Proposals to ISU Congress 2018-2019 Season

[moriel]

In 2022: Since judges are constantly giving +5s to the top skaters, the ISU will be proposing a +8/-8 GOE spread for 17 grades of differentiation because they need to mark accordingly.

Nah, they will change it to +8/-8 and 3 bulletpoints.
A 4A will be worth less than a 3A and so on.

 

[cohen-esque]

Personality, I want a +/-12 system, so that I can say “well, they kinda sorta hit this one incredibly vague bullet, so half credit!” All falls will go negative, I suppose. Is it too much?

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

OK, so I haven't been reading this thread since before the congress actually started, because it just got too cumbersome.

I know some of the things that went through, due to other threads being started about them (limit on backloading; new scores of values). But what other things were decided?

I am particularly interested in:

• Were there any changes made to the age ranges?
• Were there any changes made to the levels below Junior?
• Was there anything significant that wasn't picked up on and discussed here before the congress?

I was kinda expecting a new thread to appear either detailing all the decisions that had been made, or linking to an article that did so. But, alas, no such thread ever appeared.

Which is a shame, because if you weren't following the congress when it happened, it is not really practical to trawl through everything in this thread to find out what happened.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[Miller]

OK, so I haven't been reading this thread since before the congress actually started, because it just got too cumbersome.

I know some of the things that went through, due to other threads being started about them (limit on backloading; new scores of values). But what other things were decided?

I am particularly interested in:

• Were there any changes made to the age ranges?
• Were there any changes made to the levels below Junior?
• Was there anything significant that wasn't picked up on and discussed here before the congress?

I was kinda expecting a new thread to appear either detailing all the decisions that had been made, or linking to an article that did so. But, alas, no such thread ever appeared.

Which is a shame, because if you weren't following the congress when it happened, it is not really practical to trawl through everything in this thread to find out what happened.

CaroLiza_fan

The Phil Hersh article quoted just above by Ice Coverage just about covers it apart from Juniors. There was a lot less passed than was discussed, and the main ones have all had their own threads as you say.

The 'biggie' for the coming year is the +/- 5 GOE system/reduced Base Values etc., and the time cut in the Mens and Pairs LP to 4 minutes, but these had already been agreed beforehand, and as far as I can see were just formally waved through.

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

The Phil Hersh article quoted just above by Ice Coverage just about covers it apart from Juniors. There was a lot less passed than was discussed, and the main ones have all had their own threads as you say.

The 'biggie' for the coming year is the +/- 5 GOE system/reduced Base Values etc., and the time cut in the Mens and Pairs LP to 4 minutes, but these had already been agreed beforehand, and as far as I can see were just formally waved through.

Thank you, Miller. And also thank you to ice coverage for the link to Hersch's article.

From the sounds of the article, it seems like the main things are technical changes. Which doesn't really make much difference to me, as I don't understand the technical stuff. It was the other proposals that I am interested in.

So, changing the minimum age for Seniors to 17 didn't go through (thank goodness! Increasing it by 2 years would have been too big a change to happen in one go). But, he doesn't say anything about the compromise suggestion of 16. Did it get turned down as well?

And no mention about any changes to the age ranges for Juniors or the younger age groups. I for one would like to know if any of the overlaps were reduced.

It's a shame about the programme lengths for Men and Pairs being reduced. I'm all for having equal programme lengths for all categories, but could Ladies and Dance not have been increased to 4m 30s instead?

And I am astounded that they didn't even discuss the proposal to get rid of heads of Feds acting as officials at competitions. Like, that should never have been happening in the first place. When things like this are going on, is it any wonder that people question results?!

Why on Earth was it not even discussed?! Did they spend too long arguing over other things and run out of time or something?!

Or, maybe they want to wait until they can make a more robust proposal which takes in other Federation officials. And people connected to them (e.g. their relatives acting as officials at competitions).

Anyway, thanks again to both you and ice coverage



CaroLiza_fan

 

[lavenderblossom]

And I am astounded that they didn't even discuss the proposal to get rid of heads of Feds acting as officials at competitions. Like, that should never have been happening in the first place. When things like this are going on, is it any wonder that people question results?!

Why on Earth was it not even discussed?! Did they spend too long arguing over other things and run out of time or something?!

Or, maybe they want to wait until they can make a more robust proposal which takes in other Federation officials. And people connected to them (e.g. their relatives acting as officials at competitions).

The proposals about the age change for seniors and the ban on federation presidents judging, were put to a vote right at the start of the Congress as whether they would even be added to the agenda for discussion, and both were voted down and tossed out.

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

The proposals about the age change for seniors and the ban on federation presidents judging, were put to a vote right at the start of the Congress as whether they would even be added to the agenda for discussion, and both were voted down and tossed out.

That is ridiculous.

Like, this just proves why something tackling conflicts of interest needs to come in. Because, not even putting it on the agenda just smacks of protecting their peers.

But, I still don't understand why the minimum age for Seniors wasn't even discussed. Yes, the Dutch proposal to raise it by two years to 17 in one go was just silly (and the reasons given were even sillier!) But, raising it by one year to 16 was a more realistic idea. It would have worked nicely as a compromise, if only it had been discussed.

Opportunites missed. As usual!

CaroLiza_fan

 

[Andrea82]

And I am astounded that they didn't even discuss the proposal to get rid of heads of Feds acting as officials at competitions. Like, that should never have been happening in the first place. When things like this are going on, is it any wonder that people question results?!

Why on Earth was it not even discussed?! Did they spend too long arguing over other things and run out of time or something?!

Or, maybe they want to wait until they can make a more robust proposal which takes in other Federation officials. And people connected to them (e.g. their relatives acting as officials at competitions).

Because it was submitted as an "urgent matter" after the deadline for submitting regular motions expired. "Urgent matters" can be excluded from the agenda at the beginning of the Congress and they need a 4/5 majority to be included if a vote is requested on their inclusion.

Right at the beginning of the first day of the Congress, Skate Canada asked to have it removed. Therefore, a vote was immediately held.
66 voted to include it in the Agenda, 33 voted to exclude it, 16 abstained.

The 4/5 majority is calculated on all those voting including the 16 abstantions. So 92 votes in favour were needed

Hersh reported that in the post Congress press conference ISU President said they will re-introduce it next time within the first deadline for proposed motions, so it would be included automatically in the Agenda without needing the 4/5 majority.

Did they spend too long arguing over other things and run out of time or something?!

This risk wasn't present as at one point they voted something like 50 proposals in one single vote....and some delegates didn't even understand what they were voting on.
Some would say that it didn't make a difference because as judging by what they were saying during the debates, some weren't even understanding some proposals discussed one by one.
And above all, 2-3 delegates couldn't understand how to use that bloody voting machine even by the end of the week

Watching the Congress was a fascinating experience though

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

.

Right at the beginning of the first day of the Congress, Skate Canada asked to have it removed. Therefore, a vote was immediately held.
66 voted to include it in the Agenda, 33 voted to exclude it, 16 abstained.

Did Skate Canada give any reasoning as to why? Seems like a pretty no nonsense rule that most certainly would have gotten a majority vote.

That’s extremely dissspointing

 

[CaroLiza_fan]

Because it was submitted as an "urgent matter" after the deadline for submitting regular motions expired. "Urgent matters" can be excluded from the agenda at the beginning of the Congress and they need a 4/5 majority to be included if a vote is requested on their inclusion.

Right at the beginning of the first day of the Congress, Skate Canada asked to have it removed. Therefore, a vote was immediately held.
66 voted to include it in the Agenda, 33 voted to exclude it, 16 abstained.

The 4/5 majority is calculated on all those voting including the 16 abstantions. So 92 votes in favour were needed

Hersh reported that in the post Congress press conference ISU President said they will re-introduce it next time within the first deadline for proposed motions, so it would be included automatically in the Agenda without needing the 4/5 majority.

Ah, I didn't realise that the conflict of interest proposal arrived after the deadline for proposals.

Fair enough, then. That proposal came in late, so it was fairer on those that did get their proposals in on time that their proposals got priority.

Given the importance of this proposal, I don't think it was right that Canada asked for it to be removed from the agenda. But voting on whether to include it or not was the right thing to do in these circumstances. It's just unfortunate that there was not a big enough majority to get it included.

I'm surprised that the requirement was as high as 4/5, though. I would have expected it to be 2/3, or at the most 3/4.

Just shows how much attention I have paid to past Congresses!

This risk wasn't present as at one point they voted something like 50 proposals in one single vote....and some delegates didn't even understand what they were voting on.
Some would say that it didn't make a difference because as judging by what they were saying during the debates, some weren't even understanding some proposals discussed one by one.
And above all, 2-3 delegates couldn't understand how to use that bloody voting machine even by the end of the week

Watching the Congress was a fascinating experience though

It sounds like it!

The worst part is that I am not at all surprised by what you are describing.

CaroLiza_fan

 

[chopinskate]

Did Skate Canada give any reasoning as to why?

Do they need to? I think their president or vice president is a judge.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Do they need to? I think their president or vice president is a judge.

Especially considering the circumstances at hand it would be nice to hear the reasoning from them...don’t ya think :think:

 

[chopinskate]

Especially considering the circumstances at hand it would be nice to hear the reasoning from them...don’t ya think :think:

No I mean their president/vice president is a judge so there you go. That's the reason.

 

[Shayuki]

I for one am very happy that they aren't making such age limits and that nothing came out of it. Hopefully in a couple of years they realize what a terrible idea it was and scrap it for good. Lowering the minimum age to 16 isn't "a good compromise", it's completely unnecessary and a change for the sake of making a change, for the worse.

 

[el henry]

Since I think the age limit is a great, common sense idea, which as an “urgent proposal” did not get the 4/5 (barely) for consideration, does this mean it can be placed on the regular agenda next Congress much like the “conflict of interest” proposal?

Yes

 

[gkelly]

Just shows how much attention I have paid to past Congresses!

They haven't been live streamed (and therefore haven't received Golden Skate play by play) in the past. So that's one step toward transparency.

Since I think the age limit is a great, common sense idea, which as an “urgent proposal” did not get the 4/5 (barely) for consideration, does this mean it can be placed on the regular agenda next Congress much like the “conflict of interest” proposal?

If Netherlands and/or another federation submits a proposal in the regular time frame, it should be on the agenda.

I'm not sure everyonethinks it's a common sense idea. In order to pass, I think the supporters will need to identify exactly what the problem is they're trying to solve and show some evidence that their proposal will in fact solve the problems, as well as addressing likely new problems likely to result from the new rule.

If a well-thought out proposal can convince enough other federations that a change in age limits will really have a net positive effect on the sport, then it can pass.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

No I mean their president/vice president is a judge so there you go. That's the reason.

I know...that’s why I’d like to hear them address their reasoning. If that’s it...just say it. In which case I’d disagree but maybe they have actual sound reasoning to wish for the proposal to be removed. I’m not into speculating so for now I’m just left

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

Since I think the age limit is a great, common sense idea, which as an “urgent proposal” did not get the 4/5 (barely) for consideration, does this mean it can be placed on the regular agenda next Congress much like the “conflict of interest” proposal?

Yes

It will come up again but most people seem to be against it. Until then

 

[chopinskate]

Since I think the age limit is a great, common sense idea, which as an “urgent proposal” did not get the 4/5 (barely) for consideration, does this mean it can be placed on the regular agenda next Congress much like the “conflict of interest” proposal?

Yes

It can be struck down again.

They haven't been live streamed (and therefore haven't received Golden Skate play by play) in the past. So that's one step toward transparency.

And now that we have given them one, it won't ever be happening again.

I know...that’s why I’d like to hear them address their reasoning. If that’s it...just say it. In which case I’d disagree but maybe they have actual sound reasoning to wish for the proposal to be removed. I’m not into speculating so for now I’m just left

Ah, got it. I don't think it will ever happen, though.

 

[ice coverage]

I know...that’s why I’d like to hear them address their reasoning. If that’s it...just say it. In which case I’d disagree but maybe they have actual sound reasoning to wish for the proposal to be removed. I’m not into speculating so for now I’m just left

Sam, please watch the ISU video.
Your "gripe" is with the ISU and its procedure for the Congress -- and not with Skate Canada.

My recollection of the live streaming (I have not gone back to re-watch):

When making the motion to exclude Urgent Proposal No. 6, Skate Canada CEO Debra Armstrong asked -- with absolutely no prompting from anyone -- (I'm paraphrasing) "Should I give a reason?" She seemed perfectly OK with stating a reason.

She apparently was waved off, so she said nothing more. The ISU moved forward lickety-split with voting on the motion.​

I am neither defending nor criticizing Skate Canada for making the motion.

Just want you to be properly informed of what transpired at the Congress.

---

For CL_fan and anyone else who perhaps missed it:

The ISU did publish its own summary of decisions of the Congress.

https://isu.org/news/145-news/12111-decisions-of-the-congress?templateParam=15 (Jun 8)​

Plus election results from the Congress.

https://isu.org/news/145-news/12112-election-results?templateParam=15 (Jun 8)​