Jump to content

2020 Rules Proposals


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

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.

Ha!  I can't disagree with THAT!  You're very complete and she left out the words "...on their chosen musical instrument..." when describing opening up the activity to new potential members.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, garfield said:

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.

 

I believe that AI will pass, but not for or because of inclusion or greater member participation. What’s driving the AI is more💰 for those who make their livelihoods from the activities such as WGI, marching band circuits and DCI. 

Edited by Poppycock
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Poppycock said:

I believe that AI will pass, but not for or because of inclusion or greater member participation. What’s driving the AI is more💰 for those who make their livelihoods from the activities such as WGI, marching band circuits and DCI. 

Without you getting all defensive, would you please explain how AI will create $ for those providing to the activity?  Under current circumstances, a bari sax bought to march drum corps eliminates a horn, drum, or guard member who is therefore not purchasing.  Salespeople who sell only WW instruments might be cheering now, but horn, drum, and/or guard equipment providers are weeping on the news.

Where does "more" money come from in AI by itself?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, garfield said:

Without you getting all defensive, would you please explain how AI will create $ for those providing to the activity?  Under current circumstances, a bari sax bought to march drum corps eliminates a horn, drum, or guard member who is therefore not purchasing.  Salespeople who sell only WW instruments might be cheering now, but horn, drum, and/or guard equipment providers are weeping on the news.

Where does "more" money come from in AI by itself?

 

Increasing the number of participants is an increase in customers, transaction size, frequency of transactions, and allows for the increase in price of products. 

200 MM’s participating per organization creates a lot of additional revenue for a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on sales of their products. More revenue generated is always a motivation for change. Ask yourself who really stands to benefit the most from the AI proposal passing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, xandandl said:

I go back to the questions again that you fail to answer while reducing things to ad hominem slurs:

...what good reason would you raise for not granting Poppycock his wish to read through the discussion and minutes of the committee which supposedly generated these proposals? ...  Why not be transparent?..."

 

Because they don’t care about some little person they don’t know. That’s my guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Poppycock said:

Increasing the number of participants is an increase in customers, transaction size, frequency of transactions, and allows for the increase in price of products. 

200 MM’s participating per organization creates a lot of additional revenue for a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on sales of their products. More revenue generated is always a motivation for change. Ask yourself who really stands to benefit the most from the AI proposal passing. 

OK, but you added an increase to 200 MM's as part of your AI claim.  

Only the AI proposal is on the docket for debate and vote, not an increase in MMs.

(And, just for clarity, I've seen people throw 200 out generally, but wouldn't it be 208 with another bus?  That's the only justification I've seen here for increasing to that number.  Otherwise, why not make the limit 172 or something?  Just thinking out loud.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, garfield said:

You are surely correct that some submissions seem incomplete of signatures.  I believe you are just misinterpreting the guidelines as you read them. 

No.  I am reading them.  You are interpreting them.

Quote

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.

The "Sound Reinforcement" proposal meets the requirements of the process; we agree there.  Steve Vento is on brass staff for Academy, and therefore is a valid submitting author.  Signature of a sponsoring corps director is also provided.

Quote

Marie Czapinski is ALREADY a DCI judge and is already and "appropriate Judge Liaison" to submit a proposal.

Marie Czapinski is a DCI judge, and is therefore qualified to submit her "Scoring System Update" proposal.  But proposals also require a signature from a sponsor.  In the case of judges, that could be the liaison for their caption, the DCI Judge Administrator or the Artistic Director.  To my knowledge, Marie Czapinski is not currently a liaison.  I see a blank signature line labeled "Artistic Director Signature" at the bottom, suggesting that Lee Carlson is the sponsor.  Why his signature is still not there, over two months after submission, I cannot say.

Quote

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.

Sorry, but per paragraph 1.2 on page 2 of the rule change document, rule change proposals all need the signature of a sponsor.  There is no exception for voiceboxes, BoD members or people named Kathy Black.  If she has the consent of the BoD, as you contend, then one of her fellow BoD members who does qualify as a sponsor could/should have signed the form at some point in the past two-and-a-half months.  

Further, Kathy Black is not allowed to submit a rule change proposal.  She can write it, but someone who qualifies under paragraph 1.1 has to submit it on her behalf.

These procedural details are not small matters, as you seem to imply.  Back when amplification was passed, one of the responses used to try and silence critics was "anyone can submit a rule change proposal".  That got people fired up and writing... only to discover that they would also need a sponsor, one of the member corps directors.  Someone on the BoD of a member corps met that burden, and submitted three rule change proposals for limiting/repealing amplification at the 2008 Rules Congress.  Since then, the process has been tweaked such that while anyone can write a rule change proposal, only certain people can submit it.

Quote

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.

Right conclusion, wrong reason.  Corps directors qualify for both submitting and sponsoring rule change proposals.  As corps director of the Cadets, Denise Bonfiglio can both submit and sponsor the proposal.  (But to sponsor it, she needs to sign the form.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Hook'emCavies said:

I went for a walk in the park this evening and I was thinking about woodwinds in DCI. One of my close friends was up in arms about it, as expected, and said they shouldn't be in DCI. I admitted to playing the devils advocate, but mostly for kicks and grins. 

After this I remembered my high school and early college days. In high school, I usually hung out with the brass sections. This was strictly taboo considering I am a clarinetist and while my fellow woodwinds never took me seriously, I felt accepted. They would jokingly say "there goes *my name*! He identifies as a tuba". It was a joke, but it was oh so true. While I do enjoy playing my clarinet, I prefer the sound of a powerful and well trained horn line.

During my early college days I was disappointed. Not for the education I received, but because I wanted to better grow in my passion for show development/design. I felt like because I was a clarinetist that I HAD to focus on the classical world. Again, I am not disappointed in the education I received, but because I hoped to fly in the area that I am mostly passionate about. It is what it is and I learned from it. 

After these flashbacks I remembered a quote from Don Warren in the book "Building the Green Machine" which stated " Today, we think of street kids as selling drugs and carrying knives, and that stuff. They weren't anything like that. They just didn't have any money, their parents didn't have any money. They were hard to discipline. But they wanted to belong."

I know Warren meant that towards the street kids of Chicago where he literally went to jail houses and recruited young men, but couldn't the concept apply? What if there are other woodwind players that are similar to myself? If that is the case, maybe we need to look at figuring out how to educate them better. Frankly, I believe that if someone is truly in love with something then why not try to see them fly in that area?

Sorry for the long read, but what I am getting at is that why not try to educate all and any musician that is willing to learn? There has to be a better way to educate everyone 🙂

I can see how a clarinet player might feel a bit left out by the instrument limitations of Drum and Bugle Corps, but please consider how percussionist rarely get to play challenging material in an orchestra.  Standing in the back of the orchestra to perform a few cymbal crashes in a 60 minute piece doesn't exactly challenge a percussionist like Drum Corps does.  There are simply more ensembles for a WW player to participate in than there are for a snare drummer.  

Adding another avenue for a Clarinetist to express themselves musically, takes away one of the few places that a percussionist can participate in and be challenged by.

Edited by bluesman
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, garfield said:

OK, but you added an increase to 200 MM's as part of your AI claim.  

Only the AI proposal is on the docket for debate and vote, not an increase in MMs.

(And, just for clarity, I've seen people throw 200 out generally, but wouldn't it be 208 with another bus?  That's the only justification I've seen here for increasing to that number.  Otherwise, why not make the limit 172 or something?  Just thinking out loud.)

 

The first step is to accept the AI proposal. The next step is increase the max membership. Don’t know what that number will be, but 208 makes sense to me. 

I’m concerned about which organizations can afford the jump to 208. Capital expenditures can be easily managed and negotiated such as it is with bulk purchases, operating cost is another story. Believe there will be a consortium or several consortiums by the member organizations to reduce operating cost for touring. 

Edited by Poppycock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, garfield said:

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.

 

I suspect the loss of volunteers is somewhat related to the fact that most, if not all, membership is national, vs local.  When 90+% of the Corps has to fly in to go to camps, not too many parents are going to come along to volunteer for the food truck or uniform committee.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
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...