Blue Devils 2007

[Dale Bari]

Why would making such a poor decision be 'cool'?

<honk! alert>

Actually, the real question is: Why would making such a cool decision be 'poor'?

[sburstall]

This is merely piling on, I know, but it continues to highlight the carelessness that went into writing the rules. As someone paid to write and edit for a living (and who previously had to interpret rules for a living), this REALLY bothers me.

Dale, remember who has been bringing the amplification proposal to the table and how he has written them. That alone should be self-explained.

[corps-mudgeon]

Dale, remember who has been bringing the amplification proposal to the table and how he has written them. That alone should be self-explained.

And remember that it doesn't matter how the proposals are written; all that matters is the intent.

[bawker]

So yes, please switch sides and rally us. Our apathy is showing.

Yup.

After a while with all this ampl-modi-synth-ication, you give up. . .pick your shows that fit what you like, and move on.

BD probably broke a vaguely-worded rule last year and years previous, as did a few other corps who got away with it. However, BD doesn't care, DCI doesn't care, the judging community tasked with enforcing said vaguely worded rules doesn't care . . . and most everyone else doesn't either.

Apathy . . . FTW.

[madscout96]

And remember that it doesn't matter how the proposals are written; all that matters is the intent.

The problem, though, is that poorly written proposals seemingly got thrown into the rulebook in the condition they were in. How much did they say "OK, the intent is what's important, so we're making this a rule, but we have to make sure it's worded in a way to make it very clear to everyone what's allowed and what isn't"?

So the directors don't care how poorly the proposals are written, and they could care less if they were written on thick-lined paper with crayons. Fine. Whatever. But the rulebook needs to be professional, it needs to be clear and objective, and the intent is NOT all that matters.

[Dale Bari]

I didn't mean to suggest that sort of partisanship. I asked the anti-amp crowd to respond because I thought - incorrectly it seems - that they would be more likely to be offended by what BD did and the ramifications of the precedent it set. So far that seems not to be the case, which mystifies me, hence my continuing quest for elaboration and explanation.

HH

Am I offended that BD flouted a rule? Yeah. (But, my offense is minimized by the prevailing winds of "change" pushed by a majority of the DCI corps - of which BD is one - that I can't do anything about.)

Am I offended that they didn't get the prescribed penalty? Yeah. (But, my offense is minimized by the fact that so many people missed the effect completely.)

Am I offended that an atmosphere of lawlessness seems to be taking root? Yeah. (But, if DCI can't get worked up about it, why should I?)

Am I offended that (apparently) the powers-that-be are ignoring it? Yeah.

Am I not surprised at this sequence of events? Yeah. (I guess my apathy and cynicism are showing.)

I chose to focus on the vagueness of the rule in question and the lackadaisical rules writing process because I thought that DCI would at least care about THAT. Silly me.

[Dale Bari]

How much did they say "OK, the intent is what's important, so we're making this a rule, but we have to make sure it's worded in a way to make it very clear to everyone what's allowed and what isn't"?

Apparently, not much.

So the directors don't care how poorly the proposals are written, and they could care less if they were written on thick-lined paper with crayons. Fine. Whatever. But the rulebook needs to be professional, it needs to be clear and objective, and the intent is NOT all that matters.

I volunteer my services to help with that editing. (Well, "volunteer" isn't exactly correct. Let's say I'll do it for a nominal fee and reasonable expenses.)

[Dale Bari]

Oops. Double post. my bad. First time for everything, I guess.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Dale Bari

[H2O Break]

Am I offended that (apparently) the powers-that-be are ignoring it? Yeah.

Who are the powers that be?

[Dale Bari]

Who are the powers that be?

Are you asking that honestly? I suppose I can play along, for now.

Well, since we're constantly reminded that DCI is really the individual directors of the member corps, there is overlapping (and maybe conflicting) roles. DCI decides what the rules are, and charges the judges with enforcing them. Corps have to follow them and suffer any penalties. So, on the surface it looks like three different entities: DCI, judges, corps.

But, the corps directors en masse ARE DCI, and DCI hires and fires the judges. So, it's all really one big group.

Some people around here still try to differentiate them and don't view it that way at all. So, I use the all-encompassing term: "powers-that-be".

Does that answer your question?

Try it from this POV: David Gibbs, as a director of a Top 12 DCI corps, sits on the DCI Board of Directors, which ultimately sets the rules for all of DCI. But, David Gibbs is also the director of the Blue Devils, who allegedly used an illegal device in their show last year. If they had been caught using it and were penalized at, say, DCI Finals, then his corps would've lost the DCI title because of the rules that he voted in favor of. (It's because of this arrangement that some conspiratorial-minded people cynically say that rules are kept vague on purpose.)