N.E. Brigand Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Not according to the DCP poster garfield. Why, when the DCP poster BRASSO is in the middle of a conversation with multiple people on DCP, would he go to the trouble of identifying one of them as "the DCP poster garfield". Is there another garfield that the DCP poster BRASSO thinks other DCP posters might confuse the DCP poster garfield with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Now careful, Stu. I mean Brasso. I didn't say the comments were made "...on the basis of to <sic> sell seats." And semantics are important. I did not say I had sources in the room. I said my sources were in the room. Here's exactly what I said: Your sources in the room was your verification to support your claim that you heard that ( your direct words from yesterday in the above quote ) " DCI judges are being asked to slot the scores tighter to create closer competition ". That is an unambiguous statement, not left to a grey area, nor to a misunderstanding of meaning, nor what is being said.. When the curious me then asked you where you heard this, you replied " my sources who were in the room ". Thats not " semantics ". Thats your very words itself. When I asked you if you might have misspoke, or wanted to modify or retract what you were allegedly told by your sources that were in the room, you declined to do so, thru all of yesterday, last nite and this morning. and you were found on other threads, so you left it all out here without modification, or retraction. I got some PM's from posters who could not believe what you said on here yesterday. So its not just me that can read in a clear manner what you actually said. If you believe you should retract, or in any way, modify your rather startling and disturbing remarks of what your sources in the room told you, then by all means you are entitled to a redo of what you actually said. But absent that, we simply go on what you said, and its based upon what your sources in the room told you, ie " judges are being asked to slot the scores tighter to create closer competition ". Edited July 30, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Suffice it to say that "slotting", as we describe it here, might not actually be how the term is used inside DCI or Cesario's office. Did I speak with them, in the room, when the subject is discussed? No, I didn't. Do I trust my sources who were in the room? Yes. Yes, I do. It's not nefarious. It's actually slotting for the greater good of selling seats. Or maybe a form of slotting, if you prefer. Without knowing what was said in the room, I can suggest one non-nefarious way that DCI could have tightened the scores without abandoning integrity. The following scoring concept has been mentioned a few times on these forums. It may not be exactly how DCI conceives of the captions, but it will do for discussion: 1 to 2 tenths -- corps are basically the same; it's an "any given night" scenario 3 to 5 tenths -- some differences, but corps are similar 6 to 8 tenths -- significant differences in design or achievement 9 tenths and above -- the corps are not in the same ball park What if, this year, Cesario told judges that for corps with "some differences, but corps are similar", the caption distance between two corps should max out at 4 tenths rather than 5 tenths? And that "significant differences" that were still in "the same ball park" should max out at 7 rather than 8 tenths? Multiply that by all the judges and the scores get notably closer. After all, the entire scoring system is arbitrary in the first place, and it always has been. Even back in the tick days, there was no natural reason for each tick to count for whatever value they had: was it one-tenth of a point? It could have just as reasonably been two-tenths or one-hundredth of a point. Likewise now, if the system were set up so that the typical distance between first place and twelfth place was 30 points rather than 15 points, it would be every bit as fair. For all I know, my description is way off the mark, but it does show that there are ways, for those not semantically-challenged, to interpret garfield's hints as to what was reported to him as not nefarious or "disturbing". Were some people really so alarmed by garfield's anodyne remarks that they just had to send personal messages to BRASSO in commiseration with his outrage? Edited July 30, 2015 by N.E. Brigand 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 This seems like an incredibly semantic argument to be having. And honestly, if they told judges to minimize spreads and keep scores lower so there's more room for growth and pushes groupings together, I have no problem with this. As long as they're still ranking and rating consistently within the season, it's fine. Mike 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why, when the DCP poster BRASSO is in the middle of a conversation with multiple people on DCP, would he go to the trouble of identifying one of them as "the DCP poster garfield". Is there another garfield that the DCP poster BRASSO thinks other DCP posters might confuse the DCP poster garfield with? I will modify my remarks to refer to garfield as simply " garfield ".. not " DCP poster garfield ". I will attempt to avoid this apparently annoying ID for you in all my future posts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) . Were some people really so alarmed by garfield's anodyne remarks that they just had to send personal messages to BRASSO in commiseration with his outrage? Well, the PM's to me were not solicited by me. And why caste dispersions upon their motivations to send me a PM in the first place ? I see no reason why it should be of concern to you as to why posters might choose to communicate via a PM to another poster. Also, my response as to the rather startling new information that judges are being " asked to slot the scores tighter to create closer competition " was one of surprise, and of a disturbing reaction. There was no " outrage " on my behalf. Thats a wholly mischaracterization of my response to this newly revealed information from garfield. Surprise would be my most descriptive reaction of my learning of this.... not " outrage ". For your information, none of the posters that PM'ed me yesterday and last nite were " outraged " either. Most of us agreed that perhaps garfield simply misspoke yesterday. But as we can see, it appears he believes that he has not. And so thats where we are, and posters are free to accept what his sources in the room told him... or not. Edited July 30, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I will modify my remarks to refer to garfield as simply "garfield" . . . not "DCP poster garfield". I will attempt to avoid this apparently annoying ID for you in all my future posts. The DCP poster N.E. Brigand thanks you for your consideration. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachariaswmb Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Only DCP could turn good news about souvie sales and attendance into what we have here. Impressive. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Well, the PMs to me were not solicited by me. And why caste dispersions upon their motivations to send me a PM in the first place? I see no reason why it should be of concern to you as to why posters might choose to communicate via a PM to another poster. I'm sorry. I meant neither to cast aspersions, nor to disperse the castes. Brahmins to the left, Vaisyas to the right! It does make you wonder who DCP's "untouchables" are. And if it's no concern of mine, or of anyone else reading this thread, why did you mention it here? But let's get back on point: Also, my response as to the rather startling new information that judges are being "asked to slot the scores tighter to create closer competition" was one of surprise, and of a disturbing reaction. There was no "outrage" on my behalf. That's wholly a mis-characterization of my response to this newly-revealed information from garfield. "Surprise" would be the best description of my response to learning of this, not "outrage". For your information, none of the posters that PM'ed me yesterday and last night were "outraged" either. Most of us agreed that perhaps garfield simply misspoke yesterday. But as we can see, it appears he believes that he has not. And so that's where we are, and posters are free to accept what his sources in the room told him... or not. OK, "outrage" was a bit of deliberate (and I thought obvious) hyperbole on my part, as indeed was the entire last sentence of my post. But what about the rest? You know, the substantive part? Garfield says "slotting" might not mean what many people think it does. I've offered a guess as to what it could really mean. Do you think I'm on the mark, or off? If my hypothesis were true, would that be less disturbing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Only DCP could turn good news about souvie sales and attendance into what we have here. Impressive. Well, impressive in a good way, I'd say, because BRASSO is quite right to find that little nugget garfield dropped to be important. All summer long we've been noticing the lower scores and the tighter scores and speculating that it was deliberate. Finally we get some semi-official, second-hand confirmation. 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.