dbc03 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Twice in DCI (Kingsmen and Suncoast); numerous times in the pre-DCI era. But I must ask:1. Why doesn't Star count? 2. We have also seen two top-9 corps get disqualified. Why is "folding" your only concern? 1) Because the post I was replying to was asking why the top 9 was considered better suited to decide the business aspects of DCI. Star didn't leave because of finances. 2) Because the post I was replying to was asking why the top 9 was considered better suited to decide the business aspects of DCI. So that is 2 corps out of the hundreds that have folded that have been in the top 9. Pretty good track record in my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmurrey74 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I actually know that you are wrong about this. I have seen the proposal. It basically makes the top 9 corps into the governing body of DCI and gives them complete and total power over the whole activity. If they decide that only the top 9 get paid to do shows and the rest don't than that is what it is. If they decide that the top 9 get first dibs on the which shows they can go to and everyone else is left with the leftover than that is what it is. If they decide that DCI is only made up of 9 corps than there you go. I've seen the proposal too, but there was a revision/suggestion made by George to make that change to the rules process a few days ago. It's not in the formal proposal that was released. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosevelt Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 A part of me thinks this is a ridiculous argument.Honestly, that part of me is probably right. You honestly dont see this as a possibility? Why did Hopkins pick 9 in the first place? and why the top 9? It could have been a random 9 or 9 that were elected. This is a strategic move on his part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmurrey74 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 This is one of the bullets that really stuck in my craw. Very arrogant and paternalistic.First, how does this writeup come off defining any DCI director as an "outside" director? Why is Gang of Nine skin worth more than any other corps' skin? (Budgets aren't that much different from top to bottom.) And the Gang of Nine has all the answers? Barf. If the board wants to nominate 9 people to make their decisions based on interest and real qualifications, fine. But as proposed it's nothing more than a way to keep the top nine in the top nine. Major conflicts of interest. Outside director refers to non Drum Corps directors that are on the board. At-large members would be a better term probably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 1) Because the post I was replying to was asking why the top 9 was considered better suited to decide the business aspects of DCI. Star didn't leave because of finances.2) Because the post I was replying to was asking why the top 9 was considered better suited to decide the business aspects of DCI. So that is 2 corps out of the hundreds that have folded that have been in the top 9. Pretty good track record in my opinion This is basically the crux of the issue -- the rationale for the proposal is that the Top 9 are obviously successful and stabile, so therefore they are better suited to lead the others. (Paraphrasing of course) I get that argument. I just don't agree. Seems very elitist and condescending to me. Not all the corps are in it for exactly the same thing, which is why it's important to balance all their strategies thru equal voting. IN this new world, everyone will have to follow the strategies of the Top guys, because they will set the agenda. I just don't think that's healthy for the overall organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 You honestly dont see this as a possibility?Why did Hopkins pick 9 in the first place? and why the top 9? It could have been a random 9 or 9 that were elected. This is a strategic move on his part. Because I view it in the same light as when people say "Upping the age limit by 6 months is just another step in George's evil plant! Next it'll be 23, then 25, and before long he'll be on the field marching in the Cadets himself!" Is it possible? I guess. Is it probable? Not in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosevelt Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I've seen the proposal too, but there was a revision/suggestion made by George to make that change to the rules process a few days ago. It's not in the formal proposal that was released. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words. You may be right. I have not seen the revision. Either way, I just think it is a really dangerous path that we are going down here. If we want less directors making the decision than fine. Open it up for an election. That was it will not be a divide a conquer scenario like we are currently seeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Because I view it in the same light as when people say "Upping the age limit by 6 months is just another step in George's evil plant! Next it'll be 23, then 25, and before long he'll be on the field marching in the Cadets himself!"Is it possible? I guess. Is it probable? Not in my opinion. I don't know .... even having it as a POSSIBILITY could have a chilling effect on how the bottom group (however that's defined) votes and participates. Top 9 want to do this, so you bottom 8 better go along or we'l take your vote away. Once that's done, you 6,7,8, and 9 corps better not get to uppity or us TOp 5 will simply vote you out as well. etc, etc. Longshot? Maybe so, but anything that even has the perception of influencing the independant voice of board members calls into question the integrity of the entire body, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosevelt Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Because I view it in the same light as when people say "Upping the age limit by 6 months is just another step in George's evil plant! Next it'll be 23, then 25, and before long he'll be on the field marching in the Cadets himself!" Well, who is the one making the proposal? Besides, adding 6 months to the age limit and having only 9 corps decide the fate of the rest are very different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Pupperton Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 http://w14.easy-share.com/15678151.html In its entirety. 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.