Fan participation in scoring

[silvertrombone]

I've included my post to the Cavaliers dominance thread here instead of there. I kind of went down a rabbit trail and didn't want to take over someone else's thread. Here's where I went and the whole reply appears below for entertainment purposes.

Point: Others have said it here and elsewhere, but does the 40-point GE apportionment favor shows like '06 Cavies and '05 Cadets (maybe even '06 PR)? How would the present landscape change if 20 points were sheered from GE and given over to fan choice? This isn't as stupid an idea as it sounds on first viewing. So please don't automatically take the stance of, "that won't work!" How would that affect scoring and placements? Is it safe to say that the top 12 results would sufficiently look different in '06? Would design change in the top 3 shows if they knew they would receive points FROM the audience for performing TO the audience???

I know of a simple technology that can be implemented easily that would allow fans to 'participate' in the scoring of ensembles. Like it? It scores higher. Don't like it? It scores lower. It can be done on a point basis or placement basis, meaning in a show, say finals, with 12 corps, the highest placing corps receives the highest Fan score. 20 points, or whatever. etc. Or fans can actually award partial points for each group. 19.8, 19.7, 19.5, 19.1, 18.9, etc. Details, I know, but this technology is used in classrooms worldwide with your third graders, etc. It is easy to replicate for drum corps purposes, so don't say "can't do it." Tell me HOW it would work, and HOW it would affect placement of the 2006 top 12. Then tell me how THAT would affect show design, concepts, etc.

If you think that this would result in DCI returning to the 1970's, tell me why. If you think that everything would remain the same but music would become more fan friendly, tell me about it. If you think everything is just fine and this is a stupid idea, please be nice in saying so, but please share with me your justification. If you think that placements would have been totally different at every level of the top 12, someone not in finals would have been, and that 2007 shows would be designed totally different as a result, please share your thoughts.

My original reply to Jayzer appears next for entertainment purposes. As usual, no offense intended to Jayzer or Raphael in my reply.

[silvertrombone]

How do you inadvertently dictate something?

Not sure that most of you want that answered!

Dictate is easy--tell or instruct others as to how something should be done or carried out (Dave's New Intercollegiate Dictionary, 9th edition).

Inadvertently is pretty easy, too--to gain a result not intended or different from what was intended.

Inadvertently dictated is an oxymoron, or in select cases, just plain a moron. (Sorry, I'm having a good time with this one!) It has the implication that what you dictated should be, did not in fact end up being, thus making you incapable of dictating correctly, in which case you probably shouldn't be in charge of the government or large corporations (see Marx/Lenin and Ken Lay). Or it has the implication (on the inadvertently side) of having just plain dictated the wrong thing in the first place and that which came about was right, proving you an idiot. In either case we are faced with morons and idiots running the show! (shows? Freudian moment??)

Jayzer, good question. I suspect that you and I think similar on this article. I apologize if I ###-u-me incorrectly, and don't take any of my comments as directed at you.

Raphael, as to "why do we even need a concept or theme?" I agree in full. Personally, I would have liked to see the Regiment show without the fluff, but judges dictate it--the whole GE thing. All things, both Machine and Faust were done well, and so they placed 1-2. BD led the first half of the season and was within a point at the end, so no diss on them--another good show concept. Actually, if you had to select a concept with GE appeal, why not start with Hollywood??? Godfather has certain appeal and creates a pre-established visual image in one's mind before BD's buses even arrive at the stadium.

Beating a dead horse: Imagine 'Faust' without Faust. Meaning, replay the PR show without all the extraneous stuff. Same music, but without all the GE-centered, judge-dictated fluff that was the story of Faust imposed on unrelated music. If the guard simply performed weapons and silks and didn't have to portray a "concept," the show still stands as a truly great show. Kind of akin to the most recent previous 2nd place offering PR fielded.

Would Machine be able to stand the same under similar circumstances? Again, good show, and I called it the winner right after San Antonio and they proved me right the rest of the summer. But if you take the theme/concept of Machine out of the show and simply make the guard perform weapons and silks (kind of requires the GE scoring to be apportioned differently for this scenario to come about), does Machine win?

I think that I remember seeing an article that Tsar Nicholas writing somewhere about scoring in DCI history that discussed my point. He mentioned something about a scoring anomoly in terms of the apportionment of the 100 points to various captions in 1989 that was only in place that one year that contributed, by his assertion, to SCV's high score that year. So previous to 1989, in 1989, from 1990 to whenever, and in the present 40-point GE era, how would the 2006 top 12 fare in each of these scoring systems?

Meaning: Would Phantom have won in the mid-90's? The mid 80's had the present shows been judged on scoring systems from those eras?

Point: Others have said it here and elsewhere, but does the 40-point GE apportionment favor shows like '06 Cavies and '05 Cadets (maybe even '06 PR)? How would the present landscape change if 20 points were sheered from GE and given over to fan choice? This isn't as stupid an idea as it sounds on first viewing. So please don't automatically take the stance of, "that won't work!" How would that affect scoring and placements? Is it safe to say that the top 12 results would sufficiently look different in '06? Would design change in the top 3 shows if they knew they would receive points FROM the audience for performing TO the audience???

Edited March 5, 2007 by silvertrombone

[Jofus]

Polls on DCI.org. The end.

[danielray]

Actually, thought this could be something interesting for corps... something that would maybe be another award, like a caption... something like fan favourite.

This is very simple to do... and could generate some additional revenue.

First, anyone logging in for the live broadcast with season pass could rank the corps in the order they think should win. This would provide an additional incentive for individuals to subscribe to season pass (another incentive would be to give away prizes to season pass subscribers during the live broadcast... including a finals package).

Second, anyone at each event could send an SMS with their ranking of corps for that performance. This would be easy for show promoters to be able to automatically calculate.

On top of this, there are some really intresting opportunities with mobile that aren't being taken advantage of yet.

[Lance]

If there were any way to ensure that people would vote for the "best" rather than their "favorite" I'd be all for it. Yes, I know that it's possible for judges to let their personal feelings toward corps influence the number they assign to specific corps, but that possiblily would increase by a factor of about a zillion if fans participated in scoring.

However, I'm all for having an official vote on "favorite" corps at each show. Have the vote, tally it, and include it with the announcement of actual scores. That would avoid the contoversy of allowing fans to participate in scoring, while at the same time giving officials, judges, and corps personnel a chance to see what fans at a specific event find appealing. Do that at every event, and see what happens.

[Jared_mello]

Raphael, as to "why do we even need a concept or theme?" I agree in full. Personally, I would have liked to see the Regiment show without the fluff, but judges dictate it--the whole GE thing. All things, both Machine and Faust were done well, and so they placed 1-2. BD led the first half of the season and was within a point at the end, so no diss on them--another good show concept. Actually, if you had to select a concept with GE appeal, why not start with Hollywood??? Godfather has certain appeal and creates a pre-established visual image in one's mind before BD's buses even arrive at the stadium.

Beating a dead horse: Imagine 'Faust' without Faust. Meaning, replay the PR show without all the extraneous stuff. Same music, but without all the GE-centered, judge-dictated fluff that was the story of Faust imposed on unrelated music. If the guard simply performed weapons and silks and didn't have to portray a "concept," the show still stands as a truly great show. Kind of akin to the most recent previous 2nd place offering PR fielded.

Would Machine be able to stand the same under similar circumstances? Again, good show, and I called it the winner right after San Antonio and they proved me right the rest of the summer. But if you take the theme/concept of Machine out of the show and simply make the guard perform weapons and silks (kind of requires the GE scoring to be apportioned differently for this scenario to come about), does Machine win?

That's a valid point. I personally would very much prefer shows to be more performance-oriented (I'm talking to you, Cavaliers....especially the color guard), but judges have consistantly shown that it's not what they're looking for at this point in DCI.

[FH4life]

I guess there's enough bad judges in the press box (and on the field), why should we add potential worst judges?

[Stick Stack]

Beating a dead horse: Imagine 'Faust' without Faust. Meaning, replay the PR show without all the extraneous stuff. Same music, but without all the GE-centered, judge-dictated fluff that was the story of Faust imposed on unrelated music. If the guard simply performed weapons and silks and didn't have to portray a "concept," the show still stands as a truly great show. Kind of akin to the most recent previous 2nd place offering PR fielded.

Would Machine be able to stand the same under similar circumstances? Again, good show, and I called it the winner right after San Antonio and they proved me right the rest of the summer. But if you take the theme/concept of Machine out of the show and simply make the guard perform weapons and silks (kind of requires the GE scoring to be apportioned differently for this scenario to come about), does Machine win?

I don't feel like the storyline and conceptual ideas are judge-dictated or imposed. You see storyline and conceptual "Fluff" if you wanna call it in a wide variety of things that aren't even judged! (Dance, theatre, television shows, Movies) The question is, would the designers still design shows with full concepts instead of designing because of musical selection? I would think that there would still be plenty of conceptual shows. The concept adds texture, depth, meaning. Without any meaning behind it, both of these shows would have much less meaning behind the effect, regardless of whether you're judging it or not.

The second paragraph that I picked out puzzles me. Every member in the show helped add to the concept, not simply the color guard. But also, it's simply not all the color guard did. Spinning wise, I think the color guard itself was properly positioned at finals, BEHIND the Blue Devils, who did win that caption. So the guard didn't win in the first place. Plus, the show is so well integrated throughout the entire corps, not simply the guard, that you can't take out the theme. The show is designed around the theme, with it's effects centered on a theme.

This is not to say that if you take out the "fluff", the show would not win. Because to take out the theme, you are also taking out some of the major impact points and the ideas and concepts behind it. Which isn't exactly fair, because...

If the Cavaliers were designing a show non-conceptually, they would place their effects elsewhere, but there would STILL be effects! Does this make any sense? If you take out their concept, of course the show doesn't win, but that's because you're taking out all of the effects. To me, it's almost like saying, if some corps didn't do the shout section in their show, would they still have won? No! They're cutting out the release of an effect! But if they knew going into this designwise that they couldn't use a shout section, they would have planned accordingly.

This just further demonstrates how integrated the Cavaliers shows are.

[raphael18]

No offense taken, very wel put. :)

I think what I was tryinig to say was that the judges have the ability to mold the activity, even if they don't mean to. I would say that judges could create unintended consequences as a result of their scores. Therefore whether the judging community means to or not, inadvertantly, they can direct corps to behave in certain ways to be competetive, dictating design. Thus inadvertantly dictating how the activity will progress through rewarding certain aspects of show design.

(Well, it made sense to me - not meaning to take over your thread)

My only complaint about fan participation would be that fan polling of any kind may lead to programming that is targeted at the lowest common denominator. This could discourage intellectual shows, but it's hard to tell. I like the idea that something different should be done, but I'd be afraid that an entire band might vote for a corps because their director or staffers have a connection with it.

[Stick Stack]

No offense taken, very wel put. :)

I think what I was tryinig to say was that the judges have the ability to mold the activity, even if they don't mean to. I would say that judges could create unintended consequences as a result of their scores. Therefore whether the judging community means to or not, inadvertantly, they can direct corps to behave in certain ways to be competetive, dictating design. Thus inadvertantly dictating how the activity will progress through rewarding certain aspects of show design.

(Well, it made sense to me - not meaning to take over your thread)

My only complaint about fan participation would be that fan polling of any kind may lead to programming that is targeted at the lowest common denominator. This could discourage intellectual shows, but it's hard to tell. I like the idea that something different should be done, but I'd be afraid that an entire band might vote for a corps because their director or staffers have a connection with it.

I seem to recall they tried the whole fan's favorite system of voting at a show in Florida in 2001. Can't really remember the details, and I'm not really sure how it turned out, can't remember.