MoonHill

For some reason, the suggestion of Bart playing a rainstick does not strike me as odd or unlikely at all in any way. I bet they could get him to count two, or even three times, if they really tried.

Why not, specifically?

I've seen this sentiment a few times, and honestly, I've got to ask: Why? Note, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the sentiment. I'm just curious as to what the motivation should have been to keep it "private" (in that "private" means "known to a crap load of people already, just not as many as if it was posted on DCP")?

Then why question the motivations of the OP in posting it, the way he did? I just find the "We did nothing wrong, but if you think it's wrong, then how come you're just as wrong as we are? Huh? Huh?" attitude he displayed to be somewhat hilarious.

I know MikeD already nailed this one, but I can't help but say: Cadets2000 doesn't count as a Cadets fan anymore? 'cause he was pretty clear in his defense of the YEA! organization, but not the email. I must have missed a memo.

I'm not bent out of shape by anything in particular. I've got no personal dog in this hunt, and I'm a big Cadets fan in general. But I do run a business in a reputation-based industry, and it's incredibly poor form to comment on a former employee in a job posting. It's even worse form to essentially say "Yeah, I said what I said, and she should suck it up!" when that gets pointed out. Hell, the tiny little corps just barely getting started in the backwoods of whereever that can just maybe put together enough money to stay around for a few years understand this concept. Yeah, I guess, "there's no accounting for the logic of a 25-year-old" and all the rest of the stuff that others have pointed out could constitute unadulterated praise. I guess. Regardless, it's the act, not the content, that is causing the controversy. A controversy which you're not helping much, I have to say.

That's the question, alright. Apparently it's because Hopkins thinks all actions should have consequences... except those of the YEA! organization, for some reason.

Incorrect. The guy standing on the outside and asking for changes generally gets much better results by playing nice. All the sturm and drang you bring to your presentation has done little to advance your cause -any of them- and has had far more effect at making people simply tune you out and ignore any reasonable or rational points you may raise. It's all just "rar rarr, DCA hates meeeee blah blah blah". Presentation matters.

Oh, last thing: It was also tacky. Can't wait to see the show, though. Good luck out there.

So, I read this whole thread, and there's two things I just really don't get: So, waitaminute here. You're saying that the organization that publishes details of a former employee's departure, and the guy who posts that publication, are both equally in the gutter? Last time I checked, it was generally considered poor business practice to badmouth former employees, especially in the job posting to replace them, but I don't think I've ever seen anything saying that it was similar bad form to bring such behavior to popular light. Something about that equivalency doesn't make sense to me. I'm not saying that the guy who brings bad behavior to light is a saint, or anything. Nor am I particularly saying that this was particularly bad behavior. But that "you're just as bad as they are!" line just seems completely wrong. The obvious "bad behavior" being discussed here is not the publication of a personal opinion about a former employee of YEA! It's the publication of a personal opinion about a former employee of YEA! by an agent of the YEA! organization in an official job posting. It seems really odd to say that the dude who effectively went "hey guys! Look at this!" is at an equal level of mistakitude. And the second thing I just don't get: Seriously? I think the best answer to those questions is found exactly three paragraphs higher, in the same post: If it would have been best for Tristan to let the situation stay inactive a month after the fact, then would it not also have been best for the officers of the YEA! organization to let it stay inactive from the beginning, and not post the bit about the former employee in the first place? Or, perhaps, just accept that actions are going to have consequences, and the officers of the organization coming off to the public in a bad light is the natural consequence of this action?

This statement of generality doesn't apply to anyone in the three corps I'm primarily familiar with regarding DCA. In Dream, in particular, the standard for DCA performance is one guy who takes two whole weeks off to drive the equipment truck out there, and everyone else leaving on Thursday and traveling back on Monday. Wed-Wed doesn't apply to anyone in that group. I'm the only person there that could realistically be called a workaholic (seeing as how I'm the guy who brought his computer to Rochester last year to get some work done during down-time), and even I'm Thursday-Monday (quite probably Thurs-SundayRedEye this year). But then, I guess you know better than the guys who have been organizing these events for decades, seeing as how you've thought about it for a little bit in your spare time.

And, again, that's you. That's not DCA, nor mini corps. If the limits weren't there, you still wouldn't know. At this point it's fair to say that it seems to be primarily because you choose to not know. Perhaps you're more comfortable in the indecision, I don't know. Uncertainty can be very comfortable to certain mindsets. Deciding which way you're going would mean that you'd have goals to be met, and deadlines to meet them. Not knowing means you don't have to deal with that sort of thing. You might not know, but you get to pretend that you might do everything. And if DCA and minicorps had no limits at all, you'd still be in that place of comfortable indecision.

You're looking at going next season, right?

I think I just got ratted out! :thumbs-up:

I don't understand this terrible can't-do attitude you're taking with this decision. Limiting the DCA Finals performance of the mini corps champion to only after the final competing corps effectively excludes all the potential mini corps champions that maybe don't want to stay in Rochester quite that late on Sunday. This is a ridiculous restriction that will kill the activity in the long run. Performances should be whenever the mini corps champion wants to perform, and if that happens to be in the middle of someone else's performance, well, what's best for the activity? To be a bunch of Nancy I Can'ts? or to be Baron Wulfgang Von Can-Do?

No you wouldn't. If there were no limits at all, you still wouldn't know. The fact that there's a participant maximum and a member minimum on this venue or that venue doesn't change whether you know how you're fielding or not. Your own choices determine how you're fielding, and what you know. If two people drop out, you might not be able to make the minimum membership numbers for class-whatever. And if the airport closes down on Thursday, you might not be able to make the performance time established for your group. And if the economy continues to tank, you might not be able to make the financial requirements for getting to Rochacha. And if your internet connection craps out for two minutes wednesday night, you might not be able to get off that email asking such-and-such composer for performance rights to their music. A whole host of things might pop up to make it difficult for you or your group to get to DCA. DCA and Minicorps making the exact sort of sound logistical decisions that any event organizer *should* make is not, get right down to it, one of them. These things should not be handled on a seat-of-the-pants, catch-as-catch-can, "wait until the crisis is unavoidable to deal with it" manner. The fact that DCA and the minicorps organizers don't handle these events in such a manner should be heartening to anyone who really cares as much as you express to do about the activity surviving in the long term.

Logically, DCI. People in the 6-22 age range more often than not have a whole heck of a lot less to occupy their time than those of us above 22, and the peer-attraction will mean that far more 6-22 year olds will head to DCI than will to DCA. Every example I've so far seen of people who have an opportunity to march in a DCA corps, or even a nascent, not-quite-yet-DCA corps, who have chosen not to have done so because of time and money, not because of participation limits set by DCA. I'd be interested to see what examples you have that show otherwise (not saying they don't exist; just saying that I've never seen hide nor hair of them). The limits set thus far by DCA have, to my eyes, been in the nature of being prepared, not being restrictive. Saying "well, we'll see when we get there" is a terrible way for any organizer to approach something like this. The fact that the limit is well above the maximum number of participants they've ever gotten further suggests preparation, rather than restriction. Selling off horns in order to procure video equipment doesn't sound very well-prepared. Are you going to have an infinite number of HD tapes available for when the show times go long due to the massive surge of minicorps created when DCA does away with the fascist "first 20 applicants" measure that's clearly only designed to destroy the will of all those millions who would otherwise be flocking to create corps that will travel to DCA on their very first year of existence, financial-situation-be-######?

How's this for uplighting: I just helped negotiate a deal wherein my local corps gets $1400 worth of work done on their uniforms, and it costs the corps nothing. The woman who did the work gets paid full rate, and the business that's paying her gets a tax deduction against next year's taxes. Screw You, Bad Economy!

Sam, could you elaborate a little on that? I was in Freelancers in '93, and remember a lot of the weird stuff that went on the year (such as the Ice Cream Social Bath, and serenading the sick guy, which is a great locals story), but that phrase isn't ringing any bells for me. Last summer, at the WeHo Pride parade, we were placed, by the parade organizers, in front of a narrow brownstone-style apartment building to do our warm up. We faced away from the building, but we apparently were still a tad too loud for the liking of one resident, on the building's top floor. First, he came out an shouted at us to go away. The fact that, twenty feet to either side of us, there were other groups prepping for the parade, and the fact that there was a parade starting up less than a block away, seemed to make no difference to him. He yelled a few more times, but we were told by one of the organizers to ignore him. Then, he emptied out his vacuum cleaner bag in our general direction. Was very odd to suddenly see clumps of grey lint falling slowly out of the sky near us. But whatever, right? Finally, he took to emptying bottles of water towards us. A few of us got splashed, just a bit. But we got the point. So we moved ourselves across the narrow little street, turned the arc around to face his building, pointed our horns UP, and played our parade music really abusively loud. Ridiculously loud. He didn't like that. On the other hand, the Sheriffs that had shown up around the time of the lint dropping thought our response was funny as hell. I don't know if they tried to explain that viewpoint to him, but I do know he stopped doing yelling after they went upstairs and had a talk with him.

Ah, KPCC. I remember some of the, ahem, "noise" they experienced that week. Larry Mantle was quite amused, as I recall.

Just make sure you thank, repeatedly and sincerely, the guys who bust their butts dealing with the associated problems brought on by those real-life changes and challenges in order to keep the corps up and running. And always remember, message board conversations are srs bsns. ;)

Interestingly, the third sort of statement seems to come from, well, just about everyone. Gotta love the internet, where people can spend much time and effort passionately agreeing with one another.

Are you drunk right now?

It's entirely possible that they didn't see that post before they responded to your earlier faux pas. Threaded message board, and all. Chill out, dude. Some times we all have to take some hits for the things we say, even after we apologize for them.

Part of DECIDING THAT WE WILL and a large part of DEALING WITH IT and getting marching members to BELIEVE THAT WE CAN and THAT IT'S ALL WORTH IT and that they should GIVE EVERY OUNCE OF THEMSELVES and whatever else anyone wants to put into all-caps for emphasis, is recognizing the realities and circumstances of the various difficulties and opportunities that come along in any given season. The only real way to DEAL WITH bad news is to ADMIT THAT THERE'S NEWS IN THE FIRST PLACE, and be open to the possibility that it MAY BE CONSIDERED BAD. Acting as if there is NO bad news, or even worse, shooting in the general direction of people who might be wondering if there's news and if perhaps it could possibly be somewhat bad maybe, does nothing particularly useful. It can even lead to some spectacularly bad business decisions, which have been known to kill corps. Is it possible the economy is affecting membership numbers? I'd say "yes", from what I'm seeing, that would be an accurate guess. Best thing to do is recognize the possibility, and deal with it as it effects each of us.