Instructor's caucus

[Dale Bari]

Just because you think the "wordsmithing" was good gives them some sort of edge?

You put the scare quotes around the word "wordsmithing", as if that's a bad thing.

If I needed a document polished, I'd sure as heck go to a wordsmith. If I needed metal work done, I'd go to an actual smith. If I needed a custom piece of steel or iron shaped, I'd go to a blacksmith. If I needed my valuable gold jewelry fixed, I'd take it to a goldsmith. A craftsman is the best resource for creating a professional piece of work. If I didn't have the skills myself (although in the case of document writing, I actually do), I'd get the best result going to an expert in that field.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Dale Bari

[IntheMood]

IMO, they should have as many "caucuses" as they can stomach!!!! The more input and perspective the better. Not sure, though, that ANY of them should have defacto "veto power" over the board. The instructors may not want a proposal that the customers do or that the members do or vice-versa. All pertinent opinions and discussions should be sought -- from staff, members, fans, sponsors, etc and then let the Board do the job of deciding. At least that's the way I see it ...

Very good. Have you had LEAN training?

[MikeD]

You put the scare quotes around the word "wordsmithing", as if that's a bad thing.

Scare quotes? Where EVER do you get that from. I was just not sure it's a real word, so I put it in quotes.

If I needed a document polished, I'd sure as heck go to a wordsmith. If I needed metal work done, I'd go to an actual smith. If I needed a custom piece of steel or iron shaped, I'd go to a blacksmith. If I needed my valuable gold jewelry fixed, I'd take it to a goldsmith. A craftsman is the best resource for creating a professional piece of work. If I didn't have the skills myself (although in the case of document writing, I actually do), I'd get the best result going to an expert in that field.

The key is "If I needed...". I guess George thought, and IMO rightly so, that the ideas being expressed were more important than the grammar. The instructors and BOD did not seem to have any issue with understanding the proposals, AFAIK.

[MikeD]

They certainly know that amplification is not clearly on the sheets anywhere. They also know that only a small percentage of the audience has either figured that out or even cares up to this point. They hope that continues so the critics can be pushed to the fringes of the activity and they won't have to make the hard decisions required to determine how these new elements are judged. Surely you can see that.

Actually, it is noted on the Music Ensemble sheet.

[MikeD]

Yes. I do think that. It isn't "wordsmithing", it is effective written communication. I would be likely to discard Hopkins' proposals merely because of the way they are written (without even getting to the content). Someone who puts so little effort into the composition of their proposal has likely not put the appropriate amount of thought into the content.

But you don't matter, nor do I or anyonew else outside the process. As long as the BOD and instructors know what is being said, what's the problem?

[MikeD]

Well, it would be nice that the world worked that way. I know that companies (including mine) spend a lot of time polishing their proposals. They'd lose every bid if they considered grammar unimportant. But, then that point's been mentioned several times already.

Yes, I know companies do that. How is that remotely equal to George making proposals to the BOD at DCI, people he has dealt with for decades in some cases?

Let's make it more personal: When you go into post-contest critique, who's opinion is more likely to make more impact on you? A judge who can clearly and concisely explain his comments, or someone who rambles on with poor grammar and structure to his comments? Whose tape is more meaningful?

I have had some VERY good tapes from judges who just are not the best extemporaneous speakers....and some lousy ones from well-spoken folks who have nothing of import to add, but add that "nothing" very well. and of course...vice versa.

First of all, the best view you got was a look at the written presentation, if you even bothered. You didn't see the oral presentation, so you're in no position to judge. Second, it's intellectually lazy to say so, because the proposal was defeated (just like you wanted it, BTW), therefore no careful consideration is necessary. Third, you're hardly even trying to appear to be reasonable and serious, even while biased, ie giving opposing viewpoints respectful consideration before thumbing your nose at them.

I read his proposals. I find them reactionary and against the traditions of drum corps to go backwards. One of the best things to me has been the decades of progress and new ideas that help drum corps get better and better.

Had Tim gone into the Caucus and bent over backwards to avoid even the appearance of seeming offensive to the members - IOW done everything that Tom Brace advocates - would any reasonable observer believe that the vote would've been reversed? Or even just close? At most, maybe 1-2 people would've flipped - insignificant.

Are you saying that Tim was justified in having an "attitude", if indeed he had one, because no matter what he said his proposals just were not going to fly?

Human nature explains very clearly that Tim's ideas were doomed before he even opened his mouth. I admire his effort and his chutzpah. And, I am all the more curious (and a little disappointed) that the Caucus did not take up the opportunity Tim presented them. But then, much like the late Republican Congress, it appears that they'd rather win a vote than a debate.

What "opportunity"? Apparently the caucus thought the ideas were DOA, and I agree. Why should they waste valuable time on items they have absolutely NO interest in? Esp if the presenter was coming off like "Howard Stern"?

[Dale Bari]

Scare quotes? Where EVER do you get that from. I was just not sure it's a real word, so I put it in quotes.

OK.

The key is "If I needed...". I guess George thought, and IMO rightly so, that the ideas being expressed were more important than the grammar. The instructors and BOD did not seem to have any issue with understanding the proposals, AFAIK.

If I write something, I always get it edited, just like I always edit others' work. It's impossible to edit your own work objectively in business, there are always checkers and editors.

George's proposal wouldn't have seen the light of day in that form in the real world. Ideas are important, but so is presentation. (Or was all of that discussion earlier about how Tim approached the Caucus meeting a waste of time and oxygen?)

Maybe you are saying that DCI is really a low-rent business where professionalism is in such scarcity that it's a bother?

[audiodb]

The key is "If I needed...". I guess George thought, and IMO rightly so, that the ideas being expressed were more important than the grammar. The instructors and BOD did not seem to have any issue with understanding the proposals, AFAIK.

I'd say a DCI champion using an illegal electronic effect all season, and not realizing that fact until September, would indicate that there is an issue with understanding the rule verbage.

[Liam]

I'm gonna quote this one more time (from way earlier in this thread):

The rest of the questions were like watching Barbara Walters interview Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Pressley. Total softballs that glossed over the tough questions. Tims question was more like one that Howard Stern would have asked. Straight to the point on a controversial subject.

So NOT "coming off like Howard Stern"

He could just as easily have used Mike Wallace as an example of the type of direct, no-nonsense question that was made. The reference was about the type of question, not the way it was asked or any other reference to Howard Stern-like behavior.

Constant misrepresentation of this quote only serves to dilute any other point that is being made, imo.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Liam

[LAMystreaux]

They certainly know that amplification is not clearly on the sheets anywhere. They also know that only a small percentage of the audience has either figured that out or even cares up to this point. They hope that continues so the critics can be pushed to the fringes of the activity and they won't have to make the hard decisions required to determine how these new elements are judged. Surely you can see that.

Actually, I think what you are proposing/assuming goes against the desire for the product on the field to excellent in all elements, so no, I don't agree at all.