[committee] Restrictions on group applications for freshers

[Bob Adamson]

The fresher rep, by virtue of their position, has more opportunities to 
prove their trustworthiness than other freshers. For example the fresher 
rep is able to accept membership forms, and organise club events such as 
lans. Ash: you in particular have been able to prove to us that you care 
about the club and are prepared to put some work into it - you've actually 
done a coke run (or two?), you help fill up the coke machine, you've 
helped fix a clubroom machine, you have root on heathred already, you've 
helped organise/run a lan, you were there on oday helping us, and you're 
an active webmaster. All of these facts meant we can justify ignoring 
precedent and put you on door - other than taking memberships (a rare 
occurence for the fresher rep), we haven't put you in a money handling 
role. The fresher who is applying for coke has done none of these things 
for the club, and yet seems to think he's guaranteed to get on coke if he 
does LOLCAT and nothing else. This alone says to me that he needs to wait 
for longer so he gets to know how the club works.

On a side note, it was me that told Cain we don't accept freshers onto 
groups before semester two. It's the same thing I was told when I joined 
the club and I'm better for it - it meant I took actions to *prove* I was 
worth putting on coke/door. 

Bob

On Fri, 20 May 2011, Ash Tyndall wrote:

> I think the heart of my problem with the six-months rule is I see it as a double-standard: It only applies to some people, and those who are exempt are IMHO not by virtue of their position any more
> worthy of this exemption than anyone else. i.e. We trust the Fresher Rep earlier, but the Fresher Rep is basically just an enthusiastic club member. Logically, we should trust any similarly enthusiastic
> club member regardless of any position they may or may not hold.
> I would agree that the current system works, but that does not mean it cannot be improved. 
> 
> Do people understand what I'm getting at?
> 
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Matt Didcoe <mattman at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>       Oh good, more list drama!
> 
>       I feel that perhaps this thread didn't get off to the right start, so
>       lets forget all about coke for now and address the actual point Ashley
>       raised :)
> 
>       1) To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time "complaints"
>       have been made regarding this longstanding UCC practice.
>       2) Chris says the next bit quite well, so I refer you back to his email :)
>       3) I would add to Chris' email, that respect is something that, much
>       like trust, is earned over time and this respect is very important,
>       particularly for door members who are tasked with maintaining order
>       and trying to get people to leave as required.
>       4) Jon - who are these people who were telling him it was a waste of
>       time (feel free to email names off list)
> 
>       Applications after this period are assessed on trust already, with the
>       addition of some basic questioning to ensure the applicant understands
>       the exactly what the role entails. I don't feel anything needs to be
>       changed in the way we assess people for roles within the club (its
>       worked pretty darn well for the last god knows how many years) - if
>       there's someone really exceptional and keen, they'll stick around and
>       do little bits of pieces for the first six months, happily waiting for
>       the opportunity to step up. Remember, being on one of our groups is
>       not an entitlement you get when you sign up.
> 
>       [MRD]
> 
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Jonathan Van buren <vanbujm at gmail.com> wrote:
> > @BOB: I just found it odd that there was so many balance adds by root, i it
> > seemed to me that the point of the logs was so see clearly who is adding
> > what to where and having a group of anonymous root adds counteracts this, it
> > was never a issue of trust.
> >
> > @SZM: You are correct that no applications have been denied lately, it was
> > just that the way people put it to Cain his application was a waste of time
> > because he was a first year, and i can verify(i was there)  that many people
> > he was asking when trying to submit his LOLCAT application seemed to dismiss
> > him. The reason i brought this up is i was worried that word would get
> > around that freshers should not even bother trying to get into groups
> > because of this, and i personally believe that this would be a significantly
> > negative thing to insinuate.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Ash Tyndall [ASH]
> 2011 Fresher Rep
> 
> 
>