Singapore Worlds 2004

[John Stewart]

Wow.

For once it seems that IVs have been catapulted up into the reaches of controversy.

Not quite exactly sure yet what I'm going to do about the second team. I may decide to open the applications again, and if there are promising entrant students (as it appears are emerging from the woodwork) then I may well have to postpone the selection of the second team until after the summer, until I can actually watch these speakers in the flesh.

It may well be the wisest and least controversial route for me to go down.

Perhaps Board of Ten members and prominent IV hacks could give me a quick e-mail over the next week, tell me what they think, and we can see where we go from here.

In short, watch this space...

[John Stewart]

Also, Darshan, if you could possibly e-mail me a copy of the budget proposals you submitted to SSC, I would be eternally grateful.

It strikes me that if you have requisitioned only £1000, then, at approx. £250 per speaker, we would in fact be £250 short of a second team anyway.

[Barry Joss]

I can think of few situations, Mr Stewart, in which the wisest and least controversial route would be for you to go down.

Also ... requisitioned??? Requisitioned???

[Eliot Wilson]

If only everyone, Mr. Joss, was as careful in the use of language as we. But then, as has been remarked before - by me, no less - we are the whores of language, or perhaps its pimps. It's so hard to tell.

Can someone, however, cast any light on the rumour that the ever-hilarious Lord Rector, Sir Clement Freud, is going to pay for the travel of our teams to (and, sadly, from) Singapore?

[John Stewart]

In the latest twist of this ongoing Worlds saga, I have lately decided to re-open the applications. All matriculated students are welcome to apply, preferably those who have actually debated before.

Applications will close on Tuesday 23rd September, so just after freshers week. We will then conduct a series of trial debates so that I can see how you all measure up, and the most talented will be selected to go.

And by talented I mean verbally, not necessarily (but not exclusively) visually...

Anybody interested in going, give me an e-mail at js67@st-andrews.ac.uk and I'll then e-mail you out an application form.

Nothing too hard there!

[John Stewart]

And on other things mentioned here...

Barry - the whole bit about how you negotiated the deal and we are meant to work on a bit of a boom-bust mentality with the expense is great, except that the Union does not pay transport costs to Worlds, only entrance, which varies little from its' present level of £250 per person. Thus, as far as the Union is concerned there should be no difference in expense between sending teams to Dundee or sending teams to Dubai, as the entrance fee for both would be broadly the same (it varies about £20 a year).

Eliot - The most frankly hilarious part of the concept of the nice Sir Clement Freud deciding out of a sudden fit of charity to pay our transport case is the fact that you put enough stock in this to post it on a public forum.

I have indeed spoken to the Rector about the POSSIBILITY in abstract of applying to the Rector's fund for a contrabution towards travel costs. However, the chance of them paying a good £4500 to meet said airfares is sadly remote.

I hope that puts a couple of misconceptions to bed for the summer. Rumours can of course be terribly damaging, especially when there is no truth (or little truth) behind them.

Wish the Freud one was true...

[M]

Being one of those senior debaters I too have a few things to add to this discussion. I've tried to reply in order of posts to make things easier to follow. Also (for practice), I'll outline my argument as follows

1. Why Worlds is totally different from all other competitions and it is shortsighted to try to judge it against their standards.
2. Worlds as part of an ongoing program
3. Money
4. University and Union reputation
5. Where else we could spend the money?
6. WUDC perspective
7. Random partners
8. Applications
9. Respective placing
10. Personality and Politics

Sorry that its long, but I feel there are many things to say. Also, just to mention at this point, I may spell things wrong, or have idiomatic phrases, may I point out now they don't bother me, my point is content.

So

1. Why Worlds is different.
It has struck me, while reading this thread, that most arguments revolve around the possibility of winning or losing. The main thrust of the argument is that if we can't win we shouldn't go. This strikes me as wrong in many ways.
One: we don't only debate to win. Obviously this is a wonderful side benefit, however, we debate because we enjoy it. We learn about the world, other perspectives, public speaking, and so many things that are difficult to put into words. (Oxymoronic I know)
Two: The educational value of Worlds, both in the school of debating, and on wider issues is unparalleled. If we deny that chance to anyone when we have the means to send them, how can we claim we are here for the benefit of all 6,500 students? Even if we can only send five, we should send five and no less, especially not because they may not win. They may learn, and that should be just as good.

"wasted money and damaged the University's standing by using the World Championship, effectively, as practice"
I’m surprised to tell you Barry, as I would have thought you would know this, but many universities use Worlds as a training, obviously they hope to do well too, however if a university can afford to send two teams, they will, as it provides such invaluable training, which can help them in regional or national tournaments
Three: Paying for more people to go to Worlds is essentially an investment.

2. Worlds as part of an ongoing program

The argument about winning might hold more weight if the event was a one-off. However, it isn't. Any competitor who attends more then once has a substantial possibility of doing better than he or she did the previous year. Worlds is a learning experience and this is precisely why sending two teams is not only justified, but a good idea. Worlds provides the best training opportunity any young debater can have. Not only do they participate in an event with people of ALL speaking abilities, but it is also compressed into a short period of time (increasing the learning curve), and it allows the opportunity for observation of the best speakers in the world. Even judging teaches so much about different styles, case constructions, etc.
Worlds is also a time to meet and befriend other debaters, both from IONA and the rest of the world. These connections can benefit the society in many ways. We have been asked to compete in numerous North American tournaments, and have been told that many US debaters would like to know more about our program. We have increased our profile on the circuit, which increases the likelihood that teams will attend our competitions.
We increase the number of good student speakers we have to rely on in LPH, and to participate in Schools training. This in turn brings more school debaters to St Andrews as university students.

The point is that our program is ongoing. The long-term benefits, which have yet to be discussed, far outweigh “If we can win”- an argument so simplistic I’m surprised it has lasted this long.


3. Money
"I understand your concern about the Association taking away the extra £500, but I would have thought they'd look rather more fondly on us in the future if we explained that, in this particular year, we had no worthwhile second team and therefore didn't want to waste their money for the sake of spending it, but that we might apply for money for two teams for Zagreb in 2004/2005. I should think Campbell Boyle would be a bit annoyed if he thought we were blowing £500 of the Association's money on a junket for a team in whom we had no faith or confidence."

I’m sorry Eliot, I don’t mean to be rude, but this is just exaggerated and wrong. The Association doesn’t think that giving us this money is a waste. I think in fact they would wonder why we had two teams last year, and not this year. I’ve already explained how sending an extra team to worlds can in no way be a waste.
Further to that, in some way, one could say that by sending more people we actually save money in several ways: We have less of a need for outside speakers, if we save on train fare alone for 2 speakers (80 pounds from London), per LPH debate that’s over 2,000 pounds a year; we also give the University and the Union great international publicity.

4.University and reputation
Many universities from all over the world have faces to put to the name of St Andrews, and often have friends here as well. I know of at least 2 people who have applied to St Andrews because of our debating team who would never have otherwise considered it. Our Union also has a good reputation for investing in our debating society. Debating is recognised as one of the most valuable activities in which students can participate. The fact that the Union and the University support us is taken very favourably both by other universities and students, but also by employers. This makes the Union and the University good investment opportunities.
I don't think the Union, or the University can call that a waste of money.

5. Spend the money elsewhere?
"suggest that the money be spent more profitably elsewhere"

This is a possibility that has been discussed for at least four years now. The Union has not approved it before. I don’t see how Campbell is suddenly going to change his mind. The Union gives the society money for WORLDS. THAT’S IT. They WILL NOT approve using it elsewhere. That being said, there is no reason not to use it, as I have already demonstrated the benefits.

6.WUDC perspective
"It would be a waste of the Association's money, and of the WUDC's time. Worlds is not the place for making up the numbers."

I’ve already said why it wouldn’t be a waste of the Unions money, but if you need further proof, it will not be a waste of the WUDC’s time and I can speak with authority on this. I was the Scotland Rep to the eight hour meeting this year, and also because I am now a member of the WUDC Exec. We want anyone and everyone. The UK has a good record of sending the top teams in the tournament. St Andrews is among those and will continue to be. We have a good chance of breaking with both teams this year, whatever the composition of the second. The more people at a tournament the higher the level of competition.
Send people to the WUDC.

7. Random partners
"yes it does not make sense just to send two random partners to Worlds."

True- but why does it have to be two random partners? I can think of several combinations of people who would work. Not including the new Americans we have coming next year. There is also the entire fall season for them to become accustomed to each other and create a team.

8.Applications
"i think the applications should be reopened - clearly, John cannot find a suitable pairing and this can only be solved by reopening."

Not to open a can of worms, but I don’t think that’s really the problem.

"the second pairing shall now be picked from a pool of candidates that clearly do not work well together"

I think if you compare the pool of applicants there is really only one combination that does not work well: David and Myself. We have debated together before and sadly do nothing for each other as a team. However there are still many other combinations. I could list them but it would waste time. The question is why was the panel’s decision David and me or no one. This doesn’t seem very sensible.

9. Respective placings
"you might argue, that sending a second team which does really badly, might come across worse than not sending one at all"

This might be possible in another universe, but if you really think we are going to do THAT badly you obviously have never been to Worlds.

"their achievements are overshadowed by a poorly performing second team."

How exactly? If a team breaks they break. If the other team doesn’t they don’t. Can and Nye from Bristol looked just as good in the quarterfinals, even though Chris and Laura didn’t break. They still went on to win Europeans. I don’t think your point is well made.

10. Personality and Politics

This is really an opinion, however, I have been very surprised, both at some of the decisions being made, and some of the postings. For instance: Barry I understand you have been involved in the society for a long time, however, you have not been involved with IVs (other than our own) for as long as I can remember. Why are you so outraged? What difference does it make to you? It seems strange you are so personally invested. I don't mean offence, just a little surprised, that’s all.

My only caution for members of the selection panel, and the Board, is this: Be careful when you make a decision that you pay attention to what makes the most sense logically, not politically. It is not always easy; however it is worth it.

My recommendations after all this are:
Reconvene the panel by the end of Freshers week to re-consider the applications. However make a few changes. If John excuses himself from the panel he could be added as a possible fifth candidate, this will change the make-up of the application pool and may result in a better combination.
The panel could be made up thus: Eliot and Peter remain, as they were party to the original discussion and can add that insight. Add Matt Dyson and Tony Dunn, they have nothing to gain as they are already assured a place, they have extensive history of the IV squad, are among our top debaters, and have experienced Worlds. Add Derek McLeod as the fifth vote. He represents the Union's interests, and can cast a deciding vote if, and only if, necessary.

If this does not work and a decision still cannot be reached revert to the original panel and choices (IE: John goes as judge), and re-open the application pool.

This way there is still time to consider early in the year, however the original applicants get a little consideration. Thanks for yours in reading this,

Miranda

[Eliot Wilson]

Well, Miranda, I think that you perhaps slightly misrepresent - in the best debating tradition, mind you - some of the contributions. I have not suggested, nor has anyone I've spoken to, that it's a waste of time and money sending a team to Worlds unless they win. I'm perfectly aware that St. Andrews is probably (by which I mean 99.9% certainly) not going to win Worlds at Singapore. I happen to think that Messrs. Dyson and Dunn have a good chance of breaking, and I wish them all the very best. But of the applicants presented to the selection committee, there was not, in my view (and the view of the committee at the time), a viable second team who would have a) performed reasonably well, and/or b) developed as debaters to a degree which would be strikingly useful to the Society as a whole. For example, you, Miranda, have already been to Worlds, you've debated and judged at God knows how many competitions in Britain, and I think you will be just as valuable to the Debating Society when you come back in September regardless of whether you go to Singapore. The same is to a degree true of David, though obviously he doesn't have your length of service. This is, in any event, not an abstract consideration. It's not just a matter of some people learning a bit about debating. It has to be balanced against £500 in entry fees and God alone knows how much in travel. The decision of the selection committee - and I should add that it was a unanimous decision - was that there was no second team whose benefit to the Society from participating at Worlds was worth the sum of money required. And, believe me, it was a careful consideration. We did take our job seriously, and weren't just making this up as we went along.

Your point about having good student speakers for LPH being a cost-saving measure must, surely, have been tongue-in-cheek, Miranda. You know as well as I do that good LPH speakers are not necessarily good IV debaters, and that good IV speakers can be an absolute disaster in LPH. Besides which, the alternative to student speakers is not necessarily bringing people from London. Moreover, as I know from experience, it is not necessarily the case that speakers coming from outwith St. Andrews will necessarily be a drain on our resources. At the last Parliamentary debate, for example, Nigel Evans MP, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, spoke at the cost to the Society of a dinner ticket and nothing more, and very sporting of him it was too. So I can only assume that you weren't being entirely serious on that point.

My fundamental point remains that the Debating Society should (and did, in the form of the selection committee) ask itself whether it is spending the Association's money wisely. Our conclusion was that, by sending a second team to Singapore, it would not be.

[Barry Joss]

I weary of this discussion. And not least because people seem to be able to reply to my postings without having read them. Or, if they have read, without understanding them.

For the final time - unless the arrangement has wildly changed since I SET IT UP, here is how Worlds has been funded. I stress that I set it up not for self-aggrandisement but to illustrate that it is not some ancient and hallowed tradition of the Society, it was done in recent memory by someone who can be contacted without a glass and a Scrabble(tm)set - though if you're buying...

The Association provides the sum of £1,000 per annum towards the World Championships, which is to be spent as the Society sees fit within that narrow area - hence the separate bank account. The idea is that when the champiosnhip is cheap (e.g. Glasgow) we should be able to save some of that money to help in future years where it will be more expensive. The idea also is that should the costs be extraordinarily over the amount in said account then the onus is on the Society to raise more. Simple enough so far for the hard of thinking? This replaces the preceding system where the Society simply asked the UMC for however much it was thought things would cost (so, for example, Cork was quite cheap, Stellenbosch was quite expensive).

I continue. My problem in no way lies with the Society spending the money to send two teams. Nor for that matter with it sending twenty teams if it can raise the additional cash. My problem is with sending two teams sure in the knowledge that one of them is inadequate. How do *I* know it is inadequate, I who have never competed in an IV? Simple, the panel selected to choose the team decided that was the case. Unanimously. Clear enough, I ask again?

This being the case, spending additional monies (if the Society has decided that the money given by the Association is for entrance fee payment only) is a WASTE of money that might better be spent on a more realistic and hopeful team in subsequent years. The Association WILL NOT take the money back off you. For the third time, are we clear?

Now, why am I so worked up? Simple, again. Inasmuch as I am worked up, it is because as a former Society / Association Treasurer I feel confident in saying that the one thing which really could jepoardise Association funding for the Worlds is the idea that it is being spent on a junket for the Board and hangers-on. We are, and we must ALWAYS remeber this, spending PUBLIC money and therefore have a legal and moral responsibility to spend it wisely and account for it transparently. For this reason, past Boards (again within recent memory) have stopped the practice of paying sundry expenses for IV entrants, stopped free drinks before debates and stopped subsidised tickets for the Board. For the Board to over-rule the judging panel and insist on a second team, smacks of precisely that. Still with me, children?

Further, I am worked up for a reason I have already stated in previous posts. I have sat on similar judging panels in the past and have been faced with similar decisions which grated severely at the time. Thankfully in that instance Donald Findlay (then Rector) stumped up substantial sums to help the Society out. We cannot rely on such largesse, and must not assume we can. For all we are the best funded Society in St Andrews (by a factor of 10), we are still poor compared to certain institutions we have the effrontery to consider our peers - we do not have to try to keep up with the Jonses. We only have to do the best we possibly can. And the best we possibly can is not to send an unsuitable team to the World Championships. Stop me if I'm going too quickly.

Now at this stage I shall take a pause and ask Miranda - I HAVE NO INVOLVEMENT??? My involvement is clear to anyone who has attended debates at any point in the last decade. How would *I* know a world class team? Simple, by having seen many of them over the years. That and, in St Andrews, they'd be the ones looking hopelessly lost and wondering how they'd got there. That I do not compete does not invalidate in any way my opinion as a judge. In fact, a degree of detachment often makes for clearer judging decisions - fewer "Oh, I'd have said..." comments at the very least! One does not have to be a great author to be a great critic - or even teacher. When you appoint an independent panel to make a decision, you do not have the luxury of dismissing it. That should be clear to everyone.

So, Miranda, those are my reasons for disputing the decision of the Board. As for all else, I think my attention to detail, and to my ability to organise things sensibly can be left to stand for themselves. It makes for a much more smoothly run Society in the end, don't you agree?

That's all I have to say for now. I apologise for my tone if it failed to seem sufficiently weary and/or patronising.

[Al]

I am sorry if I have missed the gist of this discussion, but may I ask a question? What was the point of the Board appointing a judging panel (and, I presume, picking people with some knowledge of IV debating to serve on it) only to then turn round and reject the decision of that panel? I thought that sort of malarkey was reserved for the SRC.

[hr]Rompiendo la monotonia del tiempo

[John Stewart]

At the end of the day, the appointment of the panel was a decision of mine. The members of the panel were decided by me and not the Board. The panel's decision was presented to the Board by me. The Board then decided that the panel, after being asked to appoint two teams, had failed to do so, and they put it to a vote that a second team should be appointed.

This is due to the fact that I was myself applying to Worlds, and could not therefore, in the interests of impartiality, be expected to make the decision myself.

This also explains why I stepped out of the selection process after Dyson and Tony were selected as the 'A' team, and the selectionof a 'B' team became an issue.

At the end of the day, the Selection committee were resposnible to myself, and not the Board of Ten, for making this decision. Their decision was a recommendation, and was in no way binding on the Board or me.

And given that the decision was made ON THE PREMISE THAT THE FUNDS COULD BE REALLOCATED TO DOMESTIC IVs OR EUROPEANS, and that this premise was later seen to be flawed in that the money would not be reallocated by the Union, it seems reasonable to argue that the original selection panel made a decision that, in retrospect, was flawed.

I myself believe that the benefits of sending a team to Worlds, even if they won't break, far outweight he benefits of sending no-one. After all, who can deny the improvement in myself, Miranda and Tony after Worlds this year? And I would argue that we are in a position to utilise the experience gained to present a team at Singapore with a chance of breaking - something St Andrews has been unable to do for some time. What we have to ask is, if there is no second break quality team (and please bear in mind that of all the Scottish Universities sending teams to Worlds last year, NOT A SINGLE TEAM BROKE - MAKING THE BREAK IS NOT EASY, IT IS IN ITSELF A SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT), then is there a team that is capable of benefiting from the experience to the point where they offer us either the possibility of a future break-quality team, or where they present significant gain to St Andrews in terms of enhanced prospect of domestic success and deepening the pool of good speakers in St Andrews?

Getting pissed off about wasting the Union's resources, and there being no other possible second team is a bit of both a waste of time, and a misconception.

1. We're not going to win worlds. That's rather bloody obvious to anyone who has seen the likes of Middle Temple, Monash, Ottawa, Sydney or Cambridge speak. However, we recognise that Worlds experience DOES contribute to a speaker's development, and puts them in a much stronger position from which to compete on the domestic circuit.
2. OK, so no second team was apparent from the first round of applicants. However, there are more speakers within the society who did not apply. There will also be incoming speakers next year who may be good enough to deserve a chance. Rather than write off the whole thing now, it makes to say that if there are not enough fish in the pond, why not try fishing in the river instead? All this talk makes it sound as if there are only 2 credible speakers in St Andrews, and I know that to be a lot of bullshit, especially when you bear in mind that the society's mid-year turmiol cost most of our speakers a full year's worth of training, so many of our first years have had limited training. Something I aim to correct nerxt year.

On the financing of the whole thing, I have to say that this whole thing about worlds being cheaper in Glasgow than Stellenbosch is also a pile of soiled pants these days.

IF barry had been present at Worlds Council this year, he would realise that the cost of Worlds Registration has been a flat £250 per person for several years now, and is highly unlikely to change much from that, if ever, except perhaps due to small fluctuations in exchange rate which actually made Stellenbosch this year CHEAPER than many previous Worlds' such as Glasgow, helped by the sliding Rand.

The Union these days does NOT fund the cost of travel to Worlds. That is the responsibility of the speakers. As Eliot points out, Universities like Glasgow or Oxford can afford to pay their competitor's entrance AND travel. Nice for them, but we can't, and thus the travel expenses are NOT AN ISSUE.

So, rather than chuck the towel now and say "we're too shit to go to Worlds" which seems to be the gist of Eliot's argument, I have decided (and at the end of the day, this is MY decision to make) to re-open applications over the summer period. The exact make up of any selection panel is an issue I don't intend to deal with right now, but I broadly agree with much of Miranda's suggestion. And at the end of the day, why not let Derek see the standard of applicant himself? And if he says there is no team worth sending, and that it will be a waste of Union resources, then I'm prepared to accept that from him. But until then, I think Eliot needs to a little less self-defeatest and realise that out of 200 odd teams at Worlds, only maybe 20 are as strong as he seems to think they all are, Miranda needs to be a little less confrontational, and we all need to apply common sense.

With that, I hope this debate can be put on ice until September, when we can take stock of things a little more reliably.

[Barry Joss]

I have no desire to prolong this any further, but I will say one more thing. If you actually READ what I said, Mr Stewart, you might find it easier to understand. But then again, perhaps not, as you appear to be more than a little hard of thinking. And, for the record, my name is capitalised.

[M]

I weary of the subject and the discussion as well. I'm sorry John for being confrontational, I too get frustrated by- as berry puts it- "The hard of thinking".

Barry, the system of funding has changed since your time. I just had a disscussion with Gillian. The money CANNOT be spent elsewhere.

Have a good summer all. John I will email you about training schedules later in the summer.

PS. If anyone has subscriptions to Economist, Spectator etc please bring them to the first Monday training session in September.

[Eliot Wilson]

It is warily that I venture another comment on this but... can we at least agree that, whether or not we think it a good idea, it would be possible to use money not spent for the Singapore Worlds on next year's competition in Zagreb?

[Barry Joss]

I never advocated spending it elsewhere. I advocated holding it over for subsequent years. I know that Campbell would consider that to be financially prudent. As distinct from simply blowing a grand in the hope of getting another next year.

And, not only is my name capitalised, but it is spelled with an A!

Doubtless see you at the start of term, Miranda. Albeit briefly.

[Dyson]

Not to criticise, but it seems to me, John, that you did not remove yourself from the decision-making process after the choosing of the A-team. It seems to me, that by contradicting the unanimous decision of the selection committee, which you were a part of, that you very much made yourself the whipping-boy of a thinly described power move that keeps with all the finest traditions of St. Andrews debate

[John Stewart]

Dyson,

Would you be referring to the traditional Board of Ten passtime of "stab the dagger in the convenor's back"? It's getting to be a rather tedious pursuit these days.

There are reasons for me voting as I did. Chief among which was the knowledge that the funds were not going to be reallocated to my overall IV expenses budget, as had been assumed by the Selection Panel. So rather than see the cash lost to IVs altogether...you get the idea.

And as far as "whipping boy" goes - I'll leave until the S&M debate.

In the meantime, I promise to research extensively...

[M]

We cannot agree that we can spend the money for Zagreb. The cash office does not agree either. If we do not spend the money allocated for this years Worlds it will be returned to the general fund. It will also have no affect on next years application. Each year is considered independently and Gillian has said not spending all of this years allocation will not mean anything for next years application. We have the money, why not spend it?

[Barry Joss]

For what I sincerely hope will be the last time...

That is not Gillian's decision, nor I suspect is she in full possession of the facts. If no motion has cometo change it to the SSC, and I really don't think it has, then the old World's formula remains in place. If it has been changed then I can only assume some moron Convenor defied me and screwed the Society in doing it. Not the first time.

Whoever is Treasurer, probably with John, go and SPEAK TO CAMPBELL. His say counts. Gillian's from the Cash Office, lovely though she is, does not.

[John Stewart]

Barry,

It's all very lovely that you care so much, especially given that you're not, I believe, even a student at St Andrews any more.

However, I'm that if SSC cared enough about how many teams we send to Worlds, they will let me know. However, as far as I'm concerned, the money has been allocated. If the budget is approved by SSC, then I am perfectly prepared to spend it, because god knows, there isn't much money in the IVs budget this year.

Also, interestingly enough, you have still yet to tell me exactly why it would be more expensive to register two teams and a judge, at £250 per person, for Worlds in, say, Zagreb, than to register two teams and a judge, at £250 per person, for Singapore. Care to inform me why the union cares where worlds is held if the cost doesn't change?