cixelsyd

Not a simple question. If I recall correctly, modifications to the sheets normally take the form of a rule change proposal. Anyone can write a rule change proposal, but the rulebook says only corps directors/staff or judges can submit a rule change proposal. Proposals are developed by a committee of judges, designers and instructors, subsequently published, then discussed and voted upon in a series of caucuses at the DCI annual meeting. Certain majorities of instructors, and then corps directors, must be in favor to approve a rule change. So to answer your question, many people create the sheets. The two primary categories of people are corps-affiliated staff and DCI-affiliated judges. The bosses of both groups (corps directors and the DCI Judge Administrator and Artistic Director) have some potential input in the process, should they choose to use it. Why do you ask?

So if I am reading these two points correctly, what this means is that if an organization with skeletons in their closet retains their besmirched name, reputation and insurance coverage, and does not rebrand/reorganize as CAE did, they actually stand a better chance of both: organizational survival providing some compensation for victims

Yes, but I think the issue there is what judges reward, not how many points are in each caption.

I have no quibble with this post. I would only add that even if the sheets had not changed 1994-2000, all the rest might have transpired anyway.

The "D" part.

It is mind-boggling. Drum corps has had a way of bucking systemic influences, and steering a different creative course. For many years (i.e. prior to DCI), it labored under scoring systems which gave very little credit for content, focusing almost exclusively on identifying and deducting for errors. Yet many of the leading corps from that era were best known for introducing increasingly difficult things into the idiom, and pulling the whole activity in that direction against scoresheet logic. This was true in brass, percussion and visual. Maybe the best example of that was the evolution of colorguard. The original "colorguard" was literally an American flag bearer "guarded" by a couple of accompanying weapon bearers. It defies all logic how that evolved with the ideas of adding hordes of auxiliary performers in the late 1960s, having them spin and toss equipment at risk of penalties in the 1970s, then develop dance into a fundamental additional skill in the 1980s - all when there was no caption in the scoring system allocated to assess and credit all these developments, a change that was still two more decades off in the future. In similar fashion, when I look at the scoring shift 1994-2000, I do not see or hear the changes one would logically expect in response. Those changes came distinctly later - changes like the concepts of "intellectual" and "aesthetic" effect; making thematic shows mandatory; the fetishes for props and climbing; the shift away from musical focus and progression toward the patchwork design that infests current musical programming, and the electronic crutch on which it relies so heavily; and a parallel shift away from drill focus and progression toward the patchwork design that infests current visual programming, and the pose-or-dance sets on which it relies so heavily.

Well, you "only" had 6 on the field. Two people ticking each of the major captions. Add one GE judge for each of three areas, and that is 9. Music analysis made it 10. (Technically, it was really 11 if you count the timing/penalty judge.)

Honestly, anything can be political as soon as a politician says it is... and certainly once two politicians start arguing about it.

I think that is why nearly all the socioeconomic diversity we see from drum corps non-profits comes in the form of alternate program offerings. They cannot (or will not) make the DCI drum corps format financially accessible. This same cost blindness then ripples through the related scholastic pageantry arts. Then corps staff increasingly rely on these same scholastic groups, disproportionately from affluent areas, to provide experienced auditionees.

Lots of good feedback in your most recent post. This part of your post needed more than just a like or a trophy. I have a similar concern, but I am not sure how to articulate it. What feeds into my concern is that the extent to which the report casts self-judgment seems inexplicably negative. The middle of page 28 exemplifies this. Meanwhile, the data suggests that Bluecoats are extremely successful at offering an inclusive place for gender non-binary/non-conforming, but they take no credit for that there. Program descriptions suggest that many typically underserved are being served by (and possibly, much capital is being invested in) EN-RICH-MENT and the Bluecoats School of the Arts, but they take no credit for that there.

As they point out, this is their fourth annual report. The executive summary is unclear on at least three basic counts: 1. Its opening is essentially a mission statement. Bluecoats have a different mission statement, posted on their website. I suppose they can try to run a non-profit with two missions, but it would be more likely to succeed with one. 2. The summary, like the report itself, wanders off to address data from only one program, then bounces over to initiatives largely focused on other programs. Does the mission apply only to the sum of the organizational parts, or to each of its programs individually? And where is the data for the other programs? 3. How is success defined? They could proceed without this, but if there are going to be any judgmental assessments of status (and clearly there are, on pages 28-29), then there has to be a corresponding definition of success. What is equity? When is diversity diverse enough? What is the context for evaluation?

First time ever was when the Vancouver, WA, Spartans joined the Marauders in the top 25 in 1987. (Or Thursday of 1986 championship week, if you choose to micro-analyze.)

Can anyone explain what the purpose of this report is? Because all I see here is three largely disconnected sections: survey results on demographics of the primary program assertions made without supporting data secondary programs incompletely referenced

The forum guidelines prohibit "any reference to material considered political or religious in nature". Note the words I underlined. That means we should not add politics into a thread via reference. I believe that means if the thread is about a topic where drum corps and something political in nature legitimately overlap, then sincere discussion is allowed. The moderators will weigh in if I am mistaken.

Surprised you do now. Are you not concerned about litigation?

I am with you so far. Not following you here. First, BDB is not "local", judging from their near-perennial appearances in Indiana over the past 16 years. If you want to discuss local drum corps programs, BDC would be the example. As far as what makes BDC or other local programs possible... the truly local programs work because there is so much less travel (and associated cost). No, it really is the other way around. Without the local, there is no community money. It is also worth noting that for a drum corps to justify hiring even one full-time employee, it makes sense to add other programs that are not on the same seasonal trajectory that DCI drum corps follows. I would like to hear more about this. I cannot say whether anybody specifically thought that was a good idea. For that matter, with all the personnel turnover, not sure there really was a "regime". I thought it was local/community bridges that were the topic there. If anything, "hard-headed" Cadet alumni* would be far more interested in maintaining those connections than the administrations which relocated the corps. (* - assuming there are hard-headed Cadet alumni without evidence, only for the purpose of discussion) And honestly, in all three cases, the bridge burning was done under the same corps director. There was one person who was the Hiroshima/Nagasaki of burned bridges. And he was not a Cadet alum.

Arguing is not the right word. You are simply making a personal choice, just like thousands of other people. If enough of those personal choices empty enough of the bleachers at drum corps events, they might drive ticket prices down. Conversely, prices may rise if enough people choose to pay that premium. Now, the choice to watch online, but not through the legitimate channel provided by FloMarching... well, that is another kind of personal choice.

Props to you for recognizing Malaga. Now, maybe I am not looking back far enough... but I am not seeing Madison critics meeting any of the characterizations given here. Certainly not the "insert Malaguena, all problems solved" fiction. As much as people like to poke at the bear while it is caged, we (myself included) should try to be fair about it. (Plus, I need to save my best outrage for if anyone blames all Madison ills on females.)

You know what is no longer a recipe for success? Permanent corps management with rubber-stamp BODs keeping them in place. That strategy has not aged well for Cadets, Capital Regiment, or Pioneer. Even the indestructible Santa Clara Vanguard has been wounded just for leaning in that direction. The board of directors should provide oversight, not allow individuals employed by the corps to entrench themselves more inextricably than Malaguena in the Madison Scouts repertoire.

Or you could just as easily say the Cadets barely scraped by because some donations were there.

For full context, you must also include paper mail. The incessant pleading started long before e-mail was invented.

I was going to say that Cadets of Memphis was the stupidest idea currently possible. But would that be premature? Big "if" here... but if DCI revoked Cadets membership: - not in 2018, but in 2024 - not for anything Cadets have done, but rather what they might be held accountable for ... that would be stupid FTW.

If it gets to a jury, do they really need to "prove"? Or will "persuade" suffice?

If they do the 2023 show in 2024, that could give them a 12-month head start on copyright clearances.

Not only that, but given the number of times people cut a deal to suppress the charges/accusations, the activity really ought to have kept some sort of a do-not-hire list. Imagine if someone who worked for more than one corps became the subject of a lawsuit... and so did their multiple corps. Double trouble.