skevinp Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, Gabe92 said: Then, many tentative to reach Acheson in less than 24h with a refusal to take the post out until he talk to him. Please provide evidence of this "refusal". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Stu said: I get what you are saying about the way apps are presented in the 21st century. But if Ziprecruiter for example filtered him out based merely on being mentioned in the article the problem is not Ziprecruiter but the algorithms within the program. Correct but then their is the "alleged fred app"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 10 minutes ago, jeffmolnar said: That is what happened though, regardless of how DCI wants to spin it. A director reached out to try and help the displaced members from corps that had scummy people running them. DCI banned his application because they didn't like that he named the other two groups specifically. Groups that already weren't fielding corps this year due to the issues the Arsenal director mentioned in his post. DCI punished his group (and the OC/Pio kids he was trying to help out) because they thought he was being too mean to groups that actually were abusing kids. No, it is not what happened. His application was suspended because he mentioned the corps specifically and broke the DCI rules, not because he offered a discount to the members of those two corps. If he had only posted the offer, and maybe added how his group operated, NONE of this would have happened. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmolnar Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Just now, MikeD said: No, it is not what happened. His application was suspended because he mentioned the corps specifically and broke the DCI rules, not because he offered a discount to the members of those two corps. If he had only posted the offer, and maybe added how his group operated, NONE of this would have happened. It is what happened. He did thing, got in trouble for thing. DCI’s reasoning for why doesn’t change the outcome. In 2019 this is called the “optics” of a situation. Besides, it would’ve been difficult for him to offer membership discounts to members for two other corps without naming those other corps. It was a bad call by DCI. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, skevinp said: DCI in its statement said they "offered Arsenal an opportunity to correct the issue, but the organization's leadership chose not to discuss options for moving forward". The Corps Director made a statement denying that DCI HQ offered him" any opportunity to correct the issue ". The Corps Director states that he never had any communication at all with anyone from DCI HQ before his Organization's upcoming scheduled review was pulled and cancelled, and he was notified by an underling to Dan Acheson of Dan Acheson's decision.. He states he contacted Dan Acheson via both email and phone calls to discuss the situation but that they were never returned. Presumably, neither has spoken to this very moment on this either. The Corps Director then met with the Philly Inquirer after they contacted him he told the Reporter, Tricia Nadolny the same chronological events, ( dates and times provided ) of his communication attempts with Dan Acheson before Dan Acheson swiftly pulled the plug on both the Corps Director and his Corps for the 2019 season quest to perform on the field in Open Class. Thats my understanding from reading what occured from both the Corps Director statement, and in the newspaper. I do recognize that this Corps Director's chronology of events is at complete odds with DCI's Press Release of " giving the Corps opportunity to correct the issue, but he chose not to discuss those options moving forward ". Not sure why the Corps Director would not want to discuss the opportunity to work with DCI on matters that concerned DCI. That makes no sense. He wanted his Corps to be reviewed successfully for Open Class. Its frankly hard to believe he was rejecting their offers to that potentially successful quest. Edited January 19, 2019 by BRASSO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Bluzes said: Correct but then their is the "alleged fred app"! Along with alleged Bigfoot, alleged Area 51 Aliens, alleged grassy knoll shooter,... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe92 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, skevinp said: Please provide evidence of this "refusal". He didn't refuse after being ask by someone. He just didn't do it. Once he knew it was the problem, he didn't do it. It would have been easier to say... " I removed it as soon as I realize there was a problem but couldn't control how fast it spread" From his own word: Although I initially stated that I would remove the post, I did not because I was looking for clarification from DCI and because I understood that removing the post at that point would be a meaningless gesture as it had already been shared over four different social media platforms by a variety of drum corps influencers. Edited January 19, 2019 by Gabe92 Clarification Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Gabe92 said: From his own word: Although I initially stated that I would remove the post, I did not because I was looking for clarification from DCI and because I understood that removing the post at that point would be a meaningless gesture as it had already been shared over four different social media platforms by a variety of drum corps influencers. That is in no way a refusal. It does not even say they told him to take it down, but that he offered to do so, and then sought their input to ensure he knew what they wanted him to do. For all he may have known, they might have said not to, as that might have understood that taking it down could cast DCI in a bad light. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Here is the whole timeline, from Spenser Lotz's facebook, with emphasis added: January 14th 4:38pm: Receive email from Dave Eddleman, the Open Class Coordinator, notifying Arsenal of Suspension 6:11pm: I respond via email to Dave. I state that I am willing to take the post down, but ask for the terms of the suspension. 6:21pm Opting to move quicker than email, I call Dave. Dave instructs me to email Dan Acheson as he does not have the details to the suspension. We do not discuss removing the offending post. 8:13pm I email Dan Acheson, requesting the terms of the suspension. January 15th 9:17:am: Having received no response, I email Dan Acheson again. 12:14pm: I call Dan Acheson's desk at DCI, having gotten his number from another DCI employee. I leave a message on his voicemail. 12:40pm: I receive an email response from Dan Acheson, notifying me of the policy I broke and declaring that Arsenal's 2019 OC application has been suspended, but that we can re-apply for 2020. 3:00pm: I formally issue my resignation. January 16th: 11:21 pm: DCI issues an official statement regarding the suspension, in which they fraudulently claim that they "offered Arsenal an opportunity to correct the issue, but the organization's leadership chose not to discuss options for moving forward." I want to clarify; at no point did DCI make such an offer. They did not discuss Arsenal issuing an apology, or removing the post. Although I initially stated that I would remove the post, I did not because I was looking for clarification from DCI and because I understood that removing the post at that point would be a meaningless gesture as it had already been shared over four different social media platforms by a variety of drum corps influencers. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe92 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, skevinp said: That is in no way a refusal. It does not even say they told him to take it down, but that he offered to do so, and then sought their input to ensure he knew what they wanted him to do. For all he may have known, they might have said not to, as that might have understood that taking it down could cast DCI in a bad light. I don't read the same thing as you are. Of course, we only have second hand information from just one side (second hand as we were not there to judge the tone, fill in the blank, read the email he sended and voice mail he lefted, etc.). My read is: of course he didn't refuse to act upon a request. But he did refuse to act knowing what was the problem. You point might be right but even so, you could still have a conversation and discuss about it. But he published even more intern communication and then just quit everything. Again I feel sorry for him and everyone involve. The story start with a so minor thing and a good intention. It is now out of hand. Pressure must be terrible on both side and I don't envy anyone involve. 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.