Jump to content

2018 Rules proposals


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, mingusmonk said:

I finally had a chance to read the details of each proposal. My only issue is with the two that, after reading, don't make any sense. "No Scores until July 1st" and "Ordinals Only."

 

Fundamentally, I struggle with solutions for problems that don't exist.

  1. Will Pitts doesn't convince me in his document that he is addressing anything that is a problem.
  2. Same for Hopkins. Granted, he is a poor writer. So maybe that is the reason I am not seeing it.

 

I think the reason for the confusion coming from their proposals (proper English aside) is that they are dancing around their real concern. Slotting. For whatever reasons, they don't seem comfortable in calling a spade a spade.  They would make a better case if they said something like this: "Early season slotting makes overcoming numerical deficits problematic." 

 

slotting.

 

hmm. dont ever year we see a corps start towards the bottom of the finalist levels jump a few spots...or conversely some go down a few? we see movement at the top in little spurts too.

 

 

so really...where is the slotting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wilme861 said:

I'm still debating yes or no on this one. In general, I'm for this idea but I don't like this specific implementation of it. As you said, the judge's job is to rank and rate the performances.The first thing judges have to do, basically their primary goal, is to make sure the best corps wins their caption, period. The ordinal system keeps that intact. The rating part has always been something I've had an issue with through the years. First off is how the score itself changes throughout the season. Every season starts with the 1st place corps starting around 70-75 and ending the season between 97-100. The first corps to break 90 is around the San Antonio regional and the first to break 95 is around Allentown. It's pretty formulaic really. The other issue I have is the fact that the caption numbers matter but don't at the same time. By that I mean, getting a 20 in a caption doesn't necessarily mean you had a perfect caption. Let's say that the second place corps had a 19.8 so it just means you were 0.2 pts or more better than that second place corps. You got a "perfect score" just because of number management, not because you necessarily had a perfect performance. Obviously judge training tries to combat getting in that situation in the first place but sometimes it just can't get avoided.

Just for arguments sake, let's say it's a really good year in guard where the 12th place corps is performing at the level to receive a 19.3 or so. But due to the fact that they are the 12th place corps in guard, they can't possibly get a 19.3 and instead will go down to a 18.5 or so just to make room for the other corps. That 18.5 helps to come up with a score sure, but it's artificially low compared to their actual performance level. From a competitive aspect, all we care about is they are in 12th in guard. From an educational aspect, we care we are scoring a 19.3.

I would like ordinals to take over as the primary competitive score but corps still receive scores from each judge, however each corps can only see their own specific scores.

the problem with your example as we have been seeing in a few places, especially guard and percussion, is that if the judge judges their sheet and doesnt care about overall ranking, the caption gets the score it deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mingusmonk said:

 

The confusion isn't the definition of "ordinals." The confusion of GH's written case is what value non-GE scores would actually still provide and who would see them. Not to mention that he makes no legitimate case for how our current system is failing. His argument points for consideration:

 

  1. Groups are so close in talent that we shouldn't even consider a spread. (again, how is the spread a problem?)
  2. "Eliminates discussion of the value of one tenth" (Why? Is the numerical value and gap somehow breaking the product?)
  3. "The fans can stay to the basics" (The Fans DON'T want to know about numbers and gaps? The 180 turn on top secret recaps would seem to indicate THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.)

 

 

his rationale is easy. when you look online the last 2 years for the commentary about the guards scores.......yeah he wants it hidden.

 

here's what he doesnt get. if you're mid pack in several sheets, as they have been, GE isn't really going to save you, because GE will be affected by many of the things in the other captions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MotoSurfBass said:

 

 

You are just the CUTEST when you play the "I'm gonna catch someone in a contradiction to make myself look smart" game!

Also, as Mike pointed out, those "rules for things other than just safety" aren't coming from DCI, but societal norms. If a corps wants to do a Caligula show and march with no pants or underwear, that's their artistic choice. They also know that they will lose a heavy majority of spectators who will not want to see a performance of that sort in public. 

These designers may be artistic and expressive, but they also know that, first and foremost, THEY HAVE TO PUT BUTTS IN SEATS. You don't need rules limiting artistic design in that matter, because the designers already know not to do that or else they will lose those butts.

this is Stu don't use logic or common sense, he'll argue those too

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

slotting.

 

hmm. dont ever year we see a corps start towards the bottom of the finalist levels jump a few spots...or conversely some go down a few? we see movement at the top in little spurts too.

 

 

so really...where is the slotting?

I think he means to say slotting over the course of a single season. And yeah, from around mid-season onward, it becomes pretty abundantly clear that the judges have made up their minds on where everyone will be placed by season's end (i.e. there have been very few crazy jumps up/down the rankings over the course of weeks or even days).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BRASSO said:

 Its one thing to adopt a relatively new policy in DCI for Corps now to essentially keep Drum Corps fans completely in the dark in the off season on what is going on for approx 9 months out of the year.

 But it takes this " Sound of Silence " to a whole  'nuther level, when a DCI Proposal is made , that if passed, would have Drum Corps fans all across the country have no idea what the scoring was in these Drum Corps shows. Nor what the spreads were between the Corps, nor how Corps did in Drums/ Brass/ Guard. captions and so forth  There would essentially be NO transparency all all in how the Corps  became " ranked "., Nor would judges scores be made public immediately after the show competition. Whenever an activity  has less transparency, it naturally invites something else to fill the void. Those " somethings ", in the absence of full and open transparency, tend not to be " good things ", I hope this proposal... especially this one... goes down in defeat to the intelligent " Sound of Transparency ", not to the cynical, " Sound of Silence " that would thus extend for Drum Corps fans everywhere now even into the summer competition season.

 

This got me thinking (dangerous) - the ultimate scoring transparency would be have the judges keep tabs on some kind of electronic device that would allow the fans  to see what the judges are putting down in near real-time. 

Of course, there would have to be some kind of security system so the Ruskies nor anyone else could hack into the scoring system  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

the problem with your example as we have been seeing in a few places, especially guard and percussion, is that if the judge judges their sheet and doesnt care about overall ranking, the caption gets the score it deserves.

And what a travesty that would be...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

so really...where is the slotting?

Agreed. Look back on the final placement order from this past year and where those corps were at the beginning of the season. At no point was Regiment better than an 8th- 10th place corps, and at no point were Devils and SCV not the 1 and 2 corps. If PR had started their California tour not knowing what their numbers were in relation to the leaders, they would have simply forestalled the truth to July 1, which would have made no difference to their end of the year placement.

Edited by Slingerland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

it was that way long before the G7. take the tin foil hat off

Let's see...

Before the G7 alliance, the Blue Devil's were promoting, "Come see us in the lot, the show before the show, and skip seeing the performances if the lower corps in the stadium." Yep.

Before the G7 alliance, the Cadets were promoting, "Come see us in the lot, the show before the show, and skip seeing the performances if the lower corps in the stadium." Yep.

Before the G7 alliance, SCV was promoting, "Come see us in the lot, the show before the show, and skip seeing the performances if the lower corps in the stadium." Yep.

Before the G7 alliance, the Cavalers were promoting, "Come see us in the lot, the show before the show, and skip seeing the performances if the lower corps in the stadium." Yep.

Before the G7 alliance, Crown was promoting, "Come see us in the lot, the show before the show, and skip seeing the performances if the lower corps in the stadium." Yep.

Before the G7 alliance, the Blueciats were promoting, "Come see us in the lot, the show before the show, and skip seeing the performances if the lower corps in the stadium." Yep.

Before the G7 alliance, Phantom Regiment was promoting, "Come see us in the lot, the show before the show, and skip seeing the performances if the lower corps in the stadium." Yep.

We're the Scouts, or Academy, or Crossmen, or Spirit, or Troopers, or Mandarins, or... promoting that either prior to it after the G7 alliance? Nope.

So tin hat or not, the seven were promoting it irrespective of the tag-name G7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...