself.

I know this is a fantasy thread, but I'm being practical. Where would the money come from? Oh, wait, big interests. The very opening of my post was that both players and industy want the expansion of paintball as a sport, I think that if this was the stated goal of such a committee, it would be embraced. It could work to improve profits of corporations, while at the same time providing a halo to players.

You can't simply enforce rules with an arbitrary committee. Why do players listen? Why would corporations. Unless its a government committee necessitated by more injuries, its not happening. Corporations want money. Players want to look "agg" (they follow examples set by the most prominent pros). I've proposed something that takes all of this into consideration, and all you've done is denounce.

also, an analogyto soccer is useless. How much mnoney does one spend yearly recreationally playing soccer? And paintball? Now, which sport is more important to the manufacturers. Players consume more money in a single round of speedball (paint, air) than a soccer player would pay for his entire career (one good ball).

SlartyBartFast

01-28-2005, 02:10 PM

Now, which sport is more important to the manufacturers.

:rofl:

It would take a North American to ask that question. Economically paintball will ALWAYS be an insignificant gnat compared to international soccer.

Considering that FIFA has to contain/control the interests of the likes of Nike, Rebok, Addidas, and national tensions that rival the UN (and to many the soccer dramas are far more important than anything else).

I think FIFA would be a fine model.

Lurker27

01-28-2005, 06:33 PM

Honestly, how dumb do you think me? :rolleyes:

Obviously soccer is a bigger industry, just by the sheer # of participants, but it isn't nearly as equipment-based as paintball. Hockey would be a far better model, since its $500 for equipment, and $50 an hr for ice time.

PBX Ronin 23

01-29-2005, 11:23 AM

There definitely is a need for a central body as well to govern the sport when it comes to competition. But as of now, two formats are going head-to-head (7-Man and X-ball) for the cat bird's seat. Rabidchihuahua will agree that one format definitely has more potential for television than the other ;) . To top that all off, the 3-Man cage matches will also get some steam with TV as well. So the overall picture still hasn't set itself yet.

Is there a practical way to consolidate these two paradigms? One for the governance of the industry, the other for the governance of the sport.

Jeffy-CanCon

01-29-2005, 12:27 PM

...
Is there a practical way to consolidate these two paradigms? One for the governance of the industry, the other for the governance of the sport.

IMO, No. What's good for paintball as a sport is equality of equipment, and more on-field movement during longer games (with predictable lengths). What's good for paintball as an industry is a wide variety of equipment, and more shooting during shorter games.

The reason it took almost 20 years for something like X-ball to develop is that it is not the most directly beneficial format for the promoters, and so every time someone suggested a similar format it was brushed aside. The NXL is a long-term and large-scale marketing scheme for a mature industry. If it is successful, the format may trickle down to regional tourneys, but the current independant nature of paintball fields works against it growing from the ground-up. I should note that the protected copyright status of the format also works against it.

rabidchihauhau

01-30-2005, 06:51 AM

Jeffy,

the only thing that goes against the interest of the promoters with x-ball is game length, but that's easily covered by:

fewer refs, fewer teams, potentially higher visibility.

the compensation is the extremely higher volume of paint used. x-ball evolved from the 'uspl' format and went the way that it did because of the high volume of paint; I suspect that one reason why uspl was not used by the x-ball folks was that I showed them that the natural evolution of that format was LOWER ball consumption over time, and they didn't want to contemplate longer games, fewer teams AND less paint used.

I honestly don't think it will make it in the long run as they are still missing essential components of a spectator sport and a method for transmitting 'active' interaction between spectators and the game. One primary reason people watch a sport is to vicariously participate in it - to guess what play will come up next, to pit their savy against a coach's, etc., and, so far as I can see, the current crop of television offerings fall far short of providing that capability.

shartley

01-30-2005, 07:36 AM

You know what I fear, and know will come? They will come up with a format for paintball that can make promoters MONEY and then suddenly people will think THAT is what Paintball IS. When in fact paintball is what it has always been, MANY types of games played in many ways.

I will always promote and support the classic games and formats which have kept paintball alive all these years…. No matter how camera friendly or not they are.

minimag03

01-30-2005, 12:20 PM

It would make us more of a sport. But where is Palmer?!?

-minimag03

Lurker27

01-30-2005, 12:54 PM

Shartley...Acceptance and promotion of a major speedball format is a bad thing because it would kill scenario games.

You're implying something highly ridiculous.

rabidchihauhau

01-30-2005, 02:42 PM

Lurker,

shartley may not have been that clear with what he said, but I share the basic sentiment:

any form of paintball that 'makes it' (becomes the de facto spectator, marketing, league, whatever) will, so far as the unwashed public is concerned BE paintball.

There was a format proposed years ago called something like 'head shot', in which the only way to elimninate an opponent was to tag them in the head.

Suppose THAT had become big time with coke and espn and etc behind it big time; parents might watch it, but would they let their kids play the non-pro version?

The danger is in FAILING to build in support for all the other forms of paintball when that big whatever it is comes along.

MLB supports little league, high school, college and semi-pro baseball because, even though the version of the game is not the same, its where their fans and players come from.

NFL supports 'pop warner' and etc;

Paintball needs to do the same.

Personally, I felt that a restricted access format, (requiring licensing and etc in order to use it) was one way to go about creating conformity, making sure that the standards WERE standards, and would give folks who expected to make money off of their participation, a protected market. (Why buy a franchise when anyone else out there could use the same format and work their own TV deals? Why invest at all?)

Sadly, that's the environment we're in now. Anyone who wants to spend the money for air time, production costs and etc can get paintball on tv, thus devaluing everyone's efforts. Coke would spend $ for 'the only paintball tv show', but not as much, if at all, for 'one of many'.

CaliMagFan

01-30-2005, 03:26 PM

Also keep in mind that folks want to lump “Paintball” into one huge group with one common interest. But that is far from how paintball really is. The same with any sport or activity. How many “governing bodies” are there for Football? One? Two? And at each level of play, how many governing bodies are their? How about basketball? Or how about target shooting?

So, we can't govern a sport from one "lumped-together" governing body? Ever heard of FIFA??... They put on this little tounament ever 4 years, called the World Cup. Maybe you've been on AO too much... wink.

Seriously... This is possible, but not pheasable if the board is comprised of industry leaders.. It should be a 3rd party. It may very well be another generation of paintball players before we get our act together in that manner. At the start of the sport you old guys pretty much blew it for us by making it a war game. That stain is going to take some time to wash away.

shartley

01-30-2005, 05:17 PM

Shartley...Acceptance and promotion of a major speedball format is a bad thing because it would kill scenario games.

You're implying something highly ridiculous.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. No matter what new type of game they come up with it will NEVER kill scenario or classic woodsball. That is not my fear.

Heck, how many times have we heard over the years that we needed to move out of the woods and that speedball and tournament play were really what paintball was… when in fact their still remained many more players playing the classic styles of games.

Rabidchihauhau hit better on my thoughts. Thank you.

So, we can't govern a sport from one "lumped-together" governing body? Ever heard of FIFA??... They put on this little tounament ever 4 years, called the World Cup. Maybe you've been on AO too much... wink.
LOL You can’t take one event that takes players from all over the world and say that is proof that one governing body can regulate all levels of a sport. You just show that one body can organize a single game (run several times) which consists of players from all over the world and from different tournament series. There is a big difference between the two.

At the start of the sport you old guys pretty much blew it for us by making it a war game. That stain is going to take some time to wash away.
At the start?

At the start of the sport, actually shooting someone was an afterthought, not the goal. And from then on it took on characteristics that yes, are found in “war games” but that was not the only purpose for the games. Normal rec and woods play has been capture the flag or elimination, which happens in all sorts of other sports and even childhood games. And speedball is only a FAST form of the above anyways.

Scenario play on the other hand can be VERY war game like or even silly with strange goals centered around things not quite “war like”.

But we play a lot of things that are war like or could be war games. We have super soaker fights. We have laser tag. We even have wrestling. But folks want to act like paintball has somehow broken off the path of games normally played, and is somehow worse than all the other things we do and play (or have done or played). LOL Nonsense. Paintball only took a new tool and used that to play the exact same games we already were playing in other forms.

But speedball is somehow NOT the same, right?

So, if we play it FAST it is a different game? If we play it with bright clothing it is a different game?

Interesting. ;)

Seriously, it is as much players such as yourself who claim that us “old guys” pretty much “blew” it by making it “whatever” that are at fault for the public’s general misunderstanding of the sport and relative ignorance. I will however say that now days I seldom receive a negative reaction when mentioning paintball or being involved in the industry. In fact, I can’t remember a time in the past two years that I DID receive a negative reaction. Every time I mention what I do it ends up starting a great conversation about the sport and how the person I am talking to either plays it, has a friend who does, or has a relative who plays.

I think the “negative” connotation that some folks think is out there concerning the sport, and more so because it is a “war game”, simply does not exist in the way folks insinuate or think it does… for the most part. Sure you will still have some extremely ignorant people out there that don’t like paintball for any number of reasons, but honestly they would hate the game no matter how “nice” you made it. It is more about them being able to dislike something as opposed to their really being a reason to.

But on the other issue (3rd party involvement) I agree. :dance:

PBX Ronin 23

01-30-2005, 08:49 PM

I honestly don't think it will make it in the long run as they are still missing essential components of a spectator sport and a method for transmitting 'active' interaction between spectators and the game. One primary reason people watch a sport is to vicariously participate in it - to guess what play will come up next, to pit their savy against a coach's, etc., and, so far as I can see, the current crop of television offerings fall far short of providing that capability.

I agree with your points highlighted above. As far as having a standard format of competitive play is concerned, this issue is still unresolved in my mind. Does the NPPL have? They seem content on pushing paintball more as a "life style" rather than a sport. X-Ball has it's flaws that you've very well referenced in your post. The Ultimate Madness 3-Man cage matches has also entered the fray as far as TV is concerned.

This is another thread all onto its own. But for now suffice it to say that the proposed governing body, at some point in time, will have to select an "official" format to accept as the one true format. Otherwise, it will bog down in all the politics of supporting/or not supporting a particular format.

CaliMagFan

01-30-2005, 10:14 PM

LOL You can’t take one event that takes players from all over the world and say that is proof that one governing body can regulate all levels of a sport. You just show that one body can organize a single game (run several times) which consists of players from all over the world and from different tournament series. There is a big difference between the two.

I can't believe you shartley... You're clearly ignorant about the world of football. My intention in talking about the world cup was to show how broad the scope of FIFA rule is. You certainly seem not to know that every soccer/football reff that: offiicciates any recorded game, at any skill level, or at any age level, or in any league or tournament series, in any country, in the entire world IS FIFA CERTIFIED. Ligua Mexicana, EUFA, MLS.... all FIFA... go talk to your local youth soccer refs and ask them who writes the rule book to which they arbitrate their games.... guess who... FIFA.

now i'm foaming at the mouth, so stop reading if you have a soft ego.

Now I know why people see this place taking a dive. It is people like you that move their fingers to type without prior knowledge of what they type. You're attempting to fabricate facts to sound like the most learned person in the room on a topic, yet you cannot lie well enough. That goes the same for the rest of the people that attempt ventures like yours aforementioned. May I direct you to Cicero's first of five canons of rhetoric: "[Part B. Your subject. Become thouroughly familiar with the ramifications of your subject. If you don't know about it, you shouldn't talk about it. Ideally, you should be the most informed person in the room on the topic which you dicuss...]"

Don't consider that a full-on flame. Just a kind "Check yourself" from your california automag fanatic.

-kyro

rabidchihauhau

01-31-2005, 07:29 AM

shartley

01-31-2005, 07:30 AM

I can't believe you shartley... You're clearly ignorant about the world of football. My intention in talking about the world cup was to show how broad the scope of FIFA rule is. You certainly seem not to know that every soccer/football reff that: offiicciates any recorded game, at any skill level, or at any age level, or in any league or tournament series, in any country, in the entire world IS FIFA CERTIFIED. Ligua Mexicana, EUFA, MLS.... all FIFA... go talk to your local youth soccer refs and ask them who writes the rule book to which they arbitrate their games.... guess who... FIFA.

now i'm foaming at the mouth, so stop reading if you have a soft ego.

Now I know why people see this place taking a dive. It is people like you that move their fingers to type without prior knowledge of what they type. You're attempting to fabricate facts to sound like the most learned person in the room on a topic, yet you cannot lie well enough. That goes the same for the rest of the people that attempt ventures like yours aforementioned. May I direct you to Cicero's first of five canons of rhetoric: "[Part B. Your subject. Become thouroughly familiar with the ramifications of your subject. If you don't know about it, you shouldn't talk about it. Ideally, you should be the most informed person in the room on the topic which you dicuss...]"

Don't consider that a full-on flame. Just a kind "Check yourself" from your california automag fanatic.

-kyro
You want me to NOT consider your post full on flame when it WAS? Hogwash. If you don’t intend to flame then DON’T. It is that simple.

And you are not correct, not EVERY game that is recorded in EVERY level of play in soccer/football IS officiated by a FIFA Certified Ref. Maybe in your great need to prove me wrong caused you to be overzealous in your use of information? There have been many times when MY children have played soccer at a RECORDED game that they didn’t have a FIFA Certified Ref for one reason or another. That in itself would make your claims FALSE.

Yes, the FIFA plays a large roll in SOCCER, and folks follow the rules they set down. But if an impromptu game was to be had, there is nothing forcing those who are playing to do so (follow the FIFA rules). And if a business opened a soccer field for playing soccer only (similar to how we have paintball fields) there is nothing to force that field from using those rules either….. aside from them being so well laid out for them.

My comments however were a bit off… because I was tired when I typed it and ON MEDICATION FOR A BACK PROBLEM AND PINCHED SCIATIC NERVE. So I am sure folks can cut me a little slack.

Also when I talk about FIFA and governing a sport, I am not talking simply about RULES OF THE GAME. There is so much more to governing a sport than setting rules that are played by. Now granted, I don’t know everything about the FIFA, but do they also determine standards for the uniforms used? How about shoes? Pads? Any other issues?

But I have to add…. Before you start telling others what they know, you had better KNOW that they know. And you had better know what they post on AO. I have been an open supporter of a FIFA program for paintball for a long time. I have posted so for YEARS ON AO. But I guess you have missed that. However, that is not a governing body (IMHO as it pertains to paintball), more so a standardizing of rules for tournament games and “patching” of ref staff.

So please next time you want to flame someone and try to flex your Internet Muscles think twice. Your post was NOT to simply address something someone said, but to attempt to totally discredit them and was indeed nothing but a FLAME. So go wipe off your foaming mouth now, my ego is still in tact for you didn’t do anything but drop your own pants.

Don’t consider this a flame, just a “check yourself” from someone who has contributed to both AO and Paintball just a bit more than you have over the years and deserves just a little bit of respect if for that alone.

Now, I hope everyone else can continue the discussion in a calm and non-insilting/flaming manner…. whether they agree or disagree with what anyone else posts.

shartley

01-31-2005, 08:00 AM

Calimag,

You seem to be taking everything that Shartley is saying and treating as, first, a personal insult and second, an attack on what I'm presuming is your second favorite sport (the first being paintball, of course).

FIFA sanctions world play and is the body to which individual nation's 'governing bodys' for the sport of soccer belong to. They are the folks who IOC works with in setting up olympic qualifying, rules, officiating, etc.

In one respect, FIFA has been very lucky, in that the US is 'just another country', having come very late to international soccer play, so FIFA got to get its act together with europe, south america, asia, before the US and all its politics could interfere.

I'm not exactly sure why Shartley doesn't consider FIFA to be a good model for what paintball needs to do - I think its as good a model as any other international sport (probably better than some, like the International Badminton Association), but on the other hand I get the impression from your posts that you think its the ONLY viable role model.

So, I'd say, stop getting so upset - some folks like soccer and some hate it, but we all love paintball.
Good post and thank you. My typed words have not been as effective as they usually are… meds, got to love them.

I actually do consider the FIFA a good model for part of the governing process in paintball, just not the whole thing. I feel that paintball has more issues than soccer, football, baseball, golf, or other sorts, simply because of the nature of the game and the equipment we use.

This is why I feel that more than one governing body is needed. And each would address a certain aspect of the game and industry. Because I think we both can recognize that the sport and the industry are not really the same thing. But they both impact the players and game equally.

billmi

01-31-2005, 11:55 AM

But there already is one sactioning body which controls all amateur and pro paintball in the US.

Or at least that's what they claim.

"The NPPL is the National Professional Paintball League, the sole sanctioning body for all amateur and professional paintball players in North America."
(NPPL About The NPPL page at http://www.nppl.tv/2/nppl_about.htm)

So, if we are to believe that claim, PSP and NXL have to get clearance from NPPL for their events. I kind of doubt it myself.

According to a recent press release, Rabidchihuahua is the founder of the NPPL

"Steve is the founder of the NPPL"
(Press release from Vengance Paintball at http://www.warpig.com/newswire/prwire_releases/1100698355760.shtml)

Therfore, since all pro/am paintball in North America is under the control of the NPPL, and it was founded by Rabidchihuahua, all current problems with professional and amateur paintball are in some way his fault. :-)

As for FIFA, just like any other sport, in the US, they only have power over the folks that choose to follow them. FIFA can't stop me from setting up a league and using my own rules, nor can the NPPL, etc.

manike

01-31-2005, 12:37 PM

<3 u! :rofl:

PBX Ronin 23

01-31-2005, 02:35 PM

As for FIFA, just like any other sport, in the US, they only have power over the folks that choose to follow them. FIFA can't stop me from setting up a league and using my own rules, nor can the NPPL, etc.

Bill is absolutely right and this is a major hurdle for a governing body whose primary purpose is to govern the game instead of governing the industry.

You can find that the collective economic interest of all the segments of the industry (i.e. manufacturers, players, league, field operators, and the ASTM Sub-Com.) can be a much stronger motivation for them to unite than having the solitary interest of one segment (i.e the league) binding them together.

But under the current environment, there has not been a visible outside threat to the overall well-being of the industry for everyone to see and rally against. What can possibly transpire in the courtroom for 2005 may serve as the catalyst and I'm not talking about the ongoing IP litigation either. The potential blanket suit that may be filed that stems from the two fatalities that occurred in 2004 may very well be that catalyst.

tyrion2323

01-31-2005, 03:21 PM

They're already here. Dave Youngblood, Chuck Hendsch, the Gardners and Bobby Long.

Is isn't an exercise in organization. It's one of conceptualization. But I do understand where you're coming from.

I usually think you're dead on with your opinions and analyses; but you missed the mark with these guys, man. Paintball companies have proven themselves too untrustworthy when there's a profit to be made.

If you want a committee to regulate, say, Divisions 1, 2 and 3 tournament paintball, you will need to find people who have no money to be made. People who don't have close ties to businesses and teams.

PBX Ronin 23

01-31-2005, 03:29 PM

If you want a committee to regulate, say, Divisions 1, 2 and 3 tournament paintball, you will need to find people who have no money to be made. People who don't have close ties to businesses and teams.

Understood and agreed. Hence the major obstacle is making people with divergent economic interests seeing a common need for the common good. Tough thing to do.

shartley

01-31-2005, 06:18 PM

Interesting posts, yes. And I agree… on both the issues brought up. Game VS Industry and conflict of interest VS common good for all.

I look forward to reading more posts concerning these......

CaliMagFan

02-01-2005, 01:34 AM

F it.

billmi

02-01-2005, 07:41 AM

If you want a committee to regulate, say, Divisions 1, 2 and 3 tournament paintball, you will need to find people who have no money to be made. People who don't have close ties to businesses and teams.

The problem with that is that there aren't people like that who a significant number of tournament players want to follow. In general, without money to be made or a personal interest people don't just step up to the plate and run things for very long. Case in point - the NPPL. It was formed as corporation owned by the member teams. It was created to solve the problems in tournament paintball due to "greedy promoters" who were "just in it for the money." Its foundation points were that it was player owned and run, was reffed by tournament level teams, and all events were BYOP. Promoters would bid to the league for the right to run an NPPL tournament, profits earned by the league were paid back to the teams as dividends. That lasted all of one season or so (Rabidchihauhau can fill in more details, he was very involved in the league during that time.) Gradually the teams did less and less work, wouldn't go to the annual meetings, and eventually the corporation was dissolved by the state of New York because the president didn't even take the time to fill out its tax return. More time went by with promoters using the league name, until someone took the reigns started a new corporation, and set up a deal with a new promoter where as owner of the league he could make a salary. The NPPL now is what it was created not to be - not owned by the teams, not reffed by the teams, and FPO. But that's not a bad thing, the NPPL is doing fantastically - it's in the hands of someone who stands to win or lose financially so there is a motivation to do well and keep making it better. Make a good tournament, and players will play - the idealistic stuff about ownership, control, etc., is just talk. It isn't what matters when it comes to laying down entry fees.

The same goes for groups like the IPPA - disbanded because they couldn't even muster enough votes from their members to hold a legally required election for their board of directors. Around the time of the IPPA (late 80s) there was an industry group that lobbied against anti-paintball laws - that didn't last long except for pro-bono work done by Don DeKeifer, and eventually that dried up. There have been numerous industry groups started and ended because companies will just look out for themselves - another prime example is all the companies that agreed to stop producing paintguns capable of firing more than 13 bps and of using anything but semi-auto mode. Those that made them didn't stop, and those that didn't make them now do. Why? Because their competitors were.

I just don't see paintball as a whole - players, industry, everyone, cohesively following anything but what is required by law, and even then there will be a percentage that runs outside the law with the ever present mentality of our culture that something is "only illegal if you get caught." ASTM has written some excellent standards, but honestly I can't think offhand of any paintball field or event that I've seen that fully complied with them.

rabidchihauhau

02-01-2005, 08:30 AM

billmi,

Your brief history of NPPL is somewhat correct, but entirely off base. Allow me to explain:

The corporation was NEVER turned over to the teams. This was kept quiet. This allowed those who did own the corporation to manipulate the corporate structure the league took, manipulate elections, manipulate events, rules and everything else.

Promoters were NEVER allowed to bid for the right to host an event - the first generation of promoters prevented that from happening by manipulating the internal vote.

Dividends were paid one year to the teams and never again.

The collapse of the first iteration of the NPPL was not due to player apathy, but due DIRECTLY to the manipulation, political manuevering, lying and character assassination by a few individuals who WERE after monetary gain and political power.

To use the NPPL as an example of how a volunteer organizational model will not work is using a bad analogy, because the truth about what went on actually supports the case that allowing those who have a monetary interest to run things is the absolutely WORST way to go.

The NPPL was not supposed to be 'volunteer'. The plan was always to install a board, pay those people a reasonable salary and expenses, etc. The manipulators stopped that from happening.

When it came time to select a corporate structure, I and several others lobbied for a non-profit, modelled after NFL, MLB, etc. Others lobbied for a 'shareholders corporation' - and I quote - "just like some supermarkets".

When questioned about the validity of such a model, the chief lobbyist responded with 'I'm a lawyer and there's way too much paperwork involved with a non-profit'. When asked why we should not go the route of other sports, the answer was 'I'm a lawyer and this is the way you ought to do it'. When asked why we should be paying teams a dividend instead of pumping the money back into the organization, the answer was "Because it will motivate the teams to attend more events - I'm a lawyer, this is the way to go'. (When in fact it was the perfect strategy to get the voting members to think with their pocketbooks instead of their heads.)

The one and only attempt at an open bid system was stopped butt-cold by 'Im a lawyer' and cronies - the guy made an excellent presentation, stayed well within our requested budget and was ridiculed and hounded to death by the selection committee (mentored by I'm-a-lawyer) to the point where he said following the meeting "Im not going to work with those people and am no longer interested'.

Billmi - did you want me to spout off? You sure as heck pushed the right button.

In one respect you're right; most of the founding team reps wanted nothing to do with meetings and all of the blah blah blah, but that was actually a small part of it all, and I hasten to point out, the reason things were structured the way they were; creating apathy on the part of voters is a great way to guarantee non-participation at critical vote times - those no longer interested don't show and you get to push through your own program: I copied that same strategy when it came time for the re-call Steve as Secretary vote; I managed to convince most of those in favor of recalling me that I was going to lose anyway and they never bothered to attend the meeting. My 'win' resulted in a certain magazine pulling its sponsorship from NPPL and my being banned from a certain year-end event. Why was I being recalled? Because I had proof in hand that the organization was not owned by the organization.

My final straw was when they bamboozled Bob Long (then president) into signing a league-promoters contract that took all power and control away from the league; Bob was told that 'everyone had voted in favor of it' (a lie) when in fact a special committee was drafting a counter-offer to the promoters at the same time that Bob was signing.

I had a three year plan on the table when the org was founded that was accepted in principal - year one, get our internal act together, year two, market it to the paintball industry, year three, take it to the outside world.

Because of IAL and other greedy gusses, that three year plan has taken 12 years to be realized - and IAL and crowd tried to steal it back when it finally managed to get some legs.

I think that we'll have to wait until certain people are no longer walking this earth to be able to leave that bs behind and move on as a real industry and a real sport.

billmi

02-01-2005, 09:28 AM

Rabidchihauhau can fill in more details, he was very involved in the league during that time.

How rarely do I find it apropos to quote myself. :-)

Point well illustrated that commercial interests have a history of being the only interests that survive for long in organized groups when it comes to paintball. Groups actually founded in "good of the sport" frameworks either don't last, or become converted to polarized commercial interests.

shartley

02-01-2005, 10:24 AM

I just don't see paintball as a whole - players, industry, everyone, cohesively following anything but what is required by law, and even then there will be a percentage that runs outside the law with the ever present mentality of our culture that something is "only illegal if you get caught." ASTM has written some excellent standards, but honestly I can't think offhand of any paintball field or event that I've seen that fully complied with them.
Unfortunately I am in agreement with this statement. It oh so precisely says what I have been seeing over the years concerning paintball and the paintball industry. It runs from cheating on the field by players to actual business practices. But of course if you point out when something wrong/illegal is happening, you had better be on the side of what is “popular”, or you will receive the backlash of those who benefit (or think they benefit) from the illegal activities.

I for one saw a glimpse of hope when harsh, but standard, business practices started to be seen in paintball… with the entrance of larger companies outside the industry taking part in it. This is not that I agreed with every action being taken, but the fact that I was now seeing things that were commonplace in other industries, it gave me hope that maybe the paintball industry was finally growing up and we would see some positive change as well.

And I actually still have some hope that because of these new forces in the industry, that some of the regulation and compliance being discussed in this thread may still be possible. It however has to be shown to them (it seems) that regulation is not simply a restriction, but will aid their bottom line in the long run. And I think these larger outside forces have been in business long enough to possibly see this as being the case. But I can do virtually nothing myself but sit back and watch for the time being. I simply have no weight as a business or moving force in the industry as I am far too small.

Rabidchihauhau, thank you for that very insightful post.

How rarely do I find it apropos to quote myself. :-)

Point well illustrated that commercial interests have a history of being the only interests that survive for long in organized groups when it comes to paintball. Groups actually founded in "good of the sport" frameworks either don't last, or become converted to polarized commercial interests.
I think this is one of the cruxes in the issue. And it is honestly not an evil thing, but natural. If you can’t pay the bills, interest is soon lost. And unfortunately those who CAN pay the bills tend to have less than selfless motives. I wish we could find a happy medium where the interests of the industry are served, and those who are working to serve these interests can survive financially….. and there is sufficient “power” to insure compliance. This so far has been a juggling act that has not been too successful.

rabidchihauhau

02-01-2005, 03:12 PM

I for one believed what was discussed at the original meeting for NPPL, so far as altruism for the betterment of the sport and the concept that 'once the pie is big enough, there will be plenty to go around'; instead, I ended up having to battle for $650 in phone bills (all calls having been pre-approved by the organization) because I took everyone at their word. I took what small monetary contribution I could make and all of the sweat equity I had at my disposal, worked freely and openly with anyone who wanted to ride the same train and, instead of being able to reap ANY kind of reward, was left holding the bag and was villified, castigated and character-assassinated for my efforts.

All because, rather than waiting for the pie factory to be completed and for thousands of pies to be rolling off the assembly line, some people started eating the prototypes; they just couldn't wait.

What they couldn't wait for was the ability to gain influence and power and a handle over the money (more influence and power) - which move had two major effects: the first was, they ended up with the money and a league (supposedly beneficial for them) the second being that they are no longer involved with NPPL, which is now their primary and, in my opinion, superior competitor.

I suppose that if you look at it that way, they sowed the seeds of their own (eventual) destruction because they were just too greedy to wait.