Jeff Ream Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 well, when the original amps vote was held, a few directors publically admitted they didn't see the part about voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommySopranoContra Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 well, when the original amps vote was held, a few directors publically admitted they didn't see the part about voice. Ouch... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomR Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 they couldn't have read it WELL, if they missed that giant loophole that was posted in another thread. because, in which case, it would be against the rules for someone not in the corps to operate the soundboard, but it wouldn't be against the rule at the same time? ~>conner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacco Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Opinion about the context of the rule change aside, I understood the proposal on first viewing to be-- * if the corps chooses to keep the soundboard on the field of competition (boundaries set for marching members), then a member of the corps must operate it. * if the corps choses to place the soundboard outside of the field of competition (between the front barrier and the stands, but not in the stands), then it can be run by a non-member of the corps. Edited January 30, 2006 by Tacco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Except that it states that the board *must* be on the field of competition. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rut-roh Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Opinion about the context of the rule change aside, I understood the proposal on first viewing to be--* if the corps chooses to keep the soundboard on the field of competition (boundaries set for marching members), then a member of the corps must operate it. * if the corps choses to place the soundboard outside of the field of competition (between the front barrier and the stands, but not in the stands), then it can be run by a non-member of the corps. That's how I took it as well. It seemed fairly obvious to me, actually. If it's in what is considered the "standard" pit area (or in the case of, let's say, Phantom '93 when the pit was actually ON the field), then it must be operated by a uniformed member of the corps. If it is removed from the immediate field area (and "standard" pit area), then it can be operated by a non-member. And it cannot be put in the stands. Again, I had no trouble interpreting what the intent of the rule was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felixh Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 You make it as if the DCI Exec Corps directors are a bunch of buffoons...I think they knew what they voted on No!...I just think maybe it was a bigger deal to some here than to the directors....they are by no means buffoons....any chance of somebody asking them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobe Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 That's how I took it as well. It seemed fairly obvious to me, actually. If it's in what is considered the "standard" pit area (or in the case of, let's say, Phantom '93 when the pit was actually ON the field), then it must be operated by a uniformed member of the corps. If it is removed from the immediate field area (and "standard" pit area), then it can be operated by a non-member. And it cannot be put in the stands. Again, I had no trouble interpreting what the intent of the rule was. Seemed pretty obvious to me as well :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 That's how I took it as well. It seemed fairly obvious to me, actually. If it's in what is considered the "standard" pit area (or in the case of, let's say, Phantom '93 when the pit was actually ON the field), then it must be operated by a uniformed member of the corps. If it is removed from the immediate field area (and "standard" pit area), then it can be operated by a non-member. And it cannot be put in the stands. Again, I had no trouble interpreting what the intent of the rule was. I'll bet you would have had no trouble rewording the proposal in non-contradictory language, either. So why wasn't that done prior to submitting the proposal for voting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwillis35 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 There is no doubt the directors knew what they voted on, and there is no doubt that many of you do not understand the full situation or all the dynamics that will be involved in this change. So before we call them all a bunch of bozos, I suggest we chill and allow things to play out. If you wish to complain, well by all means continue. Concerning placement, at no time can the sound board be used in the stands. If it is used outside the sidelines (an area outside the sidelines and as far back as the wall of the stadium, but still on the overall field) it means that a non-corps member can operate it. If it is used within the field parameters, then it must be operated by a corps member. Honestly, I wasn't for it, at least not yet. But at some point I knew this would become an issue when amplification became legal in drum corps. It's called change, and drum corps has been changing from day one. Some are good and some are bad, but sometimes we need try things and go from there. I will suggest to all of you that there is no way you can keep the "cat in the bag" forever. Change is like chaos, and it's bound to happen whether you fight it or not. Jonathan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.