Rules Congress 2016

[Kamarag]

Not to get too much into arguing minutae, but their score went up .375 from the night before in Houston. More than the Cadets (0.35), almost as much as the Blue Devils (0.40). I have no concrete proof, only observation from afar, but I absolutely think electronics do get a free pass. Vanguard's scores increased all three nights of Finals week, too, despite having the electronics come unplugged on one of them.

I don't think it needs a rule change, though - just maybe a clearer application / explanation on the judging sheets. (And even with that caveat, I recognize you've actually been involved in this and I have not... :) )

Mike

Don't put any stock into numbers from one night to the other (except maybe Allentown). The dynamics of each event and the panels are different.

DCI (heck, DCA for that matter) needs to be more forthcoming in all matters concerning judging. The fact is that judges do consider and comment on electronics (both good and bad) and they will tell you if something affected their number. The commentary alone is usually a good indicator, but the lack of transparency when it comes to the judging philosophy is really unfortunate.

[mj3004]

I'd argue electronics failures receive FAR less sympathy from judges than blown solos or individual falls garner: meaning electronic failures will receive less "credit" than blown solos

I definitely agree with his. If it's noticed, it's a negative.

[xandandl]

Lower GE scoring and raise performance scoring. Put the contest results back in the hands of the marching members, not the designers.

[IllianaLancerContra]

Full judging panels for every single show.

That will probably never happen, but I think it should.

The alternative to this, which DCM used in the early 80s, was to use partial panels, but leave some captions unjudged - all corps received a '0' in those caption, and the max possible score was usually in the 80s.

Also (and I can almost predict who will jump all over this idea) - take 5 points from the GE captions & create a 'connection with the audience' caption, similar to how DCA does it.

Edited September 26, 2015 by IllianaLancerContra

[corpsband]

Lower GE scoring and raise performance scoring. Put the contest results back in the hands of the marching members, not the designers.

Since every single caption is divided into half what (design) and half how (performer) suggestions like these baffle me.

[GUARDLING]

Lower GE scoring and raise performance scoring. Put the contest results back in the hands of the marching members, not the designers.

You know as well as me being a part of the history of the activity that even when the numbers were the opposite GE and designers etc etc. ALWAYS carried huge weight, going as far back as the late 70s. People didn't think so BUT I saw some greats in action in critiques and with many it was an art form like George Z, Bobby Hoffman, etc etc. It was a huge learning experience for a young new instructor like myself. ..lol and entertaining for sure..lol

Edited September 26, 2015 by GUARDLING

[HornTeacher]

So, are you saying if a corps doesn't use the electronics, they don't get any extra points up to five points? Where's the level playing field with this (if I'm understanding your proposal accurately.)?

Sounds to me like some sort of advocation of two separate sets of sheets, one which includes electronics, and one which doesn't...with point allocations changing depending upon the use/non-use of electronics. If one assumes that each corps must declare before their performance where their show falls, then I suppose the practice of the point allocation wouldn't be all that difficult. It might take a period of time for some casual observers to understand, however -- at least until they become familiar with the process.

It would, however, make each corps consider the risk/reward factor of employing the electronics. If, after the first few shows, a corps found that they were losing more points in this area than they would with a more "traditional" voicing show -- then they would be presented with the question of whether or not the prospects of their development through the rest of the season would be worth what they are losing. For those who would argue that this would end up being a total waste of economic resources...then, well, such is the way of placing the eggs of your potential achievement solely in the basket of artificially-created sound.

Edited September 26, 2015 by HornTeacher

[GUARDLING]

Sounds to me like some sort of advocation of two separate sets of sheets, one which includes electronics, and one which doesn't...with point allocations changing depending upon the use/non-use of electronics. If one assumes that each corps must declare before their performance where their show falls, then I suppose the practice of the point allocation wouldn't be all that difficult. It might take a period of time for some casual observers to understand, however -- at least until they become familiar with the process.

It would, however, make each corps consider the risk/reward factor of employing the electronics. If, after the first few shows, a corps found that they were losing more points in this area than they would with a more "traditional" voicing show -- then they would be presented with the question of whether or not the prospects of their development through the rest of the season would be worth what they are losing. For those who would argue that this would end up being a total waste of economic resources...then, well, such is the way of placing the eggs of your potential achievement solely in the basket of artificially-created sound.

I actually remember ( goes to show ya how old i am..lol ) a time when there was the same argument with guards who chose to stay traditional and those who did not. we talk sometimes like electronics is something new , it's not anymore. Sure it takes a long time to get to where one wants to be as far as quality, or lack of at the moment BUT I do think the train has left the station so to speak.

[BRASSO]

Hire more judges with engineering degrees. Or that majored in Voice in College.

Oh just kidding. Stick with pretty much the same judges, same judging criteria at Championships. Its worked well for the Blue Devils just fine on the whole, imo.

Edited September 27, 2015 by BRASSO

[Jeff Ream]

Not to get too much into arguing minutae, but their score went up .375 from the night before in Houston. More than the Cadets (0.35), almost as much as the Blue Devils (0.40). I have no concrete proof, only observation from afar, but I absolutely think electronics do get a free pass. Vanguard's scores increased all three nights of Finals week, too, despite having the electronics come unplugged on one of them.

I don't think it needs a rule change, though - just maybe a clearer application / explanation on the judging sheets. (And even with that caveat, I recognize you've actually been involved in this and I have not... :) )

Mike

yup. i think it's noted, but truly isn't felt in the scores like it could be