USA Dance Misrepresenting the facts...

[Chris Stratton]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
USA DANCE ANOUNCES IDSF REGULATIONS
From: USA Dance
To: NDCA Competition Organizers
IDSF Certified Adjudicators
Sandy Britain, CADA President
Nicole Jolicoeur, CADA Vice-President
July 24, 2007 – Wilmington, DE – USA Dance wishes to remind all DanceSport
participants of the content of the IDSF Press Releases regarding competitors and adjudicators that participate in IDU (International Dance Union) and IDSA (International DanceSport Association) events, dated March 18, 2005 and February 22, 2006 respectively.

These releases preclude DanceSport Athletes registered with an IDSF federation from participating in competitions with competitors or adjudicators of the IDU and the IDSA.

FALSE

The above mentioned press releases purport to ban competitors from participating in IDU or IDSA events, however they do not make any mention of banning participation in events where IDU or IDSA members might also particpate, such as an NDCA competition which might theoretically be open to such couples.

So that you can see the literal falsehood of the USA Dance claim, here are the IDSF press releases mentioned:


IDSF Press Release 01/2006, February 22, 2006

Competitors’ Participation in IDSA Events
It is IDSF policy that couples affiliated with IDSF Member bodies shall not participate in IDSA events. Athletes who participate in IDSA events shall be subject to IDSF sanctions (for example exclusion of specific couples or athletes from IDSF-granted competitions), without further notice, or sanctions against couples or athletes as agreed by their governing IDSF Member body; IDSF Member bodies whose athletes participate in IDSA events shall also be subject to IDSF sanctions (for example exclusion of their couples or athletes from IDSF-granted competitions), without further notice.

Adjudicators’ Participation in IDSA Events
It is IDSF policy that IDSF-registered Adjudicators shall not participate in IDSA events. IDSF-registered Adjudicators participating in IDSA events shall be subject to IDSF sanctions (for example exclusion from IDSF adjudicating panels and suspension or revocation of their privileges under their IDSF Adjudicator’s Licences) without further notice, or sanctions against them as agreed by their governing IDSF Member body.

It is IDSF policy that adjudicators of IDSF Member bodies shall not officiate at IDSA events. Members whose adjudicators officiate in IDSA events shall be subject to IDSF sanctions (for example exclusion from adjudicating panels of IDSF granted competitions), or sanctions against their adjudicators, without further notice.

The Presidium
International DanceSport Federation (IDSF)


IDSF Press Release #3, March 18, 2005
Sanctions Against "International Dance Union, IDU"
IDSF Athletes And Officials Are Not Allowed To Take Part In Tournaments of "IDU"

The International DanceSport Federation (IDSF) has members in 82 countries in four continents. In 1997 IDSF received Full Recognition from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as the sole worldwide representative body for DanceSport.

The "INTERNATIONAL DANCE UNION" ("IDU") has offered "Amateur Dancesport Competitions" in certain countries, including Russia.

The IDSF, by order of the IDSF Sports Director Heinz Spaeker (Germany), draws the attention of all athletes, adjudicators and other members of the world DanceSport community to the following facts:

* IDSF is the only recognized world governing body for DanceSport.
* IDSF couples are not allowed to take part in these "IDU Amateur Dancesport Competitions".
* IDSF licensed adjudicators and IDSF licensed chairmen are not allowed to act as an adjudicator or chairman in these "IDU Competitions".
* IDSF will take prompt action against all couples and IDSF Licensed Adjudicators or Chairmen who are involved in any way in any "IDU Competition", including suspending or revoking their privileges to compete, adjudicate or chair competitions in the IDSF world sporting system.

Dr. Johannes Biba
IDSF Communications Director

[reb]

FALSE

The above mentioned press released purport to ban competitors from participating in IDU or IDSA events, however they do not make any mention of banning participation in events where IDU or IDSA members might also particpate, such as an NDCA competition which might theoretically be open to such couples.

So that you can see the literal falsehood of the USA Dance claim, here are the IDSF press releases mentioned:
Chris, you make an interesting point.:idea:

I wonder if there is another explanation instead of "misrepresenting the facts" or "literal falsehood"? It appears to me to not be fully explained - and that you identified the hole.

Here's what I read . . .

After the excerpt you posted, the email continues by pointing to the USA Dance website where, in addition to the letters you posted, there is also the full announcement. Also, later in the body of this email, after the quote you excerpted, it also says:

"At this time there is no action needed on your part. There may come a day when the IDSF will ask USA Dance to sanction specific NDCA organized events from participation as the NDCA rules do not prohibit participation from non-IDSF Amateur federations."

Reading this whole email and the full correspondence pointed to on the USA Dance website, it appears to me (guessing, of course since this whole thing kinda hurts my head:confused:) that USA Dance is informing us of the potential fallout which might ensue if/when the IDSF asks USA Dance to not support NDCA or other comps who do not prohibit IDU and IDSA participants.

My take on this is that USA Dance is informing us members of its step-by-step progress with NDCA on this matter. The hole in the logic you found appears to have been assumed by USA Dance (if so, then just not adequately explained instead of malicious).

The email also refers to the Canadian amateur body info posted on USA Dance website - which suggests to me the IDSF member bodies, not just USA Dance has, or will have, this issue.

[Chris Stratton]

There's no doubt that IDSF wants to stamp out the existence of IDU and IDSA. However, the claimed rules against dancing at otherwise permissable competitions where dancers from those organizations might be present simply do not exist in the place where we were told they do.

No doubt IDSF can create such a childish and petty rule if they wish to.

But as an allegedly structured organization, it has to actually make the rule in accordance with its bylaws - the unwritten desires and private communiques of its leadership are not binding policy. (indeed, one wonders if a press release even if it did contain such a provision could actually be a "legal" document in terms of the organization's charter).

Scare mongering over a policy that doesn't exist where you say it is... that is the action of someone who wants to achieve an end, but is too embarrassed about the pettiness of it to actually attempt to achieve that end formally.

I have little doubt that the driving force behind this petty crusade is to be found at the IDSF headquarters and not at USA Dance. But false statement comes with a USA Dance header, not an IDSF one - and that is why it is USA Dance which is guilty of misrepresenting the facts.

[tbrennen]

I believe that Reb's interpretation of the situation is correct. Chris, I will let the appropriate people within USA Dance know that you don't want to know what is going on and where things might go or attempt to go.

Actually, I am very disappointed in your response. You immediately start screaming, "Lie!" and don't bother to investigate further or simply ask a question. USA Dance does have a history of not being not particularly exact but that isn't a reason to go around saying that you caught them, they are finally exposed, etc. As a former gadfly, I have found that it is much more constructive to persistently ask questions rather than put forward confrontational statements.

I'll ask within the organization for clarification and, Reb, perhaps you can do the same thing.

[Chris Stratton]

Actually, I am very disappointed in your response. You immediately start screaming, "Lie!" and don't bother to investigate further or simply ask a question.

I am well aware that there is a lot more to the story.

But the fact is that the sentance in the press release I objected to is, in fact, a lie.

There may well be an IDSF rule that bans us from dancing in competitions where IDU or IDSA members are present, however there is no such rule in the place where USA Dance claims there is.

I think you also have to ask if the intent of such a rule, if one actaully exists in some other location, could be anything other than evil. And then you have to ask why it is, that a press release containing blatantly false statements is being used to threaten competition organizers in order to try to get them to state that they will ban IDU & IDSA couples. It would be one thing if you could point to an actual rule - but when you point to something that doesn't say what you say it does, I call that scare mongering - an attempt to achieve by underhanded means IDSF's goal of killing off IDU and IDSA by making petty threats against third parties such as NDCA organizers.

I mean really, this is like saying "Because Bob invited Ted to his party, anyone who goes to Bob's party can never come to one of mine again". What is this, junior high school?

USA Dance should not be jumping on IDSF's bandwagon of mutually assured destruction simply because someone in the presidum says "jump". No, they should be going through IDSF rules with a fine tooth comb and throwing every procedural objection and technicality imaginable in the path of this kind of childish crusade (especially when it poses such a grave danger to the stability of dual-system countries such as the US, where the single-system ideas found in IDSF leaders' home countries are not workable) But as we've seen time and time again (dress code, elgibility, etc) USA dance officials do not take sufficient time to familiarize themselves with either their own rulebook or IDSF's before making official comments.

And don't forget, with charter-based organizations it's is only the published rules which are binding... back channel communications may be interesting, but privatley communicated demands inconsistent with the rulebook do not have to be honored, unless or until they actually show up in a published rules document.

[nevsky]

I mean really, this is like saying "Because Bob invited Ted to his party, anyone who goes to Bob's party can never come to one of mine again". What is this, junior high school?
No, this is (potentially) big money, fame, fortune, and Olympic gold.

Except for two things.

One, there is no big money in Ballroom. And there won't be, despite all lobbying, not even in Europe, but especially in the USA. Just face it: ballroom dancing is not a part of American culture the same way e.g. basketball is. Millions of kids don't ballroom dance in their back yard. That's why TV networks will never fight for ad space at USABDA (or even EADA) nationals. The fact that IDSF still hasn't recognized this is really mind-boggling.

And two, why is USABDA trying to be holier than the Pope? Can you just turn the blind eye to people dancing in - oh horror! - unrecognized competitions, or even - double horror! - IDU or IDSA comps? Let IDSF fight their petty wars and play their petty politics, what's Hecuba to you? Or is somebody in USABDA trying to make a career within IDSF and therefore must show zeal and fervor enforcing their absurd prohibitions?

[reb]

Thanks tbrennen

all I did is read the entire notice

[Joe]

Well, in USAD's defense, I'm sure as an IDSF member organization they prolly have some requirement to follow IDSF rules.

[DanceSport-VP]

FALSE

The above mentioned press releases purport to ban competitors from participating in IDU or IDSA events, however they do not make any mention of banning participation in events where IDU or IDSA members might also particpate, such as an NDCA competition which might theoretically be open to such couples.

So that you can see the literal falsehood of the USA Dance claim, here are the IDSF press releases mentioned:

To Chris and All:

I don’t frequent these forums too often – and I have never responded before. So please forgive me if I don’t have the technique mastered.

But when someone tosses out caviler statements like: “Misrepresenting the facts”, “false”, “lie” about something I authored in council with the leadership of the NDCA, I get inspired to respond.

Chris – you are a bright guy and definitely understand the politics and the players more than most. In fact, I venture to say, most competitors and competition organizers have never even heard of the IDU or the IDSA. Most don’t know about the IPDSC and the new movement by the IDSF to embrace professional DanceSport… but I digress.





The wording for the press release was chosen specifically to alert all those it was addressed toTo: NDCA Competition OrganizersIDSF Certified AdjudicatorsSandy Britain, CADA PresidentNicole Jolicoeur, CADA Vice-Presidentof the situation that is unfolding in the USA. I also released this to member athletes of USA Dance – but it is not specifically addressed to them.

Here is what you don’t know… and per Turtle’s posting, would have found out if you asked.

A few things have transpired of late that required a response.

The IDSF notified us that they are investigating the USDSC and whether our couples should be barred from competition there, due to participation by an IDSA adjudicator and couples. We informed them that we were not willing to be the first organization to start sanctioning couples in the US and required a more solid policy/rule than a press release to take action. We have not received a response in over 4 weeks.
USA Dance received a specific request from the CADA to inform them of our “clean” competitions in the USA, as they have done for us. You see in Canada, they have interpreted the IDSF press releases as the letter of the law. That is there prerogative as the member federation. As such, they don’t want their couples stepping onto a competition floor that may also have IDU or IDSA couples.
It has been discovered that the organizer of USDSC is advertising on the IDSA’s website. The organizer (ABC) informed me they have an “open” policy toward admission like Blackpool. But there is a difference when one actively pursues participation from the IDSA.In reviewing Canada’s request with the NDCA we verified that NDCA competitions are Open to Amateurs who are (1) registered with the NDCA, or in the case of overseas visitors those couples who are (2) registered with the recognized organization or other recognized organization of their country.

While there is bond between the NDCA leadership and the IDSF, they were unwilling to change the rules (to specify IDSF member federation) due to their relationship with the WDC.

So we are in a quandary and want to keep as many dance opportunities open for USA couples as possible. Perhaps you had a better solution. Our chosen course of action was to release a “buyer-beware” press release and let the free market take its course.

The opening sentences of the release – on my letterhead – says:

USA Dance wishes to remind all DanceSport participants of the content of the IDSF Press Releases regarding competitors and adjudicators that participate in IDU (International Dance Union) and IDSA (International DanceSport Association) events, dated March 18, 2005 and February 22, 2006 respectively.

These releases preclude DanceSport Athletes registered with an IDSF federation from participating in competitions with competitors or adjudicators of the IDU and the IDSA.I added the bold emphasis in this posting to make the point – NOBODY IS LYING.

This is a simple reminder of the world we now dance in. And the release ends with an invitation for NDCA Competition Organizers to contact me if they are willing to affirm full compliance with IDSF regulations. Then I can notify Canada (and others) the competition is “clean”. And further we have satisfied the IDSF, to some extent, that all the parties have been forewarned about possible ramifications of dancing and judging in certain events.

I hope this addresses most of your concerns and welcome a more detailed conversation at Nationals.

By the way – why haven’t you submitted your name for consideration as part of the soon to be formed Active Athletes Network or even a DanceSport Delegate’s position on the DanceSport Council? These volunteer positions, like mine, would give you a first-hand chance at helping shape policy and representing the athletes. It takes a lot of time but may prove more fruitful than speculating on a forum.

[Chris Stratton]

These releases preclude DanceSport Athletes registered with an IDSF federation from participating in competitions with competitors or adjudicators of the IDU and the IDSA.I added the bold emphasis in this posting to make the point – NOBODY IS LYING.


It was false the first time you claimed that, and it's still false.

The press releases purport to prohibit IDSF couples and adjuticators from particpating in IDU or IDSA competitions. But we aren't talking about those. We are talking about NDCA competitions where IDU or IDSA members might be present. The IDSF press releases do not address that situation.

I hope this addresses most of your concerns

Not in the slightest, because you managed to avoid the actual issue of the the thread. You are claiming there's something in those press releases which simply isn't there.

They are copied at the top of this thread - please go reread them with a bit more care, and note that the provision you claim is simply not there.

And the release ends with an invitation for NDCA Competition Organizers to contact me if they are willing to affirm full compliance with IDSF regulations.

Translation: at the instistance of IDSF, we've threatened them with consequences if they don't inform us that they intend to knuckle under to our childish demands, despite the fact that we can't site any actual rule even of our own (not that such would be binding on them) to substantiate our demands.

USA Dance is supposed to promote dancing, not go around tyring to bully organizers into preventing dancing.

That's not an honorable action, and you really should be ashamed of yourself for putting your name on it. If you felt you had to do something, the appropriate action would be to inform IDSF that you will be publishing all communciations received from them for the benefit of interested and affected parties. That way you can pass on their message without taking part in their bullying attempts, plus they would not longer be able to make back-channel demands of you, since the only communciation channel would be one content comments suitable for public consumption.

And further we have satisfied the IDSF, to some extent, that all the parties have been forewarned about possible ramifications of dancing and judging in certain events.

If you are going to warn people, hadn't you better site a rule that actually exists?

By the way – why haven’t you submitted your name for consideration as part of the soon to be formed Active Athletes Network

I'd be happy to take part, however it seemed the focus of the initial group was on a meeting at nationals, and I will be unable to attend this year.

[DanceMentor]

As someone that knows very little about all this bickering going on between dance organizations, I want to say that I hope we can all agree that limiting people from participating in dance events is not good for our sport. There are a lot of changes going on right now, but when the higher ups start trying to tell people where they are not allowed to dance, it really looks bad. The best way to run a successful organization is to focus on quality all the time, and people will take notice. When quality is lacking, it leaves room for others to take market share.

[tbrennen]

I think that people here are under the mis-perception about the measure of control or influence that USA Dance has over what the IDSF does. The IDSF is the largest DanceSport organization in the world and the number of competitions it directly sanctions (not those run by its member organizations) is very, very large. As with any large organization, it has problems. This whole thing with the IDSA, the IDU, the WDC, and other organizations has its roots in the fundamental conflicts between professionals and amateurs (whatever amateurs means these days). This whole discussion is coming out of this same conflict in Canada PLUS the conflicts currently occurring in Canada WITHIN the professional community.

Anyway, USA Dance is a member organization of the IDSF and needs to stay (at least roughly) in line with the IDSF. The VP of DanceSport is trying to keep us informed about the thinking going on within the IDSF and other member organizations. Do not mistake this for the actual thinking with the organization. Unlike the U.S., other countries do not enjoy our "cult of the individual" and it is hard to buck the powers that be directly. In this case, USA Dance does not have the clout to do that right now, however much we rail against the authorities. Doing this without leverage works rarely even in the U.S., as I know from previous experience within the organization and it certainly is more difficult outside the U.S. Further, this is all in flux. I suspect this is all going to be up in the air for the immediate future and we can hope that it comes down better than it currently is.

[fascination]

well, not many have commented so it is possible that the majority of DF-ers are simply interested and open-minded rather than under any misconceptions...and speaking only for myself I am very grateful to those of you who are affiliated for sharing your perspectives with us....

[Chris Stratton]

Anyway, USA Dance is a member organization of the IDSF and needs to stay (at least roughly) in line with the IDSF.

Perhaps, but only with the actual rules and bylaws, not the imagined ones.

The VP of DanceSport is trying to keep us informed about the thinking going on within the IDSF and other member organizations. Do not mistake this for the actual thinking with the organization.

If USA dance puts its own name on an instrument of IDSF's attempt to bully NDCA organizers which contains false statements, then it's USA Dance which is guilty of misrepresenting the facts. If it merely forwards an IDSF letter, that would be very different.

Unlike the U.S., other countries do not enjoy our "cult of the individual" and it is hard to buck the powers that be directly. In this case, USA Dance does not have the clout to do that right now, however much we rail against the authorities.

Yes you do: Start by challeging the IDSF leadership to point to the actual rule governing the situation at hand. Until they find it, you are off the hook. They can't make you do things on a whim, they have to actually have a rule to back them up. If they cite a rule which turns out not to say what they think it does, then you are off the hook until they change it.

There might or might not be a rule, but shouldn't you actually find it and read its details before using it as a means to threaten people?

[nevsky]

This whole thing with the IDSA, the IDU, the WDC, and other organizations has its roots in the fundamental conflicts between professionals and amateurs (whatever amateurs means these days).
So what do you think this fundamental conflict is? Because if you ask me, amateurs and professionals have nothing to fight about. In other words, there's no fundamental conflict between amateurs and professionals, but there definitely is a conflict between two organizations, each aiming to collect both amateurs and professionals under its wing.

[DanceSport-VP]

Yes you do: Start by challeging the IDSF leadership to point to the actual rule governing the situation at hand. Until they find it, you are off the hook. They can't make you do things on a whim, they have to actually have a rule to back them up. If they cite a rule which turns out not to say what they think it does, call their bluff, just as I've called yours.

There might or might not be a rule, but shouldn't you actually find it and read its details before using it as a means to threaten people?

Chris – now I am reminded why I don’t squander time responding to these types of postings. Let me say one or two more things – then you are welcome to have the last word, as I am too busy actually making a difference.

Only you are talking about what is not in the IDSF press releases. USA Dance is happy to let them speak for themselves. If they don’t cover NDCA events for you, that is fine – but the IDSF thinks USDSC is of some concern and the Canadians are concerned about all the NDCA events.

You are quite a dichotomy… on one hand you don’t want limitations on events you can dance in and are quick to challenge the IDSF’s authority. On the other hand you blast USA Dance for not taking this far enough. We are fighting for your rights and you’re fighting us to challenge the IDSF.

I already stated that we challenged the IDSF’s authority to govern by press release. They were told no sanctions would be processed without a specific rule. So far they have sat on that without a response.

With you fueling the fire – I am sure we will get one. Think about it… if an IDSF Presidium member should read your rant, they would probably end all this by doing exactly what you don’t want – mandate an immediate sanction of all NDCA events for USA Dance Athletes. I pleaded with you to think about the result you are trying to derive and yet you keep on poking at the issue.

Also – I don’t need you to translate my invitation to NDCA Organizers. There is no bullying from the IDSF or USA Dance. They are simply organizations that choose to exist without the IDSA and the IDU. Have you considered that they may have a reason for this? Have you considered this may be within their rights? NDCA Organizers can speak for themselves.

And finally, your statement about joining the AAN is false. There was nothing in the announcement that said you were required to be present at this year’s Nationals to participate. It appears you are more interested in tossing out barbs and exchanging wit than actually helping move DanceSport forward. Knock yourself out – I am done explaining this to you.

[fascination]

thank you for contributing to the conversation Ken ...hopefully, if there is a next time, it will be under more pleasant circumstances

[Chris Stratton]

Chris – now I am reminded why I don’t squander time responding to these types of postings.

You only squander your time so long as you persist in avoiding the central issue.

Quote the specific passage in the IDSF mentioned press releases which you claim applies to non-IDU, non-IDSA competitions, but which happen to have dancers or officials from those organizations present

You can't find it because it simply does not exist!

And you also need to put some real thought into the scenarious of what the IDSF can actually do - which is really not very much. They can't really ban all the important competitions in a country without loosing that country, and if they loose a country, they've given it an open invitation to start yet another amateur organization - which is exactly what they were trying to prevent in the first place.

Their only real power is fear.

[DanceMentor]

Yes, thanks for explaining your position, Ken.

Chris, it seems you have some strong opinions, and I was a little surprised by your tone. I hope you won't think I'm taking sides.

I've been in contact with few different people that are involved in this in the last couple of months, and it is my belief that progress is being made. There is a lot going on behind the scenes, but I truly believe the good people are winning.

One of the reasons you don't see these "good people" speaking loudly right now is because they truly are working very hard behind the scenes and saying much more privately than publicly. This is very prudent in the current environment, because there are some "other" people that are just looking for a way to manipulate the situation in a way that is not good for us. So please try to consider that there is much more to this than what has been stated publicly. It does require a little faith. ;)

(note: the current issue would likely fall under what I stated above)

[Chris Stratton]

One of the reasons you don't see these "good people" speaking loudly right now is because they truly are working very hard behind the scenes and saying much more privately than publicly. This is very prudent in the current environment, because there are some "other" people that are just looking for a way to manipulate the situation in a way that is not good for us. So please try to consider that there is much more to this than what has been stated publicly. It does require a little faith. ;)

On the contrary, it's anything but prudent.

By allowing people to push you around in private you have no defense, and end up co-opted into their efforts.

Force them to communicate in public, and it becomes much harder to bring unreasonable pressure to bear, not only because it looks foolish, but also because the flaws in the arguments become obvious - such as the alleged rule that nobody seems able to actually find, and the way that IDSF would probably hurt it's own interestes more more than anyone else's if it actually takes action.

[Chris Stratton]

Ken seems to think he didn't threaten anybody... but the facts or obviously otherwise:

As such, organizers of NDCA competitions should be advised that competitors that are
members of an IDSF member federation, such as CADA (Canada) and USA Dance
may elect not to support your event if determined that entries have been accepted from
competitors registered with the IDU and the IDSA.

Nice competition you have there... would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. So you know what you got to do, revise your entry form to ban our enemies, send us a copy, and then we can mark you "clean".

What's so "dirty" about IDSA or IDU members anyway? I mean I don't think I've ever met one, but what exactly do I need to watch out for if I do?

[quixotedlm]

classic catedral vs. bazaar arguments.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html

really, neither way is absolutely The One True Way. Half-heartedly, neither works. But either can be made to work welll,depending on who is at the helm.

(If it doesn't make sense to you, chances are you are not a computer geek.

[DanceMentor]

Ken seems to think he didn't threaten anybody... but the facts or obviously otherwise:



Nice competition you have there... would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. So you know what you got to do, revise your entry form to ban our enemies, send us a copy, and then we can mark you "clean".

What's so "dirty" about IDSA or IDU members anyway? I mean I don't think I've ever met one, but what exactly do I need to watch out for if I do?


I think there are many details to the overall argument. There may be some advantages to trying to publicly debate this, but there are many missing details that must also be considered, and I don't believe you are going to get them all on this forum.

Stopping people from dancing is probably not so good, but the very nature of what an amateur is defined as being also factors in, and many different dance organizations each have their own spin on what they would like to see happen.

Behind the scenes I believe there is starting to be a consensus, but saying too much too fast, can have some repercussions. I totally understand there is confusion, as well as angry people, but I will repeat that I believe the good are winning right now.

[carmello]

Ken seems to think he didn't threaten anybody... but the facts or obviously otherwise:



Nice competition you have there... would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. So you know what you got to do, revise your entry form to ban our enemies, send us a copy, and then we can mark you "clean".

What's so "dirty" about IDSA or IDU members anyway? I mean I don't think I've ever met one, but what exactly do I need to watch out for if I do?


I think you nailed it Chris. It seems that USA Dance is in for a rocky future with this new VP.

IDSF looking into the USDSC, has nothing to do with the IDSA or IDU, but more with the IPDSC. For those who do not know, Te IPDSC is the professional branch of the IDSF. They ran their first World Professional event in January in Madrid. John Kimmins was one of the Judges.

The IDSF is trying to undermine the WDC and the USDSC by eventually usurping the World Professional events. Thus removing legitamacy of the USDSC and it's running of the US Professional National Titles. Their plans are to register professionals and then, as they say, run all dancing throughout the world.

[Chris Stratton]

It seems that USA Dance is in for a rocky future with this new VP.

I disagree.

I don't think that the USA dance leaders are bad people, and I actually think their hearts are mostly in the right places on this.

The problem I have is with their actions, specifically letting their names and offices be used as an instrument of bullying. The ugly threats did not come on IDSF letterhead, they came on USA Dance letterhead. That, in my mind, undoes a lot of the good achieved by cooperative efforts towards NDCA - you can't be friends and make threats at the same time.

Incidentally, it's not about one organization or the other for me. I was on Ken's case a few weeks back for implicitly endorsing an unreasonable NDCA claim.

I'm opposed to monopolistic policies in the dance world, no matter which side is pushing them. And a bad thing done by a good person is unfortunately still a bad thing.

[SDsalsaguy]

The IDSF is trying to undermine the WDC and the USDSC by eventually usurping the World Professional events. Thus removing legitamacy of the USDSC and it's running of the US Professional National Titles. Their plans are to register professionals and then, as they say, run all dancing throughout the world.
As if the WDC (at the global scale) and the NDCA (at the national scale) have attempted to do the same in reverse? Please, give me a break. Ultimately all such squabbling over who controls haw big a slice of the extant pie are misguided efforts at best... especially given the potential for expanding the market amid current TV coverage and the like.

[DanceSport-VP]

I disagree.

The ugly threats did not come on IDSF letterhead, they came on USA Dance letterhead. That, in my mind, undoes a lot of the good achieved by cooperative efforts towards NDCA - you can't be friends and make threats at the same time.



I know I promised to shut-up. But there is so much you almost understand.

Would it surprise you to learn that the wording of the press release was developed in a conference call between USA Dance, two officers of the NDCA and one presidium member of the IPDSC? The final draft was agreed to by all before it was released. All this in an effort to keep the peace and allow organizers a chance to continue to do what they are already doing, while keeping the actions of the IDSF at bay.

[Chris Stratton]

that's going to require some thought...

[DanceMentor]

I can understand why they came to the decision to reference the IDSF memo. Even if there is little tolerance for bullying (if that is indeed what is happening), people would want to know that certain actions like participating in certain events could be problematic. That doesn't mean they are supportive of a position by the IDSF (or IDSA or IDA). It just means they are protecting their members.

If they would have gone a step further and protested the IDSF memo, it could have had serious consequences, and started something far more difficult to manage. This is why it is better they try to speak to the IDSF (and others too) about this privately, and at the right time and place.

[Chris Stratton]

Okay, (edit)while I remain quite dissapointed that Ken has been unwilling to address the fundamental factual error in his characterization of the content of the two IDSF press releases, due to the degree to which this is about the well known IDSF agenda and not about its rules,(/edit) I am ready to admit that in retrospect this thread has probably not been beneficial for in the short term, and for that reason I am sorry for starting it.

However, I do think it illustrates something that needs to be kept in mind for the long term.

1) The only facts relevant to the public record are the facts which actually are in the public record. If it is not there, then for the purposes of the public it does not exist and someone will act as if it does not exist. Perhaps even purposefully, because doing so is one of the simpler defenses against extra-legal abuses. And likewise, if there's an inconsistency in the public record, then there is an inconsistency in actual fact - at least until the public record is expanded to include something that makes the inconsistency less important.

2) Actions do have a cumulative effect based on their surface nature, even if there are deeper meanings present at the instant when they occur. When we go through the motions of organizations demanding things from each other, we establish that as normal behaviour. We may be able to accomodate situations for a while that way, but in the end we've created a means for the unreasonable to become habitually ordinary. That destroys the kinds of check and balance safeguards usually built into organizations, and instead leaves us dependent entirely on the reasonability of the people in office in each organization at the moment.

[DanceMentor]

Thanks for your reply, Chris.
I have some very mixed feelings about everything too, not just with this situation. There are so many interconnected problems that I can't put together anything clear in my mind that would benefit everyone. I do feel there are some very smart and honorable people that are trying their best, and I believe they are likely to do a lot of good for us. So we need to have some faith in them, and I hope they can find what matters most (dance!). :)