"Partner protection" @ '09 USPA Nationals

Quote

So you think a DZ shouldn't take steps to break even or make a profit while holding nationals? You seem to have changed your tune once your event got involved.

No I didn't change my tune, I've been involved for more than just this year.

What I'm saying is that its wrong that a DZ can pick and choose what they want to host. Either they host everything or the USPA should break apart nationals like it used to be a long time ago.

If a DZ is unwilling to allow modern swooping at their DZ (as in SD AZ) and they don't want to have swoopers at nationals, fine, but the USPA should break all of nationals apart and let the bidding occur across the board.

Quote

Canopy Piloting Nationals will be at Spaceland.

See other DZ's have decided to snub an entire group of competitors, ...

Maybe they just have limited ambulance parking ?

Bill, you are trying to reach again. Since your skyride argument didn't work, now you're trying to shoehorn this one in as well. It doesn't work. Your next post will undoubtedly try to explain your position again, but seeing how your argument is flawed maybe you'll simply try to marginalize me again.

Oh and Scott, swoopers accounted for nearly 12% of the total number of competitors at Nationals this year. Sorry, competitive swooping is here to stay and it is outstanding that we have certain DZs that are willing to actually host the USPA members who are trying to compete.

I personally observed no problems with the partner protection, so it was a non-issue as I observed. That's not a USPA issue as the rules are written now. That may change, but as of right now it isn't. I still haven't heard of a specific team or jumper that was in violation of their current sponsorship deals due to the DZ's sponsorship agreement. A lot of chest thumping but nothing definitive.

A DZ failing to host an event shouldn't be an option, unless all the events in the bidding process are split. I have no problem with SD AZ having banned modern swooping. I simply won't jump there; however, if they can disallow an event at nationals, then other DZs should have been able to bid on all the individual pieces. Maybe AZ would be a great place for RW and Perris could have hosted all the artistic events. I have voiced this opinion to my RD more then a few times. I have also voiced this opinion to more than a few other RDs more than a couple of times. I have also contacted ND and other board members about this.

You're still trying to combine an argument that is two separate issues. Your a moderator, why don't you split the thread? I brought it up to properly explain a question that was asked by Twardo.

Too bad we didn't get a chance to say high at nats this year, I guess unless you take up swooping you won't be back for a while.

Quote

You seem to think it's fine for USPA to allow some competitor's sponsors to be excluded but not certain events to be split off. That's inconsistent. Either DZO's have a right to do what they want to do to maximize their profits (and minimize their losses) or they don't. Which is it?

That's because it is two separate issues. They don't HAVE to be the same. This is a total fallacy stating that they both have to be one or the other.

I'm not arguing for or against splitting events. But the policy does not have to coincide with how events are sponsored. This argument is complete fallacy at the very basic levels.

Personally I don't have a problem splitting events between DZs. So what? Some competitors will have issues though as some of the top competitors in team events are also top competitors in the CP events. They will have to travel to separate DZs. It will be an inconvenience, but as long as the events take into consideration the timeframes to allow competitors to compete in both, I think it will work fine.

Quote

>I personally observed no problems with the partner protection, so it was
>a non-issue as I observed.

What sponsored teams did you jump with?

I jumped with 4 and 8 way, and did see problems.

Really? Like what? Please explain. I don't know of anyone that was affected, with the POSSIBLE exception of Nomad's POTENTIAL sponsorship. As far as I know, not a single team has lost sponsorship due to the "partner protection", with one possible exception. Please explain how 4 and 8 way teams were affected.

Quote

>I still haven't heard of a specific team or jumper that was in violation of
>their current sponsorship deals due to the DZ's sponsorship agreement.

?? And no one will be. They will simply not be sponsored. The DZ will make a bit more money and sponsors will spend less on sponsored teams. If you think that's fine, then I can see you supporting Partner Protection. But that does not mean "no problems" - it just means "no problems for AggieDave."

Really? Please tell me who has lost sponsorship? Seems to me that I recall seeing members of the PD team on Good Morning America shoots with their PD apparel at the DZ. PD wasn't a "partner." EVERY competitor had the same opportunity to display their sponsors logo.

Did you just not get as many pull-up cords and t-shirts as you wanted?

My argument remains the same. If people don't like the "partner protection" policy, they should do something about it. Same for the issue of splitting events. Since nobody seems to have a solution other than bitching, here are some potential ways to affect the situation.

1. Contact the implementer of "partner protection". Tell them that as a participant/consumer you are unhappy with their policies. Tell them why. Tell them you expect something different. PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE.

2. Boycott events/businesses that participate in activities you don't agree with. Inform the event/activity that you are boycotting and WHY.

3. File legal action against the event/business for activities you deem inappropriate. (Personally I hate this one because virtually every dispute can be resolved without such measures. But hey, it's the American way, right?)

There's three prominant measures to do something about it. Personally I recommend starting at the top and working down. Of course, each of these courses are more effective with a large group joining forces to support the argument or cause. So, by all means join forces.

Now that I've made that proposal, I'm guessing that nobody was affected the the point that it's worth any of these. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so. My gut instinct is that PD is going to spend the same $$ on sponsorship that they would have without partner protection. So is UPT and Bev Suits and Tony Suits and Cypres and.....and....and.....

Think about it, really. Who is going to lose sponsorship? My guess.....NOBODY.

So it all comes down to not getting a few pull-up cords and trading that perhaps for better than just "good-enough-to-hold-nationals" facilities.

So gather the forces. Start the crusade. See who was really affected by trying to gain support for the cause. I'm busy so I'm not available.

Quote

If people don't like the "partner protection" policy, they should do something about it.

Ok, but this is a website where we discuss such things. If you don't want to read about it, don't read this. We don't "do things" on here, we talk about things. People have done things like contacting USPA, which apparently stayed quiet on the matter.

I just find it funny when people post that we should stop talking about something on here, or when people get mad that someone (like USPA) doesn't respond to the complaints about whatever the topic of the day is on here. This IS the place to talk, it is NOT the place to get anything accomplished.

Dave

Fine. I'm not disputing that. Let's talk about how to overcome the problem then. Discussion is great...when it leads to solutions. I don't have any problem with discussion. Everybody gets an A for problem identification. Now what? That's all I'm saying.

In the spirit of providing solutions, here's a couple more that have proven effective, so I add to the list:

4. Civil disobedience. Put the policies to the test. (just understand the potential repercussions and be willing to accept them, should said disobedience lead to these repercussions.)

5. Figure out how to be an effective product representative under the policies to retain sponsorship. Demonstrate to a potential sponsor that you can still effectively represent their product without handing out pull-up cords and pitching logoed tents. Demonstrate your potential and effectiveness through action. (This might mean spending time talking up your sponsor's product. Ever seen how NASCAR drivers can manage to spit out every one of their sponsors in 1.6 seconds before every statement they ever make? Something along those lines.) Promote your sponsor's products in media interviews, casual contact with skydivers in the community, participants, and spectators. Explain your sponsors product promotions and demo programs, etc., etc., etc. Represent your sponsor's values through your actions and behavior. Be a representative of the company.

If you apply these things, you just might not need pull-up cords and t-shirts.

Oh, and if USPA didn't respond, there's probably not enough of an issue to warrant their response. Or perhaps the other side of the argument is more compelling.

Quote

Quote

If people don't like the "partner protection" policy, they should do something about it.

Ok, but this is a website where we discuss such things. If you don't want to read about it, don't read this. We don't "do things" on here, we talk about things. People have done things like contacting USPA, which apparently stayed quiet on the matter.

I just find it funny when people post that we should stop talking about something on here, or when people get mad that someone (like USPA) doesn't respond to the complaints about whatever the topic of the day is on here. This IS the place to talk, it is NOT the place to get anything accomplished.

Dave

Thanks for the new sig.