Spartacus Effect?

[Lance]

madscotty, at your suggestion, I reread what you said. You said:

Madisons placements were bumped down 2 slots at finals by the judges as revenge

I'm not sure how you can can get around the fact that you were implying that judges were being both dishonest and cheating...out of "revenge", no less.

[MikeD]

reread my statement, my full statement, where i say people used to say that, and follow up by saying that while i could see where they got that in some years, in over half the years in the 90's i didn't think madisons scores were lower than they should have been. i'd dig it out myself but i've been wrangling with my marketing people all night editing their newest output and i can't spend 15 minutes reviewing 17 pages of posts. but i do recall what i said, and you pulled a single phrase out of context and changed its meaning completely.

That is the phrase I was referring to...attributing it to 'people' doesn't make it true...or make it pervasive. Your statement again...longer...

This was where the Madison-2 thing started, whether it was true or not virtually the entire DCI community was in agreement that Madisons placements were bumped down 2 slots at finals by the judges as revenge for thumbing our collective noses at them during the 90's. Some years I see it (91, 92, 94, 95, 96), others I don't (90, 93, 97-99).

I just do not agree at all that "the entire DCI community was in agreement" on what you are saying...again..it's (IMO) what I consider a bitter comment with no basis in reality. The fact that you said you "see it" in some years means to me that at some level you agree, at least in part, that their placements were reduced by judges NOT doing their job honestly.

and reread the numbers dci releases again. less corps, performing at less shows, and attendance was down every year from its peak in the mid-late 90's until 2007, when they "turned it around" by counting full attendance, including staffs, which was slightly higher than 2006's paid attendance only number.

That is just not true at all IMO. DCI champs, for instance, have been on the rise since the 90's according to the chart published a couple of years ago...and nationwide attendance remains strong.

[byline]

You have experience with similar judging collusion? Ouch!

I have experience with judging, not with collusion. The figure skating judge I spoke with knew of collusion in her sport, and of course that ugly truth was revealed during the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, so the judging system was changed to minimize that possibility.

As for DCI and the Scouts during this period, I don't think it would necessarily have to be covert collusion, but may have been a human response to what was perceived as rejection of the DCI system by the Scouts. Sort of a "You won't play with us? Then we won't play with you" mentality. It wouldn't have to be collusion, because individuals working within that system might well have an understandably averse reaction to that attitude. But the fact that it's understandable doesn't make it right.

Edited May 20, 2009 by byline

[NR_Ohiobando]

To be honest based on the videos alone I thought Blue Devils, Madison Scouts, and Phantom Regiment should have been the top 3 in no particular order in 1995.

...But this thread is about the effect of 2009 Phantom Regiment on future designs right? Oh yeah.

On that note, it will probably serve as a great target for corps to reach in terms of playing ability while moving. Other than that I don't think corps will try to touch getting the audience's "full support and participation" for fear of being "Spartacus copycats". IMO we won't see people try to emulate that for a while, though it will happen eventually.

[mad_scotty]

madscotty, at your suggestion, I reread what you said. You said:

I'm not sure how you can can get around the fact that you were implying that judges were being both dishonest and cheating...out of "revenge", no less.

i don't see how you can take one phrase in a sentence, repeat it out of context and wilfully claim it has that meaning when the full sentence 1) doesn't attribute it as my personal thought (this was one of those early-mid 90's dci community cliches, that madison would thumb their noses at the judges and the judges would thumb right back on the score sheets) and 2) the last phrase of the sentence in question clearly states that i didn't see any consistent evidence of this. you should be ashamed of yourself for even posting this, lance, i normally repsect your opinions (even if i disagree with them) but to say that i'm trying to get out of anything here when you are so clearly misrepresenting both my words and intent is ridiculous.

[mad_scotty]

That is the phrase I was referring to...attributing it to 'people' doesn't make it true...or make it pervasive. Your statement again...longer...

I just do not agree at all that "the entire DCI community was in agreement" on what you are saying...again..it's (IMO) what I consider a bitter comment with no basis in reality. The fact that you said you "see it" in some years means to me that at some level you agree, at least in part, that their placements were reduced by judges NOT doing their job honestly.

That is just not true at all IMO. DCI champs, for instance, have been on the rise since the 90's according to the chart published a couple of years ago...and nationwide attendance remains strong.

i'm going to try this one more time and quit because frankly it seems you are pretty invested in your portrayal of me, to the point you don't care what i actually think. i should have phrased one part of that more carefully, the dci community wasn't in agreement on madison getting bumped (the entire dci community has never been agreement on anything, has it?) this was one of those cliches though, and was very, very widely passed around and discussed, true or not, and thats what i was alluding to. i see, because of my poor word choice, that my intent there wasn't clear at all. as to the rest, you're willfully misrepresenting my thoughts and statements, and thats really not very cool of you at all. i don't think the judges intentionally cheat anyone, i have never stated or in any way implied that. in referring to what other people used to call the 2 place madison bump i was pretty clear that i saw no evidence of it more often than not, though in some years i can see why p[eople scratched theuir heads at madisons slotting.

what i have said, repeatedly, is that judges feel that part of their job is to steer corps staffs to designs they approve of. this is something you seem to agree on, having said you seek out judges opinions and use them to shape your own show design. i think it's bad, because it does affect fair play (judges shouldn't be invested in product, only in adjudicating performance), and becauise it limits the pool of minds who can influence design, and thus limits creativity. i attribute this not too cheating, but too a culture that stifles creativity.

oh, and there is no "IMO" in attendance figures. there are less corps, with less total members, performing at less shows, in front of an aggregate sum of less people over the course of a season now than there were ten years ago, and the numbers have declined steadily over that time. period. not opinion, fact, using dci's own numbers (numbers they have taken to padding lately).

[kickhaltsforlife]

I know this is off topic... but could someone provide some attendance numbers reported by DCI... like links and stuff... I'd do the research... but I'm a lazy ###. And some of you are really good with your drum corps sources.

[Jeff Ream]

here, i can end the discussion.

I AM SPARTACUS!!!

carry on

[liebot]

what i have said, repeatedly, is that judges feel that part of their job is to steer corps staffs to designs they approve of. this is something you seem to agree on, having said you seek out judges opinions and use them to shape your own show design. i think it's bad, because it does affect fair play (judges shouldn't be invested in product, only in adjudicating performance), and becauise it limits the pool of minds who can influence design, and thus limits creativity. i attribute this not too cheating, but too a culture that stifles creativity.

I don't think judges have ever said "Your show is too exciting, tame it down a little bit," or even "You probably should've played some original music or chopped a familiar melody up a little bit." Their comments (and realize here that we're only really speaking about the ensemble and effect judges here - the perf. judges are usually more focused on execution issues) are usually along the lines of "That moment doesn't work. . . maybe add some dynamic contrast to enhance the effect" or "I'm having trouble seeing what you're trying to do here visually. You might need to rewrite it to increase the clarity." You have this conception of judges as emotionless borgs that have some esoteric concept of what a "great show" is, and I really don't think that's the case at all. Their job is to take what the designers give them and try and advise them to make it better. I just can't imagine a situation where a judge would say "Hey! Your show is too exciting. Stop it!" and to try and blame what you perceive to be the homogenizing of DCI shows on the judges seems kind of off-base.

[MikeD]

i'm going to try this one more time and quit because frankly it seems you are pretty invested in your portrayal of me, to the point you don't care what i actually think. i should have phrased one part of that more carefully, the dci community wasn't in agreement on madison getting bumped (the entire dci community has never been agreement on anything, has it?) this was one of those cliches though, and was very, very widely passed around and discussed, true or not, and thats what i was alluding to. i see, because of my poor word choice, that my intent there wasn't clear at all. as to the rest, you're willfully misrepresenting my thoughts and statements, and thats really not very cool of you at all. i don't think the judges intentionally cheat anyone, i have never stated or in any way implied that. in referring to what other people used to call the 2 place madison bump i was pretty clear that i saw no evidence of it more often than not, though in some years i can see why p[eople scratched theuir heads at madisons slotting.

OK...I will take you at your word that you did not intend to leave the impression that you agreed with the idea that judges were purposely and wrongly dumping the Scouts. No prob.

what i have said, repeatedly, is that judges feel that part of their job is to steer corps staffs to designs they approve of. this is something you seem to agree on, having said you seek out judges opinions and use them to shape your own show design. i think it's bad, because it does affect fair play (judges shouldn't be invested in product, only in adjudicating performance), and becauise it limits the pool of minds who can influence design, and thus limits creativity. i attribute this not too cheating, but too a culture that stifles creativity.

No, I do not seek out judges opinions and have them shape my show...if I hear that a portion of my show is not working multiple times by multiple judges (primarily GE), I am more likely to make some sort of change, but I am not soliciting them as to WHAT that change should be.

And...maybe I won't change it, even with multiple reviews that are not what I might want to hear, if I really like the spot and we as staff and members think it works just fine as-is.

oh, and there is no "IMO" in attendance figures. there are less corps, with less total members, performing at less shows, in front of an aggregate sum of less people over the course of a season now than there were ten years ago, and the numbers have declined steadily over that time. period. not opinion, fact, using dci's own numbers (numbers they have taken to padding lately).

I am taking DCI's total season numbers (from memory of what they released), and I do not accuse them of "padding" anything. That plus the graph they released a few years back showing champs attendance from sometime in the 90's to whatever year it was.