Turn on thread page Beta

Speakers Statement: Capital Punishment Referendum watch

    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    My good sir, everything we do here is a waste of time. Every damn second of it, completely pointless.

    The CT can't win though. If they don't give us usergroups, some will complain. If they give us usergroups many of those same people will still complain. Lets just be happy that the CT have been kind enough to give us the opportunity to run this properly
    I think the problem is that in the past the sole reason of a UG not being created, was due to the UGs slowing down the site excessively, yet they now have football UGs, and also the Political Ambassador UG which are all utterly pointless, and so the argument has worn quite thin, when they now create UGs willy nilly, and don't re-purpose existing ones, showing their argument was frankly bs.


    (Original post by DayneD89)
    My bot is still able to check, so I would recommend that if a person with hidden UGs applies to join your party you check them with me first. I'll edit the bot so you can check yourself at some point.
    That's reassuring at least.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    My good sir, everything we do here is a waste of time. Every damn second of it, completely pointless.

    The CT can't win though. If they don't give us usergroups, some will complain. If they give us usergroups many of those same people will still complain. Lets just be happy that the CT have been kind enough to give us the opportunity to run this properly
    The CT had no problem last time round saying bog off without defending the existence of the football UGs.

    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Given the amount of objection to that part I'm happy to leave it up to the leaders of each side. Note though that the members of this press team would be selected by the mBBC editor (who was elected, at least by those in the press office) and would also need to be approved by myself who was elected to the house.
    As such will no press be allowed in either campaign until after leaders have been elected?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The CT had no problem last time round saying bog off without defending the existence of the football UGs.

    As such will no press be allowed in either campaign until after leaders have been elected?
    They could apply to one group or the other and I would treat them as if they weren't acting as part of the press team, but I wouldn't allow someone into both groups.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Given the amount of objection to that part I'm happy to leave it up to the leaders of each side. Note though that the members of this press team would be selected by the mBBC editor (who was elected, at least by those in the press office) and would also need to be approved by myself who was elected to the house.
    That's a fair compromise.
    (Original post by Tanqueray91)
    I disagree with allowing press team into each forum - that should be conducted via PMs with the press team if and when the sides want to discuss that, not having it as a given. Other than that, I look forward to this happening.
    (Original post by Tanqueray91)
    Also, I should add that the press team are an unelected group of people, that have no reason to be trusted in that they won't leak details to the other side if that is one that they support, so why are they undeniably allowed into both UGs and subs, without anyone having a say?
    (Original post by Joep95)
    I agree with Tanqueray91
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    I have no problem with the timeline, however I am not a fan of allowing press in the subforums. I see why you have done it and I understand it, but there is little trust in the house and I dont think it is a good idea.

    If it was just 04 in both of the subforums, I could live with that because I believe he is a trusted person within the house.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And I'm with the others on the press
    The reason I asked to be part of both usergroups is to communicate effectively with both camps on how they would like to use the BBC (not the other way round) as part of the campaigning). I expected the number of neutral press members to be incredibly minimal and underhand leaking was not the intention (though I completely understand the concern). The aim of everyone committed to this referendum is to make it as good an advert for MHoC as possible.

    I would not support anyone I didn't trust to be a neutral player in this, and I'd like to say that Dayne and the campaign leaders (when elected) share this opinion.
    (Original post by Tanqueray91)
    DayneD89 - given that the press team isn't even something that was voted for by the House, but something just 'created', it's even more absurd that they're being allowed into private subforums, when there has been no say on it by the House, to see both sides, and potentially leak information.

    Cranbrook was a DS, supposedly someone the House could trust, yet he leaked election results, why should we believe that press team will not do the same, when the risk is a lot lower, and the chances of them really being found out, pretty damn slim.
    Dayne proposed its creation when we elected him as speaker within his manifesto.


    (Original post by Tanqueray91)
    Could you give party demographics, and figures for the press team? As though they may have been elected within the Press team, they certainly have not been elected by the House.
    (Original post by Tanqueray91)
    04MR17 gonna release information into MHoC?
    You can find the "Press Office" usergroup on people's profile pages, and so can work out for yourself exactly who is and isn't part of it. There are at least 2 members from the four main parties in the team, and to my knowledge nobody who wished to join has been refused, and I won't refuse new applications outright, nor do I have in my head a limit for the size of the press team - it should find its natural size with time. This project is still in its early stages **ignores Jammy calling it a waste of time** and so I'm anticipating some members to leave and hopefully more to join until we're into a rhythm.
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    My good sir, everything we do here is a waste of time. Every damn second of it, completely pointless.

    The CT can't win though. If they don't give us usergroups, some will complain. If they give us usergroups many of those same people will still complain. Lets just be happy that the CT have been kind enough to give us the opportunity to run this properly
    PRSOM
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    That's a fair compromise.




    The reason I asked to be part of both usergroups is to communicate effectively with both camps on how they would like to use the BBC (not the other way round) as part of the campaigning). I expected the number of neutral press members to be incredibly minimal and underhand leaking was not the intention (though I completely understand the concern). The aim of everyone committed to this referendum is to make it as good an advert for MHoC as possible.

    I would not support anyone I didn't trust to be a neutral player in this, and I'd like to say that Dayne and the campaign leaders (when elected) share this opinion.Dayne proposed its creation when we elected him as speaker within his manifesto.


    You can find the "Press Office" usergroup on people's profile pages, and so can work out for yourself exactly who is and isn't part of it. There are at least 2 members from the four main parties in the team, and to my knowledge nobody who wished to join has been refused, and I won't refuse new applications outright, nor do I have in my head a limit for the size of the press team - it should find its natural size with time. This project is still in its early stages **ignores Jammy calling it a waste of time** and so I'm anticipating some members to leave and hopefully more to join until we're into a rhythm.
    PRSOM
    PMs are a thing
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Joep95)
    PMs are a thing
    an ineffective thing
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    an ineffective thing
    Not really they ensure that you get what the campaigns what they want you to have but can discuss it in the same way as you would in the forum
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Not really they ensure that you get what the campaigns what they want you to have but can discuss it in the same way as you would in the forum
    If I was discussing with one person, yes. If I was discussing with more than that, probably not.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I would officially like to announce my intention to join the “Against” campaign for the referendum.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Joep95)
    As jammy says nobody cares

    I didn’t use the meme so you can’t complain
    We might have all known that Labour would officially be against, and that might be TOTALLY meaningless in the end unless the endorsements are all listed on the polls (they won't), but at least it's stating the endorsement of a party
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    That's a fair compromise.




    The reason I asked to be part of both usergroups is to communicate effectively with both camps on how they would like to use the BBC (not the other way round) as part of the campaigning). I expected the number of neutral press members to be incredibly minimal and underhand leaking was not the intention (though I completely understand the concern). The aim of everyone committed to this referendum is to make it as good an advert for MHoC as possible.

    I would not support anyone I didn't trust to be a neutral player in this, and I'd like to say that Dayne and the campaign leaders (when elected) share this opinion.Dayne proposed its creation when we elected him as speaker within his manifesto.


    You can find the "Press Office" usergroup on people's profile pages, and so can work out for yourself exactly who is and isn't part of it. There are at least 2 members from the four main parties in the team, and to my knowledge nobody who wished to join has been refused, and I won't refuse new applications outright, nor do I have in my head a limit for the size of the press team - it should find its natural size with time. This project is still in its early stages **ignores Jammy calling it a waste of time** and so I'm anticipating some members to leave and hopefully more to join until we're into a rhythm.
    PRSOM
    PMs and other means are effective without having to have unnecessary access to sub forums of both sides.

    In the reason of transparency, why should I have to look through multiple members' profiles to find who is part of it, especially when members can hide UGs. If you really thought it was transparent, you'd post a list. Also, as I said before, many people trusted Cranbrook, wrongly, so quite frankly, your word means absolutely nothing to me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    an ineffective thing
    Hell, odds are there will be an even better way to make the arrangements given the relevant people in both campaigns will probably be users of other means of common communication.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Hell, odds are there will be an even better way to make the arrangements given the relevant people in both campaigns will probably be users of other means of common communication.
    This is not something I intend to endorse.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It is a thing that has been sufficient for the last what, 12-13 years?
    approaching 17 actually, to my knowledge.
    (Original post by Tanqueray91)
    PMs and other means are effective without having to have unnecessary access to sub forums of both sides.
    Effective between two people, yes. More than that? No. As I said to Joe.
    (Original post by Tanqueray91)
    In the reason of transparency, why should I have to look through multiple members' profiles to find who is part of it, especially when members can hide UGs. If you really thought it was transparent, you'd post a list. Also, as I said before, many people trusted Cranbrook, wrongly, so quite frankly, your word means absolutely nothing to me.
    I didn't say you should. I said you can.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    This is not something I intend to endorse.
    approaching 17 actually, to my knowledge.
    Effective between two people, yes. More than that? No. As I said to Joe.
    I didn't say you should. I said you can.
    There are other options.

    Why shouldn't I know who's in the press office?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    This is not something I intend to endorse.
    approaching 17 actually, to my knowledge.
    Effective between two people, yes. More than that? No. As I said to Joe.
    I didn't say you should. I said you can.
    I was around for the proposed 10th anniversary meet up and I haven't been here for 7 years
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I was around for the proposed 10th anniversary meet up and I haven't been here for 7 years
    TSR began in 2001.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    This is not something I intend to endorse.
    approaching 17 actually, to my knowledge.
    Effective between two people, yes. More than that? No. As I said to Joe.
    I didn't say you should. I said you can.
    The libers originally organised via group PMs and we were very productive when we started
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    TSR began in 2001.
    The MHoC did not though
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The MHoC did not though
    PMs did though. If I was to comment on the effectiveness of MHoC I'd break the character limit.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    PMs did though. If I was to comment on the effectiveness of MHoC I'd break the character limit.
    Point is the house has worked just fine, including handing the sort of thing necessary for the press' contribution, with PMs alone, for instance the last referendum and countless election debates
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?

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

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