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: 16:24:13 11/12/03 Wed
In reply to: Ali 's message, "Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution" on 15:09:04 11/12/03 Wed

I agree with that proposal.
Joanne - you and Adam can compete for another university in the team match without the need to amalgamate. We have no power to stop you doing whatever you want at Warwick, of course. But you risk being barred from entering the team match for Cambridge later in the year. Since this is your only uni competition, that need not bother you in the slightest.

>In the general case, teams previously amalgamated
>cannot be prevented from dancing at IVDC. Whether the
>teams should have amalgamated in the first place is
>(currently) not for IVDA to decide.
>
>The obvious course of action would be to allow
>previously amalgamated teams to enter, but only if
>they had amalgamated under the same conditions as IVDA
>imposes. I think this is in line with the original
>intentions of the (old) proposal, and additionally
>with the new expanded version.

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