r3vo Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 How about we add any rule change hoppy wants in the 2009 season (not 08 cuz the corps already have their shows partially designed) and see how much everyone likes the activity. Because all of this #####ing isnt doing a #### thing... no really you all do need lives! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 With my previous post as background, I'd like to submit that Tim Kviz' proposals add a very interesting dynamic to the human equation on the DCI board.These are the first proposals in a very long time that argue directly against the inexorable bando-fication of DCI. If you consider the forces for and against bando-fication, his proposals make the "against" force a positive force in the equation, instead of a negative force. Being proactive rather than reactive, in other words. That makes a tangible difference in how people perceive and react to ideas. It'll be very interesting to see how this rules meeting shakes out. I'd love to be a fly on the wall. Sorry, but Tim's proposals are in no way a "positive" or "proactive" anything. They are negative and regressive in every way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancerlady Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) I doubt you will get a straight answer here.It comes down to the fact that the power has been in the hands of each director, not just one. Things pass based on the opinion of each, and to state otherwise is just a big insult to those people and to the activity. I'll have to go dig my notes to give you an accurate account. I was writing for DCP at the time so I did take notes, now whether or not I can find them after a move..that's another story. How is it an insult what I said? I'm curious. That's how the voting procedure works. I wasn't insulting but answering your question. There can be 4 or 5 who don't to vote on those changes so to insinuate otherwise is equally an insult to them dismissing their opinion as invalid or inferior. Edited January 14, 2008 by Lancerlady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancerlady Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 How many did not vote? Just curious. I think it was the top 17 who were members or something like that were allowed to vote, (as far as I can remember) but as far as how many voted for the change? I can't remember the exact amount but it wasn't a unanimous vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corps-mudgeon Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Sorry, but Tim's proposals are in no way a "positive" or "proactive" anything. They are negative and regressive in every way. In terms of how the proposals potentially affect marching, suit yourself. In terms of what I was actually talking about, which is group dynamics, my description holds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 In terms of how the proposals potentially affect marching, suit yourself. In terms of what I was actually talking about, which is group dynamics, my description holds. I disagree. They are not positive in any way, inc group dynamics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corps-mudgeon Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I disagree. They are not positive in any way, inc group dynamics. Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Sigh. Care to explain a bit more, if I am missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrunchyTenor Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) Care to explain a bit more, if I am missing something? I think it's because you speak in such absolutes, Mike. There are many who feel just the opposite of you. Why is your opinion so much more valid? If the caucus approve any, or all, of Tim's proposals, more power to them. Then it's in the directors' hands. Although, I don't think they'd ever make it in their original form, which is why Tim will be there to introduce them in person. If there's any negotiating to do, that's when it will be done. If they pass, that's good, IMO. If they fail, that's good, IYO. Why should either one of our views be more valid? We certainly wouldn't want one person having an excessive amount of influence, would we? Garry in Vegas Ps We really have to have a beer sometime! Edited January 14, 2008 by CrunchyTenor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAMystreaux Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 How is it an insult what I said? I'm curious. That's how the voting procedure works. I wasn't insulting but answering your question. There can be 4 or 5 who don't to vote on those changes so to insinuate otherwise is equally an insult to them dismissing their opinion as invalid or inferior. The comment is not directed at (just) you. When anyone here says that board members vote a certain way because of a proposal coming up a certain number of times and directors vote a certain way just to shut George up, etc. . .that is an insult. If a proposal passes, it is because a majority thought it was a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.