Drinking

[Steveo]

I'm sitting here, enjoying a bottle of afternoon Hendricks, and it made me think:

Why is the society so sober these days?

I've even fallen prey to this myself, no longer drinking bottles of wine in LPH as was once the case.

It's a terrible shame that one of the finest drinking establishments in all of St Andrews is all of a sudden so very dry.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[Lid]

It's a real shame.

There was a motion passed by board a while ago that said 'drunkedness will not be tolerated in LPH'. However, when this was relayed to the house, it was given as 'drinking will not be tolerated in LPH'.

Personally, I think it can relax the nerves for a floor speech, if taken in moderation.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Al]

Surely the one that was actually passed would be the one in force? After all, 'drinking will not be tolerated in LPH' would seem to ban, well, drinking. No more water for the speakers then.

[Connie]

The reason we passed that motion was because as long as the society was seen to be 'one of the finest drinking establishments' we were finding it impossible to hold any kind of sway when asking the university to let us use rooms or get any kind of support, as we were not thought be be responsible. This harks back to when the psychology foyer was left in a mess a few years ago (I'm told) and when there were problems in the senate room. Also last semester someone drunk smashed a window in LPH.
The current board is doing a lot to try to change the perceptions people have of the society, and being responsible in the chamber is one of the ways to do this. Does it really look good to outside speakers, representatives of the university or our sponsors if people are standing up and spouting nonsense because they are drunk? Or even if people are just being loud during table speeches because they aren't fully aware of what they're doing.

So I hope, and I'm sure the rest of the board agree, that we won't see a return to the days of drinking in LPH. Especially tonight, since we have some very important sponsors attending the debate.
Debates can be good sober - it means we have to work even harder to make them enjoyable!
--Connie

[Al]

There is quite a difference between someone "drinking in LPH" and someone "drunk in LPH". Many people - over many years - have consumed alcohol during debates. How many have caused problems? And why pass a new motion? The standing orders already give the convenor the authority to require someone to leave a debate if that person is being disruptive. It seems an odd position to punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few idiots. And I assume that such things as giving out bottles of port (or other alcohol) as prizes or having pre-debate drinks are also to be consigned to the past? It would be a remarkable case of double-standards if not.

[Connie]

We give out bottle of port as floor prizes, but don't expect people to consume them in the chamber.
We would turn away people who were obviously drunk, but during the course of a debate it can be hard to tell if people are getting drunk, often until they interrupt someone who the society has paid money to come and speak, and I think that is unfair on those who have refrained from drinking who actually stay sober to listen to what our guests have to say.
I also think it appears quite rude to speakers if people are seen to be drinking during their speeches. It can also be hard for the convenor to see people causing problems.
It may seem harsh, but an across the board message that we disapprove of drinking in LPH was the only way to show the university that we were committed to improving the way the society operated and to ensure that EVERYONE could enjoy the debate uninterrupted.
Plus, this motion was passed AAAAGES ago, and people have been enjoying the debates since.

[exnihilo]

Does the ban apply to table speakers? Because over the years I've seen a lot of our "important" table speakers consume during and before their speech - many of them to steady their nerves because they're not experienced public speakers. Still, easier to not be nervous if the "audience" is to sit silent in rapt attention and listen to the lecture. If that's the kind of "important" speakers the Society is paying for it seems something of a waste of money.

That being said, I'm not that surprised to see LPH becoming more staid, more dull and more and more irrelevant to the Society as we focus ever more on the tedium that is IV style debating and ever less on the overwhelming majority of the Society's members who couldn't give a monkey's for the competition side or the small minority for whom it is the be all and end all.


That was really several rants, but you're getting a bit of each all at once.

[Mr Comedy]

I see no trouble whatsoever with drinking in LPH. Obviously I'm an exponent of this as I would happily knock back a bottle of wine with Steveo, and it didn't impinge on the society at all.
I did fall asleep at the despatch box once, but apart from that I didn't see a problem with this. To be honest, I'll fall in with Dr Joss on this one, as a debate on the finer points of NUS policy is an open invitation to narcolepsy.

When I first started in the society under the ample guidance of Herr Puschmann, we were able to have a number of debates that were off-beat and humorous, in addition to a number that were serious. Whatever was wring with this model? The instances of actual drunkeness were few and far between, and the Convenor has the authority to remove people from the chamber.


[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[Midget]

From a speakers point of view its quite good to have a few people who have 'had a few' in the audience, although preferably not rowdy obviously. As drunk people are more likely to react (laugh, gasp, clap etc) and there's nothing more disheartening than a lack or reaction to one's speech.

As an actor, you pray for drunks in an audience, even for tragedies (as drunk people are more likely to cry). At the Edinburgh Fringe, you listen to the audience getting into their seats and the odd burb, laugh or clink of glasses is quite warming to the heart. I know the parallel to debates can be questioned (debated even) but greater audience reaction does give you energy whether as an actor or debater.

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg "Little!"
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100090

[Jason Dunn]

On drink, is no-one else alarmed at the frequency with which board members are awarded the floor prize? I am by no means suggesting foul play but it doesn't look good.

[TC]

Considering the large number of fresh faces we have got in this year to LPH I seriously doubt it is fair to say that it is staid and boring. In fact the lowest turnout this term has been about 70, whilst on several occasions we have had to turn up to 50 people away at the door becuase of the high turnout. Many of these new faces that we have do not do IV debating and seem to enjoy being members of the chamber (to say that they are becoming an audience is ridiculous) and are fully participating in the floor debate. Fundermentally I think that LPH is still very relevent to the whole society. As someone who both enjoys representing the society at IVs and speaking in LPH i hope it stays that way.

[hr]

Per Ardua ad Astra

[Steveo]

To put it very bluntly, LPH has become boring.

As Mr Vinton points out, the serious/light hearted format worked well as recently as Peter Blair's year (2004/05), however, these days debates are about as light as depleted uranium. Take the CU debate, which had potential to be fun. Potential wasted.

The simple fact is LPH has become an arena for boring, stale speeches by the IV squad when they sit in as the token student speakers.

If I hear "three main points" again in LPH, I may just turn murderous.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[Lid]

Popularity is not necessarily a symptom of quality.

There seems to have been a lack of distinction made by the BoT between drinking and drunkedness. Nobody wants to see a Kaitlyn-esque speech (those there last year will know what I mean) but then again, I think with a couple of drinks inside people, people become more willing to make a speech. I've seen plenty of excellent speeches made after a few drinks, and I've also seen plenty of incoherent babbles made when sober.

If people felt more inclined to make floor speeches, they may be in with a chance of winning the floor prize. I believe that the BoT or IV trained speakers win the floor prize so often as these are trained debaters that are not afraid to speak, and thus speak every week. The Convenor is forced to recognise these people as seldom anyone else raises their hand to speak.

Further, I think the issues last year arose from people getting wasted then coming to LPH. Banning drinking would not effect them. Banning drunkedness would. There's a vast difference between a hipflask in the breast pocket and two bottles of Reisling on the cross benches.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[LK Today]

Just a little bit of information on this. I had a meeting with a number of people form the university yesterday, including the VPLT and the Head of RBS, about student groups using university venues in the evenings. As usual, LPH and the Debating Society were brought up during the conversation, and all involed commented on how they were much happier that UDS was complying with the conditions of the hire of the room, and not allowing alcohol to be consumed in LPH. A shift in the other direction would, naturally, bring into question continued use of the hall by debates.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37102636

[OhhMy]

Hello,
Well the reason the IV squad is called into debates is usually because the exciting people pulled out at the last minute leaving only a few hours (or less) for the convenor to find alternatives.

As to whether or not debates are exciting or not its not like a film or a play which is scripted, they are debates and some speakers are more engaging than others. This is hard to predict.

Some debates are exciting and interesting others have been dull, but that is always the way and has been this year, last year and the years before and it ever will be. When you go to a debate, even with the most jucy motion, you run the risk of it being boring.

Oh and as to drinking, it has got us into trouble before and it isn't the majority of responsible members who have a tipple to steel their nerves before a floor speach or table speech that have caused 'the great drying out' but the minority who drink to excess and cause problems. Sadly a blanket ban is easier and more practical to enforce. Sadly the irresponsible minority have ruined it for the majority.

If you wish to be allowed to drink in the chamber I suggest you write to the principle or go to the board of ten meeting and suggest a way that they can ensure that only responsible drinking occurs in the chamber.

It is impossible to have your cake and eat it.

[Lid]

Firstly, Mr Kane, I'm pretty sure that LPH is licensed for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor, in fact QuaicheSoc meets there. Alcohol is involved, I'm assured.

Mr Rollings,

Quoting ohhmy from 22:00, 15th Nov 2006

Some debates are exciting and interesting others have been dull, but that is always the way and has been this year, last year and the years before and it ever will be. When you go to a debate, even with the most jucy motion, you run the risk of it being boring.

Quite true that it does depend on the speakers, but the motions can also be called to account. However, many times, a possibly funny motion has really gone downhill. Personally I'd like to see Mr Vit be even more offensive, he's a great orator that can be both witty and offensive in equal measure, makes for a great debate.

Oh and as to drinking [...] Sadly a blanket ban is easier and more practical to enforce. Sadly the irresponsible minority have ruined it for the majority.

Actually, the motion that was passed at BoT was that drunkedness was not to be tolerated in LPH, and in discussion, it was noted that drinking was to be discouraged. What's to stop someone getting wasted before a debate and coming along and being a buffoon. This is one case where you need to deal with the problem rather than the cause.

Edit: I should point out that the style of drinking I'm talking about and advocating is more the breast pocket hipflask than the getting trashed. I think it's in fact condusive [sic?] to a good debate than a hinderance.


[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[OhhMy]

Firstly in response to your point about the licenced nature of LPH. It is in the conditions of the debating societies hire of the room that it is dry. The board of ten especially the sergent will stop any one getting who is steeming before the debate starts. After the debate has started the only people able to prevent a steeming person to get in are the janitors, as the BoT are seated. Also you wont know if some one has taken one too many sips of the hip flast untill they embaris them selves and the society... Its a really tough line to take.

Jason is very very entertaining, but he cant be used in every debate. The IV squad is a resource of people who can make a workmans speech to fill up the table incase some one pulls out. If you want to speek in the chamber in casses of emergency speak to Rachael (the speaker) and she will be very happy, i'm sure, to take down your number...

Additionaly if you want to speak in a debate anyway then speak to Rachael. She wants people who are new to the society or havn't spoken before to speak in the chamber at the table.

[Al]

Quoting ohhmy from 21:04, 16th Nov 2006
Firstly in response to your point about the licenced nature of LPH. It is in the conditions of the debating societies hire of the room that it is dry. The board of ten especially the sergent will stop any one getting who is steeming before the debate starts. After the debate has started the only people able to prevent a steeming person to get in are the janitors, as the BoT are seated. Also you wont know if some one has taken one too many sips of the hip flast untill they embaris them selves and the society... Its a really tough line to take.

That is a confused mish-mash. The BoT, and janitors, may be able to intercept people who are steaming and prevent them from entering LPH. But drinking does not lead to instant intoxication. Someone may drink, turn up to the debate appearing relatively sober, gain admittance, and not become a problem until the debate has started. What then? Will the debate be halted while the drunkard is escorted out? There has been drinking during debates in LPH for an awfully long time but there doesn't seem to have been a problem with rudeness or vandalism until very recently. That - as I said when this topic came up before - suggests that the problem is not so much the drinking but the people doing it. Finally, treating everybody who attends debates as a potential troublemaker is hardly the greatest position of trust to adopt. How do you expect the university to trust the members of the society when the board so obviously do not?

Crack down hard on the troublemakers by all means but don't make everyone pay for the misdeeds of a few morons.

[Alex Jennings]

Initially when this was brought up at Board, I was hesitant - I remember the days when EVERYONE including the Board and the Convener would drink during the debates. I never really thought it was a problem.

However, now that I look at it I see two major problems with this: first of all, if everyone including the Board is drinking it makes it harder a.) to judge who is overly intoxicated and b.) to enforce without immense amounts of hypocrisy.

Second of all, and I'm not saying this in jest, but as a real point, if we can drink before the debate in the pub or elsewhere, and then after the debate...why is it such a problem to refrain from drinking for two hours during the debate? Just because it's been done in the past doesn't mean that it should be done again.

[hr]

"Look, I told you when we met that I was not a leprechaun, that I was from Rhode Island, and that I was half Korean, but you said it didn't matter."

[Al]

I'd agree that there is no reason - beyond a speaker steadying their nerves - why people should drink during the debates. However, it can add to the social side of things. Why have drinks receptions otherwise? The issue is that the Board seem to be taking the attitude that drinking causes people to misbehave, be rude or otherwise let the society down. It may do. However, the people who misbehave after drinking are probably the sort of people who would make a show of themselves and the society even when stone-cold sober. That being the case, banning drinking during the debates smacks of tokenism.