The Roof Will Be Open

[audiodb]

"Fear?!"

Heh; the only 'fear' I have on here is getting into circular, irrational, unimportant arguments. I just laugh when people pick the easy scapegoat to blame for their own displeasure in the evolution of the activity. Things change: move on if you don't like it. The arguments, however, get old and lame: "I don't personally like the direction of the activity, so therefor DCI is personally to blame, drum corps is no longer 'real' drum corps, and while I claim to have no interest anymore I still pay money for some products and spend time complaining on a forum set up for the sole purpose to discus what I claim to have no interest in."

Much like what you're doing now. Why are you complaining about the complainers if they are so unimportant?

It's further amusing to see people's sense of entitlement: as if marching in drum corps in 1973 or something gives any of us a right to demand DCI to conform to our personal preferences when it comes to show design, policy, etc.

I don't think anyone really believes that. On the other hand, customers sometimes feel their dollars entitle them to something in return.

Those that complain the most inevitably are involved the least, and those involved the most are the only ones with the true insight to make decisions based on policy, show design, etc.

I think you're painting with too wide a brush there.

If you're no longer involved with the activity, you're only "entitlement" is to a) choose to, or not to, become a consumer of the product offered, b) actually get involved by volunteering, teaching, joining a BoD for a local corps, start up a corps, apply to work for DCI, etc or c) leave. Pretty simple.

Well, I think you'd be surprised how few of the people in these threads fall into category 'c'. Having been on this board for awhile, I see a lot of 'a' - folks that are current DCI customers to varying degrees. Some may seem alienated, but are still active customers....just not with the same frequency and generosity. Myself, I'm a 'b'. Not all 'b' people broadcast their activity involvement, so you might mistake them for 'c' in some cases.

What's that? You'd rather exercise your First Amendment rights to complain via computer screen and not make a difference in the activity what so ever? Whatever: it's your choice. Hopefully you realize by doing nothing you're changing nothing, and the activity will continue to change (while I'm sure you'll continue to complain).

If anyone fits that description, you can't change them either. This is a discussion group, you know. Higher purpose is not a requirement for participation. Don't like it, then don't read it.

[Jeff Ream]

How is this conflicting:

the packaging. if you read the headline, it turned most people off. that and, for the most part, the criticism was tame

[Kamarag]

the packaging. if you read the headline, it turned most people off. that and, for the most part, the criticism was tame

I'd agree and even say that it wasn't the message itself but the context it was taken in was different too. That whole article was not presented well at all.

[Matt_S]

The criticism was tame? You expect DCI to run an article on its own website blasting its own choice of venue? No. DCI's goal is to promote the activity, as it should be, and as promoters they are going to emphasize the positives with glass-half-full optimism. Asking them to do or be anything else is delusional.

Now I'm curious, though. Did you ever read the article, or just the DCP reaction?

[bawker]

DCI's goal is to promote the activity, as it should be, and as promoters they are going to emphasize the positives with glass-half-full optimism.

Very true.

However, it does make the sudden "let's get some fan perspective (re: the "fan roundtable") and "here's what we're going to do to fix things" response telling: there was obviously enough backlash from folks . . . whether on DCP, in general as a fan or parent, or from inside the design/creative staffs . .. to create such a response.

[Richard]

the packaging. if you read the headline, it turned most people off. that and, for the most part, the criticism was tame

The headline? "Passing judgment on Lucas Oil Stadium: Drum Corps International adjudicators sound off on the home of DCI's World Championships" That was conflicting information? And what did you expect for criticism? They acknowledged the acoustic shortcomings, explained that the venue did not impact their ability to adjudicate, and even added the qualifier that they had the "best seats in the house" and that it might not have been the same experience across the stadium.

I think it's pretty clear that the intent of the article was to explain that the environment did not have any impact on the judging at championships, as explained by championship week judges. Any inferences along the lines of "the judges say it sounds good" are pretty far off-base in my opinion, and that's often what the article is summed up to contain, incorrectly so.

Anyway, this whole point of contention was brought about because I said that there is only so much DCI can do to appeal to everyone and asked what your expectation of them is. You responded that show design, amps and electronics have pushed many away, and that DCI can garner more forgiveness for mistakes and less criticism by admitting to those mistakes and attempting to fix them. I inquired if there was anything to which DCI should be “owning up” currently, and you responded about the acknowledgement and addressing of the sound issues at LOS. We agree they have acknowledged the issue and appear to be taking steps to address it.

So I ask again, what should DCI be doing? All I’ve gotten from your responses is that they shouldn’t publish articles from which readers could draw questionable inferences.

[Jeff Ream]

I'd agree and even say that it wasn't the message itself but the context it was taken in was different too. That whole article was not presented well at all.

exactly. it didn't come off well at all.

[Jeff Ream]

The criticism was tame? You expect DCI to run an article on its own website blasting its own choice of venue? No. DCI's goal is to promote the activity, as it should be, and as promoters they are going to emphasize the positives with glass-half-full optimism. Asking them to do or be anything else is delusional.

Now I'm curious, though. Did you ever read the article, or just the DCP reaction?

both. i saw the article before I came to DCP, as it was in my email. I almost drove off the road reading it.

I do realize DCI needs to show the positives. But sometimes they need to admit the messes too.

it's better to try and fail and ask forgiveness than try, fail and sweep it under the rug

[Jeff Ream]

The headline? "Passing judgment on Lucas Oil Stadium: Drum Corps International adjudicators sound off on the home of DCI's World Championships" That was conflicting information? And what did you expect for criticism? They acknowledged the acoustic shortcomings, explained that the venue did not impact their ability to adjudicate, and even added the qualifier that they had the "best seats in the house" and that it might not have been the same experience across the stadium.

I think it's pretty clear that the intent of the article was to explain that the environment did not have any impact on the judging at championships, as explained by championship week judges. Any inferences along the lines of "the judges say it sounds good" are pretty far off-base in my opinion, and that's often what the article is summed up to contain, incorrectly so.

Anyway, this whole point of contention was brought about because I said that there is only so much DCI can do to appeal to everyone and asked what your expectation of them is. You responded that show design, amps and electronics have pushed many away, and that DCI can garner more forgiveness for mistakes and less criticism by admitting to those mistakes and attempting to fix them. I inquired if there was anything to which DCI should be "owning up" currently, and you responded about the acknowledgement and addressing of the sound issues at LOS. We agree they have acknowledged the issue and appear to be taking steps to address it.

So I ask again, what should DCI be doing? All I've gotten from your responses is that they shouldn't publish articles from which readers could draw questionable inferences.

dude, let's be honest here. it came off as "the judges know all, so there it is". Thats how many people took it. I didn't, but I took as DCI damage control...that didn't work.

I think DCI has owned up (lately) to many issues fans have complained about and want to listen...hence the upcoming roundtables...to get more feedback. I've said in here what DCI can do time and time again....and it seems they're listening

[dustyboo]

dude, let's be honest here. it came off as "the judges know all, so there it is". Thats how many people took it. I didn't, but I took as DCI damage control...that didn't work.

I think DCI has owned up (lately) to many issues fans have complained about and want to listen...hence the upcoming roundtables...to get more feedback. I've said in here what DCI can do time and time again....and it seems they're listening

I've missed the info on the roundtables. However, if I assume they are going to be a way for fans to give feedback, while I think it is a good idea i just wonder how many former fans (myself included) will even know about them to participate? Or have lost interest all together at this point. It sounds like it is something that should have happened back in 2004 and 2008 before the fans walked away.