Face Masks or not?

[DK1]

So if you were using a gun that you knew didnt meet astm standards you would be a hypocrite to right? Hmmmm

Yup, care to try me on that?

DK1

[rabidchihauhau]

goatboy,

you said "If everything was safe, you wouldn't need insurance in the first place. They're out there selling you coverage for stuff. You make the decision of what you want to pay and what risks you want to expose yourself to. If they find something unpalatable, they raise your rates or refuse to cover you. What they find palatable and unpalatable is not set in stone -- these things can change.
They run in the same circles. The same people who would have you wear facemasks are the same people who would probably tell you to close off the first tier of seating to spectators. I mean, shouldn't the spectators have the option of sitting in the first tier, should they choose to?
Again, this somewhat philosophical question can be answered without delving into dubious insurance based arguments. The further you attempt to dig in with insurance, the more you invite counterpoints to an already bad position."

1st tier seating was going to come with a free pair of goggles and would cost 5 dollars more than the regular seating - and anyone who wanted to could sit there.

Bad position? You're acting as if this didn't happen, or that I'm speculating. It already happened. Its not a question of whether this could be done, because it ALREADY HAS BEEN.

Your argument about basing an assessment of risk on what the provider has to say is also off: the insurance industry as a whole are the experts in risk analysis. They've become such because their business relies on 'guessing' correctly; a provider has to be able to assess the percentage chance of a payout situation occurring and balance that against a coverage rate thats low enough to get people to pay it (if the risk was 10k and the coverage was 10k, no one would bother buying it...)

And finally, the type of insurance I obtained was single event coverage, so there's not an issue with rates going higher if accidents occur; this particular company, which I have been at pains to describe and explain, offsets all of their insured properties against each other; so here's another tack to try and explain the expertise: these folks insure most major theme parks where the 'risks' are potentially higher than paintball; do you have to sign a waiver to walk into the park? no, you buy a ticket with a bs one printed on the back.

So, here's another instance in which two different kinds of insurers do things differently; paintball fields require a waiver signed, theme parks don't. Why the difference? Its not necessary - expect if you want to do it that way.

Same goes for the safety equipment (which as Beemer has been hopping up and down about isn;'t made to standards that protect from today's equipment)

[Evil Bob]

Evil Bob,

you are confusing 'willful acts' with 's*** happens'

Nope, I intentionally included both, you need to be insured and prepared for both. Pick up June 04 issue of PGI and read the interview with Markus Nielson. Here we have a moron who will go out of his way to intentionally harm people because he likes to. He likes to bonus ball people in the unprotected back of the head when bunkering them with the intention of trying to render them uncouncious. Do you honestly think he would think twice about firing into the audience if given the opportunity (ie. no netting)? Would you knowing allow such a hotheaded player to play at your venue or would you turn them away?

...and, the one major difference you did not mention (unless I missed it) was that all of the other balls/pucks used are larger in circumference than the eye orbit of a person (victim); something smashing into your eye can break the bones surrounding it, but sinfce that will absorb most of the impact and stop further penetration, its unlikely that permanent damage will be done to the eye itself; a paintball getting in there, at velocity, can destroy the entire eye.

Well, I didn't mention that mainly because I didn't think it needed to be brought up. We all know pucks and baseballs are heavy, one only needs to turn the volume up to hear their impact when they're bouncing off the boards or being caught by the catcher at home plate. The last thing I'm worried about when being struck by a puck moving at 100+ mph is whether or not it's going to hit me in the eye, I'm more worried about actually survivng the hit in the first place. Pucks, golfballs and balls carry more kinetic energy then paintballs when they strike spectators, they dont need to hit the eye to cause damage or even death, they just need to hit you in the head. Paintballs, by design, dont hold alot of kinetic potential over range, todays water based fills are alot lighter then the oil based ones we used to shoot back in 1982. The difference here is a paintball doesnt need to carry alot of kinetic energy simply because it can fit nicely into the orb cavity and neatly bypass all the protective skull layers. It only takes a couple ounces of force to cause discomfort or pain to the eye, a couple foot pounds can cause severe damage.

You are also somewhat attacking the concept, which allows me to pontificate a little: when I get involved with something, I never accept the status quo 'just because'; I always question. Why do we do it this way? Why not try that way? Everyone says its too dangerous - well, lets find out instead of taking them at face value.

The concerns you raised are really only appropriate for discussion in the area of unintentional spillover - bouncers off of bunkers, ricochets, etc, and all of our research has shown that by the time a ball bounces off of a bunker, its shed enough velocity to be harmless (so far as permanent injury is concerned).

Permanent injury - this is what an insurance provider is really concerned about, because permanent injuries are the ones that produce million dollar lawsuits; someone who's arm was broken gets their doctor bills paid; someone who loses an arm gets wages, doctor bills, pain and suffering, etc.

Yes, I was attacking the concept because it appears here to be very illogical. The bottom line is paintball, without the proper protective gear, is dangerous, for both the players and the spectators. Spectators are protected by the netting that contains the projectiles, regardless of which direction they are being fired, to the gaming field. Removing that netting, regardless of the ammount of thought that you put into it or the insurance agencies risk analysis, appears to me to be an irresponcible action since it removes the spectators protection entirely, there would be nothing stopping any ball heading toward the spectators from the gaming area whether it was fired intentionally or not.

I'm not terribly worried about bouncers, I'm more worried about the balls that are unimpeded as they leave the game area. This could be as innocent as someone doing a superman slide in the directin of the spectators. Barrels on slides are intentionally held up to prevent the nasty dirt plug or possible damage to tip. Add to this the fact that today's hair triggers take only a brush to activate, it doesn't take a whole lot to put rounds down range, again it could be something as easy as the player gripping the frame a little tighter and accidentally brushing the trigger with their finger as their marker hits the ground/bunker, that would fall into your "s*** happens" or "unintentional spillover" category. I, myself, have errantly fired balls into the bunker and nearby boundry netting when sliding into a bunker, it happens, but since it's contained to the playing field by the netting, no one worries about it, its only a couple balls. Remember, we'd like to have a place that people can bring their families too. I personally would not bring my kids to any event that removed the netting, I'm not willing to risk that.

Very true, insurance agencies really only care about their bottom line, how much its going to cost them when someone gets hurt. They're in the business to make money, so their bottom line is often very different then your's or mine, they have what they call "acceptable risks" which sometimes defy all common sense. Like others have said, I dont necessarily trust them to determine what is safe to me, their definition of acceptable risks are not necessarily the same as mine.

A player who turns and fires into the crowd would: A - be tackled and beaten to death immediately by the reffing crew that I hire; B. would be the ultimate defendant in a suit C. would get sued by me, my insurance provider and the person(s) shot (not to mention the people sitting next to them who got scared) and D. would be defending himself from a jail cell.

We solved the distance issue by closing off the lower tier of seating, so that any shot was not only travelling 100-150' of linear distance, but also an additional 20 some odd feet because of the elevation. You could stand there all day and take hits and few, if any of them would break (this is distance from the outer boundary of the playing field); the height of the stands makes it 'feel' closer, so nothing was really lost in the imemdiacy of 'being in the action'.

Ok, so the end result is they get tackled, beat within an inch of their life, sued, and tossed into jail. That's the end result, I'm concerned about what happens between the time they start firing into the crowd and the ref reaches them to tackle them. The question here is how much paint can be put into the spectators before action is taken? With the race guns we use today, the average idiot could empty a full hopper into the crowd before a ref could take notice and knock them to the ground. Take a look at any picture of a grandstand when it's full of people and tell me what you see more of then anything else? Answer: heads and shoulders. A moron firing into the crowd has a pretty good chance of smacking a bunch of people in the face simply because bleachers are designed in a tier manner to provide the person sitting behind you a view of the playing area over your head, you dont see alot of torsos beyond the frist seated row.

The next question is how often are people rational when they're really angry? Will they take the time to think "hey, if I fire on the crowd, I'm going to get my a** beat, this is really a bad idea"? You beating their a** is what they contemplate when they're sitting in the jail cell a few hours later wondering where their front teeth ended up, not when they're all hyped up on anger and andrenaline.

This leads us to the final questions: with the above dangers, why would we ever consider removing the "safety" netting around a paintball field, especially in today's litigation happy world where anyone can sue for nearly anything? Would it not be better to be safe then sorry?

-Evil Bob

[Beemer]

Yup, care to try me on that?DK1

Ok ill bite. Im betting you didnt just call yourself a hypocrite. All my stuff is legal. Of course I could mess with it and make it not, but that would make me a hypocrite.


"Same goes for the safety equipment (which as Beemer has been hopping up and down about isn;'t made to standards that protect from today's equipment)"

Well I didnt hear you disagree. To quote you from another thread..."the people that know arent saying anything"

Heres what I got.

dont know dont care

know but dont care

dont know but care

Know and care and dont know what to do

Today===NOBODY CARES

Old Skool===When the players were informed and cared along with the industry

[DK1]

Ok ill bite. Im betting you didnt just call yourself a hypocrite. All my stuff is legal. Of course I could mess with it and make it not, but that would make me a hypocrite.

I currently don't even own a marker. I took the summer off from playing to finish up my degree. I have used a "bouncy" gun exactly once during a game in my life. It was a RT mag (micromag actually) and I had already sold it. I was finishing making sure the L10 was working properly in it, and using a short on/off pin to test my fancy new Halo. That was the day I realized RT bumpers aren't made to take that kind of punishment. I wanted to play, and the test setup was all I had at the time. At least everyone playing knew the gun was a ringer... we'd been blasting up light poles all afternoon with it.

As for the rest of your post, I assume you're talking to Rabid?

DK1

[M-a-s-sDriver]

The helmet law of paintball.
The ONLY reason I wear a mask is the refusal to let me play if I don't.
I would go goggles only tomorrow if they would let me.
I've been at it since '86, and been ripped everywhere, including the face.
I'm still damm good lookin' too.
Ban masks now.Old Scott goggles only.
Brent.

[rabidchihauhau]

Beemer,

here's your blanket answer to just about everything:

most of the people who have the money got the money by lying, cheating and stealing and, because they lied, cheated and stole to get the money, they will do anything they have to to make sure that they keep on getting the money. (This statement is NOT paintball specific)

the problem is not knowing what to do or not caring or whatever, the real problem is that the bad guys have ALREADY won...

***

why remove the netting? go ask a basketball fan the following questions: 1. what's the difference between watching on TV or being at the game live? 2. what's the difference between being in the nosebleed seats or sitting courside?

netting is an impediment to comfortable viewing. if there is a 'safe' way to eliminate it, then I would prefer to do so. its as simple as that. plexi doesn't work (unless you installed a windsheld wiper system); the cheapest, easiest route to go is to find a way to go netless. I found one.

'Acceptable risk' is an interesting term. The two things I have been discussing (no masks, no net) introduce additional risk, but I am personally satisfied that it still falls within the acceptable level. I'm the one footing the bill, I'm the one that got out there and said here's a different/better way to do things, so, other than a participant's own decision on what their level of acceptable risk is (and whether or not they want to participate as a player or spectator), the only person who's opinion counted was mine.

I mean, if you want to attack the concept on an emotional level, go ahead, but it really doesn't matter.

And btw - I'm STILL trying to find out why some of you folks INSIST on wanting to make other players adopt your own biases regarding risk, instead of letting them make their own decisions.

(I guess it really goes back to the whole societal tug of war over responsibility; most people seem to want to be able to blame the other guy and shed as much responsibility as possible, by making rules for what EVERYONE has to do in order to be 'safe', while I'm trying to open the rules back up again and rely on personal responsibility.)

[rabidchihauhau]

Evil,

couple of other things:

1. of course you need to be prepared for both - but the two are different animals and are handled differently.

So far as Marcus is concerned - I know him very well. I too am a member of the 'five balls to the back of the head' school of tournament play.

A. TOURNAMENT play. real tournaments, where the players all know exactly what they are getting into.

B. I do not, nor does Marcus, play that way when we're off the tournament field. I don;t play off the tournament field, period (no interest, no challenge) for that matter, I don't play anymore, period.

C. the people who the above is done to are just as likley to do it back to me (or Marcus) given the same situations - and both of us still went onto the field to play knowing it would happen.

D. the tactic evolved because of bad reffing; you CANNOT make a successful hole breaking move on a concept field if the defender can turn and 'take you with him'; therefore, lite the guy up so that the last thing he thinks about is trying to put a ball on you

E. nice? no. 'sportsmanlike'? no - but then again, trying to win games in a high profile tournament where the fix is probably in and the refs are 'giving love' to the opponents leaves you little room to manuever - if you decide to play and want to win.

Tyger - yes yes, bad example for the young set. All, yes yes, gi es tournaments a bad name, horrifying, awful, reprehensible and all the rest. Sorry. But I'd still do it in an event where the above mentioned applied, because I know that that is the way the game is played at that level and if I didn't, I'd be wasting everyone's money, time and effort.

Does it need to change>? yes. How often did it happen at PaintFest? not once. why? because the reffing was on top of things and the format itself prevented it from happening through a variety of different rules. (Not discouraged, physically made it virtually impossible).

Its called being pragamatic: I played that way because that's the way it was played - but I also got out there and did what I could to correct it.