DCI Exposed Again?

[N.E. Brigand]

Just now, N.E. Brigand said:

I'm critical of this particular decision, but I don't agree at all with your characterization. I feel that for the most part, DCI's board and leadership is trying to do what it believes is best for the activity as a whole. They make mistakes, that's all.

(And DCP's forums, sadly, are probably the closest thing around to a "free press" covering DCI's decisions.)

[JimF-LowBari]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

I'm not convinced that anyone has shown, let alone proven, that a conflict exists.

 

Would have to look at the DCI policy and rules paperwork to see what is said about this issue. Some here say that is a conflict....

[garfield]

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

So your position is that if page 48 says "minimum of 30 performing members", while page 83 says "number of performers 55-154", there is no conflict?

No, I would agree that the editor responsible for changing the rules type references clearly made a mistake if, in fact, the contradictory information you present exists as you present it.  Yes, in that case, someone forgot to edit multiple places and dropped the ball.

 

[garfield]

2 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I didn't say that DCI was responsible for Encorps not attracting 55 members.

I'm saying that Encorps claims to have made plans for a 2020 season that did not require them to have 55 members, and then learned, some time later, that the rules had been changed.

(As for Hitchens' aphorism, the OP quotes Encorps statement in full. Are you claiming that the OP made up the statement and Encorps didn't say that?)

I'm not claiming anything beyond it's up to the person making the contention to prove its validity and, until there is validity, the claim can be dismissed out of hand.

If Encorps "made plans" before the October announcement then, based on multiple posts here and all common practice that I'm aware of, there was plenty of time between the October announcement and the beginning of Encorps' expected season for Encorps to make the very realistic assessment of whether or not they could meet the minimum membership.

Rhetorical question:  Had Encorps been made aware MUCH earlier, like August, that the minimum was going to go to 55, would they have shut down right then or would they have refocused their energy to get to 55 members? 

I'm not claiming anything you've contended.  I'm simply saying that neither Encorps' statement, nor the OP's contentions, are convincing that DCI is somehow culpable for Encorps not attracting 55 member.

[cybersnyder]

From 2018 to 2019 their number shrank noticeably. Solve that riddle and you have the reason why they decided to shut down. 

[IllianaLancerContra]

3 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

thats not the point. dci has changed tremendously since 1983. 36 year old comparisons mean nothing now.

That is certainly true.   Way fewer Corps now.

[JimF-LowBari]

3 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

So your position is that if page 48 says "minimum of 30 performing members", while page 83 says "number of performers 55-154", there is no conflict?

At least 83 freaking pages? No wonder crap can’t be kept straight....

[cixelsyd]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

No, I would agree that the editor responsible for changing the rules type references clearly made a mistake if, in fact, the contradictory information you present exists as you present it.  

Go see for yourself.

https://www.dci.org/static/about-drum-corps-international

Scroll down to Policies and Procedures.  Compare page 48 to page 83.

[MikeD]

5 hours ago, garfield said:

No, I would agree that the editor responsible for changing the rules type references clearly made a mistake if, in fact, the contradictory information you present exists as you present it.  Yes, in that case, someone forgot to edit multiple places and dropped the ball.

 

It is there, for sure. I am the one who noticed it and posted here. I do agree it was an error in editing, not intent.

I also know Encorps went through a large admin change in Sept/Oct, so on their end there may have been "misses".

[garfield]

10 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Go see for yourself.

https://www.dci.org/static/about-drum-corps-international

Scroll down to Policies and Procedures.  Compare page 48 to page 83.

Well!  And there it is.  I never suspected for a moment that your contention was not sourced.  You're right, there is an error in the manual.  And that proves, or even suggests, what, exactly, in the context of Encorps not being able to field 55 members?  

More importantly, had the Encorps BoD or ED done the very same task you have and read the manual carefully, they would have spotted the inconsistency.  Then, had they spotted it, is it reasonable to suggest that they would have contacted the OC Coordinator or even DCI directly?

And further, of course, relying on a premise that a typing error is even culpable in Encorps' demise requires the willful ignorance of reality (and Occam) that Encorps was completely unaware that the 55/100 rule was being discussed, waayyy prior to 2019, that the OC Coordinator completely failed in his mission to groom OC candidates for the big dance, and that DCI would pass a rule so critical to so many performing units and then intentionally keep it hidden on page 83 without ever telling those it affects.  Really?  You can get there?

I realize that the administrators and governance of DCI have appeared to have stepped in crap several (many?) times over the Association's history, but spinning this tale that a typing error, or the codifying of an already-agreed-upon rule change AFTER notifying a group likely to be significantly impacted by it,  as likely significant contributors to Encorps' decision is a step out of reality that I surely can't make.