Arsenal Drum Corps Offers Tuition Discount To Pioneer/Oregon Crusaders Vets

[jeffmolnar]

1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said:

no one is letting DCi off the hook for their willful ignorance of kids being abused since 1972. No one. Not one person who has stated they get why DCI acted the way did towards Arsenal has given DCI a clean sate on their willful ignorance of how kids were treated.

No one.

Actually several people are, they're careful about how they express themselves. I'd name them myself but that would be violating one of DCP's precious rules. Funny how that works. Rules protecting scummy people.

[jeffmolnar]

8 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

The board of directors who wrote the rule disagree.

I think it was too heavy handed. But you've been #####ing for years DCI didn't do anything about anything. Now they have and you're #####ing about what they did. and you is you personally and the collective you. Jesus Christ himself couldn't please some people on here.

The board of directors aren't getting a pass from me either. I'm angry at them for standing with Dan, but it was still Dan's call in the specific incident.

As for the bit about "#####ing for years DCI didn't do anything about anything. Now they have and you're #####ing about what they did."

False equivalence. I'll quote myself again:

8 hours ago, jeffmolnar said:

There's a big difference between wanting them to act quickly on matters of sexual assault and abuse of minors, and thinking they should probably look the other way when a courageous young director reaches out to try and help the young people who were affected by abusive administrations.

...or better yet, reach out to the guy and ask him to modify his statement to conform to the rules instead of flat-out denying his corps' application to open class. You know, enforce the rules without being heartless monsters. The way Dan handled it speaks volumes about his character.

A director expressing his disappointment in other groups that knowingly and willfully put young people at risk is not equivalent to the actions of the directors who actually did knowingly and willfully put young people are risk. Even if both directors were technically wrong according to the rules, they are not equal.

DCI could've reached out and told the guy to change his statement to remove the specific names of the corps. They didn't have to outright cancel his application to open class. Dan chose to enforce the rules that way. Dan's first instance of quick, decisive action was against a director who was reaching out to the displaced members of corps that had put them at risk. You expect for me to applaud that?

Edited January 18, 2019 by jeffmolnar

[Bluzes]

1 hour ago, MikeD said:

I probably would not have made the decision Dan made

Not many of us would. There is a difference between smart & wise. Sometimes following the letter of the law from the words in the policy is a smart thing to do but is it a wise thing to do. I think Dan fell on his sword on this one.

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Bluzes

[Jeff Ream]

14 minutes ago, jeffmolnar said:

Actually several people are, they're careful about how they express themselves. I'd name them myself but that would be violating one of DCP's precious rules. Funny how that works. Rules protecting scummy people.

i frequent this site, and several drum corps pages on various social media platforms. i have yet to see anyone give DCI a pass for decades of purposely ignoring sexual predators and assaults in drum corps.

[MikeD]

2 minutes ago, Bluzes said:

Not many of us wood. There is a difference between smart & wise. Sometimes following the letter of the law from the words in the policy is a smart thing to do but is it a wise thing to do. I think Dan fell on his sword on this one.

 

You are certainly free to think that as well. We stand on the outside and are free to say whatever we wish, since we have no responsibility. Our end is easy. 

[Jeff Ream]

6 minutes ago, jeffmolnar said:

The board of directors aren't getting a pass form me either. I'm angry at them for standing with Dan, but it was still Dan's call in the specific incident.

As for the bit about "#####ing for years DCI didn't do anything about anything. Now they have and you're #####ing about what they did."

False equivalence. I'll quote myself again:

A director expressing his disappointment in other groups that knowingly and willfully put young people are risk is not equivalent to the actions of the directors who actually did knowingly and willfully put young people are risk. Even if both director's were technically wrong according to the rules, they are not equal.

DCI could've reached out and told the guy to change his statement to remove the specific names of the corps. They didn't have to outright canceled his application to open class. Dan chose to enforce the rules that way. Dan's first instance of quick, decisive action was against a director who was reaching out to the displaced members of corps that had put them at risk. You expect for me to applaud that?

like it or not, breaking rules has consequences. Do we agree with what the consequences were? Nope. I think Dan used a nuke when he needed a flyswatter. But it was within his role and charter to do what he did. And honestly, no amount of #####ing about anything on here, facebook, twitter, reddit has gotten them to change their approach. Only bad press and the threat of lawsuits. Lotz can't sue, he himself admitted he broke the rule.

and for the record I still want to see his emails to DCI. he was nice enough to post what he got, I'd love to see his replies.

[Stu]

14 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 

....The central question.. and focus.. both here and around other Social Media outlets is whether DCI HQ's penalty imposed on this Organization itself was appropriate or not...

That is fine and makes for interesting banter, which is the essence of posting sites like DCP. But to me, even though I found it draconian, and I would have made a different decision, I choose to stand by Dan even during times of fallibiltlity unless laws are broken or lives are in danger. And nowhere can it be shown that Dan's decision concerning Arsenal fell into either one of those categories. If the governing body want's Dan gone fine; if they want him to stay, also fine. But I am not going to say "off with his head"; especially now when DCI is really trying to make things right concerning safety and Dan made a hard call concerning a new code about respect/disrespect.

[jeffmolnar]

1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said:

like it or not, breaking rules has consequences. Do we agree with what the consequences were? Nope. I think Dan used a nuke when he needed a flyswatter.

So why are you debating with me in the first place?

1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said:

But it was within his role and charter to do what he did.

I'm not denying that. No one here is confused as to how on Earth Dan Acheson was able to get away with such trickery. We get it. That doesn't make his actions right.

1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said:

And honestly, no amount of #####ing about anything on here, facebook, twitter, reddit has gotten them to change their approach. Only bad press and the threat of lawsuits. Lotz can't sue, he himself admitted he broke the rule.

and for the record I still want to see his emails to DCI. he was nice enough to post what he got, I'd love to see his replies.

You're essentially implying that social media has no power... which is a pretty silly idea in 2019, all things considered.

"#####ing on here, facebook, twitter, reddit" can indeed lead to real change in the long run. Nobody ever changed anything by sitting quietly and doing as they were told.

[BRASSO]

57 minutes ago, MikeD said:

That is certainly a possibility. As I stated in a different post, I probably would not have made the decision Dan made, but even the Arsenal director stated that he broke the rules. We can't really have it both ways. We want DCI to act, unless we don't want them to act. We raise holy heck when they do nothing, and we raise it when they do something, because it is not in line with our wishes. 

 DCI acts swiftly on some things, and drags its feet on other things. Even the Press picked up on that observation, MikeD.

 There's no " two ways about it ". 

 I believe most people want DCI to respond appropriately, as each event naturally requires a different response.

 DCI states that " not speaking badly about another Drum Corps is of PARAMOUNT importance " to them.

 I'll say.  But how about reports in the Press that a current DCI Director payed a firm to bury his past sexual deeds with minors ?  Do we want DCI to not even have even a statement regarding this allegation that was published in a large city newspaper ? 

 Do we want DCI HQ "to act " swiftly" with harsh penalties imposed on Corps Directors that might have utilized a few unadvisable, late night, words on Social media ( that was truthful ), but " not to act " when its alleged a current Corps Director allegedly attempted to hide the past sexual offenses with minors from public knowledge and scrutiny by paying off a firm to bury that info from parents. public ? 

 Do not overly criticize fans here that you think are confused in stating " DCI should act" and then " DCI should not act ".

 The fans are not confused here on all this, imo, MikeD.  Its DCI HQ itself that seems confused on when and how to act, and what priorities there should be on what is heavily penalized, and what should not be, imo.

Edited January 18, 2019 by BRASSO

[Bluzes]

29 minutes ago, MikeD said:

You are certainly free to think that as well. We stand on the outside and are free to say whatever we wish, since we have no responsibility. Our end is easy. 

1

1

1

1

1

Well put responsibility takes work, forethought, soul searching, did I give my subordinates the proper training showing a chain of command for new ideas. Do I have an acknowledgment that the subordinates were trained on the social media policy? Or is is just residing on a web site good enough and they are expected to go there and read. Was there a quiz at the end of the training?  The Wise thing to do is first look at yourself did I provide them with the proper tools and training. Ask your self will I be prepared to defend my actions in this area if called upon. If all these boxes are checked then off with your head. If they are not then the smart thing to do is make the punishment meet the crime with a reprimand straiten out your end of things so you are not in this situation going forward. I was asked these questions when I was building a case on a suspected drug dealer. That's how these decisions are made at least in the real world.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Bluzes
typo