IS THERE ANYTHING STINKIER THAN OLD DIRTY LAUNDRY?
December 29, 2007
Yes. Human feces. But that will be the subject of a different blog.
PSP and the history of tournament paintball (which will eventually lead to a discussion of their recent BPS rule change.)
Did you know that the PSP was founded on a lie and a vain attempt by one Lewis J. Braun to keep himself and his company at the forefront of tournament promotion?
It was. Way back in 1992 when the teams founded the NPPL, they hired Mr. Braun to be their corporate counsel and also made the stupid-assed mistake of letting this same person volunteer to promote two of their scheduled six events - which later grew to four when Jeff Perlmutter of PMI dropped out of the promotion game.
Well, ok, ancient history, right? Except for that pesky little saying about being condemned to repeat it if you don’t learn it, that bit of history could be forgotten.
The NPPL dropped its first event, reducing their inaugural season to five tournaments, which it has remained at ever since. That left Mr. Braun promoting four out of five.
This despite the fact that this same promoter was responsible for the only national tournament who’s champion was decided by a coin toss in the parking lot (no lie – they had to turn on car headlights so they could see the toss. Mr. Braun’s brilliant scheduling resulted in daylight running out before the game schedule did.) AND the same person responsible for the world’s first $100,000 prize for a paintball tournament – that ended up handing out only $80,000 in cash. And the same person who arrived at an NPPL annual meeting to announce that he had signed a deal with ESPN on behalf of the NPPL – any teams that wanted to be in it could pay him $2500 entry fee…(I’m getting ahead of myself. I hope you didn’t miss the fact that he stepped into the middle of a television deal between the league and the network and then charged the people he was supposedly representing to attend…)
And then somehow Mr. Braun manuevered himself into the position of accepting all of the entry fees and unilaterally deciding how much of the take the league would get from him. Seems there was always more dollars needed for port-a-johns that weren’t on site, more referees that didn’t show up, scoreboards that were never made…
Then he went through a period of having to ’share’ his wealth with some of the bigger teams who used their own muscle to get a lock on promoting at least one event a year. Smart Parts got an event. Bad Boys Toys got an event. PCRI/PEVs got an event, and others as well.
Somehow they all forgot that NPPL events were supposed to be put out for bid. Funny – there was only ever one bid meeting…
Oh, and I forgot all about the member teams’ annual dividends. See, the way things were set up, all of the founding member teams, and any other team that stepped up and purchased a membership in the league were supposed to get a share of the profits at the end of every season. Year one – everyone got theirs. Year two – everyone got theres and then decided to roll it back in as an investment in the league. Year three – no payout. And there hasn’t been one since.
The above was the result of Mr. Legal Counsel Braun’s suggestion that the league be set up as a shareholder’s corporation like – and I quote – “supermarket chains”. Oh. OK. Sure thing. (“So if that’s the best way to go, how come all the other sports leagues are set up as non-profits?” “Shut up you!”) The shareholder thing was a brilliant move to blind everyone and anyone who might question what was going on with promises of money.
Then he moved to disenfranchise the amateur teams (there was a majority of them and they wanted to do things differently) – despite the fact that it was illegal to do so.
And how was he able to do all of this you ask? He was the duly appointed legal counsel for the league and, as far as the paper trail is concerned, he never transferred ownership of the corporation to its real owners – the teams.
He also got rid of or bought off anyone in a position to question the way things were being run. Anyone remember Kevin Donaldson? Jim Anderson? Steve Davidson? Rosie? Every one of them will tell you the same story – after they stop throwing up. Braun used them as fronts and then cut them off at the knees when they got too uppity.
So then along comes Chuck Hendsch. Chuck had been elected as Vice President of the NPPL the very last time that the organization held legally constituted elections. Since the President (Tom Cole) had resigned (probably in disgust) according to the league’s legal by-laws, Chuck was in charge until such time as elections could be held again.
Chuck found some friends that gave him the monetary and political clout to take control of the NPPL away from Braun. He announced what he was going to do (the league’s by-laws were in disarray owing to the fact that there were no legal voting members any more. Braun killed that too) and then set about doing it, which entailed a complete separation of the league from anything Mr. Braun was involved in.
Go back and check the letter columns in the magazines and the archives of the web forums. Braun publicly states that Hendsch was stealing the league. He even went so far as to rename his organization PSP-NPPL in an attempt to confuse the marketplace. But there was little he could do, since Chuck had been smart enough to secure the league’s intellectual property and Chuck won that shouting match.
The following year, Braun removed the NPPL part of his league’s name and its been in competition with the NPPL ever since.
Over the years, Braun has been alternately praised as having been instrumental in founding tournament ball in the US and reviled as a power-grabbing manipulator. His reputation became so bad at one point that he had to hide his involvement with various enterprises: his position with ProCaps as some kind of corporate advisor and distributor, his ownership stake in Cousin’s Paintball, his revenue sharing stake in Paintball Sports Magazine and who all knows what else. The man was famous for ‘doing favors’ for people and then demanding payment at some future date.
(Quick humorous aside. Mr. Braun hasn’t always had it his own way. One company I know used to advertise in his magazine – Paintball Sports International. This company called the magazine up to temporarily stop their advertising since they didn’t want to go in debt. Braun said he’s run the ads anyway. The company insisted that the ads stop and stated they wouldn’t be responsible for paying even if they were run. Braun ran the ads anyway. Later on that year, the company attempted to purchase a booth at the World Cup. They were told that they couldn’t have one until they settled their bill with the magazine – just fold it in with the booth price. The total came to something like $3,000 of which half could be product that would be used for prizes. The company delivered $1500.00 in bottle o-rings to the event…I’ll bet there are still some players out there using that “prize”.)
One thing is for sure – he’s never given up effective control of anything he’s been involved in. You may not see him wandering around (which was difficult to do even when he was wandering around), but he’s still out there some where.
So now we come to ramping, rate of fire and the continuing antics of the PSP. Which will have to wait for part two of this entry. Except for an answer to Mr. Raehl’s statement in the comments of the previous post. You are wrong about the history of setting ROF limits. Everyone in the tournament game at the time was well aware that the ASTM, under major pressure from the American Medical Association, was insisting that there be NO full auto, NO multi-shot modes and that ALL electronic semi-auto markers should be physically limited to no more than 13 balls per second. 13. Not 13.3. Not 13 with ramping. No bouncing. No ramping. No memory modes. One trigger pull per ball. Period.
They ALL knew it. Some manufacturers voluntarily accepted the standard before it was finalized by ASTM (Brass Eagle among them). Others, finding a willing partner in the PSP, chose to steal market share by ignoring the standard – and player safety – instead.
POLITICALLY CORRECT CAVEATS: Hendsch and Pure Promotions have since sold their interest to Pacific Paintball and Shawn Walker. Since Pure Promotions set up an entirely new corporation, there’s probably nothing that the original NPPL owners (the teams) can do – and at this point it would be a wasteful, disruptiuve and pointless effort. PSP has been taken over by Lane Wright and company and all of the evidence points to the fact that Lane is at least trying to do things wRight. In any event, Lane wasn’t around when most of the foregoing occurred and doesn’t carry any resonsibility for any of it.
Entry Filed under: paintball. .
12 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
raehl | December 29, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Your history is… selective. But, I wasn’t there, so I’ll let that go.
You entirely sidestepped my comments on rate of fire, on two fronts.
One, before PSP introduced a ramping rule, players were using illegal boards to shoot well faster than semi-auto. There currently is no reliable way to stop this – you can catch some people who are bad at cheating, or unintentionally cheating, but you can’t stop cheaters with illegal boards with hidden firing modes. It does not matter if the RULE is semi-auto, because as long as the rule is not enforceable, people will not be shooting semi-auto.
The only two choices are let only cheaters ramp to ANY bps, or set a cap and let everyone ramp it. PSP chose the safer, fairer alternative: A bps limit that everyone gets to shoot.
Two, you argued that it was a mistake for PSP to now limit BPS to 13.3 because it takes away the advantage of people who shoot faster than 13.3 in semi-auto, and at the same time argued that 15 was not safe. Those two arguments are contrary to each other. If players shooting 15 bps ramping is not safe, then cheaters shooting 18 bps ramping in leagues with unenforceable semi-auto rules is not safe either. It’s not like someone loses their mask, and has paintballs flying at them, and the paintballs shot at 15 bps ramping injure the player while the paintballs shot at 18 bps “semi” hit a “these paintballs were shot with semi-auto” force field instead, saving the player from injury. Physics is physics, and paintball physics doesn’t care about trigger mode.
I don’t think either is unsafe. Unpleasant, sure, but not unsafe. But, the fact of the matter is, due to things entirely outside PSP’s control, from the first hidden-mode aftermarket board to the rate-of-fire arms race between manufacturers, NOBODY shoots semi-auto anymore. It’s paintball’s dirty secret. Virtually every electronic gun on the market adds shots through switch bounce or board software.
So, the real question is, if PSP’s ramping rule is so bad, what’s the alternative?
I think it’s boards with readable, verifiable, certified software. Maybe next Christmas. But until then, ramping is unfortunately the lesser of the evils, as far as national-level and regional-level events go. 10 bps ramping would be great, but 13.3 is a step in the right direction.
2.
Paintball Thinker | December 30, 2007 at 2:41 am
After the rate of fire semi-auto agreement was made, only a short time went by before the agreement was broken. When the agreement was made, it was pretty evident that it was not going to hold. There were some pretty logic defying arguments made about certain guns being “semi-auto” and what constituted a trigger pull. The meeting was a joke. The companies who kept to the agreement did so because of real concern about liability. Other companies were looking for competitive advantage by having guns which shot faster.
The original reasons for keeping rate of fire low was concern about multiple trauma hits to the heart in young children, concern about how many impacts a goggle system could withstand, and concern about the increased possibility that in an eyesight loss, both eyes could be hit due to multiple impacts.
The concern about anything greater than semi-auto was mainly due to control of the guns. In true semi-auto without bounce or assist, rate of fire was kept low. Not only would other than true semi auto increase problems listed above, but a new player could panic, holding down the trigger and hit another player multiple times.
It is amazing that ASTM standards could be made and then ignored by both the tournament circuits as well as the insurance agencies. One wonders if an injury caused in part by ramping and rate of fire could be considered gross negligence because of the ignoring of ASTM standards. One also wonders if the insurance companies would try to use this gross negligence to not cover an accident in this situation.
3.
gnomedplume | December 31, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Its not just that they ignored them; when the ASTM members made it clear that they were going to go along with Dr. Paul VInger and his AMA buddies, the reps for the companies that had decided to ignore the standards essentially gutted ASTM through non-participation.
It has only been through luck that a major event that ignores the standards hasn’t been taken to court over this issue. If (and when) that happens…
4.
gnomedplume | December 31, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Raehl:
there are numerous ways to prevent ramping and other electronic cheats THAT VILOATE SAFETY STANDARDS.
1. don’t allow electronic makers
2. limit ALL markers to gravity feed only hoppers
3. limit the number of rounds allowed per player
4. only allow markers that have tournament supplied chips in them
5. take a baseball bat to the head of the first person caught using a cheat mode and do it live, in front of the spectators.
everything that is wrong in paintball – especially competition ball – is summed up with this one issue: instead of enforcing the rules, we make the cheating part of the game.
why not save promoters a whole bunch of cash and just leave the referees at home?
5.
gnomedplume | December 31, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Raehl:
“but you can’t stop cheaters with illegal boards with hidden firing modes…The only two choices are let only cheaters ramp to ANY bps, or set a cap and let everyone ramp it”
And you’re going to catch the people who violate THAT standard how…?
You’re not contradicting yourself, but you’re just not following through on the logic. You can’t catch hidden ramping modes, so you allow hidden ramping modes with a cap. What prevents the cheaters with the hidden modes from coming up with hidden ramping that goes beyond the cap? NOTHING. Take the intermediate step out of the equation: YOU CAN’T CATCH HIDDEN MODES OF ANY KIND. No matter where you try to put the bar, others will cross it at will. Your solution is not a solution, its only (temporary) window dressing.
The only way to get a handle on the issue is for someone with a tournament series (someone? someone?) to grow a set of balls and put their foot down. (Not on the balls…) EITHER tournament supplied chips (and if a manufacturer doesn’t want to participate in that program, they’re product is illegal for the event, sponsorship or no sponsorship. Let THEM explain to the players why they are supporting cheaters…) or no electronic markers. PERIOD.
RATHER THAN GIVING IN to the cheat fest, set the bar BACK to where it CAN be enforced.
The fact that anyone attempting to do this would quickly be put out of business by pressure from the cheaters lobby is about as clear an indication of how much of a non-sport competition paintball is.
6.
Pete | January 1, 2008 at 4:20 am
Wow, big names in paintball, good times. Aside from being a minnow-in-a-shark-pond as far as industry experience goes, I have some thoughts. I might have misread the article, but I didn’t see anywhere anything even close to a complaint that 13.3 bps ramping took an advantage away from players who could fire faster than that with semi-only software. So that’s just an odd point to make. Second, I’d love to see a major tournament insist on a controlled board for their events with a ROF limit and a mode-lock. Or no ROF, but definitely mode lock. True semi-auto is not unsafe in my opinion and I don’t know anyone that’s been hurt worse by a few extra hits than one unfortunately placed shot. Lastly as a consumer, I’m all in favor of reducing the full-auto/ramping being used on commercial fields. I know it’s technically illegal, but with tournaments allowing it, it does seem to imply that it’s more “ok” than not. A lower ROF cap would be an improvement in that case, but I think we all agree that less control (and higher ROF) is unfriendly to new players and therefore to the growth of the market.
7.
raehl | January 2, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Gnome, it seems like you’re a bit out of touch with some of the technology works.
“What prevents the cheaters with the hidden modes from coming up with hidden ramping that goes beyond the cap? NOTHING.”
Actually, PACT timers with telescopic microphones do. When your limit is based on shots per second, you can use a league-controlled piece of equipment to tell, during the game, if someone is exceeding your limit, and penalize them for it if they are. The one weak spot with this is breakouts, but other than that it’s both reliable and effective.
That’s not possible with semi-auto, because we don’t currently have any technology that can tell how many balls are being shot per pull of the trigger during the game. At best we can pull the gun and check, but then by the time you’re checking, the hidden modes allow the gun to switch back to a legal mode.
I’m a bit surprised that you’re writing all this stuff about gun modes when you’re apparently unaware of such a basic part of the equation.
As for:
***
1. don’t allow electronic makers
2. limit ALL markers to gravity feed only hoppers
3. limit the number of rounds allowed per player
4. only allow markers that have tournament supplied chips in them
5. take a baseball bat to the head of the first person caught using a cheat mode and do it live, in front of the spectators.
***
1, 2, and 4 fail on impossible for the leagues to force the industry to do.
1 and 2 fail on the players won’t stand for it.
2 fails on the solution should not be to make equipment unreliable.
3 fails on doesn’t work. Limiting paint does not limit whether the guns shoot a safe rate of fire or not, specially outside of tournament games themselves.
5 fails because it doesn’t work either. When the only people you can possibly catch are those who are cheating unintentionally or are just plain bad at it, your honest players won’t play for fear of accidentally getting their head bashed in and the cheaters won’t be phased because they know they can’t be caught.
The best option is #4. I would prefer this option. I think it’s a shame that the leagues have not put more effort into it. But it’s a tough solution to implement, and not one I think the leagues can force on the industry.
None of this, of course, changes the fact that the only two options PRESENTLY available to the national leagues are capped ramping and uncapped ramping (even if the league calls uncapped ramping semi-auto, the guns on the field are still shooting uncapped ramping.) And of those two options, capped ramping is safer.
8.
gnomedplume | January 4, 2008 at 11:58 am
Mr. Raehl,
I don’t believe that I’ve given you any reason to be sarcastic.
I’m obviously well aware of the technology, familiar with robots and PACT timers and will not allow you to have things both ways in this discussion. Either the hidden modes can’t be detected effectively or they can be. You’ve come down on the side of “can’t”, so try to stick with your own argument.
And you completely avoided my challenge: as a tournament promoter, why not step up and enforce the hard rules? Its clear that the manufacturers aren’t going to accept the responsibility and players are going to try and get an edge. Looks like you’d rather hide behind them than use your position to do something effective about it.
If you choose to reply – be circumspect. I’ve yet to ban anyone, but will not hesitate to do so.
9.
raehl | January 4, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Don’t mistake my disagreement with you as sarcasm. I mean it 100%. For example, you say:
“I’m obviously well aware of the technology, familiar with robots and PACT timers and will not allow you to have things both ways in this discussion. Either the hidden modes can’t be detected effectively or they can be. You’ve come down on the side of “can’t”, so try to stick with your own argument.”
I can have it both ways, because detecting a hidden mode that shoots more than one ball per pull of the trigger and detecting a hidden mode that shoots more balls per second than are allowed are NOT THE SAME THING.
Arguing that if you can’t detect one, you must not be able to detect the other is either in error at best or intentionally disingenious at worst. It is simply not true.
We DO NOT have technology to detect if a board is shooting more than one shot per pull of the trigger during a game. We DO have technology to detect if a gun is shooting 17 bps during a game when it’s only allowed to shoot 15 bps.
It doesn’t matter if the mode on the board that lets the gun shoot 17 bps is ‘hidden’, because you can’t hide the fact that the gun is shooting 17 balls in a second instead of 15. The RESULT of the cheat is MEASURABLE.
With semi-auto, the result of the cheat – that two balls come out when the trigger is pulled instead of one – is NOT MEASURABLE in game circumstances. Thus, hidden board modes work, because there is no current way to detect them.
So, point is, we don’t care if we can detect hidden modes when the rule is a bps limit, because we don’t have to – we just have to detect a violation of the bps limit.
10.
gnomedplume | January 6, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Mr. Raehl,
Don’t come back here anymore. Your comments will be deleted.
You ARE trying to have it both ways and, AS A PROMOTER, YOU HAVE STILL FAILED TO STEP UP TO THE BAR AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE HEAD ON.
The issue, as you well know, is ENFORCEMENT. It is just as impossible to enforce rate of fire as it is bounce/ramping. Unless of course you are planning on assigning one referee per player, each referee armed with a monitoring device and following the player around the entire game, constantly taking readings of their marker.
You’re well versed in confusing the issue as it seems to be a habit with you.
BTW – where’s the ‘trickle down’ effect that you implied would be the result of your ‘presidency’ of the NCPA? Don’t bother to answer, it will be deleted.
11.
DiFara | January 7, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Yeah. That’s the way to get people to read your blog.
12.
gnomedplume | January 7, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I guess it worked for you!