Tuesday, December 14, 2010

The Lazy Slacker Re-post of the Week

This week's re-post is quite timely on a couple of levels. It's from November 2008 and it was the second part of a two part posting called, Robots versus Ninjas. The old (and silly) robots vs. ninjas argument has cropped up again with the PSP's proposed change of no pit-side coaching and the post closes by framing the original debate--such as it was--within the bigger picture. A little something I like to call perspective, which always seems to be in short supply.

19 comments:

SimplyComplex said...

jus a note, as opinionated as everyone who plays paintball is on this issue im suprised neither of the two posts has any comments...

anyway here to firsts.

I think whether you consider yourself a robot or a ninja, your not going to cange. if your a robot playin 7man your gunna find everyway possible to be more robotic. and likewise if your a ninja on the xball field your gunna do everything in your power to be as ninja like as possible. imho it makes little difference cause robots vs ninjas is still entertaining on the field, and there much more evenly matched than most will acnowledge.

Anonymous said...

"very little prior consideration has been given to the consequences of the changes being made. Or the corallary that future changes will, whether intended or not, mold and shape the game in new and different ways. And, lastly, that any contemplated change should be rigorously examined for its likely consequences before being instituted."

Forgive an old Scotch, but this is where I show my age, I'm starting to repeat myself!
Managing change is not an easy process-especially with the current considerations of economy. Given there are 5 stakeholder's that you are aware of, doesn't the coaching aspect of the game really belong in the players realm? How does it impact anyone else, manufacturers, sponsors, organizers, etc.? The players need a voice at that level of decision making-if they don't get it they will surely vote with their wallet or worse yet a bad mouth. Who will the DPA army be - robots or ninjas?

Baca Loco said...

It's called PBN.

Anonymous said...

Sad but likely true-that's what happens when you drink blended sh*t. So how does the DPA or any other recognized force get a seat at the table? Or how should/do ballers untie (forgive the dyslexia) and represent themselves, once at the table?

Baca Loco said...

That's easy; anyone can buy a spot in the one league. In fact, I suspect anyone could buy some part of either league if the price was right. Barring that, nobody gets a seat at any table unless they have the power to make a deal. About the best you can do is be in a position to be heard. No guarantees.

Ballers unite? Hahahahahaahahahahahaha. Whew, let me catch my breath. Ballers ... hahahahahahahahahahahaaha aha ha a

Leclerc said...

To 2nd Anonymous:

Can you give me any example of a business operation where the customers get to sit at the executive table and make decisions?

And I'm not talking about the decision whether you want to have fries with that or a salad. PSP is a business and they make the calls.

Anonymous said...

Leclerc,
Most corporations have focus groups and/or advisory panels. The purpose of these are to maintain the corporation's mission statement. If the health of the coporation is at risk, then the weight of the stakeholder's views is more significant. If you require specific corporations, consider your local municipality, educational institution, hospital and most manufacturers including Ford, GM, etc.
While sitting at the table doesn't constitute a vote, it is still a voice. It appears to me that Interant is not an effective voice. Perhaps league officials should attempt to start their off seasons with an advisory panel to determine any necessary corrections to their mission-provide a high quality paintball tournament series.

bruce said...

What about robot-ninjas... Or even worse, ninja-robots. oooh

Missy Q said...

Ninja-Robots would be awesome.

Reiner Schafer said...

The problem with interant is the anonymity. A business can get a large quantity of feedback via interant, but it's very difficult to qualify it. Is the writer a legitimate potential customer (or someone with influence) or just some loser taking a 5 minute break from the porn site he usually hangs out at?

Otto von Flick said...

@3rd Anonymous:

Being a part of an advisory panel or focus group doesn't get you a seat at the table - all it gets you is a chair in a small closet where the ones who make real decisions go to, to see how the labrats respond to the latest prototype concoction, and then they can choose to adjust or ignore it.

If the industry would listen to the majority vote on how things should be run, paintball wouldn't exist anymore by now.

Reiner Schafer said...

"If the industry would listen to the majority vote on how things should be run, paintball wouldn't exist anymore by now."

Agreed. As it is, the vocal minority has influenced the industry far too much for its own good.

Anonymous said...

Isn't this a moot point now?

With PSPs changes, neither league has coaching anymore, and both leagues have spectator participation. Just like both leagues have ramping, NPPL to 15 bps and PSP to 12.5.

Anyone who doesn't think NPPL has spectator participation and ramping is delusional.

Chris said...

Baca,

When I heard that the PSP was making rule changes I had to get on here to read your views on it, as our cynical views are usually very similar.

Through my entire paintball career I have been exactly what the PSP has wanted. When things were new I was simply a player, when things got expensive I became a guy willing to pay for others to play, when the PSP forced us into outcast, I became the guy with all the money that the PSP wants back.

So, Baca.. In your opinion, why has the PSP had such a hard time learning how to listen rather then speak? Why does it feel like they are so quick to change things year after year? Does stability mean nothing?

-eXilict

Baca Loco said...

Reiner & Otto
Pul-leaseee. Nobody, much less a vocal minority has ever influenced this industry. To think so is to misread the short history of paintball.

Chris
There are a number of factors involved. The PSP hasn't been all that interested in listening and 2, what the PSP thinks is best for the PSP doesn't always correspond to what some percentage of players claim to want. That and of course the PSP isn't and never was a monolithic entity and at different times different voices have held sway over the direction(s) the league moved. And I'm sure they've been smacked a time or two by the law of unintended consequences. Right now the league is in a real bind. The tourney model they operate on has always been defective and past scale and "success" have created a baseline of annual operating expenses that must be met. And all along there have been pressures to address issues they saw coming. And unfortunately some of those manipulations just plain failed or led to other complications.

Fairfax & Carstairs said...

@ Baca

It's just my cynicism showing after reading commentary from paintballers how to change paintball and 95% of them claim that it will be 10x better if it's cheaper. Paint cheaper, field cheaper, guns cheaper...

Baca Loco said...

Fairfax
Sounds like you need to go into the magic bean business since you already have a customer list.

bruce said...

Lower cost would obviously be a huge boon. @Fairfax

What these players really mean is cheaper paint.

Field fees/air, gas, food will remain the same. Paint is really the only variable that players expect should change in price.

Is it possible to go back to the days of extremely cheap paint?

Reiner Schafer said...

"Is it possible to go back to the days of extremely cheap paint?"

Could it be that the extremely cheap paint was being subsidized by the now struggling paintball makers? If that's the case, then I would venture a guess that it will not be happening anytime soon.