I used to work in Chicago

[Steveo]

At least they were.

[hr]

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

[exnihilo]

Quoting Jason Dunn from 16:45, 19th Dec 2006
Unwholesome though this thread indubitably is, its reflection is only marginally worse than the usual acrimonious sniping that takes place on this board. At least people are united in the spirit of cooperation, in this one instance.

Because differences of opinion, clearly expressed, are surely anathema to a debating society?

[Jason]

Not the expression of them exnihilo, just the choice of language and the tone of them that is unwelcome by people working hard. As is a total lack of acknowledgement of the distance and dislocation accorded by time from the changes that have taken place.

[Lid]

Quoting exnihilo from 22:50, 18th Dec 2006
Still Dr.

Excuse my brief departure from correct form. I thought your KLitt. took presedence, that is, if everything that is published is assumed true, Sir Barry.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[exnihilo]

Quoting jason from 23:03, 19th Dec 2006
Not the expression of them exnihilo, just the choice of language and the tone of them that is unwelcome by people working hard. As is a total lack of acknowledgement of the distance and dislocation accorded by time from the changes that have taken place.

Hmm, I may not live in St Andrews, but I am back very often, and I still talk to people so the "distance" (which is not great to Glasgow in any case) is not that relevant, nor is the time. I'm sorry, but if there's something to be critical of - then I will criticise it, if my tone doesn't make you feel warm and gooey inside when I do so, then that's just tough really. What vexes people like me, and others who have a longer term view of the Society, is just how often good advice is simply ignored or merely paid lip service to, and how many times ideas have to be floated before anyone gets off their arse and does something about them. How many times a request has to be made before it is acknowledged or responded to. And, most vexing of all, how often we are told how very hard everyone works when we have done the same jobs ourselves, and better, and made less of a meal of the whole thing and posed less as martyrs.

That the sort of thing you meant?

Quoting Lid from 23:20, 19th Dec 2006
Excuse my brief departure from correct form. I thought your KLitt. took presedence, that is, if everything that is published is assumed true, Sir Barry.

You're just trying to annoy me now, aren't you? Grr.

[Jason]

Over the last ten years which parts were done better, the massive debt that it took us 4 years to pay off, the totally unwelcoming and elitist attitude of people in LPH or that St Andrews as an institution which debated was a laughing stock. Done better, when, what and by whom? As for people taking the long term view the inference is that the people now are not which is simply wrong! An alumni fund has actually been set up with a bank account, well done Tom, did you manage that when you served Mr Joss? The training programme for debating and public speaking is in place and both have now been running for 3 years and are set up so they may continue running.

Also what specific "good advice" did you mean? Was it get more money or more notable and good speakers, that is what everyone on the board does do. As for griping about Jess and the website it may not be perfect but it is a whole lot better than what went before for 3 years plus so if things are not done straight away that may be because people are doing other things, boo hoo.

Finally if you have so many great ideas why is it that you were unable to put them into practice when you were on the board and not being a martyr? Or is it that reality gets in the way?

[RJ Covino]

Quoting jason from 01:06, 20th Dec 2006
why is it that you were unable to put them into practice when you were on the board and not being a martyr? Or is it that reality gets in the way?

See? Now THAT's some good tone and word choice. I'm picturing handbags for some reason.

[Jason]

I know I've got one with spikes on it.

[exnihilo]

Specifics...

When I was Treasurer I raised more money for the Society than any Treasurer before or since. And ended my term of office with a surplus. That any good?

In my year on the Board, I ran a Maiden Speakers' competition which had over 60 entrants, including three future convenors. Not to mention an Inter-Residence that actually featured enough teams to warrant rounds and a final, as well as numerous other competitions - including the best attended IV we've ever held.

In my time on the Board we routinely ran receptions and dinners which were wildly over-subscribed, and debates from which people were turned away throughout the year. The Scotsman competition was also under my aegis, and a great success. Sadly when I persuaded Andrew Neil to bring it back he was treated so badly by the Society that he vowed never to do it again.

In my time on the Board we first had a website, which I designed and maintained with up to date information. We consistently produced good and informative publicity - including a Freshers' Guide that actually went out to freshers - and built strong links with sponsors who had supported the Society in the past as well as forging new links.

Oh, and we competed all over the country as well as at every World Championship - where contrary to the received wisdom of the last few years we were not a laughing stock - and people like Nick Bibby, Marc Whitmore, Alistair Dunn and so on would take serious exception to being told they were.

We also had excellent and entertaining debates in Lower Parliament Hall, well attended, well regarded, enjoyable and often featuring speakers of renown and ability. Including many alumni, with whom cordial links were maintained often for decades - unlike now where promises are made and simply not made good on.

Not one single communication have I had from the Society this year, and the website is less than worthless, not to say outright patronising, to alumni. You have a bank account now? Well big deal - what does it do? Nothing.

As for ideas, the records will bear out that I - and many others (Mr Wilson being an obvious one) - have given hugely of our time, our contacts and our efforts to secure funds, speakers and opportunities for the Society. We have suggested competition ideas, negotiated with local businesses, offered advice on LPH and how to make it more accessible, written hundreds of letters, made hundreds of phone calls, spoken umpteen times often at very short notice and at our own expense.

I have always defended the Society, even going to bat for it with the Principal on the Court. We have occasionally been recognised for that effort, but more often than not we have been scorned (for example being dismissed as HLMs on this very board) and yet, for love of the Society, we have continued to try.

In short, mine was one of the best years the Society has ever had, and one which it should have built on. It did not. Ever since then, with a few bright spots, each subsequent Board seems to have been hell bent on undoing the work of the preceding one and ploughing its own unique, and slightly worse, furrow and each and every one of them has spent more time whining about being overworked and messing with the laws and the standing orders than on actually getting on with the job in hand.

If you're going to explode at me, have the decency to actually cite facts rather than the drivel you seem to have picked up along the way. If you're going to question the record of years before you arrived, you might do well not to do so to someone who actually WAS there. No doubt you also blame me for the colossal fuck up that was Ms Weigler's board, because that's the way she told it, contrary to all actual fact.

That's the reality that gets in the way - people like your good self who pretend to be interested in others' input but who are actively hostile to it because it's your Society now and all of us should simply mind our own business. That's the attitude that stopped so many ideas offered to so many convenors by so many people. I was never a martyr about it, I simply got on and did the work, and if you want to maintain otherwise you do me a gross disservice.

[Cain]

key point to remember:

Better is not the same as good

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[Lid]

Quoting exnihilo from 23:42, 19th Dec 2006
You're just trying to annoy me now, aren't you? Grr.

Not intentionally. What was Biggles' full list of your 'accolades'? I forget.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Tweedle-Dum]

I, for the nothing it's worth, side with the good doctor.

I have not heard of a single debate that I wanted to attend this year. I have heard people whine about a debt that didn't change much at all, and I have heard that somehow the UDS needs stacks of cash before it can function as a good society, when in reality good debates and speakers in the main need little money, and more testicular fortitude when it comes to motions and speaker choices.

[hr]

Tetragrammaton is a four letter word.

[Mr Comedy]

I don't agree with that at all.

Firstly, there are more important things than the most distinguished and most expensive speakers - we had this appropriately illustrated when I was at university.
The competitive debating side is a large part of the society, and whether you like it or not, is a major success. Many of the skills I use on a day-to-day basis as a headhunter are skills that I developed in IV and international debating.

Secondly, the debt was crippling for the society, and meant that we couldn't operationally perform what we set out to achieve. It also meant we had serious problems with the Association.

[hr]

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

[exnihilo]

Twaddle. The 'debt' everyone bangs on about was all but cleared in the time when I was Association Treasurer, thanks to the enormous forbearance of the Association and a deal I worked out with Campbell. It crippled nothing - and I saved the bloody World Championship funds, if nothing else. The post above which I edited repeatedly and then deleted addressed the various points raised, laid out the reality of what I and my peers accomplished, listed the advice given and ignored, but was ultimately not worth it, because - as is increasingly apparent - nobody wants to know the truth.

[OhhMy]

Quoting exnihilo from 11:02, 21st Dec 2006
as is increasingly apparent - nobody wants to know the truth.

What truth? The truth that the debaating society was much better back then. Maybee. But then it probably was or maybe it wasn't. I cant say. But then neither really can you as you are not participating in it right now. Just as I was not a member when I was a 2 year old.

I think perhaps the thing most people find anoying Dr. Joss is that when progress is made it is sniped at. When a website is made it is sniped at. And when people do well in competitions it is sniped at.

I know you mean well, but it doens't always come across that way. It is no wonder suggestions you make are ingnored if you only ever critisise and never encourage. How can we distinguish between genuine constructive criticism and sniping if all you ever do is criticise.

If I was a teacher I wounldn't ecpect a pupil to do well if I was never positive. Perhaps I am labouring the point but hopfully you now know what I mean.

Criticism is relevent when helpfull, not when it is there for its own sake. For instance on a congratulations thred where you complain about spelling and or grammor. Not the place I think.

(Appologies for spelling and or grammor)

[exnihilo]

Not actually the truth of which I spake. I don't say it was always better, I say there were good things about it, and I talk about years when the Society was in debt etc with considerably more authority than anyone else on here because I was actually there and actually involved.

[Lid]

It is surely the right and duty of any member of the Union Debating Society to take issue with anything they feel they do not entirely agree with, and would appreciate clarification on.

The UDS does a lot of good work, some of which I'm pretty sure has been shaped by criticism on The Sinner. This board is in no way affiliated with the University, the UDS or the Association, it gives a wonderful medium for those involved or have been involved in the UDS to raise issues within the society.

As such, there is a lack of foundation to question anyone's right to criticism. Maybe you do not agree with a lot of the criticism raised, but anyone who wishes to criticise and question should always have that right.

Perhaps Dr Joss' authority on the subject is due to his years of involvement and knowledge of the Society - thus someone in his position will obviously know what works and does not - it'd be naïve to believe otherwise. I bet in his career in the UDS, Dr Joss has seen most of such arguments on this board over and over again. Criticism is always constructive when it is backed up be experience and knowledge.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Eliot Wilson]

Quoting Mr Comedy from 09:35, 21st Dec 2006
Many of the skills I use on a day-to-day basis as a headhunter are skills that I developed in IV and international debating.

That may well be so. But it is equally true and relevant to say, for example, that precisely none of the skills I use on a day-to-day basis as a Clerk is a skill I developed in competitive debating. The problem, or at least one of the problems, is that IV debating and the IV debaters within the Society have gained greater and greater prominence in the running of affairs, despite the fact that, in my humble opinion, they are representative of an activity which is to most students insular, inexplicable and irrelevant.

And a Merry Christmas to you all, too.

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[Anon.]

Speaking as someone whose sole contact with the Union Debating Society was Parliament Hall and the occasional post-debate dinner (and as such as a representative of the majority of students who had anything at all to do with the Society), I would say on balance that by the time I left the University, debates had become less interesting, less amusing, attracted fewer speakers whose opinion one might actually want to hear, attracted fewer people who actually wanted to hear them, and had considerably less cachet in the University as a whole (by which I mean the students, the Students' Association and The People Who Run It All). I arrived in September 2001 and left in December 2005.

Whose side does that support?

[Anon.]

Sorry, December 2004. I wasn't living in a cave somewhere for that whole year!