Poppycock Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, garfield said: Because it's not public. That's the only reason. If Poppycock wishes to conflate that fact into some tin-foil hat claim of nefarious conspiracy to enrich adult's careers while ignoring SMEs, or using SME's that he's not been able to deem as qualified, then I have the right to call BS, demand proof, and dismiss his claim out of hand until he provides evidence or corroboration. Life is just so much easier to explain when intent is presumed to be positive until proven otherwise, but I'm sure this, too, will be reinterpreted to be mean and predictably condescending. That's OK. Whenever you two are ready to get back to discussing these actual proposals, I'll be willing to chime in! Demanding others to provide proof while the very organization you constantly defend provides none. IMO the proposal for any instrument has nothing to do with increased participation. So feel free to continue to spew nonsense in an attempt to control the narrative. I’m not interested in buying it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Here is an aspect of things that often gets missed. While there is survey data attesting to the shorter fan retention average of modern, ever-changing DCI, no one talks about the volunteers working behind the scenes. If volunteer retention is as bad as fan retention, this whole thing could come crashing down. I think volunteer retention is more related to MM retention than to fan retention. Most fans are in the stands while most volunteers slave away behind the scenes and rarely see the fruit of their corps' labors on the field. I can see part of the motivation to increase MMs maximums would be to tap a larger volunteer base. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybersnyder Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Just now, Poppycock said: Demanding others to provide proof while the very organization you constantly defend provides none. IMO the proposal for any instrument has nothing to do with increased participation. So feel free to continue to spew nonsense in an attempt to control the narrative. I’m not interested in buying it. They don't need to provide proof to a bunch of yahoos on an online forum (I'm included in the yahoo category). They owe accountability to their member organizations. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Poppycock said: Demanding others to provide proof while the very organization you constantly defend provides none. IMO the proposal for any instrument has nothing to do with increased participation. So feel free to continue to spew nonsense in an attempt to control the narrative. I’m not interested in buying it. Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Remember, this whole part of the discussion started with you making a contention about a DCI committee's use of SMEs. The burden of proof lies with you. Now, back to those proposals! I don't think the AI proposal has any chance of passing but, if it does, I absolutely think it would signal a subsequent increase in membership, and I don't think they'd need a Rules Congress in two years to do it because it doesn't have anything to do with judging or instruction. Edited January 4, 2020 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weaklefthand4ever Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Here is an aspect of things that often gets missed. While there is survey data attesting to the shorter fan retention average of modern, ever-changing DCI, no one talks about the volunteers working behind the scenes. If volunteer retention is as bad as fan retention, this whole thing could come crashing down. Point well taken. I'm sure there are avenues to a lot of corps as far as short term volunteering goes. But with all of the chaos that is a tour season, I think some would-be volunteers get "lost in translation." This is where a volunteer network of sorts would be a great idea. Granted, I know that there are larger pieces at work to include background checks etc., but it's not something that couldn't be handled. EDIT: Just to say this, I would also think most corps draw their volunteers from parents of current and past MM's or past MM's themselves. And that's fine. I would love to volunteer for any of my former corps and have, in fact, contacted each one (to no avail.) Unfortunately, that leaves (most likely,) a good number of people out who would gladly volunteer for ANY corps at specific events which had a need. Edited January 4, 2020 by Weaklefthand4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 the discussion so far is lacking in flavor. needs more salt overall. maybe when some of these rules actually get passed we'll get a little spicier? don't argue with me unless you're prepared to provide bank statements and quotes from christopher hitchens. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, Lance said: don't argue with me unless you're prepared to provide bank statements and quotes from christopher hitchens. I got both, but you'll have to sign a NDA and get a court order to see the bank statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Terri Schehr said: I think it would be a gesture of good faith to make the minutes available to the fan base. Right now, just filling in the names/signatures of qualifying authors and sponsors for each proposal would be a gesture of good faith, IMO. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 hour ago, garfield said: Presume Positive Intent. Start with that. I am sorry, but presuming only gets you so far. The proposal is so poorly done, it fails to communicate even the most basic positive intent. More money? No. The proposal does not even mention instrument suppliers and potential sponsorships. It only mentions "a new target audience of performers, family and friends"" - which is not even true. DCI already markets to the performers/family/friends of scholastic music programs. The target will not change. More people? No, not unless the corps size changes. Ironically, the proposal lets that slip (in Freudian manner) at the end of the "audience impact" paragraph. Even with my staunch opposition to the idea, I could/would write a better proposal for it. You could easily craft a better proposal just from editing my posts here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 minute ago, cixelsyd said: Right now, just filling in the names/signatures of qualifying authors and sponsors for each proposal would be a gesture of good faith, IMO. You are surely correct that some submissions seem incomplete of signatures. I believe you are just misinterpreting the guidelines as you read them. May I give you an example? Steve Vento did a full-blown study of the audio dynamics of A&E and came to the conclusion that DCI should formally limit the amount of decibels to specific levels based on the show location. He found OSHA research and pages of supporting materials. Yet, nowhere can you find that one Mr. Steve Vento is presenting an official Rules Proposal Form with only his signature on it. His proposal must be submitted by a DCI Member corps and that corps' director must sign the submission. That's why you see Mark Richardson's signature on his proposal according to 1.1 and 1.2 you referenced earlier. Marie Czapinski is ALREADY a DCI judge and is already and "appropriate Judge Liaison" to submit a proposal. Steve Vento is a staff arranger at Academy. Similarly, Kathy Black needs no "sponsorship" by a corps director because she is the voicebox of the member corps. She doesn't need a "sponsoring corps director" signature because she can't unilaterally submit something without the consent of her BoD members. Denise Bonfiglio doesn't need another signature because she's a non-instructional staff member of a member corps (although I agree with you that she needs to sign her own submission, which she'll likely do when she arrives in Indy before the vote; it won't be "tabled" awaiting correction. The 1.1 and 1.2 rule you're referring to that, I think, is attracting most of your attention is that Kathy Black doesn't have a corps sig under her submission. She doesn't need one. She's the leader of the whole shebang and the BoD doesn't need a "sponsoring" corps to support their submission. 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.