Retailer Suspended and Game Site Cautioned

[clanfalcon]

Grandfathering has been happening. As far as I know there are no rules against this at all.

[ChasKi]

Sounds like an over-reaction from my personal point of view. The transition was never going to be smooth and mistakes were going to be made.

 

The whole UKARA scheme isn't a necessary requirment anyways, it does come across to me like their acting a bit bigger than their boots.

 

 

[Edits]

 

I also don't see how this will damage LandWarrior's livlihood. They're allowed to sell aslong as they verify the skirmishers validity. I highly doubt the vast majority of skirmishers will hold it against LandWarrior.

 

Guzzi: They're not required to have the UKARA database to check to sell the RIF's, aslong as they verified by some means that the player is allowed to use the specific skirmishers defence, they can legally have sold as many RIF's as they want too.

 

I just want to point out I don't live anywhere near LW at all, in a different country, infact. I'm in no way affiliated with them and havn't ever purchased from them and it won't effect my potential future trade with them at all.

 

 

[kerberos_]

I'm pretty sure there would be good reason to put details though with no stamp. I recall reading on the website there were delays with issuing of stamps?

 

Is that something that contributed to it - retailers not having the appropriate tools, yet felt happy with their forms, so uploaded meantime?

 

So retailers were to lose business because of admin issues?

[clanfalcon]

I also don't see how this will damage LandWarrior's livlihood. They're allowed to sell aslong as they verify the skirmishers validity.

 

But we are blocked from accessing the database in which to verify details. We could blindly sell which is wrong and what we trying to avoid in the first place.

 

I'm pretty sure there would be good reason to put details though with no stamp. I recall reading on the website there were delays with issuing of stamps?

 

Speaking to Nick at NCIS Skirmish, they did not receive their stamp til early this week I believe

[kerberos_]

Postal Strike

Posted October 10th, 2007 by admin

If you game site has not yet appeared on the approved list, it may well be because their application is held up in the post, unfortunately this is beyond UKARA's control.

 

Something like that ^

[kerberos_]

But we are blocked from accessing the database in which to verify details. We could blindly sell which is wrong and what we trying to avoid in the first place.

 

 

 

Speaking to Nick at NCIS Skirmish, they did not receive their stamp til early this week I believe

 

Can you as a retailer upload details directly?

[snorkelman]

I'm pretty sure there would be good reason to put details though with no stamp. I recall reading on the website there were delays with issuing of stamps?

 

Id have thought the most obvious reason to put thru wthout stamps or verifying was the pre-existing agreement between a UKARA affiliated retailer and a UKARA affiliated site that one would provide free membership to customers of the other prior to first of october (after which the three skirmishes became a legal recomendation in the regulations accompanying the act).

 

And for the benefit of those who cant understand why I consider this the same as grandfathering its quite simple - both attempt to place folks on the register of skirmishers without requiring them to take part in any post Oct 1st activities prior to doing so.

 

As skirmishing only became a legal requirement for purchasing RIFs from that date onwards neither guarantees that folks placed on the list by either criteria will actually attend a skirmish once it matters.

 

Both could therefore be viewed as reckless (I dont consider them ideal). As could allowing folks to remain on the database permanently on basis of their continued purchases (rather than evidence of continued skirmishing) once entered on it.

[clanfalcon]

Can you as a retailer upload details directly?

 

Under normal circumstances yes.

[snorkelman]

But we are blocked from accessing the database in which to verify details. We could blindly sell which is wrong and what we trying to avoid in the first place.

 

nothing to prevent you doing same as non ukara affiliated retailers - sell to members of local sites you know to be skirmishers and sell to members of any site where the site owner is willing to vouch that the person ordering (and address supplied) is indeed a skirmisher.

[kerberos_]

Under normal circumstances yes.

 

No offence to you or any other retailer and not saying this applies, but thats slightly irresponsible of the UKARA IMO.

 

It's like dangling a bag of smack under a kit-heads nose.

 

So much for control! I'm sure "trust" will get thrown in, but it still needs to be tightly monitored.

 

I see you do have a relationship with NCIS of sorts, so I can see why you would trust their submissions. More so as you've probably played with or know of the people they submitted on behalf of.

 

So much for common sense.

[clanfalcon]

nothing to prevent you doing same as non ukara affiliated retailers - sell to members of local sites you know to be skirmishers and sell to members of any site where the site owner is willing to vouch that the person ordering (and address supplied) is indeed a skirmisher.

 

We had considered this when we were attending Catterick Urban Ops with Stirling Airsoft. We were advised against this though from Frenchie (UKARA Chair). We took that as a "this really, really isn't a good idea" which was fair enough. We sold many rifles at the first event we attended and would loved to have done the same again. Would anyone have ever known or cared? Probably not. Did we still do it? No. Even though it was a grey area and it was only advised we took caution and acting in what we thought were the skirmishing communities best interests. But now we are openly accused of lying and blatantly trying to cheat.

[kerberos_]

nothing to prevent you doing same as non ukara affiliated retailers - sell to members of local sites you know to be skirmishers and sell to members of any site where the site owner is willing to vouch that the person ordering (and address supplied) is indeed a skirmisher.

 

But that's what technically happens anyway.

 

Site sends copy of 3rd PLI and UKARA phone to validate.

UKARA gives the green light.

Site validates skirmishers.

Retailer accepts sites validation.

 

So all ANY retailer could do would be follow the same principle and run their own database.

 

ANY person could run the database really.

 

It was always going to be questionable the UKARA running this. That's just fact.

 

Personally, I just think the punishment is excessive and looks like it's those in powers words over those who are not. Those in power are competition, so it can appear very biased.

[Stealthbomber]

To be fair, UKARA, as a group of retailers, are within their rights to refuse to sell to anybody they like (or don't like), as they see fit.

They can refuse to sell to Scousers, people who wear denim or anybody called Bob if they wish.

 

If you affiliate yourself with UKARA then you can take advantage of any benefits that might bring.

However, you are bound by UKARAs rules against selling to Scousers, people wearing jeans or anybody called Bob.

If you break those rules yuo get a slap.

It's not about what's fair or correct. It's about following the rules laid out by the outfit you joined.

 

Case closed really.

[snorkelman]

Agreed their club their rules (legal reuirements to ensure those rules are applied fairly with opportunity to state your case etc aside)

 

the main concern though that I have is as follows

 

Had site gathered in appropriate forms and stamps what would shop have done wrong or been punished for then? ...Given that if the site had had the stamps and got all the punters to sign the forms they'd have then ended up sat on same desk in front of same computer being entered into the same database by the same shop albeit with little stamps on little forms .

 

In those circumstances what would those measures the shop are being punished for not abiding by, have actually prevented?

 

dont get me wrong I can see they're useful checks and balances when a retailer is dealing with submissions of site membership by individuals claiming to be members of X site (to ensure they arent telling porkies and prove the site does have them as members) ..but not really much of a neccessity (or safeguard) when the person supplying the info on a sites members is the site itself - cos if an error of interpretating elegibility has been made by the site, then it'll predate the stamping of the forms handed to the retailer in any case.

 

Taking all the pre october confusion into account, and potential for folks to make a real *albartroth* of who they could and couldnt give membership to ahead of Oct 1st, it would have been a lot more useful when this came to light to have had an immediate alert to all retailers and sites pointing out what had gone wrong in this case and asking other retailers/sites to volunteer info on any similar situations that may have occurred at their end, just in case it wasnt an isolated issue.

 

Instead slapping a three month denial of access on that shop just makes it all the less likely anyone else will step up to the plate and admit similar issues for fear of receiving the same.

[mannequin skywalker]

UKARA

Just a way of elitism, bang up prices,its nonsense

 

as if when u buy a two tone ur not gonna spray it black,uh

[Stealthbomber]

UKARA

Just a way of elitism, bang up prices,its nonsense

 

as if when u buy a two tone ur not gonna spray it black,uh

There ya go.

 

I knew somebody'd prove me right.

 

If any of the concerned parties feel the need to re-open this, PM me. Otherwise...

 

[Marlowe]

Apparrently there has been popular demand for this thread to be re-opened. Your wish is my command.

 

Just please try and keep things within the boundaries of sensible debate, okay?

[rolling-thunder]

I thought i'd better have my say as the UKARA statement seems to suggest it's unfeasable for an English player to travel into Scotland for a game.

I've known the lads at NCIS for a few years,teaming up to play together at Town Assault & Sterling Copehill Down events as well as travelling up to Scotland from Merseyside to practice together & next year some of us will be travelling to Sweden for the Berget game.UKARAs statement seems to suggest that it's unfeasable that anyone with an English address would be likely to play at a Scottish site yet here i am an Englishman travelling to wooly Scottish climes to play. I hope Geographical location wont preclude my membership of any site i play at regularly.

[T3CH]

My interpretation of this is that it is unreasonable to assume that a site regular will travel over 300 miles for a game.

 

What's a regular? Going by the regs it's someone who plays at a site at least 3 times in about 2 months, is that practical, or even sensible given the a 600 mile round trip?

 

Perhaps a requirement to become a registered skirmisher at the nearest practical site should havebeen inserted into the regs. Might have stopped all this from happening.

 

[Azubi]

Perhaps a requirement to become a registered skirmisher at the nearest practical site should havebeen inserted into the regs. Might have stopped all this from happening.

 

That's silly though, what happens if someone doesn't like the closest site or has had issues there and can no longer return for whatever reason. Would they then be refused membership at another site because they simply live a bit futher away? What if they were to move and another site was closer to them, would they then have to register with this closer site? Come on, that is a stupid idea. I know it isn't anywhere as extreme as a 600 mile round trip but yesterday I drove 150 miles, that's only 300 mile round trip, to a skirmish when there are sites closer to me, does that mean I shouldn't attempt get site membership with them despite come the 24th I will have been 3 times in less than 4 weeks? Like I said, seems silly.

 

 

As for it being unreasonable to assume people will drive 300 miles to get somewhere they choose to go, what about the people who drive around the country every weekend to go watch a football game? I'm sure some of them clock up 300 miles every once in a while. Why isn't it viable for a skirmisher to choose to drive 300 miles to play at a site they like? If they like it that much and they don't mind the drive then all the power to them really.

[BenjaminRombough]

That's silly though, what happens if someone doesn't like the closest site or has had issues there and can no longer return for whatever reason. Would they then be refused membership at another site because they simply live a bit futher away? What if they were to move and another site was closer to them, would they then have to register with this closer site? Come on, that is a stupid idea. I know it isn't anywhere as extreme as a 600 mile round trip but yesterday I drove 150 miles, that's only 300 mile round trip, to a skirmish when there are sites closer to me, does that mean I shouldn't attempt get site membership with them despite come the 24th I will have been 3 times in less than 4 weeks? Like I said, seems silly.

 

 

As for it being unreasonable to assume people will drive 300 miles to get somewhere they choose to go, what about the people who drive around the country every weekend to go watch a football game? I'm sure some of them clock up 300 miles every once in a while. Why isn't it viable for a skirmisher to choose to drive 300 miles to play at a site they like? If they like it that much and they don't mind the drive then all the power to them really.

 

Thats why 4 people in a Vw campervan, food, beer and airsoft is such a good combination it means i can travel to some of the more far flung places to skirmish with my mates i live in portsmouth if for instance and we have done twice previously decided that a day out at Urban Assault near Peterborough is a good idea then we do it! it means we have to travel up the night before find a campsite go the next day and the one with the least bruises drives home!

[snorkelman]

Its not as though the country is full of airsoft sites around every corner - maybe some folks arent blessed with a site on their doorstep. Its arrogant and presumptious to decide how far others would travel. "Meh why would anyone travel more than 20 miles to a site Ive got one 3 miles away and I wouldnt go further than five"

 

Then again I suppose thats the same blinkered approach that says 'meh anyone can be a registered skirmisher they just need to do the same as I do and go to the site down the road'

 

Thats before you even get into the issue of public transport - if someone wants to play urban it might be more practial to do one train journey to a major city and get a local bus to the site than wander around trying to reach an off the beaten track woodland site thats geographically closer but a paint to reach without your own transport

 

Ive already raised the issue of students living away from home prefering to register with home address than have stuff delivered to halls of res, and folks whos work finds them close to a site on the weekends than it does to their home address

 

I used to spend every weekend other than rally weekends from age 14 thru to 18 travelling over 150 miles and back to go to allnighters. Why? cos it was a great crowd, no trouble and there was nowhere closer that met same criteria. Im sure it seemed odd to the regulars at the local nightclubs that anyone would do that "when theres plenty of places right on your doorstep for a night out".

 

Likewise I used to run up and down the length of the country and over to holland on 30 year old scooters that werent designed for anything more than some basic commuting. Why? same reasons great crowd, great fun (OK so I'll concede there was a bit of trouble too lol). Course that went tits up too when it was decided that due to government and police concerns we'd have to self regulate and someone used the bogeyman of not enough time to come up with anything better to run a dealer centric scheme that did little for the grass root clubs or participants.

 

Theres no point citing half a recomendation when the real recomendation in the regs referred to an entirely different body (ABA) and thanks to a typo currently recommends exactly the opposite in terms of time frame anyway.

 

Nor is it wise to start retrospectively applying that recommended standard that became effective on 1st October to pre October 1st membership criterias, when people are beign grandfathered into the system under who knows what criteria their site historically had in place prior to 1st October. By same token what if the site they're being grandfathere due to attendance at didnt meet the current criteria for being a recognised site on the pre october occassions that they attended it- ie was remiss in having PLI insurance at that time etc. by current standards the activity they took part in was no more of a skirmish than an adhoc private game would be now.

[rolling-thunder]

This thing about playing at one site is a bit of a bind.I like milsims & play with who ever has a game i can get to,so i travelled to Town Assault & Sterlings CHD events & in those two particular cases i wouldn't be eligible for verification.Both games were some distance from where i live,i don't actually fancy playing at the "nearest" skirmish site to me but i do fancy playing over in Manchester as it's still accessable.Thing is after a recent house move i probably wont be playing until after xmas unless i'm lucky,combine that with other circumstances leading up to the introduction of the VCR Bill{one child almost dying another being born & yet another having an operation} circumstances have stopped me playing as regularly as i'd like,hence i'm well screwed for being verified in any other place than NCIS.Dodgy,no but if UKARA suggested it was i wouldn't be happy.

RT

[you can`t shoot me]

There seems to be alot of people focussing on the distance thing so am just pointing out the following statement.

 

 

What happened is that when the database entries for Skirmish Edinburgh were looked at after player information was brought to our attention, it was found that a number of the players entered had postal addresses well beyond any probable travelling distance to that game site.

 

Some of these players were contacted and confirmed that they had never played at Skirmish Edinburgh

 

 

[creepingfear]

I'm interested to see evidence that UKARA have indeed attempted to communicate this situation with Land Warrior and NCIS as Mad Jock and Clanfalcon have sworn blind over on the NCIS forum that they never heard a dicky bird from UKARA about what was happening or indeed what they were doing would be wrong prior to the initial post being plonked up by GMAC.

 

Simple solution - If indeed they (UKARA) have attempted in all reasonable terms to notify accused parties of what is happening/going to happen, then lets see their (UKARA's) "evidence". Surely a respectable organisation like UKARA will have kept copies and details of what procedures they followed. They must have, surely?

 

UKARA - The ball is now in your court...........................