No Detailed Recaps

[MikeD]

No, because I'll be posting lots of glamour shots of myself. It's the least I can do.

true.

[cixelsyd]

Garfield - yes, you are right about the MMs needing to learn those lessons. But I can very well imagine that corps directors would rather have more control over how those lessons are taught. In today's world, the MMs are probably getting the recaps on their phones as fast or even faster than the staff, which means the MMs' attitudes/gossip/emotions are forming before the staff has a chance to properly guide them, and channel those emotions onto a beneficial path, rather than a destructive one.

The staff has from November to June to provide whatever guidance they want in preparation for competition. That is a 7 month head start.

[Rocketman]

Well, if there was a definitive way to stop judges from getting the re-caps, then I'd be for this. However, I don't believe this is possible.

[perc2100]

Or maybe some feel each has their jobs to do and one can only control what they are supposed to do. Explanation should be given by staff and I know some feel at the pace of it's members and those members understanding ( taught by staff, not judges or spectators )

There are for sure 2 sides to the thought process here and maybe this way a corps gets to decide how information is given and then processed. Sometimes overload of info. can also just get in the way for some.

I do get though , in this age of everyone getting more information than we ever did ,there is now a sense of entitlement by most of the world and for those who maybe need this it could drive those people nuts.

Just another side to 2 sides of compelling arguments by all.

Like I said, I really to get where that staffer was coming from. I guess for me, if this wasn't something that hadn't been readily available since the late 90's (I remember when I marched being able to check scores & recaps on DCI's webpage, albeit not from a mobile device and maybe not immediately) it wouldn't bother me, but taking a step-back to the last millennium seems silly.

Maybe if there could've been a better way, if, again, this was indeed implement to protect members or to give staffers more time guide their members' emotions after tough defeats (I'm really struggling to type that in a non-cynical, non-jerk way) while still being transparent to the fans (and again, this step backwards in transparency is really the heart of my issues here). Maybe put a 24 or 36 hour delay on release of the recaps (say a regional is Saturday night, wait until Monday morning to post full recaps).

Maybe DCI can set-up some sort of membership service where folks could sign-up to receive recaps if requested, in a daily info-dump type email: that way DCI can monitor who exactly is/isn't or can/can't receive emails (like, if I'm a judge DCI would not allow me to receive the updates). Heck, if DCI made it a premium service they'd be able to kill all the birds with one stone: judges would likely NEVER pay for something like that, only the die-hard stat-fanatics would consider paying a nominal fee for that (or maybe no one would? I honestly don't think I would), and the flood of information would be more controlled. If DCI had a firm NDA for subscription service it would likely keep most subscribers in line.

Of course those aren't perfect, as this isn't. But it would add transparency back to the equation, whereas this recent action yanked it right off the table.

But, that also doesn't address the disturbing "DCI doesn't seem to trust their judges to be impartial and professional" aspect of all of this...

[perc2100]

Well, if there was a definitive way to stop judges from getting the re-caps, then I'd be for this. However, I don't believe this is possible.

Why do you say that: do you honestly not trust judges to be professional? Do you think this thin veneer of secrecy against the judges would equate to non-biased numbers that are currently being given? To you honestly think in 2015 there was a big problem that forced DCI to enact policy in order to better ensure judge impartiality? If so, can you site several examples?

I don't ask that to pick a fight, I'm genuinely curious if folks who are all for this change because of the perception of better judging has an actual idea of how they think this will result in better judging, and could explain the explicit examples of multiple poor judging last season

[perc2100]

Except that DCI itself will have full access to all scores as they always do. Also as always, they will be able to deal with any situations that come up in analyzing the above.

Exactly; weren't recaps even published in DCN pre-internet? Sure, it would've been after-the-fact, but for the Regionals I vaguely remember reading about who scored where in drums, or tight spreads were in some captions, etc.

DCI's press release doesn't smack of "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!" type cause of this change: more of a "we don't trust judges" mentality.

[N.E. Brigand]

Has anyone hear been in communications with any judges about this change? If so, can you say if they are offended at its implications?

Edited February 4, 2016 by N.E. Brigand

[garfield]

Exactly; weren't recaps even published in DCN pre-internet? Sure, it would've been after-the-fact, but for the Regionals I vaguely remember reading about who scored where in drums, or tight spreads were in some captions, etc.

DCI's press release doesn't smack of "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!" type cause of this change: more of a "we don't trust judges" mentality.

I was saying this same thing in this thread. BITD we waited weeks to get show recaps. I don't even remember being as rabid about recaps until the internet age; if we got DCW or DCNews we could catch up way after the fact.

I don't buy the "we don't trust the judges" thought line - the directors who supposedly lack trust are also the judges bosses via BOD vote. I don't think this is how they'd solve that problem if it existed.

Actually, the argument I was just having here makes the most sense: staff are tired of dealing with it in their ranks and are trying to make it easier on themselves to keep their kids motivated, or sheltered, or something. That would be rational human behavior, at least.

Lazy as all heck, IMO, but rational.

Edited February 4, 2016 by garfield

[Eleran]

Actually, the argument I was just having here makes the most sense: staff are tired of dealing with it in their ranks and are trying to make it easier on themselves to keep their kids motivated, or sheltered, or something. That would be rational human behavior, at least.

To that, I would add one other possible element: not giving fodder to alumni who might cause an unpleasant ruckus over certain caption scores holding back "their" corps from winning it all, and start demanding the heads of those caption heads.

[GUARDLING]

To that, I would add one other possible element: not giving fodder to alumni who might cause an unpleasant ruckus over certain caption scores holding back "their" corps from winning it all, and start demanding the heads of those caption heads.

Ive pretty much been in the trenches for decades, teach , judged ( and not just locally ), headed clinics etc etc. and to be honest most often I have to give members their section scores or comparisons if we choose. i think most members look in front of them with what has to be done next and what that may involve the next day, week and for championships.

Alumni, well thats a whole other animal so to speak.

Edited February 5, 2016 by GUARDLING