More (and hopefully the last) IDPA Rulebook

This is a repost of my weekend response to a query from my friend and mentor Walt Rauch on The Gun Zone, Dean Spier's authoratative firearms forum. I've edited it into more of a general blog piece regarding my thoughts on the new IDPA Rulebook:

"Walt...You are so right to say that most agendas—including mine—have a personal aspect! I work in the business, and the business makes me money.

Let's look at an agenda that *didn't*—the NSSF Media Edcuation Program. For 4 years we—me, you [Walt Rauch], Chris Edwards, Paul Erhardt, Dave Arnold, Dave Thomas, Tequila and the other great participants—all traveled like crazy people, got underpayed, put up with my wretched taste in hotels and assorted crummy restuarants because we thought that the job, changing the media's perception of shooters, was important and needed to be done. And we quite literally changed that playing field; along the way we facilitated the various warring factions of the shooting sports to sit down and talk to each other.

During most of that period, you sat on the BoD of IDPA. Indeed, the fact that you and Ken Hackathorn were on the BoD was one of the primary drivers for the explosive growth of IDPA. During that period of time, that was a constant exchange of information between you and the other participants in the program, and I believe that as a result of that interchange, IDPA got better and better. You (and to a lesser extent, Ken) were the "eyes and ears" of IDPA on the ground. Both of you were always paying attention, asking questions, willing to change, etc., because that's the way you are.

When you left the BoD, and Ken stepped aside, IDPA became increasingly insular and less willing to listen to anyone. I base that on IDPA World Command's "relationship" with the IPDA club I founded in Colorado, which as you know was one of the first. Each successive head of the club came to me in frustration because they were unable to get answers to even the most simple question. As I traveled around the country, I heard the same for other club heads and individual shooters—read the lists!

My own relationship with Berryville apparently deteriorated; I say "apparently" because there was *never* any direct communications. After filming the 2003 IDPA Nationals with you—"I'm With Walt" drew huge ratings, won a major journalism award and, based on list response, generated a pretty fair amout of interest in IDPA—the only response I heard from Berryville was through the "back door," and that response was how unhappy IDPA was with the program, because it was "The Mike and Walt Show" and that you and I had somehow "misrepresented" IDPA. My e-mails on whether I should plan to film for the 2004 Nationals were never answered.

As to dis'sing Bill Wilson...I don't think anyone is attacking Bill personally, certainly not me. Bill and I have been friends for a long time. However, the hard cold fact remains that World Command decided to re-do the rulebook totally on their own, with minimal input from the world outside Berryville. You say they should have put the rulebook out as a "beta version" for input—but they didn't. They released it as an ostensibly finished product effective 5 January 2005, and if you don't like it, tough. Which is how IDPA has done business since you and Ken are no longer involved.

Do I think the Powers-That-Be in IDPA sat down and plotted to force out this gun or that gun? Nope. But as a professional journalist, I am PAINFULLY aware of the issues of group-think and bias. Put a small group of like-minded people, unwilling to accept outside input, in a room to draft a rulebook, and what do yo think is the likelihood of personal bias, or even personal pettiness, slipping in? By his own choice, Bill and his family *are* IDPA.

There is NOTHING wrong/evil/whatever with a closely held corporation, which IDPA is. *I* (and you, if I recall correctly) am a closely held corporation. But the executives who closely hold the corporation hardly have room to claim "personal foul!" when customers question their decisions.

I have had my corporate business decisions questioned, occasionally vociferously by my Sweetie, who is a seriously good attorney. That doesn't mean she thinks I'm a bad, duplicitous a**hole (at least, I don't think she thinks that!!! Well, maybe the a**hole part...), but that I have made a bad decision. If I thought every bad corporate decision I made was a referendum on my personal worth, I'd go hide under my aquarium. I make bad decisions; it is, as you said, the nature of being human. But I try to rectify both the bad decisions and alter the decision-making processes that *yielded* the bad decision. That is what's at question here.

As a customer of the service provided by the IDPA corporation, I have every right to make my feelings, both good and bad, known. I *routinely* do that with other goods and services that I purchase. I am amazed, for example, that a huge company like Apple Computer is so good at responding to the needs and wants of their customer (and, yes, I have written them letters), and I reward them by continuing to buy their products. I have used the same car mechanic for 10 years; I have bought problems to his attention, and he has either explained the situation, as I was misinformed, or made changes. I reward him by continuing to use his service.

A good corporation, be it closely held or multinational, has a mechanism for customers to respond and a system for dealing with those responses. It can be as simple as you calling me up and telling me I am full of S**T, which I occasionally am. I have never once hung up on you because you didn't agree with one of my corporate decisions. The last time I sent back a piece of computer equipment, I got five phone calls to make sure the replacement piece was working correctly. I called Honda last week to ask a question about my new Element, I not only got a quick answer, but I got a call from Honda to ask if I was satisfied with the service I'd received.

It's hard for me to work up a lot of sympathy for a corporation who relentlessly refuses to listen to its customers, then cries that it's misunderstood when the customers complain in a public forum.

Okay, so that's the last I'll say about the matter, too, and we can go back to worrying about other inconsequential things!!!"