AGM and the new Board of Ten

[RJ Covino]

Quoting David Bean from 20:54, 5th Apr 2007
Whoever penned that line, as Mr Haraldsen might say, needs a good bricking.

So long as the unclean hat bit isn't in dispute...

[Al]

Quoting David Bean from 20:48, 5th Apr 2007

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

You're right, there wouldn't be. But, as I said before, the CWM was - in addition to being 'Deputy Speaker' - also responsible for publicity. He or she was not Deputy Speaker because they were responsible for publicity.

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.

But that could equally well be said about some of the other posts that combine quite distinct remits. A person might want to be Serjeant-at-Arms because of the prestige but not care about the other parts of their role. It could even be said about posts that have a single remit. A person might want the prestige of being Clerk but not have the skills - or inclination - to produce minutes.

As for the position of Chief Whip...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.

Because in the British Parliamentary system the person who is Deputy Speaker has the title 'Chairman of Ways and Means'. That matches the remit of the position when the BoT had such a position. In no way does the remit of the Debates 'Chief Whip' match that of a Parliamentary Chief Whip.

[Eliot Wilson]

I was going to keep out of this, really I was, but what can I say? I'm weak.

Exnihilo and Al are entirely correct. The Chairman of Ways and Means being Deputy Speaker was a reflection of Parliamentary procedure; nabbing the title of "Chief Whip" for a random position is just stupid. It's meaningless and potentially misleading.

Mind you, as I've said before, the UDS fails to reflect Parliamentary procedure in a whole host of ways, so why pick on that in particular? Except, I suppose, that it's one of the most public and obvious pieces of silliness.

[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."

[Epeeduelist84]

This sounds like an interesting point to be noted down and discussed at the Constitutional meeting next year. If, for some reason, those concerned are not able to attend (which I certainly understand) a timely note to the Clerk I'm sure would suffice to place the matter on the agenda of that meeting.

Being a somewhat savage and ill-informed American, could someone please inform me what the title for the individual in charge of training new MPs how to debate is? It would seem that this title would suit the position well, given our effort to conform as closely as is feasible to parliamentary positions.

That being said, and in full awareness that I in no way speak for David, persisting in discussion of this issue now, and in a way that could conceivably be interpreted as inflammatory, certainly might appear to less generous souls than myself as "[coming] here to find things to argue and insult people about."

While I do know your comments arise from a genuine concern for the well-being of a society you have donated an enormous amount of time and energy to, comments like "Chief (could I be more pathetic and stupidly made up?) Whip" come across as both insulting and belligerent. I genuinely do not believe you meant to imply that those who have expended prodigious effort to better the society while in that post were either "pathetic" or "stupid," nor that such terms should be applied to those who came up with the title during a none too distant Constitutional meeting, but neither does it come across as a courteous and constructive means of motivating change.

Dr. Joss, I have tremendous respect for you as both a speaker and a prominent alumnus. In fact, it was largely your speech at the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year that induced me to further investigate the society. However, having been both a member of the Board of Ten, regular LPH attendee, and IV competitor, I have often felt personally offended and indignant in response to some of your comments posted here. This may not have been your intent, nor do we know each other sufficiently well, having met only occasionally in passing, for you to realize how upsetting some of your statements have been. The issue, I suppose, is one of identification. Just as you often appear to feel upset by what you see as those who "squawk loudest at the 'stupid' traditions of the Society," it is troublesome to me when you either through implication or direct statement degrade competitive debating at the university or those who participate in it.

I suppose this is largely a call for an awareness on your part for the impact your words have on those who have joined the society more recently but love it just as much as yourself. While I will not go so far as to ask for moderation in the acerbity of your criticism in the future, I do ask that you post fully cognizant of the unintentional repercussions your words are having.

Thank you once again for your years of service and dedication.

-Aaron Laycook, former Schools Secretary

[Eliot Wilson]

There is no individual responsible for training new MPs in the art of debating. They are all self-taught.

[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."

[Lid]

Perhaps the nearest analogy to draw would be of he who tells others what to say - Chief Spin Doctor.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[exnihilo]

I'm delighted that you have respect for me, and that you enjoyed that speech, for which praise you have my sincerest thanks, but I think you've missed the point of a couple of things I've said.

For clarification, I do not think training is pathetic, I do not think those involved are pathetic - I think the title is pathetic. It bears no relation to the role, was made up as an in joke and is therefore as bad as the "how much?" rigmarole and any other aspect of the society that people say have put off newbies. The point being that those who do squawk loudest about the traditions being scary are the very ones who are creating new "traditions" which are less accessible still than the ones which predate them.

Next, I do not degrade competitive speaking. Although it is not something I ever took part in, I judged for the better part of a decade, was graded 2, raised thousands in sponsorship for it, ensured money for teams to go to World Championships and, in short, gave it as much support as it deserved. If people wish to debate in IV competitions, then I applaud them, it's a fine pursuit, a useful skill and I have great respect for those who do well and for the efforts of the Society in recent years and the superb results they have produced.

My problem is that IV style does not translate well to LPH and is simply not a spectator sport for most, that IV in jokes are meaningless to large audiences and that IV debating is no good substitute for the light-hearted, sometimes even raucous debates which made LPH so popular with the broader mass of students, IV is by its nature attractive to a small group, and is insular.

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting RJ Covino from 10:18, 6th Apr 2007

So long as the unclean hat bit isn't in dispute...

No, that's biblical fact.

[hr]

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

[Jessica]

[quote]Quoting exnihilo from 14:08, 19th Apr 2007


Next, I do not degrade competitive speaking. Although it is not something I ever took part in, I judged for the better part of a decade, was graded 2, raised thousands in sponsorship for it, ensured money for teams to go to World Championships and, in short, gave it as much support as it deserved. If people wish to debate in IV competitions, then I applaud them, it's a fine pursuit, a useful skill and I have great respect for those who do well and for the efforts of the Society in recent years and the superb results they have produced.

My problem is that IV style does not translate well to LPH and is simply not a spectator sport for most. quote]


Good points. Just one question, as it might be quite helpful to those of us still knocking around and trying to get sponsorhip,
Who/where did you get this sponsorship money from?

if you wish to email your response instead please send it to crh24 or js482

[exnihilo]

Various people - some of whom no longer exist. Dorward Gray who used to be the University's insurance broker, Price Waterhouse as was, the Midland Bank as was, Ernst & Young. The Sun, The Scotsman, The Times, numerous local businesses. I sent several hundred letters to get that money, however, and you need to do the work and find out who the letter should be going to - which takes several hundred phone calls. Then you need to send a well presented, slimline, package to those people tailored to the individual company. You need to offer them options on an individual debate, on a competition, or on some other aspect of the Society. And, you need to offer them something they want - which is advertising.

I built on the excellent work of Simon Hogben, who raised considerable sums as well with much the same package. I basically sent a single page covering letter with a brief summary of the Society and how the company could get involved, a copy of an order paper with a motion such as "This House Believes It Pays to Advertise" and then "Sponsored by [the name of the company]" underneath, to show them how their name and logo would appear, and an A4 version of a poster with the same sort of thing on it.

When I was asking for sponsorship for the handbook or for large competitions, I also enclosed a copy of the preceding handbook showing them where and how their advert/logo would be displayed. And, for competitions, I suggested they might like to send a judge, or someone to distribute graduate recruitment materials. An excellent one for that, of course, being the Magistrands which is all about soon to be graduates.

Any other help I can give, don't hesitate to ask. I suspect I still have a lot of this stuff kicking about somewhere.

[Dickie]

I also recall we had one of the big booze companies, I think it was Scottish Distilars but not sure. I still have some of the "Debating Draft" and "Debaters Whisky". Some times I think about giving them to a good home!

[hr]

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

[exnihilo]

Yes, we did indeed, Highland Distillers. Also, if you want to get a drinks company sponsoring you, have you considered trying to do a biggish social event for Freshers at the start of the year. That year we had 250 people pass through the Senior Common Room (which I realise is now not available) and ended up with 64 in the Maiden Speakers' Competition - also highly sellable. You might also want to talk to the Council re hiring the room in the Burgh Chambers which is very handy for LPH, or possibly at Trinity or St Andrews churches, both of which have halls and are nearby.

[Eliot Wilson]

Whichever company makes Famous Grouse - Highland Distillers again? - gave us stupid amounts of free booze for the Marquess of Bute in 2001, as I recall to my cost. Strange though it may seem, people are willing to sponsor the Debating Society, in money or in kind, but, as Dr Joss says, it takes hard work to tap them.

[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."

[Lid]

Not least that Diageo bottles that staple of the Byre - Gordon's - just down the coast, at Windygates.

It doesn't hurt to be opportune, I suppose, if it's done in the right, and proper manner. I unfortunately think that lots of the seeking of funding is being done through "friends of friends" at the moment rather than the hard work and good old yard of speculation.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[ChrisH]

I was under the impression that as the Union sells whiskey we are unable to "work with the competition"?

Especially in the glorious days now that Scotland seems to have a charity regulator...

[exnihilo]

That is a long perpetuated myth. If it did apply at all I can see the logic in not necessarily promoting a direct competitor (The Raisin for example) but in terms of receiving sponsorship from a whisky company? No, that's perfectly fine, and anyone who says otherwise to you is lying.

[Lid]

Precisely, it's only the same rationale that the Union stocks Bombay Sapphire and Kensington gin.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[David Bean]

That's the 'Ben Spiers Bullshit' as I call it, after the master of making up excuses to stop student groups doing what they wanted just because he couldn't be bothered to help them out (or in some cases actively tried to sabotage them).

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[exnihilo]

Just out of curiosity, I thought I'd haul this thread back up to the top and see if the sponsorship raising effort is under way and making progress - not to be unhelpful, but indeed to offer what help I still can. Friends of friends may not be the ideal way to proceed as a matter of policy, but it can't hurt to try tapping personal contacts too.

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting David Bean from 21:45, 26th Apr 2007
That's the 'Ben Spiers Bullshit' as I call it, after the master of making up excuses to stop student groups doing what they wanted just because he couldn't be bothered to help them out (or in some cases actively tried to sabotage them).

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

Ahh yes - the Ben Spiers approach was novel. I see the logic. "If I make it impossible for students to do anything, they'll probably stop badgering me!"

[hr]

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