Instructor's caucus

[Tom Brace]

Me, too. Generally, the penalty for repeated use of illegal equipment in DCI is disqualification. Tim was already demonstrating compromise in that regard.

nice. that was you trying to be cute right there. next.

[LAMystreaux]

Me, too. Generally, the penalty for repeated use of illegal equipment in DCI is disqualification. Tim was already demonstrating compromise in that regard.

So, the inclusion of a penalty that would single-handedly put any corps in last is a compromise when speaking to a group who you already know is in favor of the equipment?

[madscout96]

nice. that was you trying to be cute right there. next.

Cute? It's fact, isn't it? Tim did not propose any disqualification at all. None of his proposals were full repeals of previous rules. Because of the point penalties instead of disqualifications for using amps in his proposals, they were compromises.

Now to someone who absolutely positively didn't want to give his proposals the time of day, I can see why a 15 point penalty is just as bad (enough) as a DQ. But there still is a difference. Can you get paid if your corps is DQ'd?

[LAMystreaux]

Cute? It's fact, isn't it? Tim did not propose any disqualification at all. None of his proposals were full repeals of previous rules. Because of the point penalties instead of disqualifications for using amps in his proposals, they were compromises.

Now to someone who absolutely positively didn't want to give his proposals the time of day, I can see why a 15 point penalty is just as bad (enough) as a DQ. But there still is a difference. Can you get paid if your corps is DQ'd?

But put that in reference to knowing (or a safe assumption) that many of those you are addressing are in favor of the inclusion of electronics/amps/vocals as legal equipment in the design process. IMO, he/we knew this going in and the inclusion of the penalty is nothing but the opposite of a compromise.

[Tank]

Why would you give items more weight just because they are written well...or downgrade one because of grammar and spelling erriors?

PROFESSIONALISM!!!!!

THIS PROPOSAL WENT IN FRONT OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS! TO SUGGEST THAT HAVING A GOOD-LOOKING PROP IS NOT IMPORTANT IS THOROUGHLY LUDICROUS TO ME. PUTTING THE SPELLING ERRORS ASIDE (and, really, we have frickin spell checks here in the 21st century), WHAT POSSIBLE USE COULD THERE BE TO USING EMOTICONS IN A PROPOSAL TO A BOARD OF DIRECTORS??? HOW DOES THAT MAKE GEORGE AND THE CADETS LOOK GOOD???

[Tank]

I have no problem either. If there is a judging issue...correct THAT. IMO the sound is what should be evaluated. If it has problems the corps should suffer.

This doesn't happen.

Talk about a bad idea.

[audiodb]

So, the inclusion of a penalty that would single-handedly put any corps in last is a compromise when speaking to a group who you already know is in favor of the equipment?

Compared to a simple repeal of the amplification rule....yes, it is. Like it or not, I don't think you can condemn his "approach" based on that one aspect of the proposals. That's all I'm saying.

[madscout96]

PROFESSIONALISM!!!!!

THIS PROPOSAL WENT IN FRONT OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS! TO SUGGEST THAT HAVING A GOOD-LOOKING PROP IS NOT IMPORTANT IS THOROUGHLY LUDICROUS TO ME. PUTTING THE SPELLING ERRORS ASIDE (and, really, we have frickin spell checks here in the 21st century), WHAT POSSIBLE USE COULD THERE BE TO USING EMOTICONS IN A PROPOSAL TO A BOARD OF DIRECTORS??? HOW DOES THAT MAKE GEORGE AND THE CADETS LOOK GOOD???

To the rest of us, the unprofessionally written proposals make him look really bad. But if it really did matter how the proposals were presented on paper (as in, they were turned down BECAUSE of their appearance), then Hopkins would have figured out to run it by a proofreader or maybe get someone to pen them for him by now. Obviously that doesn't matter.

I don't like Hopkins' proposals either. But not because they're poorly written. It's because they're just bad ideas.

[madscout96]

But put that in reference to knowing (or a safe assumption) that many of those you are addressing are in favor of the inclusion of electronics/amps/vocals as legal equipment in the design process. IMO, he/we knew this going in and the inclusion of the penalty is nothing but the opposite of a compromise.

So... what Tim did was make a "mock compromise" in the eyes of the instructors and directors? Kinda like this?

CAR SALESMAN: $15,000

CUSTOMER: $10,000

CAR SALESMAN: ok fine, $14,998

CUSTOMER: screw you!

[LAMystreaux]

So... what Tim did was make a "mock compromise" in the eyes of the instructors and directors? Kinda like this?

CAR SALESMAN: $15,000

CUSTOMER: $10,000

CAR SALESMAN: ok fine, $14,998

CUSTOMER: screw you!

I am not sure how that remotely is like what I was saying at all.