VoyForums
[ 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: Open entries - new approach


Author:
Ali
 		[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 16:15:48 05/26/03 Mon
In reply to: Tim 's message, "OPENS ENTRIES RULES" on 13:32:19 05/22/03 Thu
 Just had an idea. Not 100% sure about it yet, but worth a thought.

For the past 40 years there have been countless arguments about the non-competitive dress rule, which used to state what people COULD NOT wear. It was finally solved last year, in part by changing the approach of the rule to say what people COULD wear.

It would seem to be sensible to consider this problem in the same way. So far, all the rules have been saying when people MUST dance UP. Why not then stipulate conditions under which people MAY dance DOWN?

We start off with strict rules, like 'int final one year -> adv next', 'team match final -> adv' etc. (however we want them worded) + dance to higher partner's level, and then follow it in the constitution with something like:

"Couples or individuals to whom applies may apply to the standing committee for exemption. Conditions under which they may do so include:
1) very recent change of partner
2) partner of significantly lower standard than with relevant results
3) significant drop in standard due to absence/injury/lack of practice
4) change from dancing girl to dancing boy (& vice versa)"

Then the controversy over dancing down is taken off the couples, because they must have permission in order to do so. Also having to state in writing/email why they want to dance down will discourage those who really belong in advanced from dancing down for 'more glory'. It deals with the many exceptional cases which normally plague a hard-nosed rule, and by taking place in advance it avoids costume problems, and eases steps/dance problems.

It's more for the standing ctte to do, but they get bored quickly anyway :-)

This does not adequately deal with good new people choosing a level, but if someone hasn't danced on the circuit before IVDC it's pretty hard to deal with anyway.

It may also suffer from people claiming to now be rubbish because of no pratice, but still not being rubbish enough to drop a level. I suppose if people have poor results to back up their claim then it lends credence, and if they have no results at all then they haven't been competiting anyway.

Thoughts?
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Re: Open entries - another ideaGraham21:56:59 05/26/03 Mon

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.