Training, the Balaka, Worlds (Vancouver) and all that

[Connie]

Hi guys,

This Wednesday training will take the form of a refresher session on how to debate in individuals format in preparation for trials for the Balaka. Even if you don't intend trial it should be fun. We'll also be doing some stuff on judging for anyone who specifically wants to judge at the Balaka, and looking at using judging scales.

Due to Worlds being in Canada next year I'll be holding trials before the summer.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO IS VAGUELY INTERESTED IN GOING TO COME TO TRAINING OR AT LEAST EMAIL ME.

The competition is going to be very tough for places this year. The organisers are capping each institution at 3 teams initially, but obviously the funding required to get people over there means that things aren't going to be as easy as they were when we organised Dublin. For this reason I won't be sending any new freshers who start debating in September.
What I would like to do is definately select 2 teams and a judge before the holidays, but I want to hear people's ideas on this as I don't want people to feel like they're being overlooked in any way.

Congratulations if you made it to the end of this post, and see you all on Wednesday,

Connie xx

[Dickie]

Quoting connie from 10:01, 11th Apr 2006
Due to Worlds being in Canada next year I'll be holding trials before the summer.

Is this fair, who knows who might come in Sept?

[hr]

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

[Connie]

To be honest, I don't think that if we left it until September anyone would be able to afford flights to Vancouver. Thats why we do selections now. The only reason we were able to have them so late last year was because it is so cheap to fly to Dublin.
The team cap is officially 3 per institution, so if we get sponsorship over the summer, we would have the opportunity to have another team, selected next year.
As I said, I want people's input on this, as I'd hate for people to think they were being denied the opportunity to take part, and would encourage people to come along on Wednesday at 2pm where we'll be discussing trials,

Connie x

[Dickie]

Quoting connie from 16:57, 11th Apr 2006
As I said, I want people's input on this, as I'd hate for people to think they were being denied the opportunity to take part, and would encourage people to come along on Wednesday at 2pm where we'll be discussing trials,

Connie x

I don't wish to sound nagging but is one days notice via the sinner the bast way to let people know about the trials. Also where would this be taking place, or is it only open to those who know the training program?

The opportunity to represent us should be open to ALL students.

[hr]

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

[Eliot Wilson]

One would hope that an e-mail has gone out, at least.

[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."

[Connie]

The actual trials aren't tomorrow, only the discussion as to when they will be. This is in the salad bowl at 2 tomorrow.

Anyone can try out, but they will be judged within the criteria that IVs are judged on, which are very similar to Worlds, which obviuosly puts people who come to training on a better footing.
Also, since it costs a lot to register people, proof of past commitment to competitive debating is useful. Past success also makes it easier to attract sponsors for teams.
There are also various commitments that people have to fulfil after being selected, like attending training sessions and attending a minimum number of domestic competitions. This isn't favouritism, its making sure that the money we spend is being spent on people who are going to give the society a good reputation.
ANYONE is welcome to apply, but people in the IV squad are at an obvious advantage, Worlds being and IV event with which they are familiar, in the same way that any society selects the most competent people to represent it.

The trials will be well publicised so everyone who wishes to try out can.

[Bryn]

Forgive me Connie, but it very much sounds like you're just putting on trials because it looks good, not because you actually want people to trial. If you're basing it on past dedication to training and past success at IVs, then you may as well just select who you want to go and not waste time with meaningless trials.

The point of having trials is to give everyone a fair chance of going. If the people in the "IV Squad" have an advantage from the outset, then the trials don't achieve that. Obviously, I understand why you want to send the best people you can, but unfortunately you've decided that the best people are the "IV Squad" which are a group of people who were initially whittled down and selected to go to domestic IVs.

I doubt this is a problem that can be solved in time for Worlds Trials, but I hope that more thought is put in to making sure that selection for IVs next year is fair and open to as many people as possible, and that they are highly publicised to the student body.

Quoting connie from 17:37, 11th Apr 2006
The actual trials aren't tomorrow, only the discussion as to when they will be. This is in the salad bowl at 2 tomorrow.

Anyone can try out, but they will be judged within the criteria that IVs are judged on, which are very similar to Worlds, which obviuosly puts people who come to training on a better footing.
Also, since it costs a lot to register people, proof of past commitment to competitive debating is useful. Past success also makes it easier to attract sponsors for teams.
There are also various commitments that people have to fulfil after being selected, like attending training sessions and attending a minimum number of domestic competitions. This isn't favouritism, its making sure that the money we spend is being spent on people who are going to give the society a good reputation.
ANYONE is welcome to apply, but people in the IV squad are at an obvious advantage, Worlds being and IV event with which they are familiar, in the same way that any society selects the most competent people to represent it.

The trials will be well publicised so everyone who wishes to try out can.

[exnihilo]

I find this discussion interesting, because I can think of someone very, very recently who represented us with tremendous aplomb at a World Championship despite having never attended training, never gone to IVs and only ever having spoken in LPH three years before in his Maidens' Competition.

[OhhMy]

Bryn ths really isn't exclusive and you should stop making pot shots at the IV squad.

The competition is the most competitive, most expensive and most prestigous. The competition is about the best speakers in the world battleing it out to prove who is the best debator in the world. You only send teams who you beleve will either break or win or who's learning expirience at the competition will benefit the society in terms of the provision of training and of its reputation on the domestic circuit. To send one with NO previous comitment when there are plenty of commited speakers would be foolish as we know that the Society will gain a lot from investing in those who are already commited. If however at the trials we find some one who hasn't shown the commitment but shows enough tallent to possibly win we are obviously going to send them. That I must stress is my view on the matter and maybee not Connies. But as some one who has been through the process and gone to worlds and been rejected from going to Euro's - that is the impression I have.

I beleive it to be fair and in the Societies best intrest. Spending £1000 on some one who has shown no previous interest or commitment - do you really think that is in the societies best intrest.

Additionally as Worlds is being funded by external sponsorship it is between Connie and the sponsors as to how she spends that money. Connie will spend it wisely and in the socities best intrests. TRUST HER!! SHE KNOWS WHAT SHE IS DOING

[Sally]

I know Connie has put a lot of thought into Worlds Trials and funding for this year, and much of what Bryn has said appears to me to be completely untrue, although this is just my opinion.

then you may as well just select who you want to go and not waste time with meaningless trials.

Trials are important, especially for competitions such as the World Championships. With so much money being invested it is not an ordinary IV, and Connie needs to be sure she is sending the right people. It is really important to send the best teams, and Worlds is a great chance for these teams to improve, speaking against some of the world’s best speakers, but if they aren’t going to attend IVs and assist what training, what use is that for the debating society. Team pairings are also important, for if it emerges later that the two people don’t get on (which has happened), that’s a big problem.

There are many advantages to holding trials before the summer, especially as flights to Vancouver are really expensive, and with the flight costs in mind, as was brought up at the Board Meeting, for some people it will affect how they spend their summer, for if you need to pay for an £800 flight you’ll need to earn as much money as possible.

Apart from that holding trials is really important from a training perspective – it is almost like an internal IV, and it is a great opportunity to learn more. Trialling as a judge is the same thing. I learnt a lot from getting feedback during the judging trials for Dublin last year, and from taking part in Euros trials.

If you’re so worried about Worlds trials being exclusive, just come along and trial! There is no way I’ll be in the top 5 speakers who get to go to Canada, but I’ll plan to go along anyway. What harm is there in that!

I hope that more thought is put in to making sure that selection for IVs next year is fair and open to as many people as possible, and that they are highly publicised to the student body.

With IVs its great to send as many teams as possible. Just off the top of my head I can remember Aberdeen, Trinity College Dublin, Newcastle, Durham and Bogwall (for new speakers only) were well advertised as being a case that everyone could go. If there aren't enough team places (often there are team and institution caps), more people go and judge. Often by just turning up they might be able to fit one more team in or find you a partner and let you speak. This happened at Durham, Edinburgh and Strathclyde as far as I remember this year.

[John Stewart]

Bryn,

You don't pick someone to represent Britain at the Olympics who has never run a race before.

I've done Worlds 3 times and I can tell you that people who do not have the commitment to endure the pre-worlds circuit, acquire the knowledge and expertise and most crucially experience, needed to succeed at what is after all the highest level, will achieve nothing but demoralise themselves and the society.

It is a huge financial commitment by any individual as they may end up paying the £1000 odd for flights themselves. I've run plenty of trials where people have said they want to go, been selected and dropped out because of the cost. Hell, I dropped out of Singapore Worlds for the same reason because we didn't get confirmation of our team slot in time.

You need to select people now for them to have a fighting chance of finding the funds. You need to know that they will actually turn up on the day. And you need to be sure that they will acquire skills and experience and push forward the reputation of the society at home and abroad.

You can only justify that expenditure if you select someone you know will fit the bill. 9 times out of 10 that is going to be someone who has IV experience, either in training or competition - the best assurance of suitability is of course experience. But you hold trials to make sure you haven't missed anything, and that everyone has a fair chance to shine on their standard of debate as it is NOW so that selection is NOT based purely on past performance. Connie never at any point said that that was the selection criteria. We have selected speakers in the past on the basis of obvious potential. A trial structure is the best mechanism by which we can continue to do so.

Don't knock something you have no experience of. And for the record, there is no such entity as "the IV squad" - yes there is a core group of people who regularly attend competitions but there are many more who contribute at varying different levels, internally, externally, as judges, as timekeepers and observers at competitions. IV selection has always been a balance between giving people a chance to go, have fun and gain experience and allowing the best speakers to improve and gain glory for the society.

Long may that balance continue.

[Epeeduelist84]

Quoting Bryn from 18:06, 11th Apr 2006

The point of having trials is to give everyone a fair chance of going. If the people in the "IV Squad" have an advantage from the outset, then the trials don't achieve that. Obviously, I understand why you want to send the best people you can, but unfortunately you've decided that the best people are the "IV Squad" which are a group of people who were initially whittled down and selected to go to domestic IVs.

Bryn, if I tried out for the St. Andrews Rugby team, having absolutely no experience at playing rugby, and was trialing at the same time as a 2.3 meter tall Magistrand known to his friends as 'Bubba' who'd been playing since he was 11 years old, I probably wouldn't take his spot on the team going to the 'University Rugby World Championships'. This wouldn't mean that the trials weren't FAIR, it would just mean that the experienced player had the advantage. The situation really isn't any different for World's Trials. Of course, everyone is (as Connie has made VERY CLEAR) welcome to come to the trials and participate. If you're really concerned, why don't you come along and try out yourself? I'd love to see you there.

[Connie]

Quoting exnihilo from 18:44, 11th Apr 2006
I find this discussion interesting, because I can think of someone very, very recently who represented us with tremendous aplomb at a World Championship despite having never attended training, never gone to IVs and only ever having spoken in LPH three years before in his Maidens' Competition.

Just out of sheer curiousity, who was it that represented us at Worlds without IV experience and did really well?

[Dickie]

Quoting connie from 22:02, 11th Apr 2006
Just out of sheer curiousity, who was it that represented us at Worlds without IV experience and did really well?

I am not absolutly sure but I think Exnihilo may be refering to a thespian who only ever turned up to debates if there was a prize. Be that a rather nice trip to the worlds (which he got) or cash from the Balaka (which he got twice)!! He never bar his Maiden Final, or a Prize Comp, entered LPH or went to any IV but he was certianly one of the best debaters at this unversity. Unfortunalty I cannot recall his name but it will be in the minutes.

[hr]

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

[Eliot Wilson]

Sefton Darby would be my guess, but it's a little before my time. Or possibly Colin Spurway.

[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."

[Dickie]

Quoting Eliot Wilson from 22:55, 11th Apr 2006
Sefton Darby would be my guess, but it's a little before my time. Or possibly Colin Spurway.

I think it was Spurway but could not be 100%
as I am usless with names as many of you will know by now

[hr]

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

[Alex Jennings]

Connie and I found Mr. Spurway in Manila 1999. He did do very well, but he is definitely the exception rather than the rule. Very few people can go into LPH their very first time out and be stunningly good. Very few people can do that without having had masses of training earlier in life. The same thing goes with IVs. We have training offered because these are things that can be learned.

As someone who has gone to Worlds twice now (and hopes to go again) I have seen what happens when people are chosen a.) by past experience and what they do on the day and b.) what they manage to pull out of their ass on the day. Worlds has changed its format substantially in the last ten years. There are more teams at the very least. There is no perfect way of doing this to be quite honest. If you want to send the very best St Andrews has to offer, you need to choose carefully on as much information as you can.

If someone like Colin shows up when these trials are held - or if someone who is just as good as our best - and they promise to fulfill the requirements that have been set out, I am fully confident that they will be considered and probably chosen. If we want to win, we send our best.

[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."

[Mr Comedy]

Bryn, I would be concerned if someone went to Worlds who had never spoken in an IV, or showed no inclination for doing so. If they are going to speak in the toughest debating competition out there, I would like to think they had at least a modicum of experience.

Also thoigh bear in mind we've selected people to go to Worlds who had regularly come along to training and worked on their speaking who had no IV experience previous to being selected.

Like me for example.

[hr]

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

[Bryn]

Bryn ths really isn't exclusive and you should stop making pot shots at the IV squad.

I'm not making "pot shots" at the IV squad, Rob. I'm just trying to express very real concerns I have about the way people are selected for IVs. I know I'm not alone in thinking this. I would however like to point out that I do have a great deal of sympathy for your point of view. I came in to the society through training and the IV side of things, and thus can claim to have been a member of the IV squad for longer than you have. I'm not claiming to have ever been a very good IV debater, but that doesn't mean I don't care about it.

You don't pick someone to represent Britain at the Olympics who has never run a race before.

Well, that adds to the suggestion that the IV squad is like a sports team.

Your comments seem valid though regarding selection for Worlds. I was just commenting on what seemed like an inconsistency of holding "fair trials" and giving your own an advantage in those trials. To be honest, with Worlds trials, even if you advertised them extensively only the usual suspects would show up. Where we need to start is getting more people to go to domestic IVs.

Don't knock something you have no experience of. And for the record, there is no such entity as "the IV squad" - yes there is a core group of people who regularly attend competitions but there are many more who contribute at varying different levels, internally, externally, as judges, as timekeepers and observers at competitions. IV selection has always been a balance between giving people a chance to go, have fun and gain experience and allowing the best speakers to improve and gain glory for the society.

Connie used the phrase, and it is a phrase and a mentality that is used within that core group frequently. I've been there, I've witnessed it, I've taken part in that. But it's ultimately a little damaging.

Bryn, I would be concerned if someone went to Worlds who had never spoken in an IV, or showed no inclination for doing so. If they are going to speak in the toughest debating competition out there, I would like to think they had at least a modicum of experience.

Then we should persuade more people to go to IVs. Although, since being a Worlds team requires you to go to all the major IVs in the Autumn term, if someone has enough talent why not select them?

Lastly, I'm sorry if people perceived what I said as an attack. I didn't mean it to be that. I'm just trying to make sure that the society is serving the whole student body, and not just a small group of like-minded students.

[Ewan MacDonald]

Trials and format -
a.) Worlds Trials 2004 – John spoke in the trial debate with Miranda, giving all the appearance of trialling as a speaker, despite ostensibly trialing as a judge. Then sat in on the other judges who were trialing, before he gave his own judging spiel, which he later admitted was highly unfair. I don't think there was any doubt that John should have gone (and he did break, even if it was originally as a reserve judge), but it hardly rings of good practice.
b.) Worlds 2005. The selection panel consisted of two of the speakers who were going, myself and one other. Again John can justify his place as someone who had spoken and judged at worlds before, and presumably Jason was there as St Andrews leading speaker, but it sends a very bad message to the wider body when we can send eight people, but a quarter of those people are self-selected already. Also then getting a debater who was in the bar to come up, having rejected those actually trialing.
c.) Euro's 2006. It was decided to run the trials at a normal training session, that hadn't been announced in advance. All we'd heard was connie's classic 'if you're interested, you should come' line. Because apparently that can mean, as it did on the day 'the people we want to trial are here, so we'll select now'. Which is certainly not what she told us. So I hope anyone who might possibly want to go to Vancouver was there today, because in the past that 'quick chat' has developed rapidly into a squad announcement!
This is both unfair and undermines the validity of those who are selected. Even better, the entire panel (Doug, Connie and Jason) self-selected themselves. Again, it sends out a very bad message to the student body, and opens up those individuals to questions on probity.
When self-selecting panels are allied to criteria for selection then there will be the perception that it is a small coterie of people using the Associations funding for a nice holiday doing their hobby. I know most people are too young to remember the ferocious battles to legitimise spending on inter-varsity debating, but if they had perhaps they would be less cavalier about what the wider student body feels about it. Because of this, just because someone has not competed at worlds does not remove them from being qualified to question the selectorial procedures. Of course I have never been to Worlds either, but since I sit on the selectorial panel for the Scottish Schools international team I have a fair idea of good practice.
2.) Importance of training/IV's
Obviously there are two issues tied up in here. Firstly, this idea that an IV track record is essential to Worlds. There is some veracity in that comment, although I think ruling out any freshers is a little risky. Last year Sam Block had St Andrews as his second choice after coming to the Schools competition. Of course being at School Sam had never been to an IV before September, but he still finished 55 th on the WUDC speaker tab, above anyone from St Andrews. So I think that it is an unfair generalisation to say that going to an IV this season is essential to success. See also the Durham B team, who are in their first year of competitive debating, but broke as a swing team above John and Jason at their first IV, and beat us all at Euros. So to the issue of training. This year our only debater to break at Oxford and Worlds is of course Kizzy, who has been to about four training sessions. She happily admits to cutting her judging teeth by working her way into good rooms and hearing what the best of the best have to say. Becuause, from a judging perspective, until you're seeing high-level, close debates, all the 'here's what we prioritise in debates' will do is make you a formulaic, tick-box speaker and judge, and leaves no room to understand a genuiely clever but unorthodox argument when you see one. Kizzy's been to about 4 training sessions this year, and I doubt anyone would question her success, so that criteria is also less important than it would appear.
We have also a minor contradiction here that people must have shown lots of commitment to IV's. Firstly we refused to consider for selection for Euro's judges who had been (or broken) at Worlds, and were falling over ourselves to send developmental teams to both Euros and Worlds (which is why Rob's point on only sending breakable/winnable teams is a little inaccurate, especially when we see that one of our speakers at worlds had so little intention of breaking he pre-booked his flights home for January 1st). But now in order to go to an international people must have shown massive commitment. Which is it to be?

3.) So here are some questions that I think need to be resolved.
a.) Will speakers be speaking with random partners (as normal protocol) or pre-designated teams?
b.) Will the selection panel also be competing for selection? Because, if all our tales of increased links with other societies are true, then we can certianly pull in some top (unbiased) judges.
c.) Will there be any objective representation on the panel – either someone not associated with the squad, who is impartial, or preferably an external debater who has competed/judged to a high level at Worlds?
d.) Will judges be self-funding, and will they be told more than a day before the trials?
e.) Will this be generally advertised to the student body? (since the Association is picking up the bill)? Or are we going to fall back on the 'it was in the linkup' excuse. Oh no, we can't. Because it wasn't.




[hr]

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
Edmund Burke