G7 part 2, Eletronics Boogaloo

[cixelsyd]

16 hours 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.

Not sure I agree with you here.  

For starters, the G7 was having regular teleconferences for months leading up to the PowerPoint presentation.  I think it is therefore likely that all seven were aware of most of what was in there.  GH could not have completely changed the content of the presentation and expected six other leaders to stay silent.

That said, there is also the fact that the G7 continued working together in the aftermath of the PowerPoint presentation, developing those TOC shows, issuing another ultimatum in 2013, and so on.  Would you continue working that closely with someone who pulled a substantial bait-and-switch on you in front of the entire DCI membership?  I would not.

Sure, there could have been a phrase or two in the PowerPoint that GH inserted in final editing that was not reviewed by the other six.  But IMO, if last minute changes transformed the meaning and intent of the proposal, the other six would have spoken up immediately... unless, of course, they agreed with those changes.

[garfield]

1 hour ago, cixelsyd said:

Not sure I agree with you here.  

For starters, the G7 was having regular teleconferences for months leading up to the PowerPoint presentation.  I think it is therefore likely that all seven were aware of most of what was in there.  GH could not have completely changed the content of the presentation and expected six other leaders to stay silent.

That said, there is also the fact that the G7 continued working together in the aftermath of the PowerPoint presentation, developing those TOC shows, issuing another ultimatum in 2013, and so on.  Would you continue working that closely with someone who pulled a substantial bait-and-switch on you in front of the entire DCI membership?  I would not.

Sure, there could have been a phrase or two in the PowerPoint that GH inserted in final editing that was not reviewed by the other six.  But IMO, if last minute changes transformed the meaning and intent of the proposal, the other six would have spoken up immediately... unless, of course, they agreed with those changes.

I know, it's a tough call.  You could very well be right and drive just one more nail in my confidence in them, if not their repentance.

Hard for me to quantify or validate your presumptions that the lines of communication were as open as you suspect.  I don't know... There was a guy, in that power position, who's on the verge of realizing his view (dream?) by, first, "encouraging" enough animosity...  I don't know, I wasn't there, but Hop has never been an enigma, has he?  He's been VERY open about his desires to run the activity according to manifestos that most all of us have read...  I'm guessing, but if he sensed that he was THAT close to pulling it off...  maybe it was THAT moment for him...  It takes a strong person to take the "fair and balanced" route. 

My Mom taught me that everyone get's the benefit of the doubt; my Dad taught me that they only get it once.  Sorry, George, yours was gone for me a LONG time ago.  But that's me.

The others in the Seven?  I don't know.  Most of them that I've known and watched and interacted with at our shows over the years have certainly earned that benefit from me.  Most.  I'm positive they each will fight tooth and nail to preserve the longevity of their respective brands.

I think some of them trusted too much and were, in fact, shocked at the battle plan being proposed in the pdf.  I keep getting stuck on the difference in presentation from the first half to the second.  The part Hop wrote and the part Dave Gibbs wrote - the differences were stark.  Which means they were written independent of the others and combined together.  Who combined them?  Is it reasonable to surmise that the release came from the east coast?  Was there the opportunity, then, for a "revised" first piece to be substituted for the EXACT version agreed on by the group?  I'm guessing.  I don't know obviously.

Again, it comes down to the ability to offer the benefit of the doubt for me.

And we may find out someday, like the Kennedy files, that Hop was completely innocent and was railroaded into releasing something he didn't agree with. 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by garfield

[garfield]

And, for years, I promised myself that I'd put my support behind whichever corps pushed back against the onslaught of A&E.

The irony of the decade for me is that it seems that person is Hop.

And I worry that, now that I need him to be the voice of reason, he's lost too much gravitas to be taken seriously.  Which likely means there's another Hop pushing the A&E agenda for me to watch...

[garfield]

9 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

no, 17-25 was the real target

Then why not the "G-16"?  Crossmen got no love.

 

[Daave]

12 minutes ago, garfield said:

I know, it's a tough call.  You could very well be right and drive just one more nail in my confidence in them, if not their repentance.

Hard for me to quantify or validate your presumptions that the lines of communication were as open as you suspect.  I don't know... There was a guy, in that power position, who's on the verge of realizing his view (dream?) by, first, "encouraging" enough animosity...  I don't know, I wasn't there, but Hop has never been an enigma, has he?  He's been VERY open about his desires to run the activity according to manifestos that most all of us have read...  I'm guessing, but if he sensed that he was THAT close to pulling it off...  maybe it was THAT moment for him...  It takes a strong person to take the "fair and balanced" route. 

My Mom taught me that everyone get's the benefit of the doubt; my Dad taught me that they only get it once.  Sorry, George, yours was gone for me a LONG time ago.  But that's me.

The others in the Seven?  I don't know.  Most of them that I've known and watched and interacted with at our shows over the years have certainly earned that benefit from me.  Most.  I'm positive they each will fight tooth and nail to preserve the longevity of their respective brands.

I think some of them trusted too much and were, in fact, shocked at the battle plan being proposed in the pdf.  I keep getting stuck on the difference in presentation from the first half to the second.  The part Hop wrote and the part Dave Gibbs wrote - the differences were stark.  Which means they were written independent of the others and combined together.  Who combined them?  Is it reasonable to surmise that the release came from the east coast?  Was there the opportunity, then, for a "revised" first piece to be substituted for the EXACT version agreed on by the group?  I'm guessing.  I don't know obviously.

Again, it comes down to the ability to offer the benefit of the doubt for me.

And we may find out someday, like the Kennedy files, that Hop was completely innocent and was railroaded into releasing something he didn't agree with. 

 

Now, see...  that right there is as funny as Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers playing a game of "got your nose".  

[garfield]

21 hours ago, Stu said:

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?

Polar bears are known to eat their young.

[garfield]

18 hours ago, Stu said:

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?

Participation trophies.

[garfield]

18 hours ago, Stu said:

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!!!

I know you find this hard to believe, but it's possible that they believed they were actually doing what was best to preserve the activity in which they participate, if not each and every member corps in it (if you're able to point to actual, factual language from the By-Laws or Mission statement, I'll stand corrected, and I'll say here now that I accept that you may produce such language (again, their mission is to preserve and support all corps, or preserve and support the activity that gives a performance platform in which they can perform).  As delusional as it may seem, again, considering the impact on rationality after years of building frustrations being repeated over and over again...

 

[garfield]

18 hours ago, Stu said:

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.

It's the perfect system for them, Stu!  It's a $30million or $50million activity that they control to their own benefit!  

There has to be some incentive for them to gain by releasing control of the activity to a group of others, no matter the other's names, CV's, or intentions.  And, in the end, that incentive will be financial at its core.  All the altruism we can muster will likely be ignored in favor of the financial benefit and, without it, governance will not change.  Period.

 

 

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

And we may find out someday, like the Kennedy files, that Hop was completely innocent and was railroaded into releasing something he didn't agree with. 

I'll check the "fat chance this is the case" box.