> Henry writes:
>
> >The problem with this rule is that it's way too complicated.
>
> As much as it hurts to type this... I agree with Henry. :-)
That's OK, Mark, at least you're disagreeing with me. You just
write two versions of the rule; write a rules-lawyer version and
a quick-and-dirty version. The legal definition of a door is
a tremendously complicated thing, but I want one on my apartment.
> My gut feeling is that this proposal stems from an over-reaction
> to a problem we had last semester when a DI couple who were
> _clearly_ not beginners, entered some competitions as "Beginners."
I was present when the proposal was first mentioned, and did not
get that sense at the time.
> "Using categories in YCN comps of Beginner - under 1 year of training,
> Intermediate - under 2 years of training, and Advanced - over two years of
> training, works!"
See previous discussions on what constitutes training. I spoke with
one member of the couple in question, as well as a member of another
couple who was clearly dancing below their level as defined by strict
interpretation of this rule.
The rule was too simple. Both couples had arguments that could be
easily applied to interpret the rule in their favor. I thought their
arguments were veritable vessels of excrement, but by clever
interpretation of the rules, they were arguably within the rules.
[. . .]
> Back to my agreement with Henry, I don't consider this scheme
> workable for anyone but a select few dance comp zealots. If you chose
> to adopt this system, come comp day I predict you will have confusion
> the likes of which has never before been seen at a college comp.
And I predict that this confusion will be severely mitigated by the
fact that a number of schools will be using it -- so there is at
least one person at each of those schools who can explain it to
his teammates.
> For college students, a system like this just doesn't make sense.
> There are too many competitors, too many dances, too few comps,
> and too little time involved (students graduate).
Again, I disagree. Tyros like me can stay in the lower levels until
we actually learn something; as it stands, unless I'm completely
confused about how the current system works, _I'm_ an advanced
dancer come September. I'll beat the rest of you to it by saying
that that is a poor joke.
[. . .]
> "...college (students) who are often with the (dance) program for
> only 18 months and then leave for a variety of reasons....
Fine. I don't see how that is relevant.
> Let us not ask that students follow too many constraints.
Non-sequitur. I don't see how this creates constraints for students.
> Let us not let college club teachers
> impose a structure on the students to which they are resistant."
Funny, but I think that most of the current batch of officers has a
nice overlap with the group which is most affected by this proposal.
If they're so resistant, where did they come up with this?
> Jay writes:
> >A more detailed version of the rough proposal is available
> >in a paper format upon request.
>
> I agree with Sheena that it would be great to have the entire proposal
> available for review (posted or on the DI web page) before the thursday
> meeting.
Oh, dear. I'm finding myself agreeing with Mark. Start betting
on the chances of the proverbial snowball.
[. . .]
> Combining dances to allow time for separation of Amer. and Int'l. dance
> events is counterproductive because:
[reasons omitted]. I'll agree with Mark again.
> Result - more dancers will be sitting (not dancing) for more time
> than ever before.
Highlight this in big red firey letters. This is a problem.
> There is no Salsa (our most popular dance)
(*cough*)
If by, "our," you mean C-U, I will grant you that.
If by, "our," you mean the DI, you're out of your mind, unless you
are, as usual, ignoring as complete idiots of no account anyone who
disagrees with you in the slightest.
Despite the fact that it is taught in our beginner class, when a salsa
is played at practice, the floor often clears considerably. Even
the oft-maligned foxtrot produces a bigger crowd on the floor
(although it might turn out that, when you discount the people doing
WCS, salsa actually is as popular as foxtrot -- but not as popular
as swing or cha cha).
> Tentative Schedule (saturday) version 2
> ---------------------------------------
>
> I like this version better, but "Polka?" Is that a joke?
Polka was very popular at the OSU comp. I think it's less of a
joke than claiming salsa is our most popular dance. Granted,
I'm not a big fan of polka, but. . .
[At this point the previous poster begins repeating himself, figuring
if he says the same thing often enough and loudly enough, everyone
will figure it's not worth arguing, and simply give in.]
[. . . and then new comments resume]
> And finally, some general comments:
>
> The "Jack & Jill" contest which . . . rewards real lead-follow dancing
> has been removed and replaced it with a "team" contest that rewards
> rehearsed routines (not real dancing).
> Sorry, but I don't like that one bit.
Hear, hear!
Frankly, there are a lot of good ideas out there. I really think
that the format is pretty much irrelevant to the comp's success
so long as it runs smoothly, gives us plenty of opportunity to
dance, and doesn't break the bank.
Jay, several people are probably going to have some pretty heated
opinions, and they may take things out on you. I, for one,
appreciate your efforts to make our comp even better than in
previous years. Thanks in advance.
And, to anyone who's still listening, thank you for your attention.
--J
"And rain will make the flowers. . ."