IllianaLancerContra Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 42 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: Are you talking about member/member when one is 18+ and the other is younger than 18? Are you talking about dating ? What is your question? Just a generic how do you stop a member from molesting another member? Anyway, I would hope there is frequent repetition to the message of a zero tolerance policy and that if you see something, say something. Versus a one-time view the anti-harassment video, roll your eyes and move on. You want to date, and one of you is a marching member and the other is a staff member? Not gonna happen, sorry. Not under our auspices. You have options. You don’t have to be in our drum corps. Life is full of choices. Was specifically asking how SSI addresses athlete with athlete allegations. We’ve seen several different approaches since 2018 (& before) yet the problem persists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 25 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Actually, it is simple. Simpler than DFTK. Only requires the first two letters. OK. And if caught F then straight to bus station & sent home. Even if it is the day of semi finals and the star soloist (with the entire show built around them) who gets booted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 19 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: OK. And if caught F then straight to bus station & sent home. Even if it is the day of semi finals and the star soloist (with the entire show built around them) who gets booted. Yes, period. If kids are being taught that drum corps is life then with stardom comes incredible responsibility. The higher you get on the totem pole, the more your a** shows. It is the way of all life. Still, I personally thinks it's silly to try to regulate hormone-filled kids' Roman tongues and Russian fingers. Incredibly hard to legislate morality beyond teaching but harsh mandates, as in all public adult life, are suitable motivators if known and enforced. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 27 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: OK. And if caught F then straight to bus station & sent home. Even if it is the day of semi finals and the star soloist (with the entire show built around them) who gets booted. In fact, the hardest thing about this is staff getting over their winning egos and enforcing the No-F mandate. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 (edited) 2 hours ago, craiga said: I here you. We've already eliminated (hopefully) staff/member transgressions. However, is there in fact a power differential between two baritone players for example, who are 6 months apart in birthdays? How about a couple color guard boys who are both 17 until one has a birthday the day of Allentown? The power differential refers to relationships between a member, of any age, and either another member in leadership or staff. Also refers to a minor age member and legal adult member. If both are minors, they cannot consent period. If that changes on tour, one still cannot consent. Member relationships within a power differential should be disclosed to safeguarding officers, for oversight when absolutely necessary. Staff-member relationships are a no go. Friggin' wait till they age out. Sexual relations, on tour, because of the nature of cohabitation, shouldn't be permitted. Technically that should go for staff too. It's public exposure, and therefore illegal. I could discuss this further and maintain professionality here, but I doubt anyone really wants to go there so I'll leave it at this. Suffice to say that relationships aren't sex... and you can have a relationship on tour without it. Especially if it means you'll get the boot otherwise. I'm pretty sure this is the rule, on paper, at SOA. 2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: 3 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said: Ok. So say we do this & it fixes staff/member issues. What about member/member (which is what was alleged to happen in several recent incidents)? Not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me that there needs to be more than just SSI. Or perhaps I don’t understand SSI well enough. Does the above make sense? Neither of you are being difficult. These are important questions that I surely hope corps are getting ahead of. Edited April 7 by scheherazadesghost typos 2 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabMaster Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said: The power differential refers to relationships between a member, of any age, and either another member in leadership or staff. Also refers to a minor age member and legal adult member. If both are minors, they cannot consent period. If that changes on tour, one still cannot consent. Member relationships within a power differential should be disclosed to safeguarding officers, for oversight when absolutely necessary. Staff-member relationships are a no go. Friggin' wait till they age out. Sexual relations, on tour, because of the nature of cohabitation, shouldn't be permitted. Technically that should go for staff too. It's public exposure, and therefore illegal. I could discuss this further and maintain professionality here, but I doubt anyone really wants to go there so I'll leave it at this. Suffice to say that relationships aren't sex... and you can have a relationship on tour without it. Especially if it means you'll get the boot otherwise. I'm pretty sure this is the rule, on paper, at SOA. Does the above make sense? Neither of you are being difficult. These are important questions that I surely hope corps are getting ahead of. The only disclaimer, if you will, and I’ll state the obvious here, regarding sexual relations of staff on tour, there are married couples on tour who, in private moments may be having relations. Thinking the Floats, Rennicks and countless others over the years who have volunteered as well. I understand you don’t specifically mean them but clarity of rules matters. Edited April 7 by LabMaster 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 (edited) Yeah I'm not continuing this conversation if I'm already getting detractor/non-commentors. I appreciate the dialogue @LabMaster, but it's not worth it publicly. Not sure why I thought this place would be ready for it.... thanks for contributing nothing to this complicated dialogue, G_OC and Jeff.... Edit: Don't be confused people. If you think talking about sex between staffers or members on tour is easy, then by all means contribute and show us how is done. Otherwise, I'll kindly ask you stop reacting with the most negative reaction option available to you in lieu of contributing something constructive. More confusion, still no talk to back it up. No surprise there... Edited April 8 by scheherazadesghost 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillygwm Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 (edited) On 4/2/2024 at 8:06 PM, TheOneWhoKnows said: Especially when the details of the organizations actual involvement in the assault is questionable. But again, the end result is what they wanted. I'm not affiliated with The Cadets (or any other corps) but I was involved in the activity around the time in question. I don't think this was an isolated incident, and certainly not limited to The Cadets. I don't mean this as a justification by any means, but it was a different time and the organizations simply weren't governed by the same standards of today. Similarly, insurance: Today, most organizations would be pretty well covered if something happened. Did they have that in 1982, beyond what was legally mandated (i.e. vehicles and the like?) I'd be surprised. Those corps didn't have million dollar budgets back in the day. Many didn't even have professional management. If the corps had a staff of attorneys, they could probably find their way out of this jam. But their current insurance carrier isn't going to pick that up and defending a suit would probably run well into the 6 figures, at least. Knowing all this, rather than settle for something that would allow the corps to live on, the plaintiff opted to tank it. It's unfortunate but perhaps inevitable (given everything else that's come out, does anyone think this was an isolated incident?) Edited April 7 by Phillygwm 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 21 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said: The power differential refers to relationships between a member, of any age, and either another member in leadership or staff. Also refers to a minor age member and legal adult member. If both are minors, they cannot consent period. If that changes on tour, one still cannot consent. Member relationships within a power differential should be disclosed to safeguarding officers, for oversight when absolutely necessary. Staff-member relationships are a no go. Friggin' wait till they age out. Sexual relations, on tour, because of the nature of cohabitation, shouldn't be permitted. Technically that should go for staff too. It's public exposure, and therefore illegal. I could discuss this further and maintain professionality here, but I doubt anyone really wants to go there so I'll leave it at this. Suffice to say that relationships aren't sex... and you can have a relationship on tour without it. Especially if it means you'll get the boot otherwise. I'm pretty sure this is the rule, on paper, at SOA. Does the above make sense? Neither of you are being difficult. These are important questions that I surely hope corps are getting ahead of. i honestly doubt they are ahead of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 2 hours ago, Phillygwm said: I'm not affiliated with The Cadets (or any other corps) but I was involved in the activity around the time in question. I don't think this was an isolated incident, and certainly not limited to The Cadets. I don't mean this as a justification by any means, but it was a different time and the organizations simply weren't governed by the same standards of today. Similarly, insurance: Today, most organizations would be pretty well covered if something happened. Did they have that in 1982, beyond what was legally mandated (i.e. vehicles and the like?) I'd be surprised. Those corps didn't have million dollar budgets back in the day. Many didn't even have professional management. If the corps had a staff of attorneys, they could probably find their way out of this jam. But their current insurance carrier isn't going to pick that up and defending a suit would probably run well into the 6 figures, at least. Knowing all this, rather than settle for something that would allow the corps to live on, the plaintiff opted to tank it. It's unfortunate but perhaps inevitable (given everything else that's come out, does anyone think this was an isolated incident?) however as i pointed out a few pages ago, it seems there were things the lawyers could have done that may have made the end result better for the corps but didn't, mostly because they weren't experts in this field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts