Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution -- 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: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution

Author:
Tim C

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

Date Posted: 13:57:25 11/12/03 Wed
In reply to: Ian 's message, "Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution" on 12:58:37 11/12/03 Wed

The easiest option is for the Cambridge couple in question not to enter the team match. Paul and Vesna were refused permission to enter the team match as an independent entry last year, on the basis that this was not in the spirit of the team match.

The point of the original wording was only to allow smaller universities, who were not capable of creating a team from within their own university to merge with each other. This is rare, hence it is hardly ever used, which is fine. Applying the standards that I suggested for amalgamating teams at IVDC, this wouldn't be allowed (since Cambridge have not taken all reasonable measures to fill the team from within their same university). I think in deciding whether an amalgamated team genuinely is an amalgamated team or is simply Uni-X with a few dancers borrowed from Uni-Y, these criteria are a useful guide.

Anyway, I urge Warwick to reconsider their decision, since I think allowing this would undermine the Cambridge captain's authority and be against the spirit of the team match.

>It still remains the easiest and simplest option of
>Cambridge couples entering themselves into the event.
>Its up to Warwick if they call them independent
>entries (as they did last year) or Cambridge X. I
>don't see how the Cambridge captian can legislate,
>there is no relationship between him/her and the
>Warwick organising committee, unless the captain is
>there.
>
>Short answer, talk to Warwick and let them sort it out
>for you, and tell the Cambridge captian to grow up!

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
This house believes	Ian	14:16:14 11/12/03 Wed

Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution	Joanne	15:03:12 11/12/03 Wed

Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution	Justine	15:15:09 11/12/03 Wed