Comments -- universitydancesport.com forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]

Subject: Comments

Author:
Jon

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:48:15 10/30/03 Thu
In reply to: webmaster 's message, "suda constitution" on 15:07:21 10/30/03 Thu

Some dodgy numbering aorund 2.1.14 and various references to IVDC (2.1.3 -dodgy numbering as well, 2.1.9) and IVDA standing committee (2.1.4.1, 3.14.5)

2.1.6 Should be clarified to say any competition in that academic year.

There is no definition of 'category' and I thought 2.1.5.2 (Couples must dance in higher category blah blah...) had been dropped as it was meaningless.

Are the 'novice' steps really definied as 'novice' the BDC rule book I thought it was Basic steps.

2.1.9 and 3.16 duplicate each other!

2.8.2 (Filling of teams form A downwards, but D team beginners) should be reworded if we are using the new team match system as there is no point in having a d team of beginners they might as well be call ed Team A and enter Division 2.

2.8.10 (Only 25% of couple may be dropped...) needs scrapping...

2.8.11 ?!?!? What about A,B and D?

2.10.6 - 2.10.11 need redoing under the new system. Didn't even know 2.10.11 existed, and I don;t think it's ever been applied!

I guess some of these are actual constitutional amendments that some one will have to propose, either that or we rewrite the whole thing and adopt the new one lock stock and barrel

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Comments	Paul J	16:10:27 10/30/03 Thu

Re: Comments	Alice	17:11:04 10/30/03 Thu
Re: Comments -- Justine, 17:50:26 10/30/03 Thu Re: Comments -- Alice, 18:09:07 10/30/03 Thu