drumlaw80 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 This is a little like reviewing tapes of the 1984 Super Bowl, and trying to point out holding calls that were not made by the refs. When the dust settles, whoever won ... won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Can you post that? Either way, IMO it's much ado about nothing. I didn't hear of any uproar from other staff or directors...nothing posted anyway. And since they never were penalized, then IMO nothing they used was determined to be illegal. Ah, he did, way back on page 2 of this thread. But I will show it to you, in case it wasn't obvious enough last time. In the thread "Blue Devil the Hutt, Did you notice at all?", post #46, member Jeremymarimba76 posted about the effect. The post was made originally at Sept 12, 2007 at 12:09 AM. He came back an edited it at Sept 12, 2007 @ 6:56 PM. In post #48 (Sept 12, 2007 @ 8:37 AM), audiodb quoted his post, which said: there was one microphone plugged into a channel [8 for anyone who wanted to know... we called it "the ocho"] and that channel alone was plugged into a modulator that brought whatever sound projected from the mic 3 octaves lower. Jeremymarimba76 has made only one post - that one. In his profile, he claims membership in Impulse (04), Esperanza (05), and Blue Devils (06-07). So it seems legit, and it seems like he's being accurate. So, does a modulator fall within the rules or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCIHasBeen Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 What they did WAS right as defined by those who decide what is right or wrong in how the written rules are interpreted. The effect was there for half the season with no penalty assessed. Um, OK. Per that rationale, all five known violations of the DCI age rule were "right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickie Kingsmen Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 hehehehe....love it!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Um, OK. Per that rationale, all five known violations of the DCI age rule were "right". A person is of age...or they are over age. There is nothing open to interpretation. The amplification rule as written was interpreted as it was by DCI...and there was no violation of the rule according to every show the BD used the effect at. No "cheating"...nothing to warrent an "accommodation"...nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Ah, he did, way back on page 2 of this thread. But I will show it to you, in case it wasn't obvious enough last time.In the thread "Blue Devil the Hutt, Did you notice at all?", post #46, member Jeremymarimba76 posted about the effect. The post was made originally at Sept 12, 2007 at 12:09 AM. He came back an edited it at Sept 12, 2007 @ 6:56 PM. In post #48 (Sept 12, 2007 @ 8:37 AM), audiodb quoted his post, which said: Jeremymarimba76 has made only one post - that one. In his profile, he claims membership in Impulse (04), Esperanza (05), and Blue Devils (06-07). So it seems legit, and it seems like he's being accurate. So, does a modulator fall within the rules or not? If they used a modulator...and in rereading the thread I see that the person edited his post so that it doesn't say that anymore....the only answer is....yes, at least how it was used by BD last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 What they did WAS right as defined by those who decide what is right or wrong in how the written rules are interpreted. Are you sure you aren't really a member of the NJ Supreme Court, who decided that when the law says a candidate cannot be replaced on the ballot after a certain date, it really doesn't say that? Bottom line is that it was legal, according to every judgement at every show where they used this effect. Doesn't really matter what anyone on DCP says about this. You make it sound like this was brought up at every show BD attended, and each judge gave it a blue ribbon of authenticity. In fact, it's quite the reverse. I'm not advocating DCI go back and retroactively punish BD, but it is clear that changing the pitch of a sound violates the spirit of the rules about amplification. And I'm of the opinion that the reading of the rules shows that, unless something is explicitly allowed, then it is illegal. So far, no one has shown me where the book says that a device that changes pitch is legal. I find it highly likely that DCI was/is ignorant about what its own rules said/say. If no one complained, then there's no ruling on it - and no determination of legality, as you wrongly imply above. Maybe DCI can clear this up for the future, but to blithely dismiss this issue as settled is, as is so often with your statements, laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madscout96 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 NO, people complaining do not want to know "the truth", IMO. Have you a window into men's minds? The only truth is that the BD got the highest score at finals and did nothing against the rules in the eyes of those who make those decisions, as they were assessed no penalty for an infraction. Everything else is just plain sour grapes...again, IMO. No, that's not the only truth. It's a truth that is known by just about everyone, but there are other truths regarding this issue that are not known by anyone except maybe BD and DCI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 If they used a modulator...and in rereading the thread I see that the person edited his post so that it doesn't say that anymore....the only answer is....yes, at least how it was used by BD last season. Wrong. The only answer is "we don't know", as no one asked for a ruling. (I'm experiencing major deja vu on this. I know I've had this discussion before. But, I've never weighed in on this topic before.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts