| Subject: Re: Meeting Proposal |
Author:
Tim
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 17:51:29 05/29/03 Thu
In reply to:
Caroline
's message, "Re: Meeting Proposal" on 17:39:54 05/29/03 Thu
OK, just to answer a few points:
1) This was passed at the GCM, not by executive decree. That means the majority of people who have any opinion on matters related to IVDA (ie those interested enough to come to the meeting) had their say. This was discussed at length at the meeting. Those who don't like it should take it up with their GCM representative. I don't believe (as the chair of that meeting) that it was not discussed enough. I think that everyone was given a say, and the amendment was discussed fully.
2) This amendment REPLACES the original proposal, which was dropped in favour of this. However, it was further said that teams must have entered either NUDC or SUDC to enter IVDC, which will probably just increase the number of under-rehearsed entries at SUDC and NUDC. It should improve the quality, though.
3) I suggest everyone reads the discussion on 1.1.1 which is pertinent to this question.
4) Why should the quality drop? Most offbeats, from what I could see, were basically done within half the time they were allowed anyway (at the time this was 3:30). All this will mean is less messing about to fill up the time.
5) Truthfully and honestly, NO university can say that it takes offbeat as seriously as the dancesport events of the day. Again, please read the discussion around 1.1.1.
6) Why would raising the price discourage poor offbeats? I can't see that it would. Most offbeat competitons are won by teams made up of ballroom dancers having a laugh (probably for the same reasons that the non-dancesport team members were put to shame by ballroom dancers in the Varsity freestyle competition). Furthermore, people don't generally enter to win anyway, as it's not really a serious competition.
>Ok so there are some people really against the time
>thing.
>However, there were some very strong arguments against
>the qualifier that were not put on this board.
>The proposal seemed like a good idea at the meeting,
>but if alot of people are against it then yes, a
>proposal that works is the best way to go.
>
>The reason I think the qualifier has advantages,
>despite cutting number of occasions to perform, is
>that there are a definate number of people taking part
>for preparation, and the people that did work alot
>harder at offbeat all year, feel like the gained
>something, rather than oh I came 6th, they can at
>least say that they were one of the few teams to
>qualify for the nationals.
>
>Paying more is not an option, as entering ballroom
>does not ness. mean a lower standard. I have a range
>of people that did alot of tap and jazz and irish and
>all sorts before uni, that could make a fantastic
>offbeat between them. But they did not because they
>were all beginners and had enough work to do in the
>few hours of practice that we had! Paying more is not
>an option!
>
>
>
>
>
>>>good point... can't disagree!!
>>>
>>>>True. However, all of these options are better than
>>>>the one selected at the IVDA General Meeting!
>>
>>Why don't you simply ask your representative to bring
>>a motion to change it at the next GM then?
>>
>>If you find a solution that everyone agrees is better
>>than the current one it should be no problem to pass
>>it unanimously and thus bring into force at Warwick in
>>plenty time for people to prepare their off-beats for
>>SUDA/NUDA/IVDA.
>>
>>Robin
>>
>>PS I don't think charging people extra will be
>>popular... I'd be in favour of qualifiers myself, but
>>that was already rejected this time (in favour of the
>>current motion)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
