Jump to content
IGNORED

Was kocht da zwischen IPSC und USPSA?


BBF
 Share

Recommended Posts

vor 14 Minuten schrieb 2011-Jack:

BBF machs nicht so spannend - bitte eine kl. Zusammenfassung auf deutsch.

Schaut irgendwie so aus, als würde in den USA etwas ansatzweise Ähnliches stattfinden, wie es 1990 in Deutschland stattgefunden hat.

 

 

Grüße

 

Iggy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 6 Minuten schrieb 2011-Jack:

Iggy und das war dann was ?

In den USA scheint es ja wohl darauf rauszulaufen, daß einerseits die USPSA als Dachverband sagt, sie haben zu wenige IPSCler als daß es sich lohnen würde, unverhältnismäßig viel Kohle an Lizenzgebühren an die IPSC zu bezahlen, andererseits aber einflußmäßig unterrepräsentiert zu sein. [Die IPSC ist ja, so empfinde ich es, nix Anderes als ein Franchise-Unternehmen, das Nutzungslizenzen für den Namen und das Regelwerk gg. Zahlung von Geld vergibt.] Die Amis wollen ihr eigenes Ding weiter durchziehen: USPSA-Schießen, was eh' zu etwa 99% identisch mit IPSC ist und sich nicht (dauernd) von der IPSC reinreden lassen.

Im Gegenzug scheint die IPSC dann halt in den USA "einen eigenen Laden" aufmachen zu wollen.

 

Bis 1990 (das war weitweitweit vor meiner Zeit) lagen die Lizenzrechte am IPSC-Schießen beim "Verband für praktisches Schießen Deutschland" (VPS). Irgendwann hat dann wohl  eine extrem knappe Mehrheit der VPS-Mitglieder entschieden, die IPSC-Vertretungsrechte abzugeben und auf den BDS zu übertragen. Die Gründe dafür liegen m.W. noch immer arg im Dunkeln. Einer der damals mit am meisten Involvierten, Ossi Treuting, kann sich dazu aber leiden nicht mehr äußern, da er sich vor einigen Jahren selber aus dem Genpool entfernt hat.

Wir hatten einen der ersten deutschen IPSC-Schützen im Verein, der seit den 70er Jahren mit Col. Jeff Cooper auf us-amerikanischem Gelände in Ansbach geschossen hatte. Der und einige Andere haben immer mal wieder von 1990 erzählt. LOGISCH NACHVOLLZIEHBAR war es aber niemals gewesen; nicht einmal ein Großteil derjenigen, die damals dabei waren, hat so richtig begriffen, was da am Ablaufen war. 

 

Also, wenn die Lizenzrechte in den USA tats. an jemand Anderen übertragen werden, dann sehe ich schon eine gewisse Ähnlichkeit der Geschehnisse. 

 

 

Grüße

 

Iggy

 

 

p.s.

Wenn ich die alten Geschichten richtig verstanden habe, hat sich der bayerische Teil des o.g. VPS gesagt "macht, was Ihr wollt, wir schießen weiter, wie die Jahre zuvor" - und daraus hat sich dann der BLDS entwickelt.

Der Witz ist: USPSA und IPSC sind zu etwa 99% identisch und das dynamische Schießen des BLDS und IPSC sind ebenfalls zu etwa 99% identisch.

Ähnliche Aufspaltungen von Verbänden gibt es übrigens z.B. auch in Italien ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verstehe  Iggy - klingt nach Akte X  Thema.

 

Zitat

Wir hatten einen der ersten deutschen IPSC-Schützen im Verein, der seit den 70er Jahren mit Col. Jeff Cooper auf us-amerikanischem Gelände in Ansbach geschossen hatte.

 

Mit so einem war ich unlängst in der Squad. Der hat mir das auch erzählt das in US Kasernen in D IPSC geschossen wurde.

Gelgendlich wurden da dann auch deutsche eingeladen und so kam wohl das IPSC nach good old Germany.

Edited by 2011-Jack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hier in den USA wird ausser bei den Nationals nur USPSA geschossen. Ist vom Regelwerk her so gut wie identisch, es ist aber etwas mehr Spielraum bei der Stagegestaltung, Art der Ziele etc.

Da ich grade beruflich hier in den USA bin konnte ich das gerade live ausprobieren. Da kommt zum Beispiel selbst bei Pistolenmatch mal ein Texas-Star zum Einsatz.

ISPC spielt nur für die Handvoll Schützen eine Rolle, die tatsächlich international schießen.

 

Eines der Hauptprobleme ist wohl, dass eine Reihe von Vereinen gerade auf den Philipinen nach USPSA Regelwerk schießen und Matche veranstalten. Das sieht IPSC als Verletzung der regionalen Souveränität.

 

Schade dass es jetzt da auch schon politisch Zerwürfnisse gibt. Reichen die Hürden der tatsächlichen Politik nicht, dass wir uns jetzt auch da noch intern zerfleischen müssen??

Und leiden wird eh erst mal nur der gemeine Schütze und der Sport an sich...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 10 Minuten schrieb Jazzde:

Hier in den USA wird ausser bei den Nationals nur USPSA geschossen.

 

Was mir nicht ganz einleuchtet USPSA/IPSC fast gleich

und IPSC wird beim USPSA Verband geschossen welcher aber primär USPSA schießt.

 

Klingt irgendwie nach Mercedes F1 Team hat auch zwei F1 BMW mit denen sie fahren :wacko2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Jazzde:

so wie ich das hier verstanden habe sind sie nur im IPSC um eben international schießen zu können.....

 

Denen ist hier wohl die Bevormundung durch das IPSC Council zu viel .... Politik halt

 

Was ich bei allem Wunsch nach Internationalität des Sports verstehen kann. Außer für eine Elite im unteren zweistelligen Bereich, die zu internationalen Matches will, ist die IPCS-Mitgliedschaft für USPSA-Schützen unbedeutend, denn es gibt in den Vereinigten Staaten aus offensichtlichen Gründen mehr Matches als man der Zeit und in den meisten Fällen auch dem Können nach sinnvoll abarbeiten kann. Effektiv subventioniert also der amerikanische Verband den Weltverband ohne dafür allzuviel zurückzubekommen. Daß er dann keine Lust hat, dafür angepault zu werden, daß in einer ehemaligen amerikanischen Kolonie ein paar Schützen die USPSA-Regeln besser finden, ist verständlich. Die Zukunft von USPSA jedenfalls hängt nicht von IPSC ab, sondern davon, daß viel Nachwuchs zu den Matches kommt, und damit sieht es nach meinen Beobachtungen sehr gut aus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

genau. Ist durchaus nachvollziehbar. Ich habe es hier in 3 Monaten auf 8 Matche in der näheren Umgebung geschafft, incl Shotgun und 3gun. Und wenn ich nicht noch was anderes hätte machen wollen ausser schießen hätte ich noch einige mehr schaffen können :-)

Die meisten Vereine hier haben alle 2 Wochen ihr L1 Match meist im Wechsel mit dem Nachbarverein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Jazzde:

so wie ich das hier verstanden habe sind sie nur im IPSC um eben international schießen zu können.....

 

Denen ist hier wohl die Bevormundung durch das IPSC Council zu viel .... Politik halt

Die Italiener regeln das etwas anders - aber durchaus auch recht elegant:

Sie deklarieren "Eigentlich-Level-III-Matches" einfach nur als Level II und vermeiden somit, daß ihnen die Internationalen und Offiziellen des IPSC dreinreden.

 

 

Grüße

 

Iggy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hallo,

das Problem ist ein ganz anderes. Die IPSC Führung hat sich mit einer Regeländerung die Möglichkeit geschaffen nicht "kooperierende Regionen und ihre RDs" ihrer Akkreditierung zu berauben. Da auf den Philipinen ein Verband entstanden ist der nach USPSA Regeln schießt (http://psmoc.org.ph/), kann das als Ungehorsam gewerted werden, da dies mit dem Einverständnis der USPSA geschieht.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Und am Ende geht es wieder nur um Macht und Geld.

USPSA Matche werden ganz anders gesponsert, teilweise gibt es sogar Preisgelder.

Bei der Florida Open 2009 z.B. bekam jeder Gewinner (Div. und Cat.) eine Pistole.

Für Ausländer ist es natürlich schwer diese exportieren zu lassen, die Amis konnten sie gleich einpacken und mitnehmen.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 10 Stunden schrieb gun doc:

Hallo,

das Problem ist ein ganz anderes. Die IPSC Führung hat sich mit einer Regeländerung die Möglichkeit geschaffen nicht "kooperierende Regionen und ihre RDs" ihrer Akkreditierung zu berauben. Da auf den Philipinen ein Verband entstanden ist der nach USPSA Regeln schießt (http://psmoc.org.ph/), kann das als Ungehorsam gewerted werden, da dies mit dem Einverständnis der USPSA geschieht.

 

Und genau darum warnt die USPSA im Moment davor, sich zum Worldshot in Frankreich anzumelden da sie genau das befürchten. Und wenn das passiert haben die Schützen vor Ort ggf. das Problem mit ihren Waffen, da sie nicht mehr aus sportlichem Grund da sind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wen soll diese Posse eigentlich interessieren?

Lann einem vollkommen am Popo vorbei gehen, was verschiedene Verbände tun. Auswirkung hier = 0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 15 Stunden schrieb Iggy:

Die Italiener regeln das etwas anders - aber durchaus auch recht elegant:

Sie deklarieren "Eigentlich-Level-III-Matches" einfach nur als Level II und vermeiden somit, daß ihnen die Internationalen und Offiziellen des IPSC dreinreden.

 

 

Grüße

 

Iggy

Darüber haben wir in Berlin auch mal eine Zeit lang nachgedacht.......

 

Gruß & DVC

 

Hajo

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 2 Stunden schrieb schiiter:

Wen soll diese Posse eigentlich interessieren?

Lann einem vollkommen am Popo vorbei gehen, was verschiedene Verbände tun. Auswirkung hier = 0

Einerseits völlig richtig.

Andererseits werfen solche Geschehnisse ein bezeichnendes Licht auf gewisse Verhaltensweisen und auf gewisse handelnde Personen.

 

 

Grüße

 

Iggy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nachdem ja eingangs der Originaltext UPSPSA/Mike Foley zitiert wurde, ist es vielleicht ganz interessant, die Richtigstellung der IPSC (durch Vince Pinto in blau auf Global Village) zu lesen:
Tut mir leid, ist ein bisschen länger, aber recht informativ (hatte leider keine Zeit für eine zeitnahe Übersetzung).
 
Vince Pinto: Hi folks,
 
I have a lot to say about the most recent kerfuffle, but I'll begin by adding my comments in blue below. Note that I have not removed any of Mike Foley's comments; I just interspersed mine!
 
Important Announcement from the USPSA President
 
Every three years, it costs USPSA over $100,000 to be a region of IPSC, including some World Shoot expenses.
This is incorrect. The USPSA only pays IPSC a grand total of US$9,600 per annum (US$28,800 over 3 years) in fees. This is exactly the same amount paid by our other 11 largest Regions (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Philippines, Russia, South Africa and Sweden)  which have all reached the 2,000 membership cap. 
 
By the way, due to the fee reduction announced recently by the IPSC President, the annual fees for those regions will be reduced to US$8,500 from January 2017.
 
The USPSA may spend additional funds in respect of fielding teams to IPSC World Shoots and other major matches, but that's not an obligation to IPSC. It's entirely a USPSA decision!
 
The only benefit that USPSA enjoys is passage to IPSC events held outside the United States.  The benefits of this arrangement are enjoyed annually by about 15 USPSA members, and every three years by about 60 USPSA members when there is a World Shoot. When the World Shoot is held in less stable and attractive countries, fewer American athletes are interested in going.
The final sentence does not match actual reality. Even when the World Shoot is held in "less stable" countries (South Africa? Ecuador? Indonesia?), the USPSA still asks for extra slots. 
 
That means that over 27,000 of our members pay for the privileges of only a few to enjoy IPSC. 
Only about 500 USPSA members get to shoot the USPSA Nationals. Is that fair to the other 26,500 members?
 
In any case, the US$9,600 currently paid annually to IPSC equates to only US$0.35 per member. For comparison, a region with only 100 members pays US$1,100 annually to IPSC, and that equates to US$11 per member. Both regions get 1 vote in the Assembly, but one pays considerably more per head for the privilege. 
 
Of course the USPSA must still make its own decision about the value of those fees, but I wanted to put the numbers into perspective.
 
There is no agreement, accord, or binding document in force between the two organizations.
Actually there is. It's called the IPSC Constitution. In Article 4.1, it says that IPSC is "a league or agreement between two or more independent Regions whereby they unite for their mutual welfare, and the furtherance of their common aims. Which, however, retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some other purposes"
 
When one region encroaches on the sovereignty of another region, that's not "mutual welfare". 
 
The relationship between IPSC and USPSA has been a volatile one since before our inception in 1983.  Recently, the relationship has continued to be one of controversy and volatility around the globe. 
Actually, there had been peace and tranquility from the year 2000 until the end of 2015. This is because former USPSA Presidents Mike Voigt and Phil Strader both honoured the gentleman's agreement which required people who want to affiliate clubs and hold USPSA matches outside the USA to obtain the approval of the affected IPSC Regional Director. Below is a copy of the form the USPSA created for that purpose. Also note that the form specifically covers classifier stages, not an "Asia Pacific Championship" or similar..
 
Attached File  1 USPSA Foreign Club.pdf   49.29KB   16 downloads
 
I am personally acquainted with a few of the founders of IPSC who are still alive.  These are the same founders of USPSA, and IDPA as well.  I am also acquainted with the past presidents of USPSA, who enjoyed the same “welcome letter” that I received in January from IPSC.
The only person to previously receive a "welcome letter" (see below) was Mike Voigt in the year 2000. However, after the so-called "PASA Accords" were reached, we had smooth sailing until the beginning of 2016.
 
Attached File  ipsc-uspsa-2000.pdf   201.99KB   21 downloads
 
I am 100% certain that practical shooting wasn’t organized in Columbia, Missouri in 1976 by Colonel Jeff Cooper to become a political monarchy controlled by a triumvirate of three people who control and influence over 90 regions, and their proxy votes.  
I'd really love to know the identity of the triumvirate, who presumably are evil people. Also, Mike clearly does not understand how the IPSC proxy system works. Contrary to his (and popular American belief), the IPSC President does not arrive at the Assembly with a bunch of proxies in his back pocket which he can use to force his personal views.
 
Article 8.13 of the IPSC Constitution specifically prohibits general proxies. As any Regional Director can attest, the Proxy form requires him to vote on a line-by-line basis for each item. Yes, IPSC does make voting recommendations, but not a single Assembly has convened without one or more Regional Directors voting contrary to the recommendations. If Mike Foley can name one Regional Director, just one, who voted the recommended way out of fear, I'll buy him a new Cadillac.
 
These three gentlemen make up the IPSC Executive Council.  
The IPSC Executive Council is comprised of 6 people. Article 6.1 of the IPSC Constitution refers.
 
Many of these regions only have a few shooters, and they are often the elite, wealthy, and protected class in their respective countries.
Many US States only have a few shooters too. Are they less important? I also know that some USPSA Areas have double the number of members of other USPSA Areas, but each Area Director gets the same single vote. Don't do what we do, do what we say?
 
The US region is one of the largest regions, but with the same vote and voice as the smallest ones, that is how a confederation works.  We pay our annual member dues (over $10,000) based on the number of members we have, just like the smaller ones pay on their low membership numbers.
Again, the fees are US$9,600 per annum. However, it's correct that we operate on a "One Region, One Vote" basis. However, the only region ever to complain about the system, repeatedly, is the USPSA. Even Russia, which has 50% more members that the USPSA, has no objection to the system.
 
In IPSC, each member region is an equal partner with 1 vote each. However, as I understand it, foreign affiliates of the USPSA have no vote and must yield to the USPSA BOD voted-in by domestic members. Is that like taxation without representation? Tea, anyone?? :)
 
Anyway, let's be perfectly frank: the USPSA will never be satisfied unless all other regions are subservient to the USPSA perhaps if the USPSA has veto power, but neither of those are going to happen. Ever.
 
Just a few days ago, the IPSC General Assembly met in Hungary.  I was not able to attend, as my predecessor had scheduled the USPSA Limited, Open, and Limited 10 National Championships for the same dates that IPSC had scheduled the General Assembly in Europe.  I am unsure which was scheduled first.  Feeling the need to do my duty as USPSA President and IPSC Regional Director, I sent a delegate ambassador to the General Assembly to attend, speak, and vote on behalf of the US Region, while I hosted the Nationals in Frostproof, Florida.
USPSA delegate Matt Hopkins represented the USPSA with dignity, and I tried to make him feel welcome.
 
Three particular resolutions were passed at the General Assembly which are of interest to USPSA.  Only the US Region voted “no” on these resolutions, and they passed with all other regions voting “yes” either in person, or by proxy.  You can read the excerpts below:
 
Article 5.9 The Executive Council may, by unanimous vote, suspend the affiliation of any Regional Directorate for failure to respect the Principles of Practical Shooting, or for defalcation or mismanagement of the affairs of its Region, or for misrepresentation of or failure to represent the interests of Practical Shooters residing therein, or for any action deemed harmful to another region or to the confederation as a whole. Such suspension must be ratified by a majority of votes cast at the next ensuing Assembly. The Assembly may, on recommendation of Executive Council and by a majority of three-fourths of the votes cast, expel a Regional Directorate for the reasons aforementioned, whereupon the Region shall be declared vacant.
 
That the following text replace the existing text in Rule 6.5.1.1. all rulebooks:  In any case, match organizers must not accept any competitor or Match Official from another Region unless the Regional Director of that Region has confirmed the competitor's or Match Official's eligibility to participate in the subject match, and that the competitor or Match Official is not under sanction from the IPSC Executive Council.
 
Rule 6.1.7 A Region affiliated to IPSC cannot actively or passively sanction a shooting match of any type or format within the geographical boundaries of another region without the advance and written approval of the Regional Director of the region where the match is to be held. A Region in violation is subject to Article 5.9 of the IPSC Constitution.
 
It is with the deepest concern for competitors or match officials who are interested in representing the United States in the next IPSC World Shoot, or any IPSC competition, that I issue the following travel warning:
 
It is likely that the United States Region of IPSC will be sanctioned by the Executive Council for allowing one of our pre-existing 14 foreign clubs to host matches under USPSA Rules in the Philippines.  Note that about 20 other countries have asked to do the same, and pay fees and affiliate, but that I have not allowed this to happen, to date.  USPSA leadership has not been interested in pursuing the global practical shooting market, but we have not enforced a moratorium on the free market, either.
That last sentence does not match reality. Over the past 10 months, we've seen the "USPSA Pan American Handgun Championship" in Puerto Rico, and the "USPSA Asia Pacific Handgun Championship" in the Philippines (see below). The latter was run by USPSA NROI Chief Troy McManus who went on an all-expenses-paid junket . He also visited a few months earlier to conduct USPSA Range Officer training.
 
uspsa1.jpg  USPSA-PanAm.png
 
Another USPSA match is scheduled in the Philippines in December (see below). If it goes ahead, that will invoke the new rules.

psmoc-2016-dec.jpg
 
In January 2016, the USPSA Board of Directors unanimously confirmed the USPSA President’s full authority over this matter, and supported the decision to act in a sovereign manner regarding USPSA.  
Now I'm really confused. Does the USPSA have sovereignty over the Philippines?
 
The Board was fully aware that this would be a tumultuous situation, and agreed that USPSA would not deny access to practical shooting.  I notified a member of the IPSC Executive Council of this decision, and was told that the Council would deliberate on this matter, as both he and I expected.
 
The USPSA Mission Statement is:
 
Our mission is to promote safe, fair and fun participation in Practical Shooting competition, for members of all ages and skill levels, through effective leadership, education, communication and administration.
 
Our Strategic Initiatives are:
 
• Grow the USPSA Brand
• Grow the membership
• Return clear value to our members
• Educate our membership in all facets, at all levels
• Raise positive public awareness about our sport
• Develop clear, unambiguous rules and policies
• Re-establish involvement as a fundamental aspect of our sport
• Reclaim our roots for the next generation
• Develop new forms of practical shooting competition
• Actively pursue Junior involvement
• Drive consistency through every level of the organization
• Deliver our services better, faster, cheaper
• Give our customers more than they expect
• This is OUR organization
 
I don't see "Export USPSA" in those strategic initiatives, but actions speak louder than words.
 
Even if USPSA were to agree to not actively sanction USPSA matches outside of the US, it leaves us with two issues: The resolutions adopted by IPSC define the sanctioning of matches subject to penalty as both “actively and passively”. 
Without the carefully chosen expression "actively or passively", an offending region would simply deny complicity.
 
That means that we would be expected to police matches using our rules, targets, or name outside the US, where we have no real power or authority, and no real interest in pursuing these matters in international court, wasting both time and money.
Um, no. Regional Directors of affected regions would do all the grunt work and notify the USPSA, as they have already done. Sadly, despite my friendly and private requests, the USPSA refused to take any action, which forced us to go to the IPSC Assembly.
 
Over 500 foreign members, and 14 foreign clubs, could be in violation of the new rules, and consequently have to be expelled from USPSA.  This may occur at the whim of the same IPSC Regional Directors who approved their applications to begin with. It seems unreasonable, at best, that we would be used as political pawns to control practical shooting in other countries. 
IPSC has no problem with the USPSA having individual foreign members (I'm USPSA Benefactor Member B7). The sole issue is USPSA matches on foreign soil without the approval of the IPSC Regional Director. In some cases, and IPSC Jamaica springs to mind, the IPSC affiliate conducts IPSC and USPSA matches, and that's great.
 
Athletes shooting matches using USPSA rules in the Philippines are reported to have been banned from IPSC matches there. 
If true, any such decisions were taken by IPSC Philippines, not by IPSC HQ. In any case, the internal affairs of IPSC Philippines are nobody's business except for Filipinos.
 
To support the recent IPSC changes, is to be forced to deny the very principles on which both organizations were founded.
Neither organisation was founded upon encroaching the sovereignty of other member regions.
 
As USPSA President, I will continue to do what is best for USPSA as a whole, which includes not supporting special interests of the elite few. A few of you want to go to France in 2017, at any cost, it seems. Consider that the future of the organization is more important than any one competition, vacation, or competitor.  
The organisation (USPSA) is 99% American residents. I think they should take priority over foreign members, but that's not my call.
 
Also consider that USPSA could literally field, fund, and transport 60 athletes to France for the 2017 World Shoot, and be sanctioned and disqualified on the first day of the General Assembly while in France.  
Another lack of understanding of the procedure. If the USPSA proceeds with the match in the Philippines in December, suspension action by the IPSC Executive Council will most likely take place in January 2017, which means the USPSA would not be given any slots to France, so their competitors would know 6 months before their intended departure.
 
There are difficult, international legal issues that could arise from trying to exit France with firearms that no longer have a sporting purpose for being there.  I am certain that I will inflate some egos, but IPSC is very powerful politically, and could cause serious problems for USPSA athletes in other countries.
This is a non-issue. See my comment directly above.
 
While I don’t personally know the gentlemen involved in the IPSC Executive Council, I cannot trust our future, financially, or otherwise to anything other than the wording of the above resolutions.  These resolutions are clear that there is no power, or trust, in this situation.
This has nothing to do with trust. The resolutions speak for themselves, and they are crystal clear in their meaning. 
 
It is rumored that IPSC will start their own IPSC Region in the US, should USPSA no longer be affiliated with IPSC.  I do not oppose this idea, in fact, I welcome it.  It would give athletes the ability to choose the sport that is right for them, and create more opportunities for international competition.  
Again a lack of knowledge how IPSC operates. IPSC does not form new regions. We only process applications, but I expect there will be numerous applications in respect of replacing the USPSA should the USA region become vacant.
 
Many of our athletes belong to multiple shooting sports organizations, already.  I wish IPSC the absolute best.
And IPSC wishes the very best to the USPSA, whether they remain a member or not.
 
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas!
 
Mike Foley
USPSA President
IPSC Regional Director
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wenn man sich die Argumente hier und vor allem auf Global Village anschaut, scheinen wir es wieder mal mit dem Problem Nummer 1 in unserer Welt zu tun zu haben: Kommunikation bzw. das Fehlen derselben.

 

Solange USPSA und IPSC sich gegenseitig und vor allem öffentlich (!) erklären müssen, wer, was und warum falsch versteht, kommt hier keiner weiter.

 

Die Beteiligten (USPSA BoD und IPSC EC) müssen sich möglichst bald mal an einen Tisch setzen und Klartext reden, ohne sich von den Sandkastenstreitereien von ein paar philippinischen Kindern beeinflussen zu lassen, die meiner Meinung nach nur auf Differenzen zwischen dem IPSC RD und dem PSMOC Präsidenten beruhen.

 

In Jamaica funktioniert es doch reibungslos, warum nicht auf den Philippinen?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Guidelines
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.