The purpose of this paper is to persuade Challenge Committee members to vote against the proposed definition change for Shakedown.

This paper describes the problems with the proposed definition change, and concludes with a better proposal for a definition of Shakedown.

A proposal to change the definition of the C1 call Shakedown has been submitted by the Definitions Committee Chairman Clark Baker to the Challenge Committee. The goal of this proposal is to reword the definition of Shakedown so that the dance action for all dancers can be described using the same words.

The current CallerLab definition of Shakedown:

Shakedown From couples back to back: As one continuous move, the beaus Run and Roll while the belles Quarter Out and Box Circulate. Left Shakedown. From couples back to back: As one continuous move, the belles Run and Roll while the beaus Quarter Out and Box Circulate.

The proposed definition of Shakedown is

Shakedown From a 2 x 2 formation with everyone as Leaders only: As one continuous move, 1/4 Right, Box Counter Rotate 1/4, and Roll

There are several problems with this proposed definition change.

1. Shakedown would become a 3-part call. Callers would begin to use fractions and parts-related concepts. For example,
   • 2/3 Shakedown;
   • From Out-Facing Lines: Finish a Shakedown (where some dancers move Right and others move Left);
   • From T-Bone Boxes: Boys Start a Shakedown (Boys 1/4 Right; all Box Counter Rotate 1/4; Roll)
   This completely changes the gestalt of the call and contributes to choppy choreography.
2. By including Box Counter Rotate in the definition, Shakedown would then be allowed from many more starting formations than originally intended (i.e, anywhere where dancers could 1/4 Right, "group-of-4" Counter Rotate 1/4, then Roll). This will greatly increase the complexity of the call.
3. By including Box Counter Rotate 1/4 in the definition, Shakedown would become a call that requires the use of hands (a 'touch-hands' movement).
4. Shakedown would become a choppy dance action which would not contribute to smooth dancing.
5. Shakedown would become inaccessible to Plus dancers. The proposed definition change includes a call on the A2 list. This means the call could no longer be easily taught to Plus dancers since it includes a Counter Rotate 1/4.

The Definitions Committee has proposed solutions countering some of the problems listed above. Below, I have listed these proposed solutions and my rebuttal for each.

1. Problem: 3-part call.
   Solution: Include in the definition the phrase "This call cannot be fractionalized."
   This is not a sufficient solution, since callers will clearly see 3 parts in the definition.
2. Problem: Counter Rotate 1/4 is too powerful a call to be used in the definition.
   Solution: Include in the definition the phrase "From a 2 x 2 only."
   Even if the starting formation is restricted to a 2 x 2, the definition could still be applied to most 2 x 2 formations. For example, Shakedown could be called from Facing Couples (everyone 1/4 Right to form a L-H Mini-Wave Box; Box Counter Rotate 1/4; Roll).
   Challenge callers are always trying to find new formations and applications for existing calls. Over time, callers tend to ignore such restrictive phrases. They would view the concise part of the definition for Shakedown, see that it includes Box Counter Rotate 1/4, and would begin to expand that to mean "group of 4 Counter Rotate 1/4". We might then see Shakedown choreography from these formations:
   • From a Single Completed Double Pass Thru formation (1/4 Right; Line of 4 Counter Rotate 1/4 [Lockit]; Roll)
   • From a 2 x 2 in which some dancers are Trailers
   • From generalized Diamonds
   Including this powerful new tool (Counter Rotate) is the biggest problem with the proposed definition change. The Challenge world has already suffered from one such change. The C4 call Step Lively was written a long time ago with a wordy (and fuzzy) definition that resulted in the dancers devising an easier way to remember the call. They began dancing Step Lively as a Detour; Centers spread apart, then Distorted Couples Circulate to end in normal (non-Distorted) Two-Faced Lines. Shortly after the call Slim Down came out, a C4 caller or dancer noticed that Slim Down could replace the 'second' part of the 'cheat' definition for Step Lively. Slim Down is an incredibly powerful tool that can be used from any 2 x 4 formation, as well as from a few odd-ball formations. Nowadays many callers use the modified cheat definition as the real definition of Step Lively, causing ambiguities that were never before possible.
   Clark recently sent out an E-mail message about a proposed definition change for Zing. He believes that using Circulate for the Trailer's part is 'too powerful a tool'. If Circulate is too powerful a tool for Zing, then Counter Rotate is certainly too powerful a tool for Shakedown!
3. Problem: Box Counter Rotate 1/4 is a "touch hands" movement.
   Solution: Include in the definition the phrase "without touching hands, Box Counter Rotate 1/4".
   The majority of dancers at the C1 program or below cannot accurately dance a Box Counter Rotate 1/4 without holding hands. In fact, as dancers, we hold hands whenever possible on a Box Counter Rotate 1/4.
4. Problem: choppy dance action.
   No solution proposed.
   The dancers would be required to do 3 movements instead of one. Shakedown would become similar to the C3B call Split Sidetrack (Zig-Zag; Split Counter Rotate 1/4; Roll). From Out-Facing Lines, Split Sidetrack is exactly equivalent to the proposed definition change for Shakedown. In general, dancers do not execute this call smoothly, since they first 1/4 Right, then adjust to a box of 4 (joining hands and often waiting to ensure that everyone in the Box is facing the correct direction), then Split Counter Rotate 1/4, and Roll.
5. Problem: inaccessible to Plus.
   No solution proposed.
   Definitions should be written so that they can be accessed by the 'lowest common denominator' of dancer. That is, if a definition can be written either in terms of Mainstream calls or in terms of Advanced calls, it should always be written in terms of Mainstream calls. Rewriting the definition of Shakedown to include an A2 call (Box Counter Rotate) precludes Shakedown from being correctly taught at Plus (say as a Plus Quarterly or workshop figure). However, a definition such as the following might work: "The right-side dancer 1/4 Right and Run as the left-side dancer Run & 1/4 Right". In fact, a couple of years ago Ken Bower was describing a call that he had been workshopping at Plus. The movement was exactly the same as Shakedown, but it had a different name (something like 'Quick Chase'). The Plus dancers could easily pick up on it, and I'm sure it wasn't defined in terms of Box Counter Rotate!

If the goal is to reword the definition of Shakedown such that the dance action of all dancers can be described using the same words, I recommend that this be accomplished via the following new definition which addresses all problems mentioned in this paper.

A better proposed definition for Shakedown:

Shakedown: From a 2 x 2 in which everyone is a Leader. As one movement, each dancer moves one position to the Right while simultaneously turning 3/4 to the Right. Back-to-Back Couples ends in Facing Couples.

The above definition is simpler, avoids fractionalization, dances smoothly, and avoids the use of the term Counter Rotate.

Please vote against the proposed definition of Shakedown. If you have aleady voted, please change your vote. Contact Ed Foote at edcall@zoominternet.net or 140 McCandless Drive, Wexford, Pennsylvania, 15090, USA.

Thank you for your time.

Vic Ceder   https://www.ceder.net/