N.E. Brigand Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (something that perc2100 doesn't agree with) (something N.E. Brigand doesn't agree with) (something perc2100 [probably] doesn't agree with) Well, speaking of Jeff and Stu and props and poop and strange bedfellows and all that --and somehow on re-reading the 800+ post in the other G-7 thread, I found myself twice voting up danielray's posts, and that never happens-- I found it particularly amusing to realize that of the nine compromise positions suggested in that other thread (about which more over there shortly), yours was one of the two least likely to give SE7EN any seats on the board, while mine was one of two that gave them exactly what they've asked for (in exchange for something else, to be sure). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 ... somehow on re-reading the 800+ post in the other G-7 thread... Should we be organizing an intervention? Re-reading 800 posts in the G7 thread must be a cry for help! HH 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 G7 wants top 12 Finalist to have a vote on the board as it was " back in the day". But it never was like that back in the day. First there were 13 charter members with votes. For a couple of years, the charter members were grandfathered while other corps could earn membership via top 12 placement. Then came the associate membership for corps 13-25, which eventually developed into full membership. There have been cutbacks since then, but never down to 12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I guess if you want to demonize one corps' ideas that's your prerogative. I thought the G7 ideas came from seven corps. What you might see as "taking money from other corps" others see as "make more money by setting up our own shows + decide pay scale based on competitive success." No, the pay scale is already based on competitive success. The G7 proposal was to place those 7 corps permanently in the top pay bracket, regardless of ensuing competitive results. Do you think DCI would be better off without Cadets, Blue Devils, Phantom Regiment, SCV, Cavaliers, Bluecoats, and Crown? Do you think DCI would thrive without those corps? I'm not trying to stir up the hornets' nest, I'm curious what you think. You're clearly passionate about this activity, and I'm wondering if you're thinking logically or emotionally My answer to that question depends largely on whether the G7 directors are thinking logically or emotionally. Had you asked me that question in 2009, for example, my response would have been a reflexive "no". At the other extreme, if these 7 corps will continue to disrupt the DCI agenda instead of working with their fellow member corps, then it is entirely possible that DCI would be better off without them. As an example of what I mean - you seem to like the recent DCI announcement about Drumline Battle and SoundSport. That announcement would not have taken place if DCI had heeded the G7 demand not to discuss any other matters until their latest governance proposal was addressed. The way that was written almost makes me think the G7 were trying to disrupt the rollout of these two ideas - but conspiracy theories aside, their repeated demands distract from business that is already on the DCI agenda. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) . Edited January 23, 2013 by corpsband 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Really? You think everyone of them cares about drum corps, cares about each kid, and cares about the health of the activity. Well here is how they showed that they care: Nice how you leave out what those pesky words EVERY corps. What I ACTUALLY said: Here's a fact I DO know: every one of those corps (G7 or not) is led by directors who have nothing but the best interests of the young people their organizations serve at heart. I think everyone of them cares about drum corps, cares about each kid, and cares about the health of the activity. Do they disagree ? Obviously. Can they collectively figure things out ? I think (and hope) so. Yes. I think each and every corps director is doing what they think is in the best interest of their members. Yes. I think each of them is a corps director because they care about drum corps not because they hate the activity and want to destroy it. Yes. I think they disagree about how to move forward. Yes. I think they can figure things out. As for the infamous slideshow.... If you want to convert a sloppy, incomplete, poorly constructed PPT slideshow into the complete, comprehensive manifesto of the G7, I guess you can do that. Were those all ideas discussed in some fashion? No doubt they were. Did any of them come before the membership as a formal proposal? Is the G7 bound and determined to implement each and every item? I have no idea. Is every idea in the PPT controversial? I don't think so. Are controversial proposals something new to DCI? No. I'm guessing the G7 are waiting until after the Januals to do any communicating. We'll see what they have to say at that point. I think they have a responsibility to communicate their plans to their members and supporters. So I think eventually we'll hear something from them. And I have no doubt that someone will posting updates from those meetings right here on DCP. In the meantime I'm not going to try to read between the lines, layer assumption on assumption, and assign motives based on speculation and hyperbole. There's just no point. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Nice how you leave out what those pesky words EVERY corps. Every director includes the G7 directors who are only looking out for themselves which blows a hole in you 'every' director looking out for the entire activity philosophy. I think each and every corps director is doing what they think is in the best interest of their members. The G7 are looking out for their 'own' members of their 'own' corps; that I will agree with you. I think each of them is a corps director because they care about drum corps not because they hate the activity and want to destroy it. I never maintained that the G7 directors want to destroy drum corps, but that they want the activity, and all the toys, unto themselves and not share or play well with others. I think they disagree about how to move forward. The details in how to move forward I agree; but they, the G7, are completely unified in their own self-righteousness and selfishness I think they can figure things out. By the looks of the quality of the first, and second, G7 proposals it does not look like they can even figure out how to construct qualitative persuasive effective proposals. As for the infamous slideshow.... If you want to convert a sloppy, incomplete, poorly constructed PPT slideshow into the complete, comprehensive manifesto of the G7, I guess you can do that. Putting together sloppy, incomplete, poorly constructed PPT slideshows and letters into a complete, comprehensive manifesto of the G7 is what Hopkins and Gibbs did by presenting them to the member corps directors in the first place; all we did is analyze them in context. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Putting together sloppy, incomplete, poorly constructed PPT slideshows and letters into a complete, comprehensive manifesto of the G7 is what Hopkins and Gibbs did by presenting them to the member corps directors in the first place; all we did is analyze them in context. Exactly. All you have is a really bad slideshow (without any of the explanatory narrative) -- not a proposal at all and certainly lacking most of explanatory detail that a true proposal would entail. At it's best, a slideshow (by itself) is a poor communications vehicle. Watch the first 2 minutes http://www.youtube.c...h?v=bgWKJPtec4w with the sound muted. Tell me what you learned. Now turn on the sound. Oh. Now -- do I think that an explanation is going to ameliorate some of what's been written in the G7-PPT slides -- absolutely not. It was a double barrel shotgun blast through their own foot. In fact I think I shot a pretty decent cannonball of death right through their latest email. BUT I do think there's a lot that *hasn't* been said as well. Before I'd be willing to say the G7 are bunch of evil, immoral monsters bent on the destruction of DCI, I'd be willing to listen to what they have to say. Not through some half-baked PPT that looks like it was finished in the taxi 5 minutes before the meeting. So I'm skeptical. Dubious even. But I'm willing to hear what they have to say. Because I'm pretty sure we haven't heard their complete POV. I also think there were some good ideas in that PPT (for example the TOC experiment). I think it's pretty clear the current DCI model is not sustainable. Most corps are just a few mishaps away from disaster. Even the apparently secure corps are vulnerable (reference the commercial bingo operation that tried to open in Concord). I don't think inertia is going to take DCI anywhere but down. "We do things that way because that's what we've always done" just isn't going to work. You know it's funny but some of the ideas that get hammered here (ie "don't treat every corps the same") are often put forth by the very same posters but in different words ("maybe not every corps does a full length tour"). In fact many of the G7 tenets of evil have been put forth on DCP in other -- more palatable -- language. So words matter. And full, compete ideas matter. I just find the diatribe on DCP to be counter-productive. I think there's no point to the "greedy, selfish, evil" rant. It leads to lovely statements like "Hopkins is Hitler and the marchers in the G7 corps are Nazis". Hmm... THAT'S accurate, right? Many posters here just repeat what they've read on DCP and then mis-state it some more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Gives sort of a different definition to Cheese Chuchuddas now doesn't it!!! she's not old enough for cheese, and she's been warnedto stay away from that Boo guy :tongue:/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) I think it's pretty clear the current DCI model is not sustainable. And it is more than clear who (hint it has a 7 in it) has created then driven the current DCI model which is not financially sustainable. Who wanted all national tour all summer thereby increasing costs? The 7; Who wanted to increase the corps size to 150 thereby increasing costs? The 7; Who wanted the electronics and amplification thereby driving up the costs? The 7; need I go on and on and on concerning which 7 have created the competitive expenditure problems within DCI? I think there's no point to the "greedy, selfish, evil" rant. It leads to lovely statements like "Hopkins is Hitler and the marchers in the G7 corps are Nazis". Hmm... THAT'S accurate, right? Many posters here just repeat what they've read on DCP and then mis-state it some more. Show me where I have ever called Hopkins or Gibbs either Evil or Hitler; you cannot!!! However, what I have posted, and commented on, concerning their selfishness has been directly quoted from their own presentations and philosophical bents. Do you really believe that they really care, I mean really care, about Spirit or Madison Scouts let alone Les Stentors or Racine Scouts? Edited January 24, 2013 by Stu 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.