AGM and the new Board of Ten

[Lid]

I do agree with Dr Joss in the fact that an argument can be made against the Monarchy without insulting the monarchy, whereas the last time they were suspended, this wasn't entirely possible.

However, it's not really, in my opinion, the best debate to start your tenure on, as there's always that significant chance that people will not observe good order.

Is it not just better to inform the speakers of the standing order - part of the problem may be that they are not aware of the orders of the house - and urge them not to break it. The last way it was handled was, admittedly a different situation, but I felt it was over-done.

All this 'tradition' (I prefer to call it respect) is fantastic, and shouldn't be seen as an impedement for a debate going ahead, and going ahead well, it should be worked around. And of course, suspending the standing orders may give the air of good order in the chamber, but remember if you suspend the orders of the house, the Convenor's authority immediately diminishes, especially if they are all suspended, when we would then be under absolutely no obligation to maintain good order at all!

My point was simply to show that the Convenor really did not pick an easy debate, constitutionally, to start with.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[Jamie potton]

Quoting exnihilo from 23:33, 28th Mar 2007
Who is speaking? Someone from the Strafford Club perhaps?

Now that's getting societies involved in debates!

[exnihilo]

Well, yes.


The Rules of Order should never be an impediment, they should be a framework, not to be worked round but to be worked within. Otherwise what other rules do we not need? I find the time limit to be irksome at times, but I stay within it, because that's the way it works. D'you see?

Incidentally, I assume we're not now going to fit in a debate on Scottish Independence before the elections in May - which seemed a million times more apposite in the current political situation than yet another Northern Ireland debate as there actually is a chance that the Union itself may be threatened.

[Dickie]

Quoting exnihilo from 23:33, 28th Mar 2007
Who is speaking? Someone from the Strafford Club perhaps? Or maybe Iain Bradley?

What about Lord Sudley?
I am sure he would love to return to speak.

[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

[exnihilo]

I don't doubt for a moment that he would - is there anyone around today who'd be up to the challenge, though?

[catpdoc]

Congratulations to the new board. But what has happened to the position of Chair of Ways and Means? I was on the board in that position in 1991-1992.

I came onto this site through a series of links - glad to see the society is still going (as are some of the old arguments!)

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

I'm sure that's something I've heard mentioned in the past - what exactly did the role do?

[hr]

Mmmmmmm, cake.
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37102114

[exnihilo]

The rôle "did" nothing, Persons who held the position did many and various things; largely they acted as a deputy convenor but they were also in charge of publicity. It varied from one CofW&M to the next.

What it always was, however, was a more useful, more sensible, and more worthwhile rôle than "Chief (could I be more pathetic and stupidly made up?) Whip".

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

I knew the English there would get picked up as soon as I wrote it. I must admit that, if nothing else, Chair of Ways and Means does sound a lot cooler.

[hr]

Mmmmmmm, cake.
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37102114

[David Bean]

The title 'Chairman of Ways and Means' was struck from the constitution in 2002, just before Miranda Weigler took over as Convenor - hence the change itself was made in Alan Paterson's term. The role was amended to take out the duties of Deputy Speaker - which didn't have any logical reason for falling under the person in charge of publicity anyway - and the title was changed to Publicity Secretary for about a year, after which, just after I was elected, we changed the title to 'Communications Secretary'. This was because the responsibility for sending out the weekly linkup had previously fallen to the Clerk to the House, and as Clerk (just the term before) I had also been involved in re-doing the web site, but it was felt that looking forward the role of Clerk had become a bit too big to expect people to want to take on, and in any case we thought it made more sense to lump electronic publicity in with posters, and refer to the whole kit caboodle as 'communications'. I did suggest reviving the title of Chairman of Ways and Means as an alternative title for whoever was carved up as Deputy Speaker, but rhe BoT didn'tm like that idea much and we shelved it.

Not sure you mean, exnihillo, about the Chief Whip role (which for the benefit of others looks after all matters pertaining to training in all forms of speaking and debating): as far as I'm aware, you haven't actually been at the university since it was created, so how would you know how worthwhile it is?

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Al]

That's a little skewed. People elected to be Chairman of Ways and Means were the Deputy Speaker. They were also in charge of publicity. They weren't Deputy Speaker because they were in charge of publicity.

The remit of 'Chief Whip' may be an important one. However, I don't understand why it was thought necessary to so name the post. The title and remit seem to have no connection.

[ChrisH]

Quoting Al from 22:05, 4th Apr 2007
The remit of 'Chief Whip' may be an important one. However, I don't understand why it was thought necessary to so name the post. The title and remit seem to have no connection.

Obviously not involved in one of Uncle John's training sessions, whipping is a very accurate description of what that felt like...

[exnihilo]

Quoting David Bean from 21:14, 4th Apr 2007Not sure you mean, exnihillo, about the Chief Whip role (which for the benefit of others looks after all matters pertaining to training in all forms of speaking and debating): as far as I'm aware, you haven't actually been at the university since it was created, so how would you know how worthwhile it is?

What a snide point. I would know how worthwhile a rôle is because I keep myself informed and am not a complete moron. However, you miss my point, I never said training was not worthwhile, you might want to try reading people's posts before answering them. Al has it right, the remit and title are utterly unrelated and the title of Chief Whip makes no sense whatever and is, frankly, a stupid one.

[exnihilo]

Quoting ChrisH from 22:34, 4th Apr 2007
Obviously not involved in one of Uncle John's training sessions, whipping is a very accurate description of what that felt like...

Ah, so it's another hilarious in-joke? If you think traditions scare people off, what do you think that sort of thing does? At least everyone can join in with the traditions, but in-jokes and jokes about IV debaters from other universities, or about hilarious happenings while away at competitions are utterly impenetrable to most, not funny, and somewhat off-putting.

The Chief Whip in Parliament is responsible for, inter alia, ensuring people vote the right way - if you're not in on the hilarity, that's what that post looks like it should be. What on Earth was wrong with simply calling it Training Officer or some such? I find it deeply ironic that the most spurious and daft title on the Board was actually thought up by the very people who would squawk loudest at the 'stupid' traditions of the Society.

Just an observation.

[OhhMy]

Dr Joss,

The IV squad are not "people who would squawk loudest at the 'stupid' traditions of the Society". I have never encountered any evidence of this my self. Though I agree to some extent with the injoke thing. But I susspect that this happenes in some way with every society.

[RJ Covino]

I think you'll find that he didn't say IV squad anywhere in re: squalkers, merely the folk who bore the title / didn't object to the change; I don't recall "Uncle John" being a particular friend of the more traditional aspects of the UDS, for example. Though perhaps I misread...

As to IV "in jokes" though, take a gander at the lyric book for the current version of the Old Debater (a song whose best jokes remain penned by the then Messrs Joss and Wilson). I'm thinking particularly of the "At an IV in Oxford in 2004" addition, but the snipish nature of the anti-Peter Blair verse also doesn't really do justice to what was, in fairness, quite a good year's debating in hindsight.

[David Bean]

Quoting exnihilo from 22:49, 4th Apr 2007

What a snide point. I would know how worthwhile a rôle is because I keep myself informed and am not a complete moron. However, you miss my point, I never said training was not worthwhile, you might want to try reading people's posts before answering them. Al has it right, the remit and title are utterly unrelated and the title of Chief Whip makes no sense whatever and is, frankly, a stupid one.

Can I be the only one on this board who feels as though you only come here to find things to argue and insult people about? I posted a sincere question, but if you think I was being snide and objected to that, I don't see why you thought being deliberately and explicitly snide in response was exactly appropriate. I know you didn't say that the training wasn't worthwhile, but you did say that the position of someone to take charge of training wasn't as worthwhile as the position of someone to do considerably less than the current Communications Secretary does, and I was wondering how you could possibly know that.

My point concerning the CWM was that there was no logical reason why the person who was in charge of putting up posters should also be the deputy speaker - and actually, if people were standing for that job because they wanted the prestige of being the deputy speaker and not because of their design skills, combining the two might actually have been harmful. As for the position of Chief Whip, I do wish you'd stop presenting your opinion that the title isn't a good one as objective fact, but aside from that I'd be delighted to hear exactly why it's more stupid and less relevant to the position than the title 'Chairman of Ways and Means' ever was.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[David Bean]

Quoting RJ Covino from 19:40, 5th Apr 2007
the snipish nature of the anti-Peter Blair verse also doesn't really do justice to what was, in fairness, quite a good year's debating in hindsight.

Now that is true enough. The verse about me doesn't even make sense: "And as for his girlfriend, she made him leave town"? What's that supposed to mean? I remember one debates evening when I heard that, turned to the singers and sort of said, "eh?", and one female perennial Board member who shall remain nameless started laughing, nodding, pointing at me and saying, "it's true, she did". News to me, I'm afraid - since when does going to visit your girlfriend in another country (when you were away from town anyway because it was the summer) constitute her making you leave town?

Whoever penned that line, as Mr Haraldsen might say, needs a good bricking.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Laura]

I don't understand any of the verses to the old debater anymore- or know who any of the people are. I always go home before the singing starts these days!

I'm not getting at anyone in particular- I like the majority of people who've done IV stuff over the last few years, but I do think that it says something that some of the people who have hated the more traditional aspects of debates (arguing that they created cliques and stopped people getting involved) have created their own that seem even more isolating to me.

As Toby said- at least everyone could join in with the old stuff. No one who turns up at a debate because of a motion or a speaker knows or cares about who some IV debater from another institution is, or who has slept with who or made a 'hilarious' comment in a competition.

It may be just me.. but we could do with a bit more of a balance.

[hr]

"When I came back to Dublin, I was courtmartialled in my absence and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they could shoot me in my absence."

[exnihilo]

Quoting David Bean from 20:48, 5th Apr 2007
Can I be the only one on this board who feels as though you only come here to find things to argue and insult people about?

Can I be the only one who thinks you are incapable of reading with understanding?