Jeff Ream Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 look...like the rule proposal or not, bashing other corps...or making fun of their annual closer..... doesn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaraNYC Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) look...like the rule proposal or not, bashing other corps...or making fun of their annual closer..... doesn't help. Oh all right then. <Bus mode off> ^0^ ^0^ ^0^ I'll just go back to asking serious questions about the intent of this. I just fail to understand why some NE corps would want to hold back the growth of the activity to a higher level by trying to make it more difficult for a consistant DCA finalist to have a vote.I'm sure that the member corps that want to truly move the activity forward will vote to do so if this does come up for a vote. Unless someone else can make an argument otherwise, I would see this ammendment being a big step backwards for the activity as a whole. Edited October 31, 2006 by SaraNYC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 i'm not arguing your question at all. and thank you from refraining from further slams. antagonizing those being questioned won't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuphKub79 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) Removing my own post to conform with Cabs posting policy. My own choice. Edited November 1, 2006 by EuphKub79 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate_cab_fan Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 ... What was the rationale for the proposal? My guess? A couple of years from now the voting majority will be in the hands of non-northeast corps'. Those corps will muscle the northeast corps into competing in other regions and move the championships to Arizona. ^0^ If you keep the voting membership down to 10, you can assure a northeast majority in the voting mix for a good long time. What other reason could there be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuardOdyssey Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) I don't think Hawthorne (who I might add did not join DCA at the begining because they would not be incharge) has the votes.I am saddened to see so many people saying bad things about "NE" corps. I honestly think most are VERY GLAD to get to see all of you far away Corps each year. SPECIALY the FANS you all have here. I think C. Gold - Corpsvets - MBI - Music City. Will Vote NO for sure Bucks - Bush - Crusaders - Hurricanes. Most likely vote NO Then if you (Renegades) get to vote. I believe your vote would be NO Thats 9 votes. leaving Cabs - Empire - and Brigs. That 3. So it loses BIG TIME. AS IT SHOULD FYI...Due to Carolina Gold's non-competitive status for 2007, the corps has lost their voting membership in DCA. Edited October 31, 2006 by GuardOdyssey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 My guess? A couple of years from now the voting majority will be in the hands of non-northeast corps'. Those corps will muscle the northeast corps into competing in other regions and move the championships to Arizona. ^0^ Sarcastic though that may be....the possibility that the champs could be moved a LITTLE closer would be worth looking at (submit a bid...$1 to Jeff). Even holding the event a couple of states over (say, Ohio, Illinois, or Indiana) would help a FEW corps (Kilties, MBI, Frontier, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuphKub79 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 (edited) My guess? A couple of years from now the voting majority will be in the hands of non-northeast corps'. Those corps will muscle the northeast corps into competing in other regions and move the championships to Arizona. ^0^ If you keep the voting membership down to 10, you can assure a northeast majority in the voting mix for a good long time. What other reason could there be? Moving my own post to conform with Cabs posting policy. My own choice. Edited November 1, 2006 by EuphKub79 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenorsForWorldDomination Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I don't see this as specifically hurting the Renegades. As usual they make a bid deal out of everything. You are just another corps in DCA. Vote against it and don't let it happen. Submit a counter active rule against the so-called Renegade Rule. Submit a rule to allow any show on the West Coast to count as seedings as Jeff Ream said. #####ing about it on DCP won't do anything. The majority here are fans and have nothing to do with DCA's voting staff. You are just trying to stir up the pot and once again make yourself look bad and your entire organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I will not condone or criticize Lee for taking this public.... However, democracy is DCA's way..... I thought "democracy" was where all citizens vote, not just the higher-ranking ones. But I digress.... The fact that a corps or two have proposed a change in membership is not a problem... it is quite normal... I'm sure it will get due consideration and discussion and then the majority will rule... or in this case 2/3's will rule as it is a by law change and would require 2/3 vote to pass... That does make it unlikely to pass. I recommend the following:1. Don't ##### until and if it passes... it's only a "suggestion" at this point folks... over the years I've seen some pretty stupid suggestions... and yes, I've seen some I think were pretty stupid - pass... but it was rare... you're putting the cart before the horse... Silence the critics? Tom, I know you mean well, but you've been in far more boardrooms than me - you know that the boardroom doesn't always allow for a thorough and intelligent discussion of all issues - especially one as heated as this one could become. I think allowing a discussion to develop in a forum like this one might help clarify some issues that the DCA leadership needs to be thinking about before they make their next round of decisions. 3. This is hardly a George Hopkins Saxophone proposal... it's a suggestion that DCA go back to 10 voting members as it had for decades... Nine, actually. Or perhaps less, depending on what constitutes a "DCA-sanctioned show". Suppose DCA-South and DCA-Central shows don't count? Minnesota Brass and CorpsVets can't ignore that detail; nor can our tenth-ranking unit (whether it be Carolina Gold, or Kilties in their absence). Personally, I would hope it fails... but it's not all that far off the wall for two corps with a combined membership amounting to about 70 years in DCA to suggest a change... ....abd it's not that far off the wall to expect others to have and express opinions on that proposal (perhaps, opposing opinions). 4. DCA's Proposal/rules congress system is fully functional and amazingly successful... if every proposal is picked apart in a public forum for 2 or 3 months before the rules congress - the system will grind to an unsuccessful halt... OK, this is the part I don't understand - particularly since DCI proposals have been getting picked apart in public forums for several years now, and it hasn't inhibited DCI in any way. 5. That being said - if it ain't broke - don't fix it... I like the current membership criteria... as I look at the voting membership list - it would seem doubtful that this should cause anyone to worry... True - but I've heard that same sentiment from directors right before other surprising rule changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts