G7 part 2, Eletronics Boogaloo

[Stu]

2 hours ago, garfield said:

I don't think the wrath of the G7 was directed at the OC as they are/were getting very little (aka: zero) financial support from WC.  The argument can be made that DCI supports the OC tour by providing the gravitas necessary to hold events that barely pay for themselves.  

 

IMO, the non-G7 corps are not completely blameless when it comes to the 'air of attitude' written into the G7 document. This is because the condescending attitude the G7 was showing towards the other WC corps was similar to the attitudes many WC corps had towards the OC (div II div III); in that the attitude was that the OC was taking DCI resources away from WC. In a way, the G7 just used their own WC logic against the non-G7 corps. Karma?

[Stu]

11 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

no and i'll tell you why:

 

they cant agree to disagree most of the time amongst themselves

There has never been seven people in 100% agreement 100% of the time.  In fact, most board rooms have various opinions if not heated debates.  But in the end, they still come together in agreement to move like-minded agendas forward. The directors of those seven were all ‘in unified force’; they all defended and supported the proposal of consolidating all DCI financial and voting power given to just themselves. (And the bru-ha-ha that, “well… six of them just did not know what was in the document when it was leaked”, even if true, does not fly).  Because those six could have maned-up and said, “No, this is not what we want.”, but they didn’t.  And once all seven supported it they all ‘owned’ it and were in fact, wait for it, ‘in unified agreement’ with that ownership.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Stu

[N.E. Brigand]

14 hours ago, MikeRapp said:

It would have been practically impossible. Who would choose to march in a non G7 corps? Only those who did not have any other options. The G7 was designed to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

Well, G7 or no G7, lots of people have always marched in corps they knew had no chance of making the top seven, much less medaling.

Mind you, I absolutely agree that over time, giving the same seven corps more and more benefits at the expense of other corps would be deleterious to the activity.

[garfield]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

There has never been seven people in 100% agreement 100% of the time.  In fact, most board rooms have various opinions if not heated debates.  But in the end, they still come together in agreement to move like-minded agendas forward. The directors of those seven were all ‘in unified force’; they all defended and supported the proposal of consolidating all DCI financial and voting power given to just themselves. (And the bru-ha-ha that, “well… six of them just did not know what was in the document when it was leaked”, even if true, does not fly).  Because those six could have maned-up and said, “No, this is not what we want.”, but they didn’t.  And once all seven supported it they all ‘owned’ it and were in fact, wait for it, ‘in unified agreement’ with that ownership.

See, I just don't agree with this.  Do you recall the Happy Days "Jumping the Shark" episode?

My hunch (welcome to garfield's world) is that the G7 ppt doc was GH's Jumping the Shark moment when he lost virtually all of his boardroom cred.

I absolutely believe that some (I won't even say "most"), but some members of the G7 were not aware of what was coming out.  Once out, if they were all on board with the notion of what they thought they were presenting, it would have been very difficult to backtrack and throw GH under the bus.

I know you'll say this is evidence that they all owned what was presented and I couldn't disagree with that.  But I think this action came after years of bellyaching and plotting and planning by one or more director's, and likely many of those years supported by the some of the others that "...something HAS to be done..." to stop paying for corps and programs that never seem to advance but are, instead, satisfied to receive the benefits of being in the gang without having to demonstrate an inclination to advance as the G7 did to become part of "the draw".

Again, I don't agree with their view or their solution, but I certainly can understand their peaked frustration and their choice to take action for their own survival.

 

 

[Stu]

13 minutes ago, garfield said:

See, I just don't agree with this.  Do you recall the Happy Days "Jumping the Shark" episode?

My hunch (welcome to garfield's world) is that the G7 ppt doc was GH's Jumping the Shark moment when he lost virtually all of his boardroom cred.

Mine is not a hunch, but based on documentation. Re-read the unified letter they drafted in 2013 again threatening the volatility of a MiM/DCI conflict and their unified mission to have the greatest influence within DCI; there is no doubt whatsoever that they were still unified at that time.  If there was a 'jumping the shark' moment, it happened after 2013, three or more years after the original proposal.

[Stu]

35 minutes ago, garfield said:

I absolutely believe that some (I won't even say "most"), but some members of the G7 were not aware of what was coming out.  Once out, if they were all on board with the notion of what they thought they were presenting, it would have been very difficult to backtrack and throw GH under the bus.

So they were incompetent, blindsided, and then gutless; that sure is the sign of great leadership!!  Also, when has failing to do the right thing because it is difficult become noble?

Edited September 14, 2017 by Stu

[Stu]

4 hours ago, garfield said:

But I think this action came after years of bellyaching and plotting and planning by one or more director's, and likely many of those years supported by the some of the others that "...something HAS to be done..." to stop paying for corps and programs that never seem to advance but are, instead, satisfied to receive the benefits of being in the gang without having to demonstrate an inclination to advance as the G7 did to become part of "the draw".

If DCI was a true Major League where, apart from financial stability, competition is really the only factor, I would tend to agree with you here.  But the Mission and Bylaws of DCI, which all corps voluntarily agree to abide by, indicates that all non-G7 deserve just as much 'respect' from DCI as The Seven.  Should BD, SCV, or Cadets be forced to share their 'own individual corps' wealth with any other corps? Nope!!  Should all corps receive the same competitive payouts irrespective of placement? Nope again!!! But should DCI, as a Governing Body, support the DCI activities of the non-G7 the same as it supports the DCI activities of The Seven? Yep, Yep, and oh yeah, Yep!!!  And all corps, even the seven, voluntarily agreed for that equal DCI governing body support when they signed on to honoring the Mission and Bylaws of DCI!!!

Edited September 14, 2017 by Stu

[Stu]

4 hours ago, garfield said:

Again, I don't agree with their view or their solution, but I certainly can understand their peaked frustration and their choice to take action for their own survival.

Oh, I understand it too!!! And I hold no animosity whatsoever toward the directors of The Seven for looking out for the best interests of their individual corps.  That is their job; they are obligated to their own corps boards to do so; and I commend them for upholding their responsibility to their own individual corps!!!

But the basis of my real animosity is in the way the governance of DCI is structured; where corps directors are also in control of the governing body.  And like this situation, the directors are placed in a conflict of interest conundrum; to either honor their agreement they made as DCI Governing Body directors to look out for the best interest of all corps within DCI, or look out for what they see as the best interest of their individual corps.  If The Seven had indeed voluntarily split and formed MiM apart from DCI in order to look out for the best interest of their own corps, that voluntary action would have resolved the conflict in a noble manner.  But when they decided to balk upon their own voluntary commitment to uphold the Mission and Bylaws of DCI of making decisions that helped 'all corps' within DCI, and attempted to place all financial and voting control upon themselves, that was something far, far, far away from being noble.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Stu

[Jeff Ream]

16 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

... after they lost all the regional circuits, lost access to the DCI championship venue, and lost access to DCI tour shows in favor of separate WC and OC tours... all circumstances created by the decisions of WC corps.  Context matters.

yes you are right. however, OC was never set up, under any name to ever have power going back to 1971.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Jeff Ream
updated

[Jeff Ream]

14 hours ago, garfield said:

I don't think the wrath of the G7 was directed at the OC as they are/were getting very little (aka: zero) financial support from WC.  The argument can be made that DCI supports the OC tour by providing the gravitas necessary to hold events that barely pay for themselves.  

 

no, 17-25 was the real target