08Hawkeye Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) But Who knows maybe this will lead to the two girl shower show and DCI will no longer sell tickets, but there will be a two drink minimum! On the contrary sir, I already have premium seat tickets to this show [/tour goggles] Edited October 23, 2008 by 08Hawkeye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmurrey74 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I have to say I was a big opponent of this rule when it was introduced and I still am now. I ask myself does the DCI ruling committee say no to anything he introduces, or do they all just mark in lockstep with the tyrant? But Who knows maybe this will lead to the two girl shower show and DCI will no longer sell tickets, but there will be a two drink minimum! Why would you be opposed to water based instruments? They were allowed before. It's ridiculous how much people complain on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taters Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) Why would you be opposed to water based instruments? They were allowed before. It's ridiculous how much people complain on here. Ohhhh Water based instruments... I thought we were talking about water based smokeless pipes being used in retreat. THank you for clearing that up. Seriously though I don't think this is just about water based instruments it is about effects that have the potential to damage the field or even make it difficult for the proceeding corps. Yes, I know there are strict penalties for ruining the field, but once that cat is out of the bag it is hard to put back. Besides this is a forum where discussion takes place if you want some place where everyone agrees try a political rally. Finally what is a water based instrument? Is there such a need for one a rule had to be passed? Granted if I played the opener without opening my spit valve, well that is one example, but I cannot think of anything els short of something that has been on stage with the Blue Man Group Edited October 23, 2008 by taters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Why would you be opposed to water based instruments? They were allowed before. It's ridiculous how much people complain on here. Well the proposal passed 17-4 in the instructors caucus and 16-2 of the Board (corps directors), so maybe you should point your disdain towards the 6 individuals from the member corps that thought there was a reason to vote against it. What I find ridiculous is how much people on here assume that their opinion is the only one worth considering .... just sayin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmurrey74 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Ohhhh Water based instruments... I thought we were talking about water based smokeless pipes being used in retreat. THank you for clearing that up.Seriously though I don't think this is just about water based instruments it is about effects that have the potential to damage the field or even make it difficult for the proceeding corps. Yes, I know there are strict penalties for ruining the field, but once that cat is out of the bag it is hard to put back. Besides this is a forum where discussion takes place if you want some place where everyone agrees try a political rally. Finally what is a water based instrument? Is there such a need for one a rule had to be passed? Granted if I played the opener without opening my spit valve, well that is one example, but I cannot think of anything els short of something that has been on stage with the Blue Man Group Yes, I said water based instruments such as water gongs, changing the pitch of cymbals by immersing them, amplifying water sounds, water tubes, etc. I stated instruments because there are a few people here comparing this to how Magic used water on the field. Yes, it could be used as a prop or for musical reasons where no water was allowed to touch the field. If no water touches the field, what's the big deal? Water effects have been used in the past, were temporarily banned, and now would be allowed again with more restrictions. I never remember anyone having any issue with a corps using water when it didn't end up on the field. Now that it's allowed again, it's a going to be a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmurrey74 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Well the proposal passed 17-4 in the instructors caucus and 16-2 of the Board (corps directors), so maybe you should point your disdain towards the 6 individuals from the member corps that thought there was a reason to vote against it. What I find ridiculous is how much people on here assume that their opinion is the only one worth considering .... just sayin' Those 6 have probably accepted the fact that it passed and aren't still complaining about it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Those 6 have probably accepted the fact that it passed and aren't still complaining about it now. Oh I get it ... you can be opposed to something before it's voted on, but then if it passes you should just get lockstep in line with it and never voice your opinion about it again. Is this your advice for America as well? Weren't in favor of that tax increase? Well too bad, it passed so now you must accept it and never mention it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iplaytimpani Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Oh I get it ... you can be opposed to something before it's voted on, but then if it passes you should just get lockstep in line with it and never voice your opinion about it again. Is this your advice for America as well? Weren't in favor of that tax increase? Well too bad, it passed so now you must accept it and never mention it again. I wasn't there to confirm, but didn't Tim Kviz help set up Blue Stars sound system this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I wasn't there to confirm, but didn't Tim Kviz help set up Blue Stars sound system this year? No clue ... exactly how does that relate to my comment? My comment was not that you couldn't get on board with a rule change that you previously opposed, or not even that you shouldn't -- just that you don't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iplaytimpani Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Oh I get it ... you can be opposed to something before it's voted on, but then if it passes you should just get lockstep in line with it and never voice your opinion about it again. My point was taking an example in this context (drum corps and amplification at that) of someone who was so outspoken about it he made a name making a stand against it, but when it was passed ended up assisting with it. But also, this is based on a rumor, which I have never had really confirmed. Overall, my point is that maybe when people in this activity open up their minds, their opinions can change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.