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: Amalgamtion - further thoughts


Author:
Ali
 		[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 11:31:15 05/20/03 Tue
In reply to: Tim 's message, "Re: The Mother of All Proposals" on 17:02:48 05/19/03 Mon
 >Furthermore, I
>think it should be incumbent on the member societies
>themselves to organise this,

Why can't the hosts sort this out? Surely its just part of the entries procedure? TC's highlighting couples that they wish to nominate when they hand in their entries in the morning. The hosts don't have any say in the reshuffling and they need to treat everyone equally in the entries procedure already, so what is the problem?

On a purely practical note, exec organisatio is far more likely to get results than leaving it to the unis.

>The executive committee will allow a
>protected space on the forum

No. The forum is not guaranteed by the constitution (neither is bds!) so it cannot be used in a constitutional basis. Also, many of these things may happen on the day - people being ill and causing reshuffles etc. Advance organisation becomes useless then - why not organise it on the day?

>1) Both team captains have taken all reasonable steps
>to fill their teams from within their own university;
>2) Neither team could survive without amalgamation. (A
>note should be added to the standing committee
>guidelines that 3 couple teams are generally to be
>judged to have a chance independently).

I have no problem with these.

Anyway, in response to my own posting, I don't think teams 'borrowing' couples is a good idea. Say there is a uni with 5 advanced couples only. Naturally, the 5th is pooled. What if Keele borrowed this couple to make a full team? Their results would be strongly influenced by this couple, and they would acheive things that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to. Surely this contradicts both the 'cohesion' premise and the 'team performance is paramount' far more than any other suggestion?

I return to the original idea of the odds'n'sods team. 1- and 2-couple team would be encouraged to join it, with 3-couple teams being discouraged (as per your above rule). It offers the extra couples some semblance of cohesion, a chance to actually get somewhere and it does not nullify the 'team performance' - the couples can't influence their own team's performance anyway, neither will they influence anyone else's.

I understand your point about team cohesion and agree that this is important (indeed have proposed measures to improve it), but as far as I see it the best option to preserve this for extra couples is the odds team. It's SC monitored so it can't be abused.
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Re: Amalgamtion - further thoughtsTanya12:15:25 05/20/03 Tue

[ 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.