Re: Meeting Proposal -- 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: Re: Meeting Proposal

Author:
Shell

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

Date Posted: 21:12:10 05/31/03 Sat
In reply to: Caroline 's message, "Re: Meeting Proposal" on 19:12:23 05/29/03 Thu

Cambridge voted against both proposals at the IVDA meeting.

>I believe this proposal for time limits came from
>Cambridge or Southampton. I seem to remember that
>someone suggested that this is how latin formation
>works etc. Cambridge have a seperate offbeat team, and
>are pretty dedicated, even if this is the one thing
>they do not win, so I doubt they would have let a
>"back door" proposal slide by.....
>
>Listen, there is not much you can do, unless you get
>your uni representative can put up a proposal.
>Unfortunately, all the other teams that argued against
>the qualifier, were avid offbeat fans, so I doubt that
>you can come up with something that keeps everyone
>happy... I know that alot of people were not happy
>with the status quo.....
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>>we were voting on the offbeat entries being 8 with a
>>>>1m45 time limit. Bristol abstained on the grounds
>>that
>>>>we agreed with the qualifications but disagreed with
>>>>the time limit.
>>
>>Is this proposal aimed at reducing the time of the
>>routines per se, or at reducing the number of entries
>>by another means?
>>Over the year, there have been a number of proposals
>>wrt to the Offbeat section, including specifications
>>about the number of Dancesport competitiors on Offbeat
>>Teams, and proposed limits on the number of entries.
>>Is a ludicrously short time limit on routines in fact
>>aimed at reducing the number of teams who turn up to
>>compete, or limiting Offbeat entries to teams composed
>>of Dancesport team members who will already be
>>involved with competition all day?
>>How many people do you expect to want to come and
>>compete for under two minutes? Is this a measure aimed
>>at implementing some of the earlier proposals by the
>>back door?

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