Newseditor44 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Grandstanding. The kids in this debate are central to the debate in their experience, not their participation.15 yards, repeat 3rd down. I'm afraid I am going to have to go to the replay judge n this one. Its not grandstanding at all. Their participation, experience, and everything else are affected when people start refusing to support corps. Financial crisis are nearly impossible for corps to recover from, just ask any of the corps that have folded or gone inactive. Hanging a corps out to dry becuase it voted in an unpopular way is not only childish, its destructive to the activity as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slow Adam Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I'm afraid I am going to have to go to the replay judge n this one. Its not grandstanding at all. Their participation, experience, and everything else are affected when people start refusing to support corps. Financial crisis are nearly impossible for corps to recover from, just ask any of the corps that have folded or gone inactive. Hanging a corps out to dry becuase it voted in an unpopular way is not only childish, its destructive to the activity as a whole. Not giving money to a corps whose director supports an unecessary rule change that would inevitably lead to increased spending would make us the cause of financial crisis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I'm afraid I am going to have to go to the replay judge n this one. Its not grandstanding at all. Their participation, experience, and everything else are affected when people start refusing to support corps. Financial crisis are nearly impossible for corps to recover from, just ask any of the corps that have folded or gone inactive. Hanging a corps out to dry becuase it voted in an unpopular way is not only childish, its destructive to the activity as a whole. I agree that chopping the head off for a headache is an error. However, this is a spectator-funded activity. Despite the amateur "status" in that members pay, so do the spectators. I would disagree respectfully in saying that this would eliminate money. In fact, it's just as likely that a donor could send in a check with the memo line for saying "thanks for voting (for/against) this". Seems to work for politics in the USA. In fact, even though it runs contrary to common sense, often controversy is a great fundraiser on its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Not giving money to a corps whose director supports an unecessary rule change that would inevitably lead to increased spending would make us the cause of financial crisis? Until the rule is passed, your point is moot. Not supporting a corps at this point in time could lead to some very hard financial problems for corps that rely on donations and souvi sales. While your intentions are noble, the outcome my go far beyond the results you are looking for. It is so difficult for these organizations to recover from fianacial hardship now days. that doing something like this could prove to be the final straw fpr some groups. And I would argue this... do you actually think doing this is going to change one of those ten directors votes? Honestly, I don't think it would. You can;t bully someone into make a decision Their are other, more productive ways of doing things. Edited February 1, 2007 by Newseditor44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdstar Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) No, asking that these corps place signs on their souvenir trucks that tells everyone what their electronics vote was amounts to being ridiculous and unnecessary. Some would even say taking it to that extreme is akin to being a witch hunt.I guess that if I post I should first read the whole interminable thread (which I acknowledge I'm lengthening). Demanding that signs be put up at souvie booths seems more like hyperbole than a witch hunt. In any case, it seems to me that if a corps director feels strongly enough about an proposal to vote a certain way, he shouldn't be concerned about who knows it. Not a big deal.FWIW, the imagery that comes to my mind is not a witch hunt, but a mob of peasants storming the castle with pitchforks and torches. Figuratively speaking, of course. ^0^ Edit: $1 to Stef and WWonka... just saw I stole your imagery. Edited February 1, 2007 by sdstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slow Adam Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Until the rule is passed, your point is mute. Not supporting a corps at this point in time could lead to some very hard financial problems for corps that rely on donations and souvi sales. While your intentions are noble, the outcome my go far beyond the results you are looking for. It is so difficult for these organizations to recover from fianacial hardship now days. that doing something like this could prove to be the final straw fpr some groups. And I would argue this... do you actually think doing this is going to change one of those ten directors votes? Honestly, I don't think it would. You can;t bully someone into make a decision Their are other, more productive ways of doing things. If a corps is in such dire straits financially, would it be wise to vote in favour of a rule that would necessitate extra spending? And no, we can't change the vote of Hopkins, or Gibbs or anyone else, what we CAN hope to do is keep the other 10 standing strong in their decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiamiSun76 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 If I had to guess I would start with the biggest offenders in the amplified vocal caption to date...Cadets Crown Boston Blue Devils Blue Stars Crossmen Seattle Cascades There's 7. This type of logic can be misleading. The Glassmen voted for amplification and were the last finalist to use it. Since they have begun using it, they have done so very modestly and only for the front ensemble. Meanwhile on the other side of Ohio................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 And I would argue this... do you actually think doing this is going to change one of those ten directors votes? Honestly, I don't think it would. You can;t bully someone into make a decision Their are other, more productive ways of doing things. So political donations are bullying? By the way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I agree that chopping the head off for a headache is an error. However, this is a spectator-funded activity. Despite the amateur "status" in that members pay, so do the spectators. I would disagree respectfully in saying that this would eliminate money. In fact, it's just as likely that a donor could send in a check with the memo line for saying "thanks for voting (for/against) this". Seems to work for politics in the USA.In fact, even though it runs contrary to common sense, often controversy is a great fundraiser on its own. Point taken. I don't disagree with most of what you said, I just don't want to see the corps or the kids hurt by any of this. I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and remember that the reason we do this is for the kids. If this rule change means an increase in the amount of exposure the kids have to different kinds of music, instrumentation and can enhance their experience, than I think it deserves merit and an extra look. As fans we have a right to be upset (God knows I am not excited about this at all), but we have to remember its all about the kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) This type of logic can be misleading. The Glassmen voted for amplification and were the last finalist to use it. Since they have begun using it, they have done so very modestly and only for the front ensemble. Meanwhile on the other side of Ohio................... We're from O-HI-O... OH! We're from O-HI-O... IOooooooooo We don't give a #### for the whole state of.... Sorry, couldn't resist. :P Edited February 1, 2007 by Newseditor44 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.