DebateGuy

I'm not sure you understand the difference between entities that are "for profit" and "not for profit". The only important difference between the two is that a not for profit entity must put the monies they earn back into the organization itself. They have some other rules, of course. Taxation, missions, that sort of stuff. But that's really the only difference. The common misconception is that not for profits have to not make money. Not so. There are a ton of NFP hospitals out there, and they certainly don't operate at a loss. They just put anything they make beyond their operating costs into better facilities, newer equipment, that sort of thing. So no, to answer your question. I don't see myself wanting DCI to ever become a for profit entity.

Even if we are, so what of it? (not being critical of you, btw)

Is GenCon really loading the whole city? I remember it going on at the Indy regional in 03, and to be honest I'm not sure if it was a problem or not. I certainly remember wandering around the stadium and running into the middle of the convention. People probably just thought my uni was some way out there cosplay or something.

I was there, and I never really had any trouble seeing anyone with a blue uniform. It makes me sad, because we'll probably not have a lineup like this year for quite a while. The traffic just never seems to be headed this way, you know? Only problem is housing. As much as I would love to see finals here, you're looking at Meridian, Nampa, Kuna, Eagle, and Boise proper. That's what, 12 high schools? Boise is a wonderful town, but the metropolitan area needs a little developing, unless you want corps housed out in Mountain Home or Twin.

It seems to me that this is the very reason that some people favor moving to an ordinal system of placements. It prevents one judge from having a different enough process of numbers management from having their caption skew (sic) the show results. I really don't much care, but I think it would be hard to argue that an ordinal system wouldn't prevent a single judge from being able to dictate the outcome of a show. edited for grammar

In this thread's honor, I'm going to post something that I have been thinking about for a long time. As some people on here know, there is a law on internet forums, called Godwin's Law, which states that as a thread increases in length, the likelihood of a comparison involving nazis or hitler approaches 1. The person making this comparison immediately loses the thread, regardless of whether the comparison was valid or not. Thus, there is the Hopkins corollary: As a thread on dcp gets longer, the probability of a harsh criticism of hopkins or narration approaches 1.

I would agree, but I'm going to point out that DCP is much more n00b friendly than a lot of the other forums that I frequent. The general level of ###-hattery is pretty low. Nobody really goes out of their way to flame people. But, to get back OT, i feel like a lot more than some tweaking is going to need to happen before I can connect the music to the narration. As a designer (of lighting and sets), that makes the word failure applicable. I certainly respect that you feel that the label may be a little harsh, and time will certainly tell how the cadets deal with it. And since when does design matter, they don't actually judge that, do they?

I think what you may mean to say is that most people on the internet are complete jerks. I've lurked for a good long time, and I seldom feel the need to chime in. I would link to a really funny penny arcade that demonstrates this, but I'm pretty sure it's a ToS violation. LOL, I won't even begin to argue with you there. Unless they are somehow closet show attendees, just blending in with the "bandos", but this is a little OT, so i'll stop there.

Thank christ. I would feel like an idiot if the people that I were marketing my product to actually gave a ####.

You know what my biggest challenge was in design school? The first time I sat down for a design review and the professors all told me that my work was garbage, because while the individual components of my design were spectacular, they didn't have a consistent message. As I see it, there's a mighty large challenge in front of the design staff on the maroon team.

The season? Absolutely not. The members? Never. This particular vehicle? Yeah, I would. Of course, this is just my opinion, and mine may be in the minority. But I'm thinking that no amount of tweaking is going to fix the fact that I don't feel any connection between the music and the narration. If they come out with some rewrites that make me start to connect the two, then I will GLADLY take everything back. But this show? No, I don't buy it. ps In retrospect, I hope you weren't inferring that I was saying that the season or the members are a failure. My criticism isn't that sweeping. It only extends to the ability of the vehicle (the show as designed) to convey the concept.

You know, some people seem kinda down on shows that are nothing but cool music with cool drill, but allow me to tell you what this show is: Cool music, with cool drill, with narration. The execution of this concept (and there is a great concept behind this show) is a failure. A good design would present a cohesive idea that reinforces the concept that they are trying to convey. Answer me this, in what way does the music enhance the concept that is being conveyed by the narration? It doesn't. It almost seems as if the music is completely superfluous in the design, with some exceptions. Love the performance levels, but this design is dead in the water, and I don't really see how some tweaks are going to solve the HUGE disconnect between the concept and the product. (edited for grammar)

Agreed, and that is my complete and total problem with this show. The music and the narration need to be synergistic with one another, and with the exception of Blue Shades, I just don't feel any connection. The opener serves as a perfect example. Delivery of the lines aside (which is a whole different can of worms), I listened to the lines "this I believe, etc", and the music in NO WAY represents what I feel like is trying to be conveyed. There was one point when the music was dark and brooding, and "this I believe" was happening on top of it. It almost physically hurt to be drug in two directions at once, and NOT in a good way. Concept? Great. Music? AWESOME Narration? Delivery issues aside, very good. Product: presents a cohesive picture of the concept? uh....not so much. If i was a GE judge, I would be terribly unkind to this show. Effective as its parts? Sure. Effective as a whole? NO. Here's the problem. With the narration and music being such integral parts of the show, the product as exists is pretty much unsalvageable. It's a set that's built and lit, and costumes that are fitted, but they aren't telling the same story. They need to back it up to the concept, think about what they are trying to convey, and THEN plan how they are going to convey it. Narration is a useful tool, but only if used in conjunction with other tools to convey the concept. The problem with the design process at any corps is that it is too incestuous and insular to really have any reliable feedback until it's too late. The designer looks at a product and it makes perfect sense to them... because THEY designed it. It takes someone with a fresh set of eyes and ears to look and say, "whoa man, this just doesn't make sense to me, you need to back it up and get back to your concept." Cool music, good narration. Terrible product. It makes me sad just to think that.

My, what a creative imagination you have. The only member of CR99 that marched in Glory the previous year was Zeke in the hornline, at least that I can recall. I think I remember him telling me some stuff about Glory and Golden Lancers (or someone) merging the year before, and how he didn't dig the staff vibe over there anymore. Then again, you're talking about 8 years ago, so it's hard to say. We had a lot of respect for you guys, as I recall. Especially since we shared the pain of being tied out of finals. OUCH. I remember the next year reading a DCW article that talked up how the two corps were continuing our rivalry from the previous year. We were like "We have a rivalry with Glory? Wait, we had one last year too?" Funny how that works. And just to keep it OT: Twilight Optimist 99: You guys had like 8 people in your entire corps. Hats off to you for just being out there. I was seriously in awe of you every time you went by. If only everyone loved their corps as much.

That is the beauty of art, yes? Each individual will take with them what they will. The art isn't so much in the execution piece, but each person's visceral reaction to that piece that makes it wonderful. Your post got me thinking, perhaps the next step is to analyze what it is that gives a work of art meaning, and how we as viewers contribute to the statement that is being made. Again, we come to a contradiction, is the art meaningful, or is it not, when all the parts are separated? Perhaps it's a rhetorical question posed by the artist. But then the pieces separated are all evocative of the question that is being posed, and thus are all uniquely valuable, though the original meaning is lost. The question itself is a beautiful one, regardless of the answers we find in it. Thank you for allowing me to get to that particular insight.

Perhaps the concept behind the show is to get us to appreciate this contradiction or paradox. Many contradictions exist in life, and especially in art, and many artists produce their work to get people to question the fundamental assumptions that we as individuals make about our existence. For example, an artist has an idea for a wonderful work of art, a beautiful painting, if you will. But rather than execute the painting on one canvas, they choose instead to paint each stroke on a separate piece of canvas. Yes, the analogy is strained, but bear with it. So we go to a gallery, and there are a hundred different pieces of canvas, each with one stroke masterfully executed upon it. How does that make us reflect on art, and on our approach to it? Personally, I begin to think about how perhaps I should cherish each individual stroke of a paintbrush, and the mark that it left upon each individual canvas. And even more, I appreciate that the gallery itself is ART. Together, the gallery is a beautiful picture, but through the artist's concept and execution, I have come to recognize that each journey that the paint took from the brush to its canvas was unique, and valuable in its own way. How thought provoking. However, what happens when each canvas is sold, and go their separate ways? Are they still art? Is each performer after they go home still a drum corps? I remember one day near the end of tour when a staff member said: "You need to appreciate that in a few days all of you will go your separate ways, and some will come back, and some will not, but the important thing is that THIS corps will never exist again." Perhaps the point of the contradiction was to get us to consider such a thing, and perhaps not. That's one of the joys of art. That after the work is produced, the interpretation is in the hands of the audience, not the artist.

Whoa dude, I completely agree with you about volunteer polls, but that is just factually incorrect. According to what I can find, Kerry lost the election by about 35 electoral votes out of 538ish (it seems to me that the numbers don't add up because a DC voter abstained) and roughly 3 million popular votes out of about 120 million (62mil-59mil appx). This is easily beaten by a number of presidential races. On the electoral side: in 1936 FDR beats Alfred Landon 523-8. In 1971 Nixon beats McGovern 520-17, and in 1984 Reagan beats Mondale 525-13. On the popular side: in 1920 Harding beats Cox by about 7 million out of 26 million (16mil-9mil appx). In 1936 FDR beats Landon by 11 million out of 46 million (28mil-18mil appx), and in 1984 Reagan beats Mondale by 17 million out of 92 million (54.5mil-37.5mil appx). Broken out into percentages, those votes are even more lopsided than just base differences. I'm not going to do the math, because you get the idea. The point is that you are totally right about such opinion polls being (for the most part) statistically invalid, but you shouldn't mess up a good argument by warranting it with something completely false. On the subject of polls on this site, they are all volunteer polls which typically only draw votes from those who are strongly interested one way or the other (even if there is an "I don't care" option). The only real conclusion that can be drawn from that would be to say something like: of all the people that are on dcp that cared to read and respond to a poll about narration (or whatever), most seem to prefer not having it. Are those results indicitive of the attitude of your average showgoer? Doubt it. But the easy answer to that is that the results are skewed because people that would feel strongly to the negative stopped going to shows. *shrug* I suppose DCI has to look at it from a business standpoint. How many fans do we attract with such things as opposed to how many people do we lose, and vice versa. People always toss around BOA kids as a target audience without ever bothering to ask why DCI would target such a group. Because they already consume a product that is similar? What stops a BOA kid from saying: "Why would I want to go to a DCI show? If I wanted to see that, I would go to BOA or a WGI show." Just a thought.

BASTimpanist, For what it's worth, I apologize. I reread my posts and I came across like I doubted what any of you 2006 members had to say. I'm sorry that it came off that way, and that I sounded callous towards what probably was a really tough season. If you have stories to tell, you certainly aren't airing dirty laundry, you're just telling the truth. Don't ever think that you're doing the wrong thing. It's a sad thing, knowing that someone you respected has changed, and not for the better. It's hard to cut through the BS and get to the truth of things. But at this rate, it looks like the truth isn't too pretty. Sad.

I asked myself the same question. I know Mr. Bays (or Rick, if you insist on me using his first name) quite well. I refer to him as Mr. Bays because I have known him for going on 8 years, and I respect the work that he did for Capital Regiment while I was there. I'll freely admit that I haven't talked to him but briefly since around 2004, so I couldn't tell you what kind of person he is now. I only spoke from what was my personal experience at CR.

I bet you are. But for the moment, let's revisit some of your other posts from the past, shall we? and this little gem, in reference to drinking on tour, specifically the incident in 2003 when a number of ageouts went drinking after lights out after quarterfinals. Now, I'm not the one to say what actually went on this year, but it seems to me that you have a bone to pick with Rick Bays. Just randomly checking up on Capital Regiments website, were we? There's a need for DCI to investigate for the sake of the kids, is there? I'll give you that there were some troubles on tour this season, from what we heard coming out of their camp. But I think that in your case there was a little bit more of a desire to stir up #### with Rick Bays in the middle of it, rather than any concern for "the kids". I bet you smelled blood in the water, and decided to attack someone whom you claim you have never dealt with directly. I say we let the problem get worked out between the CR Administration and the Tour Managers who obviously had some problems. This isn't the first time that admins have clashed with staff, and it won't be the last by far. Rick Bays is, like I imagine many corps administrators are, on vacation after getting back from tour. Why don't we let him get back and deal with the problem, and then decide what side we're going to take? Sitting here and musing over whether CR will be out next year doesn't do anything but feed the rumor mill, and I think there are quite enough corps who are rumored to be not coming out next season. I keep hearing that Rick Bays doesn't care about the kids, let me tell you a story. I marched for CR, and at one point I was supposed to be taking a ride home on a Greyhound. I misread the schedule, and there wasn't a bus back to my city until the next morning. Completely my own fault. I called Mr. Bays on the phone, and he came and picked me up at the bus station in a corps bus. I apologized to him, and he told me not to worry about it. Not only did he not mention it again, he took me out to dinner that night (with some volunteers), and stayed the night with me in the CR Center. This guy, who had probably not seen home in days, got out his sleeping bag and crashed on the floor of the center with me, and gave me a ride to my bus the next morning. Were there times on tour when he was an absolute hardass? Yep, and quite frankly, I bore the brunt of his ire on more than one occasion on tour. But every time it was because I crossed the line. I don't speak for Mr. Bays, and I don't pretend to know what happened on tour this year, but I know a few things. Mr. Bays looks out for every kid that comes on tour, or sets foot on his bus. But he also cares about the corps, and I have never seen him do anything that wasn't in direct response to someone crossing the line. Maybe he is a little rabid when protecting what he sees as the corps image, but I call BS when people say he doesn't care about the kids.

It's just past the time of year where the biggest complaining about judging happens, and it seems as though everyone wants to get involved. More power to us, I suppose, for wanting to voice our opinions on caption scores that we believe are flawed. However, I am going to dedicate this thread to pointing out that some statements that are being said by many of us are simply asanine. However, one important thing to remember is that when you ##### about a score, some corps member on here reads it and smiles. If I were a marching member (and at one time or another, I was) who came here and read that my corps got screwed, it would make my day. Validation from individuals in the crowd is one of the things that makes a summer great, and knowing that someone loved us enough to complain when we didn't win (or not lose the most) would be a good time. So, by all means, complain about the judging all you want. Support your corps, and give em ####. That being said, I want to point something out. Some of you who challenge scores that are given are idiots. You have no idea how scores are derived, and furthermore (for good or bad) you don't know the wording on the sheets. Here are some of my biggest problems: Right. And precisely what qualifies you to be saying that? You are exactly one person, and I would daresay that you aren't half as qualified or experienced as the LEAST of the judges out there. The funny thing is, sometimes it's even closer of a spread ("they got 90, they deserved a 92"). Can anyone here honestly say that they can tell the difference between a 90 and a 92? Or even a 85 and a 90? There is a reason that judging is done by panel: it can't be done by one person. If you think that you give out better scores than 9 people could, you are deluding yourself. Which brings me to... This one is my favorite. Yes there are some obvious statements that we can make that MIGHT be accurate. To say that Cavaliers losing GE Vis to Phantom (and Phantom GE Music to Cavaliers) is a little bit on the odd side might be pretty valid. But some people take it so far as to choose something that would have to be judged on the field. How arrogant can we be? When you watch a show, do you only pay attention to one thing? I love it when people go so far as to criticize multiple things at once. If you find yourself complaining about colorguard, visual, GE, and musical performance scores all at the same time, you may be who I am talking about. Do you realize how insane of a statement you are making? Not only are you claiming to be a better judge than those who were actually in a position to make judging calls (on the field, for example), you claim to be better than several of them ALL AT THE SAME TIME. My hat is off to your omnicience, and to your humility by admitting by omission that the judges you didn't key did a passable job. Which brings me to... *Sigh* The dichotomy that will never die. EVER. When there is no movement in the top twelve, people say the judges are slotting everyone. When you have a year with movement, like this year, all anyone wants to talk about is crazy judging. Nuff Said. For the love of sanity, please, when you think about complaining about judging, try to think about what you are saying. There are many times when I feel like some corps performed better then others, but that never gives me the urge to tell someone with more experience, qualifications, and a much better seat, that they were wrong. Because if I were them, I would laugh in my face. You want to talk about bad judges? I compete in and coach policy debate. My students have been judged by people who have never even heard of debate before. People with biases based off things we have absolutely no control of. I have had a team get voted down because she didnt wear hose with open toed shoes. They have lost because they said Bush bad (debater shorthand for a lot of reasons why Bush could be bad). I lost a critical (philosophical) round in college because my affirmative case made gays feel bad, and the judge was a homosexual. Did we win every argument in that round, YEP. Did we still lose, well... yeah. Now let me ask you a question. What did I do when I had a student take a bad loss, and swore at the judge? I did what any debate coach would do. I kicked his ### off the team, because being a judge of ANYTHING is a thankless, low paying, stressful job, and all calling out a judge will do is poison them. Poison them to the team, poison them to the coach, and poison them to the activity. Let me tell you something: where I come from, finding judges is hard. Who wants to give up a weekend to a bunch of whiny #####ing kids? Not me, and not you. You want to drive judges away from the activity? Be my guest, because there will always be someone MORE biased and LESS qualified to take their place. Trust me on this one. So please, the next time you say that you want to meet a judge in a dark alley somewhere, remember that you're hurting everyone by doing so. And besides, they'll probably kick your ### B)