Rule Proposal 2008-07

[drumcat]

http://www.dci.org/rules/pdf/2008/07_percu...elimination.pdf

Percussion #2 no longer to be used in any DCI events.

[drumcat]

It won't be long until all the judges are upstairs at this rate...

[Gbassman5]

i think that some of the points Hopkins makes in this proposal need to be looked into.

Percussion 2 judges don't always do as they need to (jusge how ALL of percussion fits into the ENSEMBLE), and ensemble music judges don't always judge what they're s'posed to (the ENTIRE musical ensemble)

these need to be clarified and made sure they are followed.

otherwise, i vote no. i like the two percussion judges.

[Peel Paint]

I didn't understand what GH wrote in the Purpose section here:

I was a proponent of this additional judge. The idea was, no single person can do the job of evaluating the

high level percussion ensembles of today. The field judge, by design, is only sampling what he is able to

stand in front of.

Now, the issue is actually the inconsistent job being done by ensemble music judges, who are, supposed to

be evaluating the full ensemble – not just brass! Alas, whether it is due to ability or interpretation, the reality

is that the ensemble music adjudication is the issue. We are not getting the diversity of commentary we

require.

But – I do not think we should be repairing one problem with another.

As it is now, the Percussion 2 judge seems to demand a level of percussion presence that many may deem

inappropriate. Too much emphasis is placed on the specific and not the whole. I find it not a positive … after

two years of listening and considering the input.

Que? I don't understand what two field percussion judges has to do with the Music Ensemble judge.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Peel Paint

[cowtown]

The two judges were inconsistent but then again, one judge is often inconsistent – you just don’t notice it with one judge because its just one score, and the inconsistencies are spread amongst the corps- now with the 2 judges for one corps you see a different type of inconsistency

For now, I still like 2 judges, as long as they are not colluding – harder to push around 2 judges

[drumcat]

The two judges were inconsistent but then again, one judge is often inconsistent – you just don't notice it with one judge because its just one score, and the inconsistencies are spread amongst the corps- now with the 2 judges for one corps you see a different type of inconsistency

For now, I still like 2 judges, as long as they are not colluding – harder to push around 2 judges

Isn't the point to average out? Aren't the "inconsistencies" dealt with by having 2 numbers?

[Tekneek]

It should fail simply because Hopkins has failed to make a reasonable argument for the removal.

[SomeOtherJoe]

i think that some of the points Hopkins makes in this proposal need to be looked into.

Percussion 2 judges don't always do as they need to (jusge how ALL of percussion fits into the ENSEMBLE), and ensemble music judges don't always judge what they're s'posed to (the ENTIRE musical ensemble)

these need to be clarified and made sure they are followed.

otherwise, i vote no. i like the two percussion judges.

In '84, BD took high drums with a 19.8 and 4th place in Drum GE... down significantly in Drum GE score and placement from prelims while the Drum score and overall corps score was up. The Drum GE judge spent the vast majority of the show commenting on... THE COLORGUARD (absolutely no joke).

There will ALWAYS be judges that do a poor job of judging. Doesn't mean you throw out the system.

I'm with you... the original proposal for a 2nd drum judge was based on sound reasoning. No reason to throw it out this soon just because of an education issue.

[SkyRyder_FMM]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this proposal just yet, but I wanted to play devils advocate for just a moment. Couldn't this just be viewed as an attempt to re-visit a rule that was passed a few years ago to assess whether it is working effectively? The 2nd percussion judge was added for a reason, and perhaps it's not working the way it was intended. That might be the motivation of the submitter here. The case is not made very strongly, but I just wanted to throw that out there. Food for thought (crumbs perhaps, but food nonetheless ).

Actually, I think it would be very healthy for the activity if new rules, once adopted, we evaluated in some manner for a period of one to three seasons to determine whether they have been effective in achieving their stated objective, and whether the assumptions that were used in their development have come to fruition. If not, further tweaking might be in order, or full unwind as the case may be. Our current system of passing a rule, moving forward, and never looking back is, in my opinion, a very flawed approach.

[supersop]

I find it difficult to argue points of inconsistency as a result of DCI's own actions. They quickly started removing Perc Judge 2 scores from recaps in June. There was a large cry on DCP when we saw 1.8 and 2.5 point differences in percussion scores for 1 corps. When we asked DCI what the criteria differences were between the judges, there was no answer. When we asked how a judge in the box could judge the same criteria as a judge on the field as it relates to performance execution, there was no answer. The only answer the paying masses got was a deletion from the recaps.

As I said, we can't argue a point when we don't have the facts. The point Hop was trying to make in the purpose of his proposal was that:

A) The field percussion judge samples what's in front of him and listens for specifics

B) The Box percussion judge should be sampling the ENTIRE percussion ensemble and listening for specifics but is often listening for minutia and subsegments of the ensemble and not adjudicating the big picture

C) If the Ensemble Music judges were doing their jobs they would cover a greater portion of percussion and not just brass ... in which case they wouldn't need the second percussion judge.

The above bullets are based on the assumption that I actually understood the intent of the judging system and how it was supposed to be used.... and that I understand Hop (HA!). Personally, I saw it as no different than having an Ensemble percussion judge (something that has been long gone). I'm sure a judge in the box can hear major gacks, but they won't see or hear how snare #4 has a different curl on his middle finger than the rest of the line, or how Quad #2 has a loose fulcrum on his left hand. I think it's rediculous to expect a box judge to hear fuzz as well as a judge on the field would.

I say keep the judge, define the criteria, change the name of the subcaption from Judge #2 to Perc. Ensemble. Otherwise, you'll have to have a greater definition and box criteria for the Ensemble Music judge.