DCI Rule Proposals are up

[MikeN]

Thanks!

Not any major changes; only 2 flip flops, no movement up or down by more than one place and no changes in the top 3.

Just ran 2005 too - not one placement change.

Mike

[mistofflies]

How is what I said not true?

Produced without skill? Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how complex electronic instruments can be, and how much skill can be required to operate them?

Just playing around with your Casio Karaoke keyboard that your parents got you when you were 12 doesn't mean you are proficient at electronic instruments. You actually have to *gasp* practice and learn and experiment to get good at electronic music, and good electronic equipment can do just about anything the skill level and imagination of the operator will ask of it.

I could talk about things like layering patches, or editing velocity of notes, or aftertouch effects, but I think it would be lost on you.

Edited January 4, 2007 by mistofflies

[Liam]

Just ran 2005 too - not one placement change.

Mike

Thanks for the work so far !!!

This is why this needs to analyzed -- if we go back 15-20 years and find little or no placement changes, then what's the point of the rule. Mr. Fiedler has an explanation of what he is trying to reward, but without seeing examples of how this rule change would get us there, it's hard to support at this time.

[bawker]

You're absolutely right there Mike. The Division III corps I teach is now trying it's hardest to pull together the money for a sound system to keep up with the corps in our division AND a trip to California. Yup, that rule change has benefit written all over it. You're always the first one to chime in about not speaking for others, yet you just stated that this has been beneficial to ALL of the corps in DCI? Yeah right.

...and its bothersome how flip the electronics proposal is about "5000-10000" dollars.

To a large program, that's an easy hurdle...but what about Pioneer, Kiwanis...and those Div II's that are moving up? How does this benefit a corps that strives to move up, like an Arizona Academy, by introducing another hurdle to clear to keep up with the competitive landscape?

It's fine that Hop wants to get his foot on the door with this (raise your hand if you didn't think the proposal was coming) and put the bug in peoples ear, but, realistically...we need to get more units on a logistical even keel (more than the Top 12 or 17, anyway) with whats already passed before we can move the goalposts again.

[prodigal bari]

2007 Rule Proposals

Here they are:

1 Extension of warm-up time

2 Raise membership limit to 150

3 Prop persons not included in membership limit

4 Inclusion of electronic instruments

5 Position of visual performance judge

6 Ordinals decide placement at contests

7 Overall effect judges

8 Percussion adjudication

9 Score sheets 1

10 Score sheets 2

11 Full set of rules proposals

Here is my take on several of these proposals:

1. Sounds like someone wants more time to set up and adjust props. I don't see the need for the extension at all. Do we need an excuse to add more propage to the field...

2. No. DCI just changed maximum membership to 135- and this with corps having financial problems already.

3. Absolutely not. If the membership on the field cannot carry it on (outside of what is already allowed in the pit), then it should NOT go on the field.

4. Why is Hop still pushing this electronic phase? (Especially with the probs they had with it ) I have seen too many bands that use electronic instruments to cover blantant weaknesses...and with all the problems corps had these past 2 seasons with amps (much less the risk of electrocution in monsoons like at Cookeville) this is too much.

5. I don't have a problem with this...as long as it can be somewhat uniform to stadium designs.

6. I am not too sure if this would cause more problems than it would solve. At the top echelon of the activity all sections need to be at their strength...and if a corps had an obviously weaker section (i.e.; percussion in Crown) it needs to take the hit in order to be fair to the other corps who happen to have balanced strength. Again, I have seen ordinals played like a violin in the band world by putting unbalanced attention to one section (guard is very popular in this example) to take advantage of this. I see no overriding need to change the basic scoring/placement system used now.

7. Overall GE judge is a dangerous proposition...due to the fact that each judge samples to their strength (music, visual, etc.) even when trying not to..this could cause skewing in scores from night to night. Box 5 GE...especially at the top of the box...comes from strong unified design, instruction, and performance. Frankly, if this is a Fiedler proposal I cannot understand why he would propose this since his corps is IMHO the best at this.

I am not familiar with the rest of the proposals...but what I am concerned about is that there have been way too many changes so quickly in the activity; and that I still see the activity adjusting to them. If anything, there are some recent changes that may need to be pulled back...and many of these are MAJOR changes. Where there needs to be changes is in the areas of corps management and accountability proceedures; and protective measures for the performers in the activity. THIS is where DC has a hole in the dike....and after the recent problems/almost scandals of the recent years this needs to be addressed before we add members/props/equipment.

[kusankusho]

I love how it says that increasing the limit to 150 will increase the number of people marching in drum corps by 10%.

Make that "the number of people marching in MY drum corps by 10%".

[SCVsopAaron]

PASS ELECTRONICS!!!!!

[Liam]

It's fine that Hop wants to get his foot on the door with this (raise your hand if you didn't think the proposal was coming) and put the bug in peoples ear, but, realistically...we need to get more units on a logistical even keel (more than the Top 12 or 17, anyway) with whats already passed before we can move the goalposts again.

Agree -- and the same with the member limit increase (and the extra prop people). Lets concentrate on figuring out ways to get ALL corps filled to the max before we start letting the top corps have an even greater pick of the (not big enough) litter.

When you're on the competitve field, it's every corps for themselves. But when you're meeting to set up rules and regulations, the health and future of the ENTIRE activity should come first.

[MikeD]

You're absolutely right there Mike. The Division III corps I teach is now trying it's hardest to pull together the money for a sound system to keep up with the corps in our division AND a trip to California. Yup, that rule change has benefit written all over it. You're always the first one to chime in about not speaking for others, yet you just stated that this has been beneficial to ALL of the corps in DCI? Yeah right.

IMO it has been beneficial to all of the corps. The sound of the pit is vastly improved, and the use of micced voice has been overall good. How is me posting MY opinion talking for anyone else?

[toph34]

Taking the ordinals and adding them up (except in the Perc judges where I ordinaled the average of the two scores) from the 2006 Finals, giving GE 2x weight.

Mike

Yep.

Mike is correct. Placement changes for 2006 based on ordinals:

4. Cadets

5. Bluecoats

Margin= 5 ordinal points (or 0.5 ordinal points if you divide by 10)

7. Crown

8. Blue Knights

Margin= 3 ordinal points (or 0.3 ordinal points if you divide by 10)

The margin for the Top 3?

1. Cavaliers 18 or 1.8

2. Regiment 19 or 1.9

3. BD 25 or 2.5

EDIT: Phil's post points to the need for discussion if this is to be considered as he and I used 2 different formulas to calculate ordinals... Phil adding all subcaptions and I adding caption totals.

Edited January 4, 2007 by toph34