Instructor's caucus

[LAMystreaux]

That's all I'm saying.

You promise?

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.

Condemn? No. But, as I said earlier, I think it speaks to his overall approach. Had he truly been looking for compromise this type of penalty (or to that degree) would not have been included.

[Tank]

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.

It should matter.

If Tim Kviz's proposals were poorly written and featured emoticons, no doubt the anti-acoustic crowd would have berated him for his unprofessionalism. No. Doubt.

[LAMystreaux]

It should matter.

If Tim Kviz's proposals were poorly written and featured emoticons, no doubt the anti-acoustic crowd would have berated him for his unprofessionalism. No. Doubt.

But instead it seems it is possible he gave that crowd other reasons to berate him for unprofessionalism.

[Liam]

But instead it seems it is possible he gave that crowd other reasons to berate him for unprofessionalism.

And if that's true then he should be taken to task for that. Point is that "professionalism" doesn't stem from whether you were successful or not. It is how you present yourself and your ideas regardless, and it sounds like maybe all sides could have used a little more of it in this process .....

[madscout96]

It should matter.

We all know that it should matter. But look at the results. Obviously (and unfortunately) it doesn't.

[madscout96]

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

Obviously, the used car salesman knocking $2 off the price of a car is more of an insult to the customer than it is a compromise. What I'm asking is whether you feel the instructors/directors viewed Tim's compromises in the same way.

[LAMystreaux]

Obviously, the used car salesman knocking $2 off the price of a car is more of an insult to the customer than it is a compromise. What I'm asking is whether you feel the instructors/directors viewed Tim's compromises in the same way.

What compromise?

Coming into this it was a safe assumption Tim was going to be talking to people who were in favor of using the illegal equipment. The penalty was no compromise.

[audiodb]

Condemn? No. But, as I said earlier, I think it speaks to his overall approach. Had he truly been looking for compromise this type of penalty (or to that degree) would not have been included.

I don't see how one can jump to that conclusion, especialy after seeing how much alteration some other proposals went through in this congress. Funny how we all read so much more into what is said in an opposing viewpoint vs. one we agree with.

[Tom Brace]

I don't see how one can jump to that conclusion, especialy after seeing how much alteration some other proposals went through in this congress. Funny how we all read so much more into what is said in an opposing viewpoint vs. one we agree with.

I totally agree. It's human nature. I am totally biased in everything I do. I don't like brussel sprouts so I could give you 100 reasons why brussel sprouts are horrible. I like candy bars so I could give you even more reasons why they are so good for me.

So, let's see if we can end this before my keyboard punches me in the mouth for my continued contributions to a thread that has pretty much become meaningless drivel from about 4-5 of us.

1. Tim wrote proposals. They contained 3 different ways to alter the use of amplification.

2. Tim went to the Instructors Caucus.

3. They didn't take a great deal of time before moving on past Tim's proposals...see now...I don't even remember whether they were ever voted on...hmmm.

4. It's over.

5. Tim has apparently moved on...I don't see him on here much anymore.

6. The Instructors Caucus members have moved on to their new exciting show ideas.

7. About 4-5 of us are picking at a scab.

8. One of us just left. BYE!

[madscout96]

What compromise?

Coming into this it was a safe assumption Tim was going to be talking to people who were in favor of using the illegal equipment. The penalty was no compromise.

Considering that the consequences of using amps before 2004 was disqualification, I'd say it is a compromise.

And what about the compromise in the form of the other proposals? If the "ban amps" one was too harsh, consider the "ban amped vocals" one. If both are too harsh, consider the "ban staff members on the soundboard" one.