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: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution


Author:
Ali
 		[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 11:06:40 11/12/03 Wed
In reply to: Rachelle 's message, "Re: amalgamated teams - apology" on 01:07:34 11/12/03 Wed
 Firstly it is not the role of IVDA to *dictate* to friendly competitions what rules they may or may not follow, though in this case the knock-on effects essentially do this.

I might note that I submitted an up-to-date version of the constitution to the webmaster over two weeks ago, and it has still not yet been posted.

Anyway, the key clause is:

"2.8.1.6 No competitor may compete for more than one Member Society's team in any academic year, except in the case of amalgamated teams (2.8.1.5). Dancers are deemed to have competed for a particular team if they have taken part in any team match against other Member Society teams from the commencement of the academic year (including NUDC, SUDC, IVDC and any social events which include team matches). "

which was renumbered as part of the new format, but has been in the const for a few years now (after Eddie's original pioneering amalgamation ideas). On further inspection it is badly-worded - it should say something like "if someone has danced for a non-amalgamated team at a comp during that year they may not dance for any other non-amalgamated team at IVDC", which was the intention of the clause. Indeed, the rule would be pointless if you couldn't amalgamate earlier in the year then dance seperately, because no entry in 2.8.1.6 would be needed.

Based not only on the consititution as stands, but also on the fact that I was present at the meeting when amalgamation was first proposed (Spring 2000 I think!), it is my interpretation that amalgamated teams are permitted throughout the year.

However: the scenarios outlined by Tim are not relevant, because any halfway-sensible organising ctte will impose the same (or similar) restrictions as IVDC now does (which were Tim's idea...)
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitutionTimC12:23:39 11/12/03 Wed

[ 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.