Please go on arguing gentlemen, this has brought back so many memories from my (now sadly ended) time in St Andrews. I miss you all already!
My thoughts exactly. Nothing has brightened up my day of translating the Rule of St Benedict quite so well as following the crazy antics of the good old UDS.
I'm thinking that we should start placing bets on the outcome, like in any other boxing match--should I start offering odds on the Old Favourite and Young Contender?
We need to get them corners, and brightly painted robes.
And funny names, definitely funny names. (Suggestions?)
If nothing else, we should set up a popcorn concession...
Home
TheSinner.net
Singapore Worlds 2004
Re:
by Barry Joss on Tue Jul 15, 2003 7:59 am
I think we are fundamentally missing one another's point in some way here. I am not dismissing IVs, and I'm not saying that LPH is the be all and end all and I STILL haven't said that big name speakers are necessary. In fact, you have a great deal to learn about me every bit as much as I have to learn about you!
I have tried hard in the past to increase participation in and funding for IV debates. I have tried equally hard to get more and better speakers involved in LPH. I have done my level best to ensure the Schools competition is a success since its inception in one sense and I have tried to maked the Society a society as well.
I DO have the best interests of the Society at heart, very much so. I think a parade of "big name" (and let's be honest, they're usually middling names at best) speakers is harmful to a Society that's about students as it denies those very students the opportunity to speak in LPH. I also think that some of the way we approach our own speakers is harmful, in that we tend to suggest (intentionally or otherwise) that its LPH or IV.
Sadly, the bombastic and humorous style that works best in LPH is hard to teach - largely you're funny or you're not. However, solid grounding in technique and in constructing a coherent argument is invaluable - and a lot of progress on this has been accomplished by the training in recent years of new speakers. It is a shame that we have been largely unsuccesful in persuading these people to participate more in LPH debates.
One of my points has been that atmosphere in LPH has died in comparison to prior years where our IV speakers were active members of the House and contributed to a debate whether they were table speakers or not. This, I think, is partly attitudinal and owes a lot to some of the points you raise. You know me personally, and know that I'm not the LPH snob I may have come across as being on here - sadly a lot of people are.
I think one of the chief achievements of past Boards (and the old Senate Room played a large part here) was in fostering a real sense of Society. There was less of a feeling that some inner core was sneering down at people because we did a great deal more to try to meet and befriend new speakers and to make them feel more a part of the Society. It's not simply coincidence that the year we spent around £100 on wine in the SCR we had over 200 people at the Freshers' function and subsequently 60+ in the Maiden Speakers.
A lot of people DO feel excluded from the social aspects of the Society now and that is a bad thing. But I think a lot of that can be attributed to the indifference of previous Boards who thought it was sufficient to show up once a fortnight for a few hours and then either go home or go off in a little clique. When I was on the Board (in the relatively non-debating role of Treasurer) it was the custom to always retire to the same pub post debate and to announce the intention to the hall, giving the more shy and retiring members of the House a chance to talk to Board members and speakers in a relaxed and informal atmosphere - it was of great benefit.
An accusation that cannot be aimed at you, John, and I apologise if I have seemed to do so - is that you are indifferent to the Society as so many of your Board predecessors have been. I know the amount of work you are prepared to put in - if only from the Marquess. Equally well, remember that I put more hours in as Treasurer of the Society in a week than I ever did as Treasurer of the Association - precisely because I care so very much about making the Society work and keeping it healthy. And to do that, we need active involvement from everyone - and not just those who like to wear gowns and evening dress!
Although we appear to be coming at it from fundamentally different directions a swift reread of the foregoing seems to show that actually we're in agreement on most of the substantive points raised (few as they were!) we just seem to have got one another's backs up in a semi-professional manner. Possibly because we are prone to being as abrasive as one another. Also, possibly because we both know we're right. The immediate knowledge of the current situation and the longer term view are both valid and not, as we have begun to present them, mutually exclusive philosophies.
Its improbably easy to become heated on the sinner, and to get drawn into arguments that bear little or no resemblance to the subject supposedly under discussion (as a quick examination of most long-running threads will confirm!). For my part I apologise for any offence given in the course of this discussion. I think we can both easily agree that IV speaking an LPH speaking are drifting apart, for my part I think they needn't, but it requires active effort on the part of the Board to encourage IV speakers to become active participants in the LPH experience and to make them feel welcome in that environment. Equally, those who can stand up and entertain in LPH might profitably be encouraged to compete - because even without attending training sessions, we have a number of perfectly competent speakers and a vast resource of people who can construct an argument - or we should have in a university!
Finally, if it did come to a boxing bout there would be no need to get new "robes" as Mr Stewart already has a red one and I have both a blue and a black - allowing us to be distinguished one from another. As though a gown would be necessary to achieve that feat.
I have tried hard in the past to increase participation in and funding for IV debates. I have tried equally hard to get more and better speakers involved in LPH. I have done my level best to ensure the Schools competition is a success since its inception in one sense and I have tried to maked the Society a society as well.
I DO have the best interests of the Society at heart, very much so. I think a parade of "big name" (and let's be honest, they're usually middling names at best) speakers is harmful to a Society that's about students as it denies those very students the opportunity to speak in LPH. I also think that some of the way we approach our own speakers is harmful, in that we tend to suggest (intentionally or otherwise) that its LPH or IV.
Sadly, the bombastic and humorous style that works best in LPH is hard to teach - largely you're funny or you're not. However, solid grounding in technique and in constructing a coherent argument is invaluable - and a lot of progress on this has been accomplished by the training in recent years of new speakers. It is a shame that we have been largely unsuccesful in persuading these people to participate more in LPH debates.
One of my points has been that atmosphere in LPH has died in comparison to prior years where our IV speakers were active members of the House and contributed to a debate whether they were table speakers or not. This, I think, is partly attitudinal and owes a lot to some of the points you raise. You know me personally, and know that I'm not the LPH snob I may have come across as being on here - sadly a lot of people are.
I think one of the chief achievements of past Boards (and the old Senate Room played a large part here) was in fostering a real sense of Society. There was less of a feeling that some inner core was sneering down at people because we did a great deal more to try to meet and befriend new speakers and to make them feel more a part of the Society. It's not simply coincidence that the year we spent around £100 on wine in the SCR we had over 200 people at the Freshers' function and subsequently 60+ in the Maiden Speakers.
A lot of people DO feel excluded from the social aspects of the Society now and that is a bad thing. But I think a lot of that can be attributed to the indifference of previous Boards who thought it was sufficient to show up once a fortnight for a few hours and then either go home or go off in a little clique. When I was on the Board (in the relatively non-debating role of Treasurer) it was the custom to always retire to the same pub post debate and to announce the intention to the hall, giving the more shy and retiring members of the House a chance to talk to Board members and speakers in a relaxed and informal atmosphere - it was of great benefit.
An accusation that cannot be aimed at you, John, and I apologise if I have seemed to do so - is that you are indifferent to the Society as so many of your Board predecessors have been. I know the amount of work you are prepared to put in - if only from the Marquess. Equally well, remember that I put more hours in as Treasurer of the Society in a week than I ever did as Treasurer of the Association - precisely because I care so very much about making the Society work and keeping it healthy. And to do that, we need active involvement from everyone - and not just those who like to wear gowns and evening dress!
Although we appear to be coming at it from fundamentally different directions a swift reread of the foregoing seems to show that actually we're in agreement on most of the substantive points raised (few as they were!) we just seem to have got one another's backs up in a semi-professional manner. Possibly because we are prone to being as abrasive as one another. Also, possibly because we both know we're right. The immediate knowledge of the current situation and the longer term view are both valid and not, as we have begun to present them, mutually exclusive philosophies.
Its improbably easy to become heated on the sinner, and to get drawn into arguments that bear little or no resemblance to the subject supposedly under discussion (as a quick examination of most long-running threads will confirm!). For my part I apologise for any offence given in the course of this discussion. I think we can both easily agree that IV speaking an LPH speaking are drifting apart, for my part I think they needn't, but it requires active effort on the part of the Board to encourage IV speakers to become active participants in the LPH experience and to make them feel welcome in that environment. Equally, those who can stand up and entertain in LPH might profitably be encouraged to compete - because even without attending training sessions, we have a number of perfectly competent speakers and a vast resource of people who can construct an argument - or we should have in a university!
Finally, if it did come to a boxing bout there would be no need to get new "robes" as Mr Stewart already has a red one and I have both a blue and a black - allowing us to be distinguished one from another. As though a gown would be necessary to achieve that feat.
-
Barry Joss
Re:
by Eliot Wilson on Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:16 am
Part of me is pleased that all is now sweetness and light on The Thread That Wouldn't Die, but a little part of me is disappointed too - I was having so much fun! But your last post, Mr. Joss, does appropriately remind me that there are many important issues here - some far from the selection of teams for Singapore - which the Debating Society, both as a whole and through its current leadership, needs urgently to address. The IV side of things is probably in better shape than at any time in the past three or four years - and I acknowledge your role, Mr. Stewart, in achieving that position - but, conversely, the Society as a whole is still in a parlous state. We are impecunious, indebted, and, worst of all, marginal. The Pre-Sessional Debate this year - or whatever it's called now - has so much riding on it, especially in the absence of an Overseas Debate. Fingers crossed it works, gentlemen.
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."
Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."
Death: "Don't patronise me."
-
Eliot Wilson
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 11:09 am
Re:
by John Stewart on Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:47 pm
It's funny how two people can argue from two different idealogical viewpoints so vehemently, and then come to broad agreement without ever conceding territory.
Although, in argumentative terms, this has been more of a cat-fight than a boxing match (and still the endless optimisim that at some point I will be seen in a gown), I have actually enjoyed it, and every post, despite the reading, has been typed with a big grin on my face, broad truths concealed beneath a veneer of sarcasm and general abuse. For me, this is more about making the right comments in order to provoke a response - as you say Barry, we have much to learn about each other, and dare I say it, much we can yet learn from each other.
I certainly look forward to clashing with yourself an Eliot in the freshers debate, in a debate which certainly seems to be lining up as a bit of a best-of St Andrews past-and-present showcash, and with what I anticipate to be a sufficiently provocative motion, although I have been convinced to dress somewhat more conservatively than originally intended.
While certainly, as Eliot says, the IV side of the society has started to hit the heights we, as a reputable Ancient, should be, and this is in large part thanks to those who have toiled over the last couple of academic years on this side, the health of LPH has, lamentably, faltered somewhat. We all enjoy a good, funny debate - preferably with some substance also - and we all like to hear from those who may not necessarily be big names, but experts in their field.
As Barry acknowledges, especially on an impersonal venue like this we can come across as snobs, and I have a well acknowledged arrogant streak at the best of times. In a way, we all have our vision of what the UDS means to us, what we love most about it, and this may not be stricly the same vision. But I donm't think any of us underestimate the benefits of a broad social cohesion across the society as a whole - IVs, LPH and schools.
The turmiol of the last couple of years, and the tragic loss of the senate room has done much harm here - it is no coincidence that the society is at its healthiest when at its most sociable - and that this Board must get its arse in gear to overcome that.
Speaking as a member of the Board, I think it is safe to say that none of us underestimates the scale of the task facing us this year. I think it is also safe to say that none of us underestimates the nature of the task either. But suffice to say that the best solution for all of us who care about the UDS is to work together, and I hope that, where in the past the society has been characterised by divisiveness, that this year it will be characterised by teamwork.
On the one hand, I would concede that yes, this is in some respects more a board of specialists than previous ones. I devote my time to IVs, Kirsty to schools, David to LPH and the rest to their respective roles. But that should not be misconstrued as to say that becuase I focus on IVs and will defend them vehemently at every step, that I am disinterested in the rest of the society - the health of every part affects the whole.
And on the other end, I realise what it is like to be effectively a bystander to the activities of the UDS (although you have it worse by having formerly had influence). The movement into a role which must be seen as more advisory and consultative cannot be easy - but again, when I'm less charged, the wisdom gained through experience cannot be easily dismissed. Hopefully though, this year the Board of Ten will prove themselves in the job, and we will strive for progress, and to diminish the spectre of recent history.
In short - there are issues that need looked at. I suggest it may be more productive to air them in a private e-mail to Mr Bean than on a public forum. This argument has been one I've enjoyed - no offence has been taken (please don't feel the need to apologise - I can't stand that sort of drippy stuff. If you have something to say, say it god dammit and stand by it - if you offend me, I will let you know) and I hope none was given.
This argument has been fun, but with a little luck, this thread will die hereonafter.
Although, in argumentative terms, this has been more of a cat-fight than a boxing match (and still the endless optimisim that at some point I will be seen in a gown), I have actually enjoyed it, and every post, despite the reading, has been typed with a big grin on my face, broad truths concealed beneath a veneer of sarcasm and general abuse. For me, this is more about making the right comments in order to provoke a response - as you say Barry, we have much to learn about each other, and dare I say it, much we can yet learn from each other.
I certainly look forward to clashing with yourself an Eliot in the freshers debate, in a debate which certainly seems to be lining up as a bit of a best-of St Andrews past-and-present showcash, and with what I anticipate to be a sufficiently provocative motion, although I have been convinced to dress somewhat more conservatively than originally intended.
While certainly, as Eliot says, the IV side of the society has started to hit the heights we, as a reputable Ancient, should be, and this is in large part thanks to those who have toiled over the last couple of academic years on this side, the health of LPH has, lamentably, faltered somewhat. We all enjoy a good, funny debate - preferably with some substance also - and we all like to hear from those who may not necessarily be big names, but experts in their field.
As Barry acknowledges, especially on an impersonal venue like this we can come across as snobs, and I have a well acknowledged arrogant streak at the best of times. In a way, we all have our vision of what the UDS means to us, what we love most about it, and this may not be stricly the same vision. But I donm't think any of us underestimate the benefits of a broad social cohesion across the society as a whole - IVs, LPH and schools.
The turmiol of the last couple of years, and the tragic loss of the senate room has done much harm here - it is no coincidence that the society is at its healthiest when at its most sociable - and that this Board must get its arse in gear to overcome that.
Speaking as a member of the Board, I think it is safe to say that none of us underestimates the scale of the task facing us this year. I think it is also safe to say that none of us underestimates the nature of the task either. But suffice to say that the best solution for all of us who care about the UDS is to work together, and I hope that, where in the past the society has been characterised by divisiveness, that this year it will be characterised by teamwork.
On the one hand, I would concede that yes, this is in some respects more a board of specialists than previous ones. I devote my time to IVs, Kirsty to schools, David to LPH and the rest to their respective roles. But that should not be misconstrued as to say that becuase I focus on IVs and will defend them vehemently at every step, that I am disinterested in the rest of the society - the health of every part affects the whole.
And on the other end, I realise what it is like to be effectively a bystander to the activities of the UDS (although you have it worse by having formerly had influence). The movement into a role which must be seen as more advisory and consultative cannot be easy - but again, when I'm less charged, the wisdom gained through experience cannot be easily dismissed. Hopefully though, this year the Board of Ten will prove themselves in the job, and we will strive for progress, and to diminish the spectre of recent history.
In short - there are issues that need looked at. I suggest it may be more productive to air them in a private e-mail to Mr Bean than on a public forum. This argument has been one I've enjoyed - no offence has been taken (please don't feel the need to apologise - I can't stand that sort of drippy stuff. If you have something to say, say it god dammit and stand by it - if you offend me, I will let you know) and I hope none was given.
This argument has been fun, but with a little luck, this thread will die hereonafter.
-
John Stewart
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 4:29 pm
Re:
by Barry Joss on Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:15 pm
Well said. Fear not, John, if in the future I have something to say (and that is almost certain), I shall say it whether I offend or otherwise. I've never held back in the past, and though I may be mellowing somewhat in my old age, I have no intention of starting now!
-
Barry Joss
Re:
by La Jouissance on Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:25 am
I think you two should either get a room, or get back to bitching!
-
La Jouissance
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 10:22 am
Re:
by Eliot Wilson on Thu Jul 17, 2003 8:46 am
I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
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."
Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."
Death: "Don't patronise me."
-
Eliot Wilson
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 11:09 am
Re:
by Anon. on Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:13 pm
[s]Barry Joss wrote on 11:26, 17th Jul 2003:
You do. Its nothing like that. And I'm sure everyone will have ample future opportunities to see Mr Stewart and I at one another's throats.
"Mr Stewart and me", surely?
You do. Its nothing like that. And I'm sure everyone will have ample future opportunities to see Mr Stewart and I at one another's throats.
"Mr Stewart and me", surely?
-
Anon.
- Posts: 2779
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by John Stewart on Sun Jul 20, 2003 7:12 pm
I'm afraid that warm and fuzzy is not a feeling I could ever grow accustomed to. Especially around Mr Joss.
This argument just happens to have outlived its' welcome and relevance. Needless to say that in the highly politicised world of St Andrews debating, no awkward compromise is likely to last long. After all, dispute is our art.
I'll just take the opportunity to sharpen the long knives for a wee while...
Oh and as far as "get a room goes" - sorry, I'm afraid that Barry just isn't my type...
This argument just happens to have outlived its' welcome and relevance. Needless to say that in the highly politicised world of St Andrews debating, no awkward compromise is likely to last long. After all, dispute is our art.
I'll just take the opportunity to sharpen the long knives for a wee while...
Oh and as far as "get a room goes" - sorry, I'm afraid that Barry just isn't my type...
-
John Stewart
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 4:29 pm
Re:
by Cain on Sun Jul 20, 2003 7:59 pm
[s]John Stewart wrote on 20:12, 20th Jul 2003:
This argument just happens to have outlived its' welcome and relevance.
so you just thought you'd start another.
what?
how hard can it be to not start a fight? or to rise to one?
This argument just happens to have outlived its' welcome and relevance.
so you just thought you'd start another.
what?
how hard can it be to not start a fight? or to rise to one?
I hold an element of surprise
-
Cain
- Posts: 4439
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:31 am
Re:
by Eliot Wilson on Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:08 pm
It is, arguably, what a debating society is for.
(And I suspect, Mr. Joss, that you can guess the sense in which I'm using 'arguably'.)
(And I suspect, Mr. Joss, that you can guess the sense in which I'm using 'arguably'.)
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."
Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."
Death: "Don't patronise me."
-
Eliot Wilson
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 11:09 am
Pigs with Wings? John in Gown?
by larkvi on Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:28 pm
and still the endless optimisim that at some point I will be seen in a gown
Optimism? What optimism?!
I have damning photographic evidence.
http://www.larkvi.com/images/JohnGown.jpg
[corrected--thanks Barry]
Optimism? What optimism?!
I have damning photographic evidence.
http://www.larkvi.com/images/JohnGown.jpg
[corrected--thanks Barry]
-
larkvi
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:16 pm
hee hee hee
by peter on Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:18 am
Well then, Mr Stewart, have we found your secret gown fetish? It's time for it to be brought out into the open (i.e. LPH)!
Peter
Peter
-
peter
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 12:30 pm
Return to Union Debating Society
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests