All-Star Usasf/naccc Results Posted

[Ashley]

What we needed was a little bit of If / then formatting. Writing out rule proposals like this so they dont compete with each other is very much programming. Same with all rules (and since I program all day thats why I have an affinity for it).

I suggest find the biggest nerd in cheer to write them out next time.

I'll volunteer myself! I'm a programmer too. We can fight it out for who gets to write them.

 

[ztaprincess]

I read it that it was, because #30 says "IF" the age grid is changed. But if you vote "NO" to change it, then #30 doesn't apply.

At least that is how I took it, but it is very confusing.

#30 doesn't have "if" that would be #29. 28 has to do with whatever levels are in each age range (Senior has levels 1-5 while Juniors are 1-4) and #30 has to do with AGES not what levels are for each age group. So with that said I am confused how people are saying that they are in conflict with each other?

 

[BlueCat]

We definitely need some official word on how this is to be interpreted. It is confusing about how #28 affects everything else. Do the results of this trump ALL other age-grid-related votes? Some? Which ones?

Compounding this is the fact that many/most of the people who voted on this probably were not clear on how that worked either.

If the past is any indicator, the rules committee will just follow the voting results nearly to the letter. Going against one of the votes triggers a whole other review process. However, they are not necessarily bound to them, either.

 

[BlueCat]

I'll volunteer myself! I'm a programmer too. We can fight it out for who gets to write them.

If there is a nerd contest, then I put my hat in the ring as well.

 

[cheeringfor3]

#30 doesn't have "if" that would be #29. 28 has to do with whatever levels are in each age range (Senior has levels 1-5 while Juniors are 1-4) and #30 has to do with AGES not what levels are for each age group. So with that said I am confused how people are saying that they are in conflict with each other?

You're right...it is #28 and #29 that seem to have the 'If/then" conflict. Sorry, I read it wrong.

But since #29 is the one that seems to eliminate youth 5, I am confused again...

 

[ACEDAD]

We definitely need some official word on how this is to be interpreted. It is confusing about how #28 affects everything else. Do the results of this trump ALL other age-grid-related votes? Some? Which ones?

Compounding this is the fact that many/most of the people who voted on this probably were not clear on how that worked either.

If the past is any indicator, the rules committee will just follow the voting results nearly to the letter. Going against one of the votes triggers a whole other review process. However, they are not necessarily bound to them, either.

This will probably be something like when the House and Senate each send a bill to reconciliation.

And thirdly, the code is more what you would call guidelines than actual rules.

 

[King]

How about a mission statement to the rules? Something like:

The purpose of the level rule is to give coaches a safe and appropriate level to choose for his/her athletes to be competitive without unnecessary risk to the athletes. In moments of discrepancy in the rules note that the intention of all rules is promote safety and will be sided on in the case of loopholes. For completely clarification please email a video.

 

[F!ERCE]

How about a mission statement to the rules? Something like:

The purpose of the level rule is to give coaches a safe and appropriate level to choose for his/her athletes to be competitive without unnecessary risk to the athletes. In moments of discrepancy in the rules note that the intention of all rules is promote safety and will be sided on in the case of loopholes. For completely clarification please email a video.

Shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy...have I made myself clear?

 

[ACEDAD]

Shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy shimmy...have I made myself clear?

For complete clarification please post a video.

 

[BlueCat]

edit (wrong thread)

 

[King]

If there is a nerd contest, then I put my hat in the ring as well.

I think I trump all. You can fight for saludictorian though.

 

[Audrey]

I'm really happy with what they did with coed and crossovers.
I can't believe youth 5 got eliminated though! I thought it was just going to get restricted for sure. If they're creating restricted junior in its place, I don't see what the point of getting rid of it was.

 

[Nothanks]

i think a lot of people wanted to see mini 3 eliminated, and there wasn't a way to eliminate one without the other...so people voted on jr restricted to "replace" y5...does my thinking seem correct?

 

[flipmac]

Oh my god.... look at how close Youth 5 was....

uuugh... the preliminary vote on youth 5 was won by 76%... not close at all

 

[mdcheerdiva]

If you restrict J5 then what is the purpose of SO5? Where do you groom your athletes for S5?