Fan Network and Show Attendance for this year.

[dbc03]

LOL that's exactly what will happen. And the fat heads wont be able to comprehend that they were the problem. After all, they are already convinced that they are the solution.

The more cynical assumption to make is that they KNOW that that will happen and are planning on it happening to push their agenda.

In which case the best thing to do is to increase attendance this year!

[Scoutnout]

and if attandence is up? Just askin

[KAW]

I'm already planning on attending ~4 shows plus championships. If I could do more (time / travel cost) I would. The new concepts could be the dawn of a new era and it actually prompts my support, not the opposite.

[Jeff Ream]

i already paid for the Fn and shows I am going to, so i was not backing out now.

Plus, I want to be there in Indy since it could be the last finals as we knew it

[Glenn426]

I think this now becomes a dangerous avenue. I think that DCI needs all the support it can get right now. The smartest thing for all of those oppsed to the G7 is to go out to the shows. Support DCI. Show them that the way things are now are just fine and they do work.

I think not going to DCI shows and buying the Fan Network is only going to fuel the Fire that the G7 have started.

I think the way to approach it is to go to the shows. But do not but any merchandise from the G7. Hit them where it hurts, In the pocketbook. As others have said walk out on them before the shows.

Imagine the unified message of BD or the Cadets perform to empty stands? The message will be loud and clear.

The part that really sucks is for the members of these G7 corps that will have to bear the brunt of being the bad guys when they did nothing at all to deserve it.. But they will just have to be the "casualty of war"

I'm sure if they are displeased that much they move on to another corps the next year.

Having about 5 of my current students marching in these G7 corps, they understand the situation and are fully aware of what this summer will be like for them.

[KAW]

"The part that really sucks is for the members of these G7 corps that will have to bear the brunt of being the bad guys when they did nothing at all to deserve it.. But they will just have to be the "casualty of war"

I'm sure if they are displeased that much they move on to another corps the next year.

Having about 5 of my current students marching in these G7 corps, they understand the situation and are fully aware of what this summer will be like for them.

Its just my opinion, but I'd bet that for the typical 20 year old marching a G7, unless someone else makes a big deal of it it won't be a big deal. Unless corps management or staff make a big deal of it it won't be an issue.

There will be no appreciable difference in crowd size this year...and the only ones in the audience who choose to not be supportive of every student on the field (G7, AA, open, ROTC...whatever) are fans that shouldn't be there in the first place. Fans who express their displeasure by taking it out on the participants are no fans in my opinion. Probably the same ones who boo'd cadets students for something they had no control over and had nothing to do with them.

[Glenn426]

Its just my opinion, but I'd bet that for the typical 20 year old marching a G7, unless someone else makes a big deal of it it won't be a big deal. Unless corps management or staff make a big deal of it it won't be an issue.

I know for sure that HOP has already had a full corps meeting explaining the events of G7 and the big ordeal that it has caused. The ones that understand Drum Corps and how it works are aware of what it means. Some vets of that corps I'm sure are used to being controversial and will not have a problem taking that role. But the other G7 corps will be in this role for the first time.

[Daave]

You don't get much more straw-man than this.

Discussion boards, in genera,l exist to present the "Straw Man"

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

2. Quote an opponent's words "out of context" -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions.

3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

Based on their point of view, the poster will usually argue that the opposition falls into one or more of these categories.

[jaylogan]

I bought the Fan Network, I'm going to semi's, quarterfinals, and maybe finals. I plan on going to Atlanta. I'm supporting all corps, and I'm not buying into the division that anyone is trying to create, either in DCI (allegedly) or on this forum.

[dbc03]

Discussion boards, in genera,l exist to present the "Straw Man"

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

2. Quote an opponent's words "out of context" -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions.

3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

Based on their point of view, the poster will usually argue that the opposition falls into one or more of these categories.

I'm going with #4 in this case