Stu Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I'm getting a bit more understanding of where this is coming from. Thanks, Stu for helping. On one hand there is a case for taking action about deception, dishonesty, if not outright theft. On the other hand is the case for tolerance where a well-meaning intention went bad. I don't have a horse in this race other than I want the best for our activity. I am shutting up so that the more knowledgable partners can have their say. Kevin A person has a rifle, and while handling it, cleaning it, whatever, it accidentally fires a shot. Mistakes happen, redemption rules the day, and a second chance is warranted. However, if it happens again, especially in a short period of time, it has to be something other than a mistake or a well-meaning intention gone bad!!! Ergo Eclipse = First time and Accent = Second Time. Make sense now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindap Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 A person has a rifle, and while handling it, cleaning it, whatever, it accidentally fires a shot. Mistakes happen, redemption rules the day, and a second chance is warranted. However, if it happens again, especially in a short period of time, it has to be something other than a mistake or a well-meaning intention gone bad!!! Ergo Eclipse = First time and Accent = Second Time. Make sense now? Where I come from (imo) it's 3 strikes you're out; kinda like baseball. imo I'm disappointed with technology sometimes. imo produce a product and then advertise using technology. imo :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jocko the Wonder Llama Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Another way to look at it is: "Fool me once, shame on you - Fool me twice, shame on me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Where I come from (imo) it's 3 strikes you're out; kinda like baseball. imo I'm disappointed with technology sometimes. imo produce a product and then advertise using technology. imo :) Really? So, if you gave this guy $1000 and he lost it due to being in over his head, then you gave him another $1000 and he lost it due to being downright inept, you would then give him yet another $1000 for a third time because you like the baseball three-strike rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Another way to look at it is: "Fool me once, shame on you - Fool me twice, shame on me." But a few on here are willing to be fooled a third time, or a forth, or a fifth, ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindap Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Really? So, if you gave this guy $1000 and he lost it due to being in over his head, then you gave him another $1000 and he lost it due to being downright inept, you would then give him yet another $1000 for a third time because you like the baseball three-strike rule? Sorry about the mixed message. imo Produce a product and then advertise! Accent advertised before they produced a product! Not good imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Redemption is noble, but so is loss of privilege. A person who has shown a pattern of inept behavior (such as the investment schemes which you never answered) might become sorry for that behavior, but that person should also realize that while redemption is there the privilege to interact in that activity is lost. The protection of the kids, parents, adult staff from something happening for a third time (Eclipse-Accent-3rd time) are far more important than the continued involvement of those who caused the first two issues. I would not give money to someone who screwed me over. That's one thing. Forgiveness for someone who has asked to be forgiven is another matter. I haven't heard of that in this situation yet, regarding the instructors who cleaned their calendars and turned down other gigs in order to commit themselves to events that never occurred. But because I wouldn't give money to an embezzler or Bernie Madoff doesn't mean I can't find it in my heart to forgive them IF they show remorse and make an attempt to remedy the situation with those who were hurt. I don't remember any kids getting hurt in the Eclipse scenario, being that the corps never went beyond a well-publicized e-mail. I don't know if any kids or their parents spent money for Accent workshops. As far as I know, it's possible the only hurting (besides those instructors who committed themselves to the weekend events) was accrued by the bandwidth of DCP. Also, a review of everything I've written in the two threads regarding the workshops will easily reveal my mindset regarding the events, unless all that is obscured by my excitement over the free parking. And if the person at the center of this ever puts out a competitive WGI guard, I'd like to personally suggest that he name the unit Free Parking. There is no charge for that magnanimous offering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I would not give money to someone who screwed me over. That's one thing. Forgiveness for someone who has asked to be forgiven is another matter. I haven't heard of that in this situation yet, regarding the instructors who cleaned their calendars and turned down other gigs in order to commit themselves to events that never occurred. But because I wouldn't give money to an embezzler or Bernie Madoff doesn't mean I can't find it in my heart to forgive them IF they show remorse and make an attempt to remedy the situation with those who were hurt. I don't remember any kids getting hurt in the Eclipse scenario, being that the corps never went beyond a well-publicized e-mail. I don't know if any kids or their parents spent money for Accent workshops. As far as I know, it's possible the only hurting (besides those instructors who committed themselves to the weekend events) was accrued by the bandwidth of DCP. Also, a review of everything I've written in the two threads regarding the workshops will easily reveal my mindset regarding the events, unless all that is obscured by my excitement over the free parking. And if the person at the center of this ever puts out a competitive WGI guard, I'd like to personally suggest that he name the unit Free Parking. There is no charge for that magnanimous offering. Forgiveness is a good thing (and I agree with you in that matter) but after a second debacle lasting consequences should still apply even if forgiveness is applied. And you say that you would not give money to someone who screwed you over, but that is exactly what you are asking others to do with wanting the Eclipse/Accent people to have yet another third chance in the world of the marching arts. Since you brought up Bernie Madoff, let's say he had real remorse and paid restitution to all he harmed, and we offered our forgiveness to him after he served his time in prison. What you appear to be indicating is that once he showed that remorse, and we forgave him, you would have no problem once again placing millions of dollars of financial investment responsibility into his hands; whereas I would say that we should forgive him if he showed true remorse, and we should be more than willing to support him learning a different trade, but he should also forever lose his privilege to deal with financial investments. As for this Eclipse/Accent issue, it is not a flippant matter that many adults have gotten shafted in both ordeals. In business time is money; and when these people closed off their time to devote to Eclipse/Accent they lost a great deal of money as in lost income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Forgiveness is a good thing (and I agree with you in that matter) but after a second debacle lasting consequences should still apply even if forgiveness is applied. And you say that you would not give money to someone who screwed you over, but that is exactly what you are asking others to do with wanting the Eclipse/Accent people to have yet another third chance in the world of the marching arts. Since you brought up Bernie Madoff, let's say he had real remorse and paid restitution to all he harmed, and we offered our forgiveness to him after he served his time in prison. What you appear to be indicating is that once he showed that remorse, and we forgave him, you would have no problem once again placing millions of dollars of financial investment responsibility into his hands; whereas I would say that we should forgive him if he showed true remorse, and we should be more than willing to support him learning a different trade, but he should also forever lose his privilege to deal with financial investments. As for this Eclipse/Accent issue, it is not a flippant matter that many adults have gotten shafted in both ordeals. In business time is money; and when these people closed off their time to devote to Eclipse/Accent they lost a great deal of money as in lost income. Bernie Madoff would never be allowed by the investment licensing agencies to deal in such a field again. We don't have that kind of regulator power. The best we can do is sound the bell loudly (unless it's been sold to pay off initial investors) and warn educators if we feel there is a problem brewing. I don't see how I'm asking people to give their time and money if this thing comes around again. Forgiveness for the truly repentant is different than saying, "No harm done; carry on," I thought I was clear in a number of postings that I would personally only feel comfortable with any such enterprise (no matter who is involved) if I saw a clear business plan and a realistic set of goals, and I've given suggestions how such might be met. I'm still expecting to be elected Pope before that transpires, but in a world where Justin Beiber is a superstar, anything can happen. And "Free Parking" might also be a good name for an indoor drum line. I'll tell you; they should jump on that name before someone else does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snaredude08 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 There's a whole world of difference between forgiving people and applying proper consequences. People talk all the time about giving second chances, or third chances, or so on. That would be perfectly okay if that person existed in a vacuum, but they don't. For every chance you give someone in a situation like this, you give them another chance to hurt all kinds of innocent bystanders. Depending on the individual situation, and how strong the evidence is against the perpetrator, giving even a second chance may not be the right course of action. It could run a very high chance of hurting more people. That's not being merciful or being the bigger person -- it's being incredibly irresponsible. Put it another way, in terms of another situation discussed on this board fairly recently. Suppose a teacher crosses an inappropriate line with a student, in circumstances that are clear it was not an accident, or getting caught in a moment's stupidity, but rather a reflection on some very dangerous character flaws on part of the teacher. The idea of being lenient with giving more chances dictates that, after some punishment, we let the guy go back to teaching. In no way, however, would that be the right course of action if you were the person making that decision. You'd be knowingly putting dozens of young people in the path of a known predator. In other words, the stakes would be way too high to justify: trying to be give the benefit of the doubt to a convicted criminal versus protecting numerous young people from irreparable, incalculable damage. If a person made that decision, then they too would deserve to be out of a job. Bottom line: do you forgive them? Yes. Do you delude yourself about what that person has shown they're capable of? Absolutely not. (Note: obviously, Nagy's transgressions are light years away from the situation described above. I'm not trying to say that he's on that level or anything like that. That was just the ready-made analogy that came to mind, especially given that we're talking about music ed). Like many people on the thread, I only know what I've heard from DCP users about the whole situation. Still, the combined evidence of things like Boo's correspondence with that staff member, their behavior on facebook (unscrupulously deleting user's posts that inform other users of very real problems), Nagy's past behavior, etc, it seems to me like we can be decently confident that Nagy has not conducted this appropriately and, while I don't think he's done anything criminal necessarily, he should not be allowed to do this kind of stuff any more. People seem to be getting a little ruffled over other people in this thread expressing some indignation at people who seem to be too lenient with how Nagy should be treated in future endeavors, but I really don't see the logic in that. If I were one of the people he cheated out of time or money, I'd be mad as hell too, and I'd be right to be. It's not pretty, it's not pleasant, but when you have a situation like this, we can't necessarily treat it like a bed of roses. Maybe a bit of anger is appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.