Ballroom Dance > O2cm banned from NDCA events?

Discussion in 'Ballroom Dance' started by dancelvr, Jul 28, 2014.

  1. JudeMorrigan

    JudeMorrigan Well-Known Member

    For what it's worth, I don't have any problem with the idea that paper records have their place. It's just that, well, look. I love me some professional dancing. But in the larger scheme of things, the stakes are not actually that large, even at the biggest of competitions. The purses are small ($2000 for winning open pro at OSB) and lesson/show fees are surprisingly flat across the industry. (At least, I always found it a bit surprising.) Certainly there's the presitge factor, but still. While I'm not suggesting that your electronic intervention in impossible, I am suggesting it would be difficult for a non-professional to pull off in a timely enough fashion to matter. (Assuming a base level of competence on the part of the persons programming the competition software.) And that professionals would have far juicier targets that they could aim for.

    Of course, none of this is to say that there's a down side to going ahead and printing out that binder full of score sheets and not throwing said binder away.

    Also, I hope you haven't taken my posts to be snide, derisive or mocking. "Foolishly naive"? That I'll cop to. But I haven't meant to be rude. :)
     
    Akita and Bailamosdance like this.
  2. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member

    Only if they're properly illuminated!
    You must mean 360k. :D
    ...not to mention judges' poor handwriting and/or number duplicating or insufficient callback numbers.
     
  3. DL

    DL Well-Known Member

    Thanks; I haven't had that impression of your posts in particular.

    Putting aside the technical details and economics of malware development (which I do get the impression you haven't deeply explored): If you're protecting something of value *to you*, it's up to you to assure yourself in various ways of its safety. The integrity of NDCA results is (I expect) pretty important *to the NDCA*. Paper retention is a quite cheap way to enjoy certain protections and feel safe against certain types of harm (however unlikely/far-fetched others may deem some of those types of harm); so if I were walking in those shoes I might well see a paper retention policy as a no-brainer.
     
  4. Casayoto

    Casayoto Member

    And allow me to repeat myself that a paper retention policy in no way precludes the use of O2CM. Collegiate competitions that use O2CM instead of CompManager have the exact same paper trail of judges sheets. If that is truly the concern of the NDCA, there is no reason to ban the use of O2CM. If they want to ban the use of PDAs, that would be one thing, but O2CM works just fine without them.
     
    5678dance, dancelvr and dlliba10 like this.
  5. cornutt

    cornutt Well-Known Member

    I'll see your 128K, hard-sectored 8" floppy and raise you a 5 MB, 18", heavy-as-hell, $2000 (in 1975!) Diablo 33 cartridge. :p
     
    Sania, Bailamosdance and j_alexandra like this.
  6. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member

    5MB? Luxury!
     
    j_alexandra likes this.
  7. Purr

    Purr Well-Known Member

    Sigh...I feel old...because I have an idea of what all this techie discussion means...:rolleyes:
     
  8. Bailamosdance

    Bailamosdance Well-Known Member

    Actually you should feel young... Since these references are all from the dark past lol
     
    Larinda McRaven and jerseydancer like this.
  9. Spookisgirl

    Spookisgirl Active Member

    This seems to be heating up again--I don't know about others, but I received an email recently from O2cm asking for donations because of the NDCA ban (which the email says is due to o2cm's use by USADance). Near the beginning of this thread, there was mention of a possible new NDCA system called 'Premiere'. Any update on that?

    Myself as a pro/am competitor, I like o2cm and have found infinitely useful compared to cmpmgr which is tedious and difficult from which to get the information I am looking for. For example, in o2cm I can look up all pro/am 'B' age events at a comp and be able to see virtually instantly how many people on average competed in all of those events. I can narrow it down further if I would like, but essentially I can see results by event--almost instantly.

    In cmpmgr, in order to see results for a specific category of events (like pro/am 'B' age group) I have to open one window to the category of events, choose the type of event I am looking for (eg. pro/am standard multi-dance), which I believe opens up a 3rd window to a list of names of competitors who competed in all those events (and this is all assuming the stars and universe align and cmpmngr doesn't freeze trying to load the results). From there, unless I can recognize the name of a specific competitor I know to be the approximate age and level for which I am looking I have to click through each name individually (which I believe opens yet another window) and hope I find at least one of the events I am looking for, note the names of the other couples in the event, then look up their names to see if they competed in other events in that particular category. I find this a very tedious way to do research (which for me is necessary to do before considering spending money to travel to an event--I would prefer not to do that and find myself alone on the floor or with only one or two other couples).

    If anyone knows an easier way to get results listed by event in cmpmngr like in o2cm, please please let me know!

    I am mainly curious if there is an update on this beyond the email that was sent from o2cm. Is NDCA still banning it's use? Does the NDCA have a new system that is better than cmpmngr about to be launched as mentioned last year?
     
  10. Loki

    Loki Well-Known Member

    This is really getting out of hand.
     
  11. Bailamosdance

    Bailamosdance Well-Known Member

    So sad that politics and money trump quality and the needs of the dancers. I would be interested to see if a competitive program existed, and was chosen; at least the benefits of competition between the programs would benefit. But I see zero advantages of Compmgr over 02Cm, and unless I hear of any, then I have to assume that the decision was punitive...
     
  12. Miss Silly

    Miss Silly Well-Known Member

    aaahhhh!!! I have this same issue!!! We generally try to look up past comp results to determine the numbers in certain categories (much like yourself, in order to decide if we should spend some of our dance-travel budget for specific comps). I found the same tedious experience with compmanager...
     
    Spookisgirl likes this.
  13. Larinda McRaven

    Larinda McRaven Site Moderator Staff Member

    The decision doesn't have to be punative just because you acquire no advantage from it. The NDCA isn't punishing Mark!
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2015
  14. Larinda McRaven

    Larinda McRaven Site Moderator Staff Member

    again going back to page one of this very thread....

     
  15. Bailamosdance

    Bailamosdance Well-Known Member

    Looks like the NDCA needs to change some of their requirements. The manpower and waste of paper alone…
     
  16. Dancing Irishman

    Dancing Irishman Well-Known Member

    I can't help but agree with this. With the *massive* volume of financial transactions performed online as a matter of course these days (mortgages can and often are originated long-distance without ever making face-to-face contact between the lender and the borrower - even more so with automotive refinances and credit cards / personal lines of credit), it seems like the NDCA could benefit from "getting with the times" and investing some amount of manpower in better digital record-keeping and scoring verification (not that Mark's system is there yet, but it's a heck of a lot better starting point than pen-and-paper scoring). I'm not sure people would love the breaks between rounds getting shorter at Blackpool, but it would help many smaller comps run far more efficiently.

    For what it's worth, ballroom judges are decades ahead of Lindy Hop Jack and Jill competition judges in judging efficiency, based on my experience a couple weeks ago at a local workshop.
     
  17. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member

    While still stupid because it fails to take advantage of one of the benefits of O2CM, there's an easy solution to #1: have the judges mark on paper.

    #2 is equally stupid; the marks and all scoresheets are all online.
     
  18. Bailamosdance

    Bailamosdance Well-Known Member

    Or... Print out the results to paper from the online computer scores...
     
  19. dbk

    dbk Well-Known Member

    And going back to all of the replies to this page one post, I'm not sure that quote makes any sense.

    #1 As far as I know, quite a few comps have the judges mark on paper, then that is input and handled digitally from there on. Just like any other comp software. So this has nothing to do with o2cm.

    #2 might actually make sense -- they want to have the marks in a certain format, not just readable on the web. But... I'm not a programmer, but I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to convert o2cm's files into the format NDCA is looking for. Plus, if you look back at Jude's post from last year, you'll see that they just arbitrarily decided that COMPMNGR results may be submitted, not that they're looking for a specific format.
    I haven't read up on this in quite a while, so please correct me if I'm mistaken somewhere. Actually -- does anyone have a link to NDCA documentation/announcements/rational/etc. on the o2cm ban? Is there any other explanation given? The paper issue is bunk, but have they said anything about why o2cm electronic formatting is unacceptable? Is there any actual evidence that this has to do with the NDCA/USAD fued?
     
  20. Bailamosdance

    Bailamosdance Well-Known Member

    No, nothing that happens between the 4 letter orgs has anything to do with money, power, or sour grapes.
     

Share This Page