2016 Rule Congress proposals

[Jeff Ream]

An old argument that was also said about brass , guard and marching.

which is why you still have field judges there

[Jeff Ream]

I dont think I said that.

BUT the answer would or could be yes, especially if it does not have a relevance to today's drum corps or how corps are judged or the importance of something today verses even a few years ago.

2011 cadets , often a split drum line and the actual design of that must have been quite difficult to judge from the field.

positioning is everything

[GUARDLING]

I think designers use sense now, at least at the top levels. no sense writing a 5let when the judge you want to hear it is in the 500 level with a roof over his head, and a hornline and amps between you and them.

brass and guard is much easier to detect from far away.

Not disagreeing but what I am saying I think..lol..is that many of the same arguments were said in the past for other sections and we all had to change our thought process and how we looked at how we were judged and the significance.

[GUARDLING]

positioning is everything

with cadets in 2011 I dont think positioning did a thing, how could it so far apart. I really do believe judging will take on a whole new look. How could it not as things will change. Some things will still have importance and other things will become not as important to the big picture. As to which will endure and for how long i'm sure will play out with those who agree as well as those who disagree. All with valid points.

Not that it's the same but I remember in winter programs when there were floor judges and how we thought it was crazy to see it the same from the stands...lol.now i cant imagine someone running around the floor or retrieving equipment...lol

You are part of the process yourself with what you have done so I suppose those like you will decide what is best or how it will continue into the future.

Edited January 11, 2016 by GUARDLING

[Jeff Ream]

with cadets in 2011 I dont think positioning did a thing, how could it so far apart. I really do believe judging will take on a whole new look. How could it not as things will change. Some things will still have importance and other things will become not as important to the big picture. As to which will endure and for how long i'm sure will play out with those who agree as well as those who disagree. All with valid points.

Not that it's the same but I remember in winter programs when there were floor judges and how we thought it was crazy to see it the same from the stands...lol.now i cant imagine someone running around the floor or retrieving equipment...lol

You are part of the process yourself with what you have done so I suppose those like you will decide what is best or how it will continue into the future.

to get the big picture you have to address the little things.

I know from judging percussion upstairs the last 2 falls, you do miss stuff you wouldn't get up close. It's a lot harder to diagnose where the issue may be coming from...hand positioning, etc from far away. And I can tell watching DCA where judges are off the field, clarity and precision is suffering.

[2muchcoffeeman]

we all had to change our thought process and how we looked at how we were judged and the significance.

Well, sure, but this doesn't really provide any traction when evaluating the proposal in front of the rules committee today. Back in the day, you "had" to change because a rule was changed. Had a rule not been changed, you would not have "had" to change anything. The relevant question is about the change to the rule itself, not about the inevitable "change (to) our thought process" that flows from it. The root of the issue is the way execution is judged. If a change is needed, why? What's the improvement DCI is after?

The only reason this proposal should be passed is if there is some evidence that parking judges on the sideline for 12 minutes will yield execution evaluation that is superior or equivalent to an evaluation by judges who roam the field.

Absent any such evidence, this proposal is by definition a downward revision of evaluation standards, in the name of some objective unrelated to the quality of performance evaluation.

And, indeed, the justification provided by Fred Morrison, who is proposing this idea, contains zero testimony that it will result in better evaluation. Instead, its only purpose is to improve the safety of judges and to eliminate the distraction for fans in the stands. It is, in effect, a concession that judging will suffer.

Perhaps that justification is strong enough to warrant degrading the quality of judging. So, if I'm on the rules committee, I want to see evidence that judges are a safety hazard so great that it warrants reducing the quality of adjudication. I want to hear an argument why eliminating the occasional glimpse of a judge on the field is a gain so great that it is worth taking one of DCI's chief assets -- top-flight evaluation from professionals -- away from our primary customers: the kids on the field.

Edited January 11, 2016 by 2muchcoffeeman

[GUARDLING]

to get the big picture you have to address the little things.

I know from judging percussion upstairs the last 2 falls, you do miss stuff you wouldn't get up close. It's a lot harder to diagnose where the issue may be coming from...hand positioning, etc from far away. And I can tell watching DCA where judges are off the field, clarity and precision is suffering.

I dont disagree . where I might be questioning is the significance. In other areas of the activity what was significant just a few years ago let alone form decades ago is ir could be viewed very different today. At least in many peoples view.

maybe my question to pose to others is have views changed on this ? I very much so remember , even myself, having very different views compared to today.

[GUARDLING]

Well, sure, but this doesn't really provide any traction when evaluating the proposal in front of the rules committee today. Back in the day, you "had" to change because a rule was changed. Had a rule not been changed, you would not have "had" to change anything. The relevant question is about the change to the rule itself, not about the inevitable "change (to) our thought process" that flows from it. The root of the issue is the way execution is evaluated. If a change is needed, why? What's the improvement DCI is after?

The only reason this proposal should be passed is if there is some evidence that parking judges on the sideline for 12 minutes will yield execution evaluation that is superior or equivalent to an evaluation by judges who roam the field.

Absent any such evidence, this proposal is by definition a downward revision of evaluation standards, in the name of some objective unrelated to the quality of performance evaluation.

And, indeed, the justification provided by Fred Morrison, who is proposing this idea, contains zero evidence it will result in better evaluation. Instead, its only purpose is to improve the safety of judges and to eliminate the distraction for fans in the stands. It is, in effect, a concession that judging will suffer.

Perhaps that justification is strong enough to warrant degrading the quality of judging. So, if I'm on the rules committee, I want to see evidence that judges are a safety hazard so great that it warrants reducing the quality of adjudication. I want to hear an argument why eliminating the occasional glimpse of a judge on the field worth taking one of DCI's chief assets -- top-flight evaluation from professionals -- away from our primary customers: the kids on the field.

Fair enough. I will still ask the question though why would we assume judging would be compromised . different, maybe. either way JMO.

either way corps will decide what works for them . If change means now a year or 10 years from now. Or not change at all.

Thanks for the dialog. Haven't engaged here in quite some time

Edited January 11, 2016 by GUARDLING

[cixelsyd]

One thing that I have not seen mentioned (though, to be fair, I could have missed it) is that when the judge has to move (especially when moving quickly), it is really not possible to hear or see all that is happening.

I can still hear when moving. Is that a unique talent? Maybe I should become a judge.

Not to be flippant, either... one of the skills people develop in drum corps is the ability to focus on one thing while doing another. For instance, focusing on listening to the ensemble and playing with them while executing the demands of 2015 drill. If the marchers can still listen while moving, I would think judges are capable of similar skill.

[cixelsyd]

Does anyone actually play rudiments anymore? And if so, couldn't a qualified percussion adjudicator "see" (as well as hear) them from a distance?

Many years ago we eliminated inspections because the minutia of a speck of dust on the horn bell had virtually nothing to do with the quality of performance.

This "drum judge on the field" thing will die hard. It's somewhat ironic that drum corps has warmly embraced mixing pure brass and percussion texture with electronics, yet holds on so tightly to the ghost of the tick in this case.

I have no categorical objection to preserving the purity of the batterie, but any adjudicator in the actual performance area constitutes a distraction for me, and I am quite confident that the best of them can evaluate even the smallest details from a respectful distance.

Count me out of the overgeneralization bolded above.

In the final analysis, the corps themselves will decide how they wish to be evaluated, and that is as it should be, I think.

That is an interesting point. However, the rule change process includes input and recommendations from judges. It is possible that the corps will listen to those recommendations.