N.E. Brigand Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 1 minute ago, DrumManTx said: My two favorite shows from Santa Clara Vanguard after 2016 are 2010's "Bartok" and 2011's "The Devils Staircase". If 2010 and 2011 are "after 2016", does that mean that SCV has invented time travel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumManTx Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 1 minute ago, N.E. Brigand said: If 2010 and 2011 are "after 2016", does that mean that SCV has invented time travel? Yeah, Pete Weber's drill can in fact open a wormhole. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumManTx Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: If 2010 and 2011 are "after 2016", does that mean that SCV has invented time travel? Also I meant to say modern shows. 1996 - 2004 is still my favorite set of shows from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tobias said: Pretty tacky to list names on a forum when I'm discussing a trend I've noticed that occurs for many seasons. Maybe one would call it numbers management, I just find it odd when multi point gaps open between corps all up and down the rankings almost over night. Why can't a corps come in 3rd or 5th or 9th by a tenth? Call it like you see it, not like you feel it should be. If you listen to the marching roundtable discussion about handing out a perfect 20...you will be amazed that the judges said it needed to be the best they ever saw/heard...not just based on that nights performance...that..in and of itself...spoke volumes to me about the great debate of call it as you see it...for that night's performance... http://www.marchingroundtable.com/2017/03/08/594-judge-can-give-perfect-score/ Edited May 17, 2017 by Liahona Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 8 hours ago, Tobias said: I believe there is a herd mentality amongst the judges with the head of the herd telling the calves which corps to dump as they start to solidify the top 3. (Check out gaps between third and fourth place corps) regardless of gaps the entire season. I believe there are way too many off season relationships between judges and staff of corps and the huge subjective component in scoring should be minimized to remove biased influenced on scoring. I believe Cadets should have won in 2007. The risk of voice in the program should have been rewarded vs BD with a traditional show. Why was innovation not important that year but when BD started lining the field with furniture, the judges started rewarding novelty. And then there was that 2010 show. :-(( 2 hours ago, imcbdit said: You should carefully read what I posted. I simply pointed out that "collusion" was a term entirely injected by you; the first poster never suggested collusion. You simply invented it and then tried to get others to prove it. In fact "herd instinct" directly counters your use of collusion -- an instinct is not planned, secret nor does it require meetings. It's the tendency to follow the majority. imcbdit: And you should carefully read what Tobias posted prior to me using the term 'collusion'. He wrote, and I quote, "... with the head of the herd telling the calves which corps to dump...". That statement not only implies collusion but actually accuses the judges of actual collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, hostrauser said: Nope. You are still operating with that false dichotomy flaw. You're considering only ON (herd mentality) or OFF (herd mentality), assuming ALL scores from ALL judges must be one or the other, and not considering anything in between. Which is silly. Each discrete judging sample does not exist in a vacuum. Over a hundred shows, even the most HERD judge will have outlier scores, and even the most independent thinker will have scores that gravitate towards the mean. Trends and sample size matter. I am not taking a binary position at all. I am just showing that there is a huge flaw in believing that when DCI judges come to the same conclusion the DCI judges are exhibiting a herd mentality, with a head of the heard calling the shots, that was claimed and posted by Tobias. The DCI judges typically come to the same conclusion because of two main reasons: 1) The DCI judges come from similar DCI, WGI, BOA, Academic backgrounds; and 2) They all go through the same DCI training on how to interpret the sheets. That is not a herd mentality with a lack of independent thought by the judges with a leader of the herd calling the shots; that is just a case of DCI securing like-minded marching-arts experienced people up-front as adjudicators as opposed to also seeking out qualified professional and commercial musicians with no marching-arts backgrounds to judge alongside Albert Lo and Jeff Prosperie (to use two judges names posted by you). Edited May 17, 2017 by Stu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imcbdit Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 33 minutes ago, Stu said: imcbdit: And you should carefully read what Tobias posted prior to me using the term 'collusion'. He wrote, and I quote, "... with the head of the herd telling the calves which corps to dump...". That statement not only implies collusion but actually accuses the judges of actual collusion. i'll leave it to Tobias to clarify, but my read on that was "the head of the herd" is the majority opinion. Perhaps he's referring to individual or perhaps not. In any case "secret conspiracies" (collusion) is still not in play -- no matter how you many times you post it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Oh for the love of....IS IT EFFING JUNE YET? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 20 minutes ago, imcbdit said: i'll leave it to Tobias to clarify, but my read on that was "the head of the herd" is the majority opinion. Perhaps he's referring to individual or perhaps not. In any case "secret conspiracies" (collusion) is still not in play -- no matter how you many times you post it. So to you the phrase, "The head of the herd telling the calves who to dump" is implying a 'majority opinion' is dictating the dump as opposed to someone telling others which corps to dump. Well... okey-dokey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 On 5/15/2017 at 5:57 PM, hostrauser said: DCI should also strip tour requirements and implement an advancement/relegation system like the English Premier League. It is just absurd that Blue Devils B, Vanguard Cadets, Racine Scouts, Blue Devils C, and Blue Saints are all lumped into the same catch-all "non-World" class. We already have a promotion system in place. Everybody competes Thursday, regardless of WC/OC labels. The top 25 advance to Friday, regardless of WC/OC labels. The top 12 advance to Saturday, regardless of WC/OC labels. WC and OC are not really competitive levels - they are different levels of membership and commitment, with correspondingly different expectations for touring and different pay structures in recognition of that. Tour requirements go hand in hand with tour access. Maybe I am not following what you are saying. What do you propose we promote/relegate corps to/from, exactly? 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.