PDA

View Full Version : Proposals…



cledford
08-14-2002, 09:46 PM
This is our board that Tom is graciously hosting to help us deliver the information needed to combat hype to the masses. The idea actually came from a nonAOer who was monitoring a thread on a different forum and was impressed with the nature of the posts from the AO guys.

I would like to suggest (and only suggest) that we consider some things before moving forward with the forum. One of the key reasons for it being separate was so that non-AOers could easily keep up with what we were doing – so I would say that the post count here might be best kept to a minimum, in organized threads. Just a thought – to make it easier to navigate for others. We’ve also got Deep Blue, Friendly Corner, and Paintball talk to work on a lot of these issues.

Second, maybe a single sticky thread to list out all of the different things/myths/hype we’d like to test out. Instead of multiple threads each identifying a single idea – maybe one combined to start – then working threads for each as the testing starts.

Third, we start a couple of threads that discuss the testing procedures/protocols we’ll use in general. It would be best to keep the processes as open as possible and as easy as possible to recreate – because others will want to do their own verification. Posting data in a consistent and professional manner will also be important.

Forth, we identify members with skill sets (or equipment) that make them more able to conduct certain tests the others. Not everyone has a gun dyno, computer chrono, scuba system, or advanced electronic test equipment – but all of us have some part or other.

Fifth, we come up with a mission statement of some sort. If we just start debunking every claim without the masses knowing why – it might seem as if we are on a witch hunt against every other manufacturer that isn’t AGD. Something like “We wanted to see how fast ALL loading systems fed in light of new performance claims. We found this, that, and the other thing – and oh, by the way, XYZ advertised by ABC is PURE HYPE – here is the proof.”

Again, I’m not trying to impose any of these ideas, just trying to spark debate on how best to go about this. I’d like to see us gain maximum credibility with the entire paintball community (we’re off to a good start) and think that some forethought will ensure this. Don’t forget, we’re the true believers, we’ve got to convince them.

-Calvin

Butterfingers
08-14-2002, 10:25 PM
Thats a great idea!

I like the structure behind it. This will keep everything organized and easy to access.

Miscue
08-14-2002, 10:25 PM
Agreed!

My proposed mission statement:

To cut through the hype by scientifically and objectively analyzing the capabilities of paintball equipment, testing performance claims made by consensus and by manufacturers so that the paintball community can discern fact from fiction.

orangejulius
08-14-2002, 10:30 PM
may I propose are first thing to work on. the truth about closed/open/blowfoward accuracy and range. I believe thats a pretty good place to start.
PS. I am in the right thread right?

Miscue
08-14-2002, 10:31 PM
/me proposes that a password be put into place...

AGD
08-14-2002, 11:03 PM
Gentelmen,

As far as a first project is concerned I would rather stay away from deeply ingrained ideas such as "closed bolts get better range". We should wait until the forum establishes itself and the public believes the people and the process. I do think the Crossfire reg could be a good one though.

AGD

FooTemps
08-15-2002, 12:18 AM
Ok, so we'd basically have the 4 sticky threads.

1. Statement:
(I think this should be locked once we get the final version of our statement)
2. Protocols:
(I think this should be locked also)
3. Claims susceptible to be tested:
(This doesn't need to be locked since claims are always made and people can bring them to the table at any time. We just need to be wary of repeats)
4. Testing providers:
(Best name I can come up with it. This should stay open too since there are always people who might want to join in and have the equipment. We just need to be cautious since some people may be bias and provide false info)

The first 2 kinda serve as a governing document. The second 2 are just evovling lists of data used for testing.

kevdupuis
08-15-2002, 09:16 AM
If I might make a suggestion? On the claims thread in order to identify which has or is being tested, to use a couple of different identifiers, ie: different colours, or icons, which might make life a little easier.
Also if you can limit non essential, (might sound a bit agressive) posts on the actual working threads. Thoughts and ideas welcome as long as we can cut out some redundancy. even this post