| Subject: Re: Meeting Proposal |
Author:
Olivia
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:29:23 05/30/03 Fri
In reply to:
Tim
's message, "Re: Meeting Proposal" on 17:51:29 05/29/03 Thu
Tim, I;m sorry, but I disagree with almost everything you have just said:
>
>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.
Excuse me, but I think most people who enter IVDA have an opinion on how things should be done, but we don't all come to the meeting for a number of reasons:
1)we are unable to attend due to prior commitments, travel problems, sheer lack of time
2) we believe that our reps should be able to represent us ***on the matters on the agenda*** not add-ins that haven;t been discussed by everyone
3) you don;t exactly make these meetings accessible - very few people would choose, in my opinion, to come and be shouted down by people who know all the ins and outs of the constitution - some people won;t even post on this board for fear of being publicly ridiculed.... (myself not included)After all, if everyone who attended IVDA turned up, the meeting would become impossible
>
>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.
>
How can the quality improve if the number of under rehearsed entries grows?????? BRistol did not enter SUDA this year because we felt that we were not polished enough, so practised harder for IVDA alone, so not subjecting people to 3m 30 of crap dancing.
>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.
This is not true.... most of the offbeats at IVDA took up 3mins 30. At least!! Just because the music is longer, why do you assume the rest will be filling up time? Would you feel the same if you were dancing? Some offbeats are of a high quality throughout.... they aren;t all bad.
>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.
Untrue again - often the smaller unis such as Keele etc come with a fulloffbeat team, but only a few couples for dancesport. Anyway, why should this matter? Speaking again from experience at Bristol, we work hard at our offbeat each year, not as much as Dancesport, no, but we do take it seriously.
Most offbeat
>competitons are won by teams made up of ballroom
>dancers having a laugh... Furthermore, people don't generally
>enter to win anyway, as it's not really a serious
>competition.
This last statement is untrue and insulting to those people who do take offbeat seriously. If its not a serious comp, get rid of it altogether.... Yes, offbeat is fun, but i don;t think anyone wants to go out on the floor and look like an idiot. We enter to show people what we can do, and we enter to win. Offbeat gives a level playing field, where even the smallest uni can beat the biggest. I will be asking my rep to make a proposal at the next meeting - a clear one - and one which will be posted here on the board beforehand for discussion.
Olivia
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
