thePerfectbuzz Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 No. The original thesis of this thread was that the Blue Devils willingly and knowingly cheated ... This was stated as fact.We are talking about the Blue Devils. Not Pete Rose, not Richard Nixon ... Neither of which had unimpeachable reputations for morals or ethics before their ultimate transgressions (I'd start with Alger Hiss as far as Nixon goes and Pete Rose, well, he was never in any league that qualified his character as unimpeachable.) Start with a better thesis and I might not have a problem ... Talk about a potential misinterpretation of the rules, etc. ... But to start out blasting an organization with a history and reputation as that of the Blue Devils as the basis of your argument and I will state that that the argument is entirely without merit. horrible post number 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thePerfectbuzz Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 (edited) i don't want to go down yet another rabbit hole on this, but he had express permission from the contest coordinator to do that. so has anyone done any homework and actually found out if possibly Gibbs or the Blue Devil organization might have gotten permission on this "scandal"?? you know through thirty plus shows in a season i couldn't imagine DCI not making mention of this before finals night if this was a problem. I doubt BD pulled this effect out just for finals night and hoped not to get caught Edited May 22, 2008 by thePerfectbuzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madscout96 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 No. The original thesis of this thread was that the Blue Devils willingly and knowingly cheated ... This was stated as fact.We are talking about the Blue Devils. Not Pete Rose, not Richard Nixon ... Neither of which had unimpeachable reputations for morals or ethics before their ultimate transgressions (I'd start with Alger Hiss as far as Nixon goes and Pete Rose, well, he was never in any league that qualified his character as unimpeachable.) Start with a better thesis and I might not have a problem ... Talk about a potential misinterpretation of the rules, etc. ... But to start out blasting an organization with a history and reputation as that of the Blue Devils as the basis of your argument and I will state that that the argument is entirely without merit. Yes, the thread started out with those accusations. But that does not make the entire thread invalid. Maybe you'd rather call it a "rule enforcement issue" than a "cheating scandal", I get that. But it is what it is, regardless of what you call it, and it warrants discussion. I want to know what really happened, what the rule is, and what DCI did about it, and what DCI would say about it now. There's nothing wrong with wanting to know the truth, and there's nothing wrong with questioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToferVis Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 while i'm thinking about it....i must be the only person on here who just didn't liike BD 2007. lol. and it wasn't because of the laugh either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 I posted that entire section....wherfe does it prohibit what was done with the voice?In order for something to be illegal, a rule must be codified outlining what the limits are... And once again, the DCI rule book does that. The entire section 4 lies under the heading, "The musical equipment of each corps shall be limited to:". Everything is prohibited, unless it is described somewhere in section 4 as allowable equipment. If it makes you feel any better, I'm not contending that BD intentionally broke this rule. As far as I know, even their pit staff was unaware that this was illegal until September's DCP thread. I have always been concerned about how this rule would be enforced; I raised this concern in a letter to the voting directors twice prior to the rule's ratification. Now we have a case where the rule was being broken all season, and apparently no one (myself included) realized that until September. Guess I had reason to be concerned. Thing is, history is on course to repeat itself next year when another ambiguous rule will permit an ill-defined array of electronic instruments on the contest field. Hope the rulemakers can learn from previous mistakes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSnareline Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 ...do you guys think if there was a rule violation that Hopkins would have said something? I have no doubt that if BD broke the rules Hopkins would have been doing the hashmark dance all over again. Anything to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSnareline Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Cowtown...you are correct. The Blue Devils cheated and they should be stripped of their crown. The first place trophy, rings, everything else should be given to the Phantom Regiment.Because...well...I like that corps best. So there. Tom wins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 And once again, the DCI rule book does that. The entire section 4 lies under the heading, "The musical equipment of each corps shall be limited to:". Everything is prohibited, unless it is described somewhere in section 4 as allowable equipment.If it makes you feel any better, I'm not contending that BD intentionally broke this rule. As far as I know, even their pit staff was unaware that this was illegal until September's DCP thread. I have always been concerned about how this rule would be enforced; I raised this concern in a letter to the voting directors twice prior to the rule's ratification. Now we have a case where the rule was being broken all season, and apparently no one (myself included) realized that until September. Guess I had reason to be concerned. Thing is, history is on course to repeat itself next year when another ambiguous rule will permit an ill-defined array of electronic instruments on the contest field. Hope the rulemakers can learn from previous mistakes.... exactly. Pandora's box has opened. if pit folks think the rule is the same as WGI, well, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Fair playing field? So the Cadets get fresh hash, call this a handicap, and still lose visual performance to Cavies who performed immediately prior. If you want a fair playing field a couple tenths should be added to Cavies performance number then. Why? The Cavies would have been within their rights to have asked for the field to be relined as it was supposed to have been...Fiedler said he agreed with Hoppy's decision, FYI. And, The Cadets went on after the Cavies, so the field was in worse shape for them than it was for the Cavies, with one less corps having performed when they took the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markdewine Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Drum Corps + Electronics = Can of Worms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts