<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV>Differences of opinion is what makes this a "society".</DIV>
<DIV>But it does NOT mean that topics are "dead" because folks disagree.
WE may not know how many lurkers don't want to engage in public discourse.
Or how many have gone underground to work changes that they desire.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At least I'm out here, thumping the drum.</DIV>
<DIV>And I will continue to do so.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello<BR>NSRCA 199 AMA 46373<BR><A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Rcmaster199@aol.com
href="mailto:Rcmaster199@aol.com">Rcmaster199@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 09, 2005 10:07
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> We're not starting that again,
was: Re: adding complexity to Sportsman</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>I respectfully disagree. Complexity of Masters bears little
resemblence to that in Sportsman. The two are mutually exclusive events
and arguing the semantics or politics of that, is counterproductive.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sportsman complexity is fine as is. So is Masters, as is. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Earlier talk suggested to add something akin to a Finals schedule
series for Masters Nats competition, different than the same ol' sequence, as
a means to spark more interest. That's a decision the Masters community may
want to make. If it wishes to make the schedule more complex, great. I
see nothing wrong with the challenge of more complex maneuvers. If the
community wishes to keep the status quo, hey that's fine too. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Question in my mind is why is it that at Nats Finals, one is hard pressed
to see spectators at the Masters site? Forget about spectators for a
moment, I had a heck of a time filling 3 of 5 judges chairs. I know I
personally asked about 2 dozen folks, and Don asked a bunch also. Every one
wants to observe F3A and witness history, I suppose. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If the event crowns a National Champ, would the event be better
attended/spectated if it were more entertaining/interesting? That's
essentially the question on the floor. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MattK</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 1/9/2005 5:45:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rcaerobob@cox.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>And this issue is EXACTLY why the "progression of classes" needs to be
managed, and (caps by intent)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>WE MUST STOP ESCALATING THE OVERALL COMPLEXITY OF SEQUENCES TO KEEP UP
WITH CHANGES IN FAI !!!!! The "trickle down" of FAI difficulty drives
Masters. Then that drives Advanced, then it drives Intermediate
changes, and finally Sportsman, where we lose potential entrants because it
overwhelms them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are people who monitor this list who I have been coaching.
If they chime in, they will tell you of the difficulty in "finesse" needed
to be really competent NOW in Sportsman, and even moreso when they moved to
Intermediate.</DIV>
<DIV> I am NOT one of those "disconnected" Masters pilot
guys.....I "know" what's going on in other classes, and we better address it
as a society. Soon.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As a rule-proposing body, the NSRCA has the responsibility, as a
society, to Stop the Madness.</DIV>
<DIV> Masters does NOT have to be "nearly FAI".
Obvious reason; someone wants that complexity, let 'em FLY FAI.</DIV>
<DIV> Advanced would not be such a huge jump from
Intermediate IF it wasn't the stepping stone to a less-complex
Masters.</DIV>
<DIV> Intermediate would not have to be so tough of a jump
from Sportsman.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Changing our very philosophy of the game is what it will take,
men. You may disagree, but you cannot deny what pitifully-small data
points we have paint a picture of the "graying" of the game.</DIV>
<DIV> Yes - there are LOTS of reasons we don't have the
'seed pipe' we used to (competing RC venues, time, money, etc.), but my
point is, and HAS BEEN, that we do NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE GAME *HARDER* to
make it challenging for Masters' pilots!!!!</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello<BR>NSRCA 199 AMA 46373<BR><A
title=mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A
title=http://www.rcaerobats.net/
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>