Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Great I will add you to the members list. Good man.
    Nah mate, don't think so
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    Nah mate, don't think so
    Too late. Like the Catholics, if we claim you then you're ours forever.

    One of us, one of us.

    Etc.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Will you join me? I will make you VP in charge of Guinness.
    An absolute honour
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Conservative
    I guess it's unfortunate for you that quite frankly, we don't care enough about you as a member, or find you interesting enough to bother saying anything about you... bad or good.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Question to all candidates, and as LP said, if you fail to answer at all, you will 100% not get my vote - Aph and Hazzer, feel free to not bother answering, as I am already 100% sure you won't be getting my vote.

    Being Speaker, you do have access to all the subs, and can quite easily cause a lot of chaos/damage covertly... why should we, as a House, trust you to act with the integrity required?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Question to all candidates, and as LP said, if you fail to answer at all, you will 100% not get my vote - Aph and Hazzer, feel free to not bother answering, as I am already 100% sure you won't be getting my vote.

    Being Speaker, you do have access to all the subs, and can quite easily cause a lot of chaos/damage covertly... why should we, as a House, trust you to act with the integrity required?
    It comes back to the concept of the game, I like the playing the game, I like winning the game, and I respect the game, using private forums to cause chaos is not what the game is about. You can cause more chaos in the MHoC by working around the rules to table amendments as I did with the Crisis Committee amendment, tabling motions as was done in Aphgate, and tactically whipping MPs to block things passing. All of those methods are in the spirit of the game, part of politicking, and are more fun than cheating at the game.

    The other other candidates need to rely on your trust which they will underwrite by making promises to respect the rules, however, none of the other candidates can use the love of the game motive which I can use because none of them like playing the game as much as I do. When I have a motive to encourage me to follow the rules, there is no need to worry about me covertly damaging parties by exploiting the right to privacy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Question to all candidates, and as LP said, if you fail to answer at all, you will 100% not get my vote - Aph and Hazzer, feel free to not bother answering, as I am already 100% sure you won't be getting my vote.

    Being Speaker, you do have access to all the subs, and can quite easily cause a lot of chaos/damage covertly... why should we, as a House, trust you to act with the integrity required?
    What benefit would I as speaker get out from doing this, very little. At present we have stability in our house, relatively scandalous free; and by leaking documents or similar, this would cause a hell of a lot of issues, and it simply wouldn't be worth it.

    Plus, as speaker I would be in a neutral capacity, so it would not benefit me that one party in particular knew secrets from another, as I wouldn't be in the said party.

    Finally, you have to trust my past, and my experience; scandalous and drama free, with no previous history of leaking secrets and causing chaos!
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    What benefit would I as speaker get out from doing this, very little. At present we have stability in our house, relatively scandalous free; and by leaking documents or similar, this would cause a hell of a lot of issues, and it simply wouldn't be worth it.

    Plus, as speaker I would be in a neutral capacity, so it would not benefit me that one party in particular knew secrets from another, as I wouldn't be in the said party.

    Finally, you have to trust my past, and my experience; scandalous and drama free, with no previous history of leaking secrets and causing chaos!
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It comes back to the concept of the game, I like the playing the game, I like winning the game, and I respect the game, using private forums to cause chaos is not what the game is about. You can cause more chaos in the MHoC by working around the rules to table amendments as I did with the Crisis Committee amendment, tabling motions as was done in Aphgate, and tactically whipping MPs to block things passing. All of those methods are in the spirit of the game, part of politicking, and are more fun than cheating at the game.

    The other other candidates need to rely on your trust which they will underwrite by making promises to respect the rules, however, none of the other candidates can use the love of the game motive which I can use because none of them like playing the game as much as I do. When I have a motive to encourage me to follow the rules, there is no need to worry about me covertly damaging parties by exploiting the right to privacy.
    Cheers. Also, when looking at prospective new parties (slightly in relation to earlier question about allowing new parties) how would you consider proposed dual members (prospective party members already in another party). Would you require a minimum amount of active MHoCers who are not in any other party?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Cheers. Also, when looking at prospective new parties (slightly in relation to earlier question about allowing new parties) how would you consider proposed dual members (prospective party members already in another party). Would you require a minimum amount of active MHoCers who are not in any other party?
    I would look for a minimum of 1 stand alone non dual member from the MHOC in the party, then class every further dual member as = to 1/2 an active MHOCer
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Cheers. Also, when looking at prospective new parties (slightly in relation to earlier question about allowing new parties) how would you consider proposed dual members (prospective party members already in another party). Would you require a minimum amount of active MHoCers who are not in any other party?
    I would not want to call for a minimum amount of active MHoCers because I think a proposed party of three really capable MHoCers coming together will have more chance of success than a party of five less-active, but still well-known MHoCers coming together: it will be dependent on the situation when a new party may be trying to form. Replying to dual members, I am against dual membership, if the members do not feel strongly enough in a new party to leave their old party behind I do not think the members are serious about creating a new party. There can be some dual members if that is what is desired, however, I would expect there to be a sizeable number of independent members coming together.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I would not want to call for a minimum amount of active MHoCers because I think a proposed party of three really capable MHoCers coming together will have more chance of success than a party of five less-active, but still well-known MHoCers coming together: it will be dependent on the situation when a new party may be trying to form. Replying to dual members, I am against duel membership, if the members do not feel strongly enough in a new party to leave their old party behind I do not think the members are serious about creating a new party. There can be some dual members if that is what is desired, however, I would expect there to be a sizeable number of independent members coming together.
    Poor Jammy

    Thanks for your responses though guys!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    I guess it's unfortunate for you that quite frankly, we don't care enough about you as a member, or find you interesting enough to bother saying anything about you... bad or good.
    Bit harsh
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Aph and Hazzer, feel free to not bother answering, as I am already 100% sure you won't be getting my vote.
    ?
    Is cBae still in contention then?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Question to all candidates, and as LP said, if you fail to answer at all, you will 100% not get my vote - Aph and Hazzer, feel free to not bother answering, as I am already 100% sure you won't be getting my vote.

    Being Speaker, you do have access to all the subs, and can quite easily cause a lot of chaos/damage covertly... why should we, as a House, trust you to act with the integrity required?
    I'd be MoNCed tbh

    But after spending a sub with you for 6 months I think you know I have no interest in controversy, let alone chaos or damage.

    As for the point on dual members in new parties in your later post, whilst they'd be considered in any decision made, 3 or 4 active members that aren't duals would probably be necessary before duals come into consideration.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Bit harsh
    He's the one that has openly stated that he'd immediately break the rules as Speaker. Against my party no less. If he's going to say that, then yeh, I'll be harsh.
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Is cBae still in contention then?
    He's not out of contention like the two I said are.
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'd be MoNCed tbh

    But after spending a sub with you for 6 months I think you know I have no interest in controversy, let alone chaos or damage.

    As for the point on dual members in new parties in your later post, whilst they'd be considered in any decision made, 3 or 4 active members that aren't duals would probably be necessary before duals come into consideration.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Fair enough
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It comes back to the concept of the game, I like the playing the game, I like winning the game, and I respect the game, using private forums to cause chaos is not what the game is about. You can cause more chaos in the MHoC by working around the rules to table amendments as I did with the Crisis Committee amendment, tabling motions as was done in Aphgate, and tactically whipping MPs to block things passing. All of those methods are in the spirit of the game, part of politicking, and are more fun than cheating at the game.

    The other other candidates need to rely on your trust which they will underwrite by making promises to respect the rules, however, none of the other candidates can use the love of the game motive which I can use because none of them like playing the game as much as I do. When I have a motive to encourage me to follow the rules, there is no need to worry about me covertly damaging parties by exploiting the right to privacy.
    You leaked information from the Crisis Committee subforum so there's a chance that you could do the same for parties too. Also, the Speaker should be the one person who shouldn't bend the rules. I have a feeling that you could cause controversies and petty disputes, even if they're only minor ones, so unfortunately I just can't vote for you.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    You leaked information from the Crisis Committee subforum so there's a chance that you could do the same for parties too. Also, the Speaker should be the one person who shouldn't bend the rules. I have a feeling that you could cause controversies and petty disputes, even if they're only minor ones, so unfortunately I just can't vote for you.
    That is fine, the Crisis Committee's private forum does not have rules in place to stop leaking; I carefully read the Crisis Committee's Constitution before doing anything. It is not bending the rules, it is operating in the rules to bring about favourable outcomes, it is playing the game in the way it should be played. You do not like it because I have outplayed you twice by writing an amendment to get around the Constitution, and leaking ideas from the Crisis Committee forum.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That is fine, the Crisis Committee's private forum does not have rules in place to stop leaking; I carefully read the Crisis Committee's Constitution before doing anything. It is not bending the rules, it is operating in the rules to bring about favourable outcomes, it is playing the game in the way it should be played. You do not like it because I have outplayed you twice by writing an amendment to get around the Constitution, and leaking ideas from the Crisis Committee forum.
    TSR rules don't allow leaking.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    TSR rules don't allow leaking.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The rules do not mention, nor include the private forum of the Crisis Committee which is in a category of its own.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The rules do not mention, nor include the private forum of the Crisis Committee which is in a category of its own.
    The rules do mention that all posts in private forums are protected because they are posted in confidence

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 13, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.