What is wrong with US?

[MikeD]

Mod hat here

i have hidden a few posts that qualified as personal attacks between posters. As everybody is aware, those types of posts are not permitted per the guidelines of DCP,

They also run a thread off the rails and cause such threads to be closed. 

Please remain focused on the thread topic and not other posters.

[MarimbaManiac]

8 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Some can't afford it. 👍🏽

...and some KNOW how these organizations handle money, and knew long before this issue. 

I wouldn't give VMAPA a red cent. They can consider my lack of donations part of the cost of underpaying me for years.

[jjeffeory]

2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

well, as someone else here since the beginning......are we really ok? LOL

That's a fair point!

...and I remember you from RAMD too.

I'm not addressing this to anyone specifically, but I'm all for fixing things, and especially protecting the members, but I just feel like posting these issues here and trying to shame organizations into some action, and then continually posting here just to stir the pot after the first volley of information just won't get anything done with an administrative issue at the Cadets. People should reach out to them directly if they care that much about the Cadets. I don't think that's what's happening.

I know how government bureaucracy works, and just because a website says something or because you get a person from the state doesn't always mean that the information is up to date.  The big danger that I'm afraid of happening is that we're going to parallel the story of the boy who cried wolf.

Make an issue out of something that's hurting someone or putting someone in danger, don't try to make something out of what is likely a big nothing burger.

[cixelsyd]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Again, how do you know this isn't happening? But to your point, folks could easily tag the board member on DCP and see what happens. However, the last thread that happened in was nuked. Doesn't exactly garner trust.

Leaving a falsely premised thread sitting here has its drawbacks too.  It risks misleading anyone who fails to drill down to post #19 to find out the truth.

[2000Cadet]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

1. Again, how do you know this isn't happening? But to your point, folks could easily tag the board member on DCP and see what happens. However, the last thread that happened in was nuked. Doesn't exactly garner trust.

2. Similar to above, but victims and stakeholders have similar motives in scrutinizing organizations. They are both due transparency and honesty. Parsing them apart isn't the strong argument you're going for, I think.

3. This sounds a lot like many responses I get from Vanguard alum. "The staff that hurt you aren't there anymore so problem solved." But, the enablers are still there. And even then, this argument assumes it's as easy for some stakeholders and victims to set aside past harms as it is for those who weren't harmed... or those who know a healthy org when they see one. That's not how things work and it lacks empathy. A better, more constructive question would be,  "what would help them trust these orgs again?"

4. Mitigated for you maybe. But there are other people out there, as indicated above, who have justifiably different standards.

1. I do not know and never said I did. But it would be helpful if those who actually post things like this also post a disclaimer that they've reached out to that corps and received no answers or poor answers to their question. But that's only a suggestion and not saying that's what needs to happen. 

2. Honesty for whom? I am willing to bet that some of those who complain THE MOST about specific corps are the ones who donate the least. So why should someone have to prove anything to them if they already have preconceived notions (proven or unproven) about said corps? 

3. I can neither speak for Vanguard nor Cadets. What I DO know is there have been many times in which I had a specific question about what Cadets were doing, and given I still have minor relationships with some of those who were and are still affiliated with this corps, I usually get the answers I think are acceptable for me. But that's me. I can neither speak for nor against anyone who may or may not have done the same thing. 

4. Mitigated for the VICTIMS. THEY'RE the ones who are the most important in that. If he's no longer affiliated with the corps and the corps have followed the rules of DCI and the laws imposed on the state or country, I don't see what else is the problem or why Cadets as a whole "cannot be trusted." I think it is important to ensure none of what happened in the past happens again, but the point is he's no longer there. 

Edited October 26, 2023 by 2000Cadet

[scheherazadesghost]

1 hour ago, 2000Cadet said:

1. I do not know and never said I did. But it would be helpful if those who actually post things like this also post a disclaimer that they've reached out to that corps and received no answers or poor answers to their question. But that's only a suggestion and not saying that's what needs to happen. 

We aren't all able or allowed to disclose that we've even had those conversations. Other times it's simply unwise to do so. Besides, this places more onus on the poster than the org for transparency.

But noted.

1 hour ago, 2000Cadet said:

Honesty for whom? I am willing to bet that some of those who complain THE MOST about specific corps are the ones who donate the least. So why should someone have to prove anything to them if they already have preconceived notions (proven or unproven) about said corps? 

Transparency from the org to the stakeholders and victims.

I'll repeat: not everyone can afford to donate. Those who cannot are still stakeholders who should be considered valuable to the org. And besides, a healthy org is held to high standards by a diversity of stakeholders which include but are not limited to donors.

1 hour ago, 2000Cadet said:

3. I can neither speak for Vanguard nor Cadets. What I DO know is there have been many times in which I had a specific question about what Cadets were doing, and given I still have minor relationships with some of those who were and are still affiliated with this corps, I usually get the answers I think are acceptable for me. But that's me. I can neither speak for nor against anyone who

Many of my alum give the thumbs up while I'm sitting there floored. It's better that we're talking than ignoring each other, in a healthy org. I'm glad you've been able to maintain such relationships. Not everyone is so lucky.

1 hour ago, 2000Cadet said:

Mitigated for the VICTIMS. THEY'RE the ones who are the most important in that. If he's no longer affiliated with the corps and the corps have followed the rules of DCI and the laws imposed on the state or country, I don't see what else is the problem or why Cadets as a whole "cannot be trusted." I think it is important to ensure none of what happened in the past happens again, but the point is he's no longer there. 

We were talking about two different challenges Cadets has had to mitigate, of different proportions. You were talking GH, I was talking the current predicament (or nothingburger, as some see it.) To @cixelsyd's point, it's easy to get lost here, myself included.

I've already read herein from other posters and indicated myself that the cultures that enabled bad actors of all sorts are still around, in more than one corps. That has not been mitigated. Some victims are still afraid or very uncomfortable attending events because of this. Some orgs are more afraid of scrutinous alum than actual reported predators and enablers.

I'm merely trying to patiently describe a different perspective. One that's less accepting of org talking points than your average bear. Not right or wrong in the end, but hopefully one that is contributing to the positive in the end.

1 hour ago, cixelsyd said:

Leaving a falsely premised thread sitting here has its drawbacks too.  It risks misleading anyone who fails to drill down to post #19 to find out the truth.

Too much info is better than not enough in my book. @GUARDLINGsaid a few pages back that everyone is free to draw their own conclusions. I agree.

Edited October 26, 2023 by scheherazadesghost
typo

[2000Cadet]

19 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

We aren't all able or allowed to disclose that we've even had those conversations. Other times it's simply unwise to do so. Besides, this places more onus on the poster than the org for transparency.

But noted.

Transparency from the org to the stakeholders and victims.

I'll repeat: not everyone can afford to donate. Those who cannot are still stakeholders who should be considered valuable to the org. And besides, a healthy org is held to high standards by a diversity of stakeholders which include but are not limited to donors.

Many of my alum give the thumbs up while I'm sitting there floored. It's better that we're talking than ignoring each other, in a healthy org. I'm glad you've been able to maintain such relationships. Not everyone is so lucky.

We were talking about two different challenges Cadets has had to mitigate, of different proportions. You were talking GH, I was talking the current predicament (or nothingburger, as some see it.) To @cixelsyd's point, it's easy to get lost here, myself included.

I've already read herein from other posters and indicated myself that the cultures that enabled bad actors of all sorts are still around, in more than one corps. That has not been mitigated. Some victims are still afraid or very uncomfortable attending events because of this. Some orgs are more afraid of scrutinous alum than actual reported predators and enablers.

I'm merely trying to patiently describe a different perspective. One that's less accepting of org talking points than your average bear. Not right or wrong in the end, but hopefully one that is contributing to the positive in the end.

Too much info is better than not enough in my book. @GUARDLINGsaid a few pages back that everyone is free to draw their own conclusions. I agree.

We can go on and on and on about this, but let's just say our passion for drum corps is leaving us with views that neither of us can change. And that's perfectly ok. 

I will say this: I LOVE your profile name. 

[HockeyDad]

Am I caught in a bait-and -switch scheme here?  I want to discuss what is going on that Cadets can’t leave the driveway in 2024. That’s far from a nothing burger. And I don’t believe it’s because some unexpected bills came in late and…Oops!  There is more to it. 
Yet everyone seems to want to instead talk about how angry they are that Richard L. piled on about the PA registration. If that’s a nothing burger (and I agree that it is) then WHY can’t you stop talking about it ?!?  RL has not even posted to this thread!  

Edited October 26, 2023 by HockeyDad

[scheherazadesghost]

14 minutes ago, 2000Cadet said:

We can go on and on and on about this, but let's just say our passion for drum corps is leaving us with views that neither of us can change. And that's perfectly ok. 

I will say this: I LOVE your profile name. 

I'll merely enthusiastically add that I strongly believe a respectful debate about disagreements is crucial about the thing we llove. Ty for that.

And ty about the name.  It is a true thing. ✨

12 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Am I caught in a bait-and -switch scheme here?  I want to discuss what is going on that Cadets can’t leave the driveway in 2024. That’s far from a nothing burger. And I don’t believe it’s because some unexpected bills came in late and…Oops!  There is more to it. 

I've read your consistent questions about this. Have the same question, but no info to add, so I've kept quiet about it. I know I can be a boss hog here. Apologies.

[2000Cadet]

Just now, scheherazadesghost said:

I'll merely enthusiastically add that I strongly believe a respectful debate about disagreements is crucial about the thing we llove. Ty for that.

And ty about the name.  It is a true thing. ✨

 

I've always respected your posts so the debate was a really good thing for me. I always learn a lot from people when I come on here, you included. Thank you as well.