One rule change that could modify the game

[Chief Guns]

41 minutes ago, Old Corps Guy said:

The same would apply to Crossmen, Genesis and Guardians.

I should add Gold as well.

Impulse who has been improving these last couple years would benefit too. 

[OldSnareDrummer]

7 minutes ago, Chief Guns said:

He is hurting for all the members who were going to return in 2026, and he is just torn up about the whole thing. He doesn't want to talk about it, so me and the wife just give him his space to let him process it, and when he is ready to talk, we are here for him. Other than that, he hasn't said a word. 

He's a bonafide DCP celebrity. We all should respect his space and yours. 

[2muchcoffeeman]

On 11/10/2025 at 11:42 AM, wolfgang said:

This has the same obstacle as any other rule idea:  The corps govern themselves. 

. . . and Americans govern themselves. What's the point here? I never get why this is always offered as some kind of insight.

[IllianaLancerContra]

8 hours ago, Chief Guns said:

He is hurting for all the members who were going to return in 2026, and he is just torn up about the whole thing. He doesn't want to talk about it, so me and the wife just give him his space to let him process it, and when he is ready to talk, we are here for him. Other than that, he hasn't said a word. 

Understand.  Tell him that we said to take care.  

[cixelsyd]

11 hours ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

. . . and Americans govern themselves. What's the point here? I never get why this is always offered as some kind of insight.

I think it means "the inmates run the asylum".

[2muchcoffeeman]

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

I think it means "the inmates run the asylum".

Oh, yeah, I get that. Those words, too, have been used many times.

My question remains: What's the point here? Why is this considered to be the brilliant flash of insight, the discussion-ender?

The analogy is flawed. An asylum is, by definition, a coercive institution; people are there under court order, almost always not by choice. 

Does it need explanation in this room that DCI is a voluntary association of like-minded organizations? Ofcourse those organizations are going to manage DCI affairs. I mean, who else would?



 

Edited November 14, 2025 by 2muchcoffeeman

[cixelsyd]

5 minutes ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

My question remains: What's the point here? Why is this considered to be the brilliant flash of insight, the discussion-ender?

The analogy is flawed. An asylum is, by definition, a coercive institution; people are there under court order, almost always not by choice. 

To me, the expression usually expresses one of these sentiments:

- leadership is insane

- leadership is insular in some self-defeating way

I think the latter applies here.  Having the activity governed by only elite corps has led to decisions that appear to have benefitted them, without adequate consideration to how they impacted the rest of the corps... or for that matter, how much more adversity elite corps would face if we lost nearly all of the other corps.

So that leads to your final question below... 

Quote

Does it need explanation in this room that DCI is a voluntary association of like-minded organizations? Ofcourse those organizations are going to manage DCI affairs. I mean, who else would?

Who else?

- all the participating corps

- an elected subset of corps, representing corps from top to bottom in a better balanced way

- an executive board, with some corps officials and some outsiders with relevant subject matter expertise

- a CEO, empowered by the DCI BOD to do what normal CEOs do

- a separate agency whose mission is to serve the corps, but is not governed by the corps

[2muchcoffeeman]

7 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Having the activity governed by only elite corps has led to decisions that . . . .

That's an argument against the substance of the decisions being made, not against the idea of members governing themselves.

They may be insular. They may be self-defeating. The answer, then, is for them to stop being insular and self-defeating.

The only way through this problem is persuasion. As a practical matter, any of the alternative government methods you list above would require approval of the governing members anyway.

So here's where I land: Win the argument. Stop wishing for governance structures that can't happen unless you win the argument first. 


 

[Slingerland]

7 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

 

- an executive board, with some corps officials and some outsiders with relevant subject matter expertise

 

That is already the model of the DCI BOD (six affiliated, three unaffiliated). It's been the model for a dozen years, at least, and hadn't made a noticeable difference because the real decision making lies with the member corps, not the BOD.

If the corps who are feeling priced out of the game really cared about making changes, they'd have to get together, do some vote counting, and approach the January meetings with a unified voice for change. But no one in a tenuous position is going to push hard against any of the Big Dogs because they need at least someone from the Big Dog group to show up to their produced contest in order to sell tickets. 

[cixelsyd]

51 minutes ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

That's an argument against the substance of the decisions being made, not against the idea of members governing themselves.

I am not opposed to corps governing themselves.  The issue is with the governance being limited to an elite subset.

Quote

They may be insular. They may be self-defeating. The answer, then, is for them to stop being insular and self-defeating.

They have had 53 years, and I see no sign of them stopping... or even realizing what the problem is.

Quote

As a practical matter, any of the alternative government methods you list above would require approval of the governing members anyway.

That is exactly what wolfgang was saying in that post you questioned earlier today!