The Monday Poll

The first ever The Monday Poll appeared in the middle of May two years ago and wanted to know which major league website sucked the most. (It was a runaway win for the old PSP website; ugly, hard to navigate, a general pain in the ...) In honor of that first poll VFTD revisits the idea and this week asks the question: What paintball website sucks the most?
There is no right or wrong answer. Ask the Magic 8-ball. Sacrifice a chicken. Read the tea leaves. Take into consideration what the site claims to provide. Does it deliver? Is it modern and good-looking? Does it make you proud to be a paintball player? Is it easy to navigate? Do you enjoy the content? Learn anything? Whatever criterion you use this is your opportunity to decide which paintball website sucks the most. (VFTD will be included just so I don't have to hear from the whiners--and because I don't really care what you think.)
I have left out manufacturers, stores, owner's groups and the like otherwise the list would have been endless.
Have fun. Mock the losers. Post up in comments why you voted for the lame site you voted for. Nothing will encourage our website owners to be better like a little ridicule and mockery. Vote now. (The list will include every paintball website I can come up--without working too hard or searching for an exhaustive listing.)

Monday Poll in Review
Last week's poll question wanted to know the average amount you spend playing a day's paintball. The break between double digit percentages and single digit percentages came at around the 80% mark. 80% of all respondents spent $75 or less for a day's paintball. The numbers broke down as follows: less than $50 (32%), $50 (17%), $60 (13%), $75 (14%). The remaining 20% of poll respondents paid more than $75 for a day's paintball. (It would be really interesting to see how the amount spent corresponds geographically. Does the area of the country make a difference?) The above $75 group broke down like this: $90 (2%), $100 (8%), $120 (5%), $150 (1%), above $150 (4%). (It would also be interesting to see if anyone responding to the poll was a renter.)
Here's a bit of conjecture outside the parameters of the poll's data; it looks to me like the majority of players aren't shooting more than a case of paint regardless of the price of that paint which would also suggest that over the top high ROF concerns might be somewhat overblown--or else the perps aren't playing for very long. Figure air & field fees run from $15-$30 and in the $75 and under categories that leaves enough (maybe) for a typical case of paint. At the high end the cost could reflect the purchase of multiple cases of paint but it seems unlikely renegade anti-social punks are the majority of those purchases. Particularly when you realize these percentages also represent fields like Reiner's that use cost to regulate paint usage and practice paint for divisional tourney players. Doesn't seem an unreasonable guess anyway--based on this data.