Jump to content

2018 Rules proposals


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, mingusmonk said:

He contradicts himself. Throw that in with the horrible spelling and grammar and the confusion is understandable. 

The proposal is pretty basic: "ordinal rankings" which means you'd rank 10 corps in a show 1 through 10, 9 corps appearing? Rank them 1 through 9 in your assigned caption. The GE caption would break a tie in the event of one

Then they would average your ordinal ranking to determine placement in the competition

This approach is already used in various circuits and sports

It eliminates a biased or inexperienced judge throwing off the overall results but inserting a massive spread in a given caption which can swing a corps overall placement a lot, skewing the results

It also forces judges to rank each corps - no more 19.3, 19.3, 19.3 by giving them 10./9.3 or 9.9/9.4 or 9.8/9.5 etc

I thought it was a fairly straight-forward idea

Probably something to "test" at a show or two rather than jump whole hog into. JMO

The "size" proposal is a no-brainer - but then again, I'm for eliminating size constraints for world class, or at least upping them a great deal more than 4

The "15 corps in finals" idea is a bit misguided. But I am for more corps appearing on Saturday night by splitting "world class" into "world" and "national" class and allowing a larger number of corps compete on Saturday night "finals" - say 14 (top 4 plus top 10)

Anyway - back to my "sounds of silence" - it's my happy place

Edited by George Dixon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Brass Lover said:

. Also spreads are important.

 Absolutely.... " spreads are important "... to both fans, marchers, Corps alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, George Dixon said:

The proposal is pretty basic: "ordinal rankings" which means you'd rank 10 corps in a show 1 through 10, 9 corps appearing? Rank them 1 through 9 in your assigned caption. The GE caption would break a tie in the event of one

Then they would average your ordinal ranking to determine placement in the competition

This approach is already used in various circuits and sports

It eliminates a biased or inexperienced judge throwing off the overall results but inserting a massive spread in a given caption which can swing a corps overall placement a lot, skewing the results

It also forces judges to rank each corps - no more 19.3, 19.3, 19.3 by giving them 10./9.3 or 9.9/9.4 or 9.8/9.5 etc

I thought it was a fairly straight-forward idea

Probably something to "test" at a show or two rather than jump whole hog into. JMO

The "size" proposal is a no-brainer - but then again, I'm for eliminating size constraints for world class, or at least upping them a great deal more than 4

The "15 corps in finals" idea is a bit misguided. But I am for more corps appearing on Saturday night by splitting "world class" into "world" and "national" class and allowing a larger number of corps compete on Saturday night "finals" - say 14 (top 4 plus top 10)

Anyway - back to my "sounds of silence" - it's my happy place

 

The confusion isn't the definition of "ordinals." The confusion of GH's written case is what value non-GE scores would actually still provide and who would see them. Not to mention that he makes no legitimate case for how our current system is failing. His argument points for consideration:

 

  1. Groups are so close in talent that we shouldn't even consider a spread. (again, how is the spread a problem?)
  2. "Eliminates discussion of the value of one tenth" (Why? Is the numerical value and gap somehow breaking the product?)
  3. "The fans can stay to the basics" (The Fans DON'T want to know about numbers and gaps? The 180 turn on top secret recaps would seem to indicate THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Liahona said:

 

aja8xv916yuv6c66g.jpg

 " Only the Corps involved will ever know the scores of the evening ". (GH last sentence here above)

  He says that just the Corps " will ever know " these scores.  First off, who does he think he's kidding ?.  I  don't believe that even he  privately believes this. Not in this internet day and age, with so many anonymous postings on the Social Media that can protect the many people who will  provide these " secret scores ", and probably within an hour of the " secret scores " being released privately to all the Corps. That said however, the lack of transparency would more than likely open up Rumor Control too to all manner of rumors on what the " secret scores " were.

 For example, long timers on here will recall that in 1975 the Hawthorne Muchachos were scored in performance at the DCI Championship  Prelims. They were one of the top 2-3 Corps at the very top competing for the '75 DCI Title that season. But immediately after their judged Prelims performance, they were disqualified from participating at the Finals ( overage marcher.)  DCI kept  secret the Hawthorne Muchachos Prelims score, and destroyed the caption scores right away.. Well, rumors immediately circulated in some quarters that the Muchachos won the Prelims.. I was there, and those rumors of the Muchachos winning the Prelims were everywhere. Those rumors on the ' secret scores" were counteracted by others however that said " their sources " told them that the Madison Scouts won the Prelims. Guess what ? That  42 year dispute has not been satisfactorily settled to this very day. Is that fair to the eventual '75 DCI Champion Madison Scouts ?. No. Not in my view it is not. I accept that  Madison won that 75 DCI Title fair and square. I accept their claim, and without any reservation whatsoever too , that they went undefeated that season too, Most do as well, imo. But the dispute could have been settled once and for all if the Muchachos Prelims scores WERE released to the public. That would have settled the rumors immediately and once and for all too.. So  transparency in the scores in the competitions are a good thing in my view. Any proposal that portends keeping the scores " secret " should be a non starter, and right from the getgo. I  do not believe that this particular proposal to keep scores " secret" will be approved, its a cynical proposal too, imo.... and deserves a quick defeat as such, imo.

Edited by BRASSO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cadevilina Crown said:

So I know many of the proposals this year hinge on Music Analysis.

Just so that we're all clear, here's how Michael Cesario defines the Analysis captions:

The Music Analysis and Visual Analysis judges are the classically trained judges, the most scientific in their approach. They analyze how the pieces of the puzzle fit together and they focus on the detailing … how is the music or visual orchestration done, how well is that utilized, what are the developmental phrases, and how is the show composed and constructed.

I think a lot of us seem to misinterpret the Music Analysis caption as currently being "how good the overall musical ensemble sounds" rather than "how well the show is constructed from a musical standpoint." Music Analysis is about the compositional elements of the show, not the brass performance (Brass), nor the percussion performance (Percussion), nor the creative content/overall entertainment factor (GE). That being said, the term "Analysis" (as opposed to "Ensemble") has only been used since the 2012 season, so we're all still getting used to this more "scientific" approach rather than a more "sonorous" approach to the musical aspect of DCI.

How any changes to Music Analysis will affect a possible second brass judge and/or second MA judge has yet to be seen, but I hope this was enlightening to some of you.

Scientific :doh: Really? No wonder the world makes fun of marching band when subjective adjudicating is equivucated to scientific method!!!

Edited by Stu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stu said:

Outside of safety issuses no rules on holding back show designs within DCI; that is what you maintain. Interesting. So that means instead of Spartacus or Core of Teptation, shows designed about Caligula and Deep Throat (with no rules of design limitations) and presenting them on the field in the name of artistic design freedom is acceptable to you in DCI. Or, are you going to backpedal and say you actually are for rules that limit artistic designs?

Since this is a youth activity, and presented outside in public to people of varying, if you consider it "backpedaling" to be in favor of adhering to general rules of public decency, so be it. There are laws on the books that do not require special rules within DCI, but whatever.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MikeD said:

Since this is a youth activity, and presented outside in public to people of varying, if you consider it "backpedaling" to be in favor of adhering to general rules of public decency, so be it. There are laws on the books that do not require special rules within DCI, but whatever.

So you are now saying that artistic design should be limited by rules for things other than just safety. You are contradicting yourself.

Edited by Stu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, George Dixon said:

The proposal is pretty basic: "ordinal rankings" which means you'd rank 10 corps in a show 1 through 10, 9 corps appearing? Rank them 1 through 9 in your assigned caption. The GE caption would break a tie in the event of one

Then they would average your ordinal ranking to determine placement in the competition

This approach is already used in various circuits and sports

It eliminates a biased or inexperienced judge throwing off the overall results but inserting a massive spread in a given caption which can swing a corps overall placement a lot, skewing the results

It also forces judges to rank each corps - no more 19.3, 19.3, 19.3 by giving them 10./9.3 or 9.9/9.4 or 9.8/9.5 etc

I thought it was a fairly straight-forward idea

Probably something to "test" at a show or two rather than jump whole hog into. JMO

The "size" proposal is a no-brainer - but then again, I'm for eliminating size constraints for world class, or at least upping them a great deal more than 4

The "15 corps in finals" idea is a bit misguided. But I am for more corps appearing on Saturday night by splitting "world class" into "world" and "national" class and allowing a larger number of corps compete on Saturday night "finals" - say 14 (top 4 plus top 10)

Anyway - back to my "sounds of silence" - it's my happy place

Welcome back GD. I always like reading your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...