drumcat Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Why? Because it shows more broad support than a single soapbox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) It could be like the Baseball HOF: If it doesn't get X percent of votes, it gets a moratorium of Y years. It's certainly worth raising something that lost by 14-10 again the following year. But can the same really be said for something that fails 21-3? Or are we just raising this for the sake of raising it. Also, just because there's a moratorium doesn't mean that issue can't ever be discussed for those Y years. A good proposer would spend his moratorium trying to rally people to his side, without wasting time during the Rules Congress. Edited January 8, 2007 by Tank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) Not all of you - just the brain-dead, non-progressive sticks in the mud among you.And for the rest, I ask again in different words: What's to fear from the defeat of a proposal you don't like one more time? What's to gain from the inability to reconsider a proposal you do like? HH ...let me pose a counter to that: Why should we see a singular agenda every year from George Hopkins until he gets these type of things passed? Let's just drop pretense of this really being about anyone else concerning this discussion. If someone requisitions something over and over again, and is met with resistance in a group setting -- however we term it: limits on submissions, limits on repeated proposals, etc...then eventually there's a lesson learned. That lesson is the art of compromise, seeing things from more than your own point of view, and being receptive to working with others to effect an equitable solution to everyone. Indeed, if one is committed to a vision and working with others... these are the things that occur daily in the business world. Edited January 8, 2007 by bawker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 ...let me pose a counter to that: Why should we see a singular agenda every year from George Hopkins until he gets these type of things passed? Let's just drop pretense of this really being about anyone else concerning this discussion. Yes, all of these artificial restraints are really based at shutting out one person...George Hopkins. Transparent to me. If someone requisitions something over and over again, and is met with resistance in a group setting -- however we term it: limits on submissions, limits on repeated proposals, etc...then eventually there's a lesson learned. That lesson is the art of compromise, seeing things from more than your own point of view, and being receptive to working with others to effect an equitable solution to everyone. The lesson learned is about things happening when the time is right. George made his proposals over time and stayed within the DCI structure working to get them passed. That is just what he should have done. Indeed, if one is committed to a vision and working with others... these are the things that occur daily in the business world. Exactly what happened with amps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 And for the rest, I ask again in different words: What's to fear from the defeat of a proposal you don't like one more time? This has nothing to do with fear. Rather, it's about avoiding the wasted time on frivolously-repeating proposals. What's to gain from the inability to reconsider a proposal you do like? Time. Precious time at DCI's one annual meeting, where progress on many other matters vital to the long-term health of this activity could be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 It would be really fun to see if some of the advocates of "just give it up already" would be as fervent in that opinion if a corps came out with a proposal permanently banning woodwinds. (Not that I want them, either, just saying...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 It would be really fun to see if some of the advocates of "just give it up already" would be as fervent in that opinion if a corps came out with a proposal permanently banning woodwinds. I thought we were discussing redundant proposals. This has never been proposed at a DCI rules congress before. (Of course, it would be pointless to "permanently ban" anything. DCI did that once before concerning three-valve brass instruments, so we now know what "permanent ban" means to them - "banned until we decide otherwise". ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 It would be really fun to see if some of the advocates of "just give it up already" would be as fervent in that opinion if a corps came out with a proposal permanently banning woodwinds. The market will bear what the market will bear. Obviously, personal preference would come into play...but if such a proposal got shot down, and had to undergo a "moratorium"...then it's all part of the process of looking at the hows and whys of the proposal, why it failed, and what can be done to tweak it to make it more palatable when it would come up the next time...no matter what kind of proposal it might be. Notice that nowhere in that is there an option to "propose the same rule change every time". It's very lazy administratively to push your way as the only way, and end-all be-all without accepting others input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I thought we were discussing redundant proposals. This has never been proposed at a DCI rules congress before.(Of course, it would be pointless to "permanently ban" anything. DCI did that once before concerning three-valve brass instruments, so we now know what "permanent ban" means to them - "banned until we decide otherwise". ) I don't really want any of the current proposals to pass, but which current proposals are redundant, and why? I'm just curious about your choice of that term. Wait, I think I understand. I was assuming that the proposal I mentioned would be voted for and rejected at least 3 times... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Do you think we'd never have passed three-valve horns otherwise? No one else would have ever proposed it?... We'll never know, because Wayne didn't give up. 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.