Slingerland Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 21 minutes ago, garfield said: I believe you're misinterpreting what's required. You can believe what you want, but I believe you have this one messed up. The language in their own document is fundamentally clear in terms of who can propose a change. The fact that they themselves qualify who is eligible means that excluding others is implied. Ms Black isn't a corps director, a judge, or a staff member with a corps director/exec director sponsorship. She's an unaffiliated Board member of DCI, and they have no more ability to propose changes under the qualifications listed than does anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 29 minutes ago, garfield said: I am completely and 100% sure that this is not at all how it went. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." have proof to offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 3 minutes ago, Slingerland said: The language in their own document is fundamentally clear in terms of who can propose a change. The fact that they themselves qualify who is eligible means that excluding others is implied. Ms Black isn't a corps director, a judge, or a staff member with a corps director/exec director sponsorship. She's an unaffiliated Board member of DCI, and they have no more ability to propose changes under the qualifications listed than does anyone else. I know you want to argue about it but I'm not going to. I believe you have fundamentally misinterpreted both the spirit and the intent of the words to which you are referring. But, I agree with another poster here that, in the end and as of this weekend, it doesn't matter. A corps director could have sponsored it instead of the BoD via its Chair and the end result would be exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said: have proof to offer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, garfield said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor no about how DCI rules actually allow this to be proposed this way, despite the stated and pasted rules from their manual. good try though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said: no about how DCI rules actually allow this to be proposed this way, despite the stated and pasted rules from their manual. good try though Nope, none to offer besides the words themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 8, 2020 Author Share Posted January 8, 2020 37 minutes ago, garfield said: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." That applies to you, too. You have asserted that the BoD supports the "Any Instrument Policy" proposal. But no qualifying sponsor has signed the proposal, as dictated by DCI rules. Three such people are on the BoD, and still no one signed as sponsor. So given that, what evidence do we have of their support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: That applies to you, too. You have asserted that the BoD supports the "Any Instrument Policy" proposal. But no qualifying sponsor has signed the proposal, as dictated by DCI rules. Three such people are on the BoD, and still no one signed as sponsor. So given that, what evidence do we have of their support? No, I haven't asserted anything of the sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 6 minutes ago, garfield said: Nope, none to offer besides the words themselves. then per their posted words....it's ineligible. seems like they need more transparency and word smithing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, garfield said: I know you want to argue about it but I'm not going to. I believe you have fundamentally misinterpreted both the spirit and the intent of the words to which you are referring. But, I agree with another poster here that, in the end and as of this weekend, it doesn't matter. A corps director could have sponsored it instead of the BoD via its Chair and the end result would be exactly the same. It's not really an argument in any way except insofar as to whether the concept of "rules" means anything or not in a DCI setting. You seem to say that there are 'extra' rules that aren't enumerated, where the more logical argument is that rules designed to allow specified participants necessarily excludes those who aren't so specified. Edited January 8, 2020 by Slingerland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts