|
  |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Susan Niven CSP DTM PID
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:40 am Post subject: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
 |
|
Buried in the long post about "Improving the TLI program", Larry had made
some comments to which I responded. No one picked up on it (maybe because it
was buried, or maybe because they didn't find it worthy of response!), but a
recent comment from Betsy - in another thread - has prompted me to re-post.
Larry said ...
| Quote: | Here's my take on that. Make the PID or PDG your best ally with a simple
trick. When the 1st question comes up, you say (pointing to the PID) "I'm
sure
Bob would agree that the best solution is to . . ., Is that right Bob?"
(Nodding all the while). Bob is thrilled to be recognized as the expert,
and
in fact, if he contributes further it is likely to be valuable.
|
Hmmmm. As a PID who (when still a Toastmaster) attended several additional
TLI sessions b/c of holding a club office at the time, I would have been
quite unimpressed at this type of blatantly condescending / manipulative
technique. I certainly would not have put this trainer down in the session,
but would most definitely provide him or her with some feedback afterward,
about the potential for negative repurcussions depending upon the tolerance
level of the target.
PDGs, PIDs and PIPs "should" all behave themselves in training sessions ...
and those who are in your District are probably known to you ... so you will
know in advance which ones can be counted on to behave, and which ones will
likely try to impose their vast knowledge. The first lot are no problem. The
second lot are definitely more of a nuisance, but ....
a) sometimes their knowledge IS greater than that of the Trainer, and
sometimes they CAN offer a more correct or more understandable response to a
question;
b) other PDG's / PIDs / PIPs in the session can sometimes be counted upon to
rein in their colleagues; and
c) sometimes you can "massage their egos" but simply asking them for an
opinion ... but not by saying "I'm sure Bob agrees that ....". Not a good
plan, IMRHO :)
Larry also said:
| Quote: | If he says
anything contrary you say "Great point, Bob, thanks. Now lets move on . .
Works like a charm."
|
Again, hmmmmm. I'm not sure what this would accomplish, other than having a
roomful of trainees who are now confused about what is "the right answer",
or "the more effective way" ... and who now "know" that if they have an
opinion different than yours, they better keep it to themselves because
obviously you are not interested in hearing it, but simply "move on". [This
is the part that relates to Betsy's recent post, in another thread, about
"knowing" that she has to keep her suggestions to herself until some
undefined point in the future when she "knows more". To which, by the way, I
say "hogwash"!!!!]
Not being able to handle - in essence - "hecklers", does not generally give
folks a lot of confidence in the presenter.
Susan.
Susan Black (formerly Niven) DTM, PID
Toastmasters International Director 1998-2000
Former Toastmaster & Lifelong Advocate
Langley, BC, Canada |
|
| Back to top |
|
Larry in Honolulu
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:26 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
In article <60DMg.522980$iF6.44936@pd7tw2no>, "Susan Niven CSP DTM PID" <foronlineuse@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | Buried in the long post about "Improving the TLI program", Larry had made
some comments to which I responded. No one picked up on it (maybe because it
was buried, or maybe because they didn't find it worthy of response!), but a
recent comment from Betsy - in another thread - has prompted me to re-post.
Larry said ...
Here's my take on that. Make the PID or PDG your best ally with a simple
trick. When the 1st question comes up, you say (pointing to the PID) "I'm
sure
Bob would agree that the best solution is to . . ., Is that right Bob?"
(Nodding all the while). Bob is thrilled to be recognized as the expert,
and
in fact, if he contributes further it is likely to be valuable.
Hmmmm. As a PID who (when still a Toastmaster) attended several additional
TLI sessions b/c of holding a club office at the time, I would have been
quite unimpressed at this type of blatantly condescending / manipulative
technique. I certainly would not have put this trainer down in the session,
but would most definitely provide him or her with some feedback afterward,
about the potential for negative repurcussions depending upon the tolerance
level of the target.
PDGs, PIDs and PIPs "should" all behave themselves in training sessions ...
and those who are in your District are probably known to you ... so you will
know in advance which ones can be counted on to behave, and which ones will
likely try to impose their vast knowledge. The first lot are no problem. The
second lot are definitely more of a nuisance, but ....
a) sometimes their knowledge IS greater than that of the Trainer, and
sometimes they CAN offer a more correct or more understandable response to a
question;
b) other PDG's / PIDs / PIPs in the session can sometimes be counted upon to
rein in their colleagues; and
c) sometimes you can "massage their egos" but simply asking them for an
opinion ... but not by saying "I'm sure Bob agrees that ....". Not a good
plan, IMRHO :)
Larry also said:
If he says
anything contrary you say "Great point, Bob, thanks. Now lets move on . .
Works like a charm."
Again, hmmmmm. I'm not sure what this would accomplish, other than having a
roomful of trainees who are now confused about what is "the right answer",
or "the more effective way" ... and who now "know" that if they have an
opinion different than yours, they better keep it to themselves because
obviously you are not interested in hearing it, but simply "move on". [This
is the part that relates to Betsy's recent post, in another thread, about
"knowing" that she has to keep her suggestions to herself until some
undefined point in the future when she "knows more". To which, by the way, I
say "hogwash"!!!!]
Not being able to handle - in essence - "hecklers", does not generally give
folks a lot of confidence in the presenter.
Susan.
Susan Black (formerly Niven) DTM, PID
Toastmasters International Director 1998-2000
Former Toastmaster & Lifelong Advocate
Langley, BC, Canada
|
Susan,
I absolutely understand your comments, but when I said "Make the PID or PDG
your best ally" I actually meant that sincerely. I really do believe that the
best asset you can have as a trainer is an experienced PID, and I very much
want them on my side. That said, you must agree that "some" PID's can be very
difficult, nit-picking and making snyde remarks. It's the nature of the beast
in many ways. They've been through it all, know it all, and been in charge for
a long time, and are now "out to pasture". Many handle that gracefully, some
do not.
Heckling as you put it, is virtually never productive. Susan, you know I've
been in your presentations, and would feel pretty sorry for anyone who chose
to try it with you, but to expect that level of skill from someone training
Secretarys at a TLI is not realistic around here, and frankly should just not
be needed.
I'd be thrilld to see you sitting in on a training I was doing and would
indeed hope that you'd be my best ally. That said, many less
experienced presenters would be terrified and I was just trying to show them
how not to be.
Larry Lands DTM PDG
Finalist 2001 World Championship
webmaster www.district49.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
betsy_in_va
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:23 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
I still don't see why PDGs or PIDs or anyone at that level would need
to sit in on secretary training anyway. The job can't change THAT much
from year to year! :-)
You make good points, I'll be interested in what everyone has to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Eric Matto
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:31 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
| Quote: | I still don't see why PDGs or PIDs or anyone at that level would need
to sit in on secretary training anyway. The job can't change THAT much
from year to year! :-)
Part of the challenge of training is to get officers to go who may have been |
through it before because they've been serving for multiple years. TI does
occasionally change things, as with the new educational program this year or
when they introduced the new DCP a few years back. As a PDG who also happens
to be a club officer this year, I attended training to set an example.
--
Eric Matto, DTM, PDG
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Treasurer, Voice of Experience Advanced TM Club #583400-60
Member, Mississauga Valley Club #8277-60
Member, Creekside TD Club #864603-60 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:36 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
"betsy_in_va" <b7760@keogan.com> wrote in message
news:1157840591.295116.199010@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | I still don't see why PDGs or PIDs or anyone at that level would need
to sit in on secretary training anyway. The job can't change THAT much
from year to year! :-)
You make good points, I'll be interested in what everyone has to say.
|
TI wants all officers to attend TLI every six months, regardless of how many
times or how many years they have held that office. It seems like overkill
to me, too. That said, there is always the possibility that any given PDG
or PID has never held the office of club secretary, or hasn't held it for
years and could do with a refresher course.
Joy |
|
| Back to top |
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:01 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
There has been a great deal of discussion of politics and experts.
I believe that the reason that there are so many experts with their own
version of what is correct in Toastmasters because the fundamental
requirements are so badly set out.
Let me propose a scenario. It may appear unrealistic unrealistic, but I
would appreciate anyone finding a clause of the written requirements
for membership or the speech contest that make it unreal.
A person pays membership to join a club. The person does not attend any
meeting, but is accepted as a member at a meeting. - Let's say so that
they get their DCP points - why is not important. What is important is
:
1. He was sponsored by an active member
2. Was invited to join the club
3. Made application on the right form, and completed it fully
4. Paid the required amounts
5. Returned the form to the club secretary
6. The Secretary read the application to the club
7. A majority (in fact all, but the requirement is only a majority) of
the members present accepted the nomination.
8. The form was sent to World Headquarters.
Naturally he receives new member materials and quickly gets to work on
completing six assignments in the manual.
To complete them, he read the assignments, wrote a speech that met the
guidelines, recorded it, published it on his web site and did as many
other things that completing the assignment could possibly entail, as
long as it didn't involve attending a meeting of his own or any other
club.
The club chose him as its contestant "by whatever means the Club
desires" which did not involve this member attending a meeting.
He was victorious at Area, triumphed at Division but at District was a
little concerned that there may have been a speaker who was at his
level. He quickly appealed that all of the other contestants had
breached both the eligibility and originality guidelines.
Eligibility, because he understood it was uncommon in this district for
people to be "voted in" to membership.
Originality because he believed that each of the contestants had
accepted advice from other people and adjusted their speeches
accordingly. This contravened their declaration:
"In compliance with current speech Contest rules, I certify that I
alone prepared my speech and that it is substantially original."
He contended that the preparation had done by the contestant
"alone".
If you were the chief judge, how would you respond? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:18 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
<griffas98@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157846504.230417.295420@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | There has been a great deal of discussion of politics and experts.
I believe that the reason that there are so many experts with their own
version of what is correct in Toastmasters because the fundamental
requirements are so badly set out.
Let me propose a scenario. It may appear unrealistic unrealistic, but I
would appreciate anyone finding a clause of the written requirements
for membership or the speech contest that make it unreal.
A person pays membership to join a club. The person does not attend any
meeting, but is accepted as a member at a meeting. - Let's say so that
they get their DCP points - why is not important. What is important is
:
1. He was sponsored by an active member
2. Was invited to join the club
3. Made application on the right form, and completed it fully
4. Paid the required amounts
5. Returned the form to the club secretary
6. The Secretary read the application to the club
7. A majority (in fact all, but the requirement is only a majority) of
the members present accepted the nomination.
8. The form was sent to World Headquarters.
Naturally he receives new member materials and quickly gets to work on
completing six assignments in the manual.
To complete them, he read the assignments, wrote a speech that met the
guidelines, recorded it, published it on his web site and did as many
other things that completing the assignment could possibly entail, as
long as it didn't involve attending a meeting of his own or any other
club.
The club chose him as its contestant "by whatever means the Club
desires" which did not involve this member attending a meeting.
He was victorious at Area, triumphed at Division but at District was a
little concerned that there may have been a speaker who was at his
level. He quickly appealed that all of the other contestants had
breached both the eligibility and originality guidelines.
Eligibility, because he understood it was uncommon in this district for
people to be "voted in" to membership.
Originality because he believed that each of the contestants had
accepted advice from other people and adjusted their speeches
accordingly. This contravened their declaration:
"In compliance with current speech Contest rules, I certify that I
alone prepared my speech and that it is substantially original."
He contended that the preparation had done by the contestant
"alone".
If you were the chief judge, how would you respond?
|
As chief judge, I would do my best not to laugh in his face.
TI recommends voting members in. I don't believe it is a requirement for
eligibility. Therefore, that argument would carry no weight.
As for originality, it is almost impossible for a speech to be completely
original. Every speech has been influenced in some way by our experiences,
by what we have read, and by other people. "Substantially original" means
that the speaker wrote most of the speech him/herself. this speaker has no
reasonable grounds for such a challenge.
To get back to eligibility, I would highly question this speaker's
eligibility. I don't believe that recording a speech counts as delivering
it, if there were no audience. I think that, in order to be eligible, he
must have delivered the speeches to an audience and have them evaluated by
another Toastmaster. Furthermore, I believe that the rules for a speech to
count say that the speech must have been given at a Toastmasters club. I
think it is permissible to give two out of ten speeches outside Toastmasters
if the VP-Ed approves this ahead of time and another Toastmaster is there to
evaluate the speech. It doesn't appear to me that he met these criteria.
Joy |
|
| Back to top |
|
rich.hopkins@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:21 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
I would tell him/her to go jump in a lake.
Nicely.
Rich Hopkins
www.richhopkins.net
griffas98@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | There has been a great deal of discussion of politics and experts.
I believe that the reason that there are so many experts with their own
version of what is correct in Toastmasters because the fundamental
requirements are so badly set out.
Let me propose a scenario. It may appear unrealistic unrealistic, but I
would appreciate anyone finding a clause of the written requirements
for membership or the speech contest that make it unreal.
A person pays membership to join a club. The person does not attend any
meeting, but is accepted as a member at a meeting. - Let's say so that
they get their DCP points - why is not important. What is important is
:
1. He was sponsored by an active member
2. Was invited to join the club
3. Made application on the right form, and completed it fully
4. Paid the required amounts
5. Returned the form to the club secretary
6. The Secretary read the application to the club
7. A majority (in fact all, but the requirement is only a majority) of
the members present accepted the nomination.
8. The form was sent to World Headquarters.
Naturally he receives new member materials and quickly gets to work on
completing six assignments in the manual.
To complete them, he read the assignments, wrote a speech that met the
guidelines, recorded it, published it on his web site and did as many
other things that completing the assignment could possibly entail, as
long as it didn't involve attending a meeting of his own or any other
club.
The club chose him as its contestant "by whatever means the Club
desires" which did not involve this member attending a meeting.
He was victorious at Area, triumphed at Division but at District was a
little concerned that there may have been a speaker who was at his
level. He quickly appealed that all of the other contestants had
breached both the eligibility and originality guidelines.
Eligibility, because he understood it was uncommon in this district for
people to be "voted in" to membership.
Originality because he believed that each of the contestants had
accepted advice from other people and adjusted their speeches
accordingly. This contravened their declaration:
"In compliance with current speech Contest rules, I certify that I
alone prepared my speech and that it is substantially original."
He contended that the preparation had done by the contestant
"alone".
If you were the chief judge, how would you respond? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
| Quote: | TI recommends voting members in. I don't believe it is a requirement for
eligibility. Therefore, that argument would carry no weight.
|
Article 3, section 2 of the Club Constitution says:
The applicant shall be declared elected to individual membership upon
the favorable vote of at least a majority of the active individual
members of this Club present and voting at a business meeting of the
Club membership.
| Quote: | As for originality, it is almost impossible for a speech to be completely
original. Every speech has been influenced in some way by our experiences,
by what we have read, and by other people. "Substantially original" means
that the speaker wrote most of the speech him/herself. this speaker has no
reasonable grounds for such a challenge.
The Eligibility and originality form that the contestant must sign |
says:
In compliance with current speech Contest rules, I certify that I alone
prepared my speech and that it is substantially original
The policies and procedures section of the TI web site says (under the
club heading):
For the purpose of defining membership and eligibility requirements,
the following definitions shall apply:
An individual member in good standing is one whose semiannual dues have
been paid by the Club and received at World Headquarters by May 31 for
the April through September period and November 30 for the October
through March period.
An individual new member is deemed to be in good standing as soon as
the new member application and appropriate fees and dues are received
at World Headquarters.
Your comments:
| Quote: | I would highly question this speaker's eligibility.
I don't believe that recording a speech counts as delivering it ...
I think that, in order to be eligible, he must have ...
I believe that the rules for a speech to count say ...
I think it is permissible to ....
It doesn't appear to me that he met these criteria.
|
Put you in the category of confusing your opinion with what is written
in policy and rules.
The scenario I wrote is based on the actual wording of the club
constitution and the speech contest rules.
When someone comes up with an interpretation contrary to yours it is
easy to call it politics, or whatever.
My point in writing the initial case study was to put the actual rules
under the microscope. I don't see any contradiction - just beliefs
and assertions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:45 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
rich.hopkins@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | I would tell him/her to go jump in a lake.
Nicely.
|
And that would very nicely put you in the category of contest official
that has applied your own interpretation of the rules.
For a more detailed explanation of why, see my response to Joy |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
<griffas98@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157848974.101378.149330@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | TI recommends voting members in. I don't believe it is a requirement for
eligibility. Therefore, that argument would carry no weight.
Article 3, section 2 of the Club Constitution says:
The applicant shall be declared elected to individual membership upon
the favorable vote of at least a majority of the active individual
members of this Club present and voting at a business meeting of the
Club membership.
|
Does "elected to individual membership" equal eligibility? Is such election
required for eligibility? Do the rules specifically state this?
| Quote: | As for originality, it is almost impossible for a speech to be completely
original. Every speech has been influenced in some way by our
experiences,
by what we have read, and by other people. "Substantially original"
means
that the speaker wrote most of the speech him/herself. this speaker has
no
reasonable grounds for such a challenge.
The Eligibility and originality form that the contestant must sign
says:
In compliance with current speech Contest rules, I certify that I alone
prepared my speech and that it is substantially original
|
It is very possible to prepare your speech alone and have it be
substantially original, while getting feedback. For that matter, the
interpretation of "substantially" varies. One chief judge defined it as
"more than 50%", while another said id meant 90%. Do the rules define
"substantially"? I don't think so. In that case, it is up to the
interpretation of the individual.
| Quote: | The policies and procedures section of the TI web site says (under the
club heading):
For the purpose of defining membership and eligibility requirements,
the following definitions shall apply:
An individual member in good standing is one whose semiannual dues have
been paid by the Club and received at World Headquarters by May 31 for
the April through September period and November 30 for the October
through March period.
An individual new member is deemed to be in good standing as soon as
the new member application and appropriate fees and dues are received
at World Headquarters.
|
Therefore, it is not necessary to be voted in to be eligible.
| Quote: | Your comments:
I would highly question this speaker's eligibility.
I don't believe that recording a speech counts as delivering it ...
I think that, in order to be eligible, he must have ...
I believe that the rules for a speech to count say ...
I think it is permissible to ....
It doesn't appear to me that he met these criteria.
Put you in the category of confusing your opinion with what is written
in policy and rules.
|
Really? For the International Speech contest, the rules state that the
speaker must have delivered at least six manual speeches. They don't say
anything about recording them and putting them on a website.
For any other contest, the speaker doesn't have to have made any speeches at
all, in which case he would be eligible if his dues were paid and the club
sent them in on time.
| Quote: | The scenario I wrote is based on the actual wording of the club
constitution and the speech contest rules.
When someone comes up with an interpretation contrary to yours it is
easy to call it politics, or whatever.
|
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Where the rules aren't clear,
interpretations are going to be made, and different people may interpret
them differently. Some people can disagree without calling it politics.
| Quote: | My point in writing the initial case study was to put the actual rules
under the microscope. I don't see any contradiction - just beliefs
and assertions.
|
In that case, the rules come out lacking, because they leave a lot of room
for beliefs and assertions.
Joy |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
<griffas98@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157849154.285437.264980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | rich.hopkins@gmail.com wrote:
I would tell him/her to go jump in a lake.
Nicely.
And that would very nicely put you in the category of contest official
that has applied your own interpretation of the rules.
For a more detailed explanation of why, see my response to Joy
|
And disqualifying the other speakers while handing the pseudo-Toastmaster
the victory would put the person who did so in the category of applying his
or her own interpretation of the rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:34 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
Joy wrote:
| Quote: | And disqualifying the other speakers while handing the pseudo-Toastmaster
the victory would put the person who did so in the category of applying his
or her own interpretation of the rules.
|
True.
But my interpretation of the rules can be supported by written
documentation from TI that is widely circulated. The Club Constitution
and Speech Contest Rules are fundamental documents.
I am not proposing that the scenario should be adopted as strategy.
I posted on this thread because there was discussion of experts being
relied on for support. My contention is that not many members know the
rules and some cannot be applied in practice.
My original intention was to create the scenario where the speech was
substantially original, but written by another person. That is, the
speaker delivered a commissioned original speech.
That scenario fell flat when I saw the statement on the certificate of
originality and eligibility.
<< In compliance with current speech Contest rules, I certify that I
alone prepared my speech and that it is substantially original >>
It is my contention that there would not be a speech in the contest
that met the requirement <<alone prepared my speech>>. What does
<<prepared>> mean, anyway? It is up to the judgement of an official -
hardly the basis of a world championship. Does it mean wrote?
practiced (alone)? adjusted (without involvement of anyone else at any
stage)? Could commissioning a speechwriter to write the speech,
engaging a choreographer to script the gestures, hiring a voice coach
to insert vocal variety be done alone?
There is also the issue of voting in. Again created to show the real
rule.
This is all against a setting where a lively, creative, enthusiastic
Toastmaster is fearful in another thread that her contribution is not
valuable, because she is challenging the accepted norm.
I say the system needs a good clean out and there are plenty of posts
in this newsgroup that brought me to that conclusion, including many of
yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
rich.hopkins@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
Your intent seems credible, if your approach a bit, say, controversial.
Seriously posing an unlikely theoretical scenario to illustrate your
point can often be seen as inflammatory.
If you are serious about challenging the wording of the rulings, pose
your questions to Debbie Horn - she tends to be the final word.
If you are trying to disprove the legitimacy of a World Championship,
it is a pointless endeavor. We all come in from a level playing field,
facing good/bad judging, dealing with other contestants of varying
skill levels, and handling pressures based on our own experiences.
Every contest I've ever taken less than first in I've had people run to
me to say they placed me first - from club level to the World
Championship last month.
It is subjective. Any given Sunday, as we NFL fans like to say.
In terms of preparing a speech alone - who can prove what? In the end,
we must trust. And in the end, the trespassers must live with
themselves. I choose to believe in the Toastmaster spirit of Fair Play.
Rich Hopkins
www.richhopkins.net
griffas98@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Joy wrote:
And disqualifying the other speakers while handing the pseudo-Toastmaster
the victory would put the person who did so in the category of applying his
or her own interpretation of the rules.
True.
But my interpretation of the rules can be supported by written
documentation from TI that is widely circulated. The Club Constitution
and Speech Contest Rules are fundamental documents.
I am not proposing that the scenario should be adopted as strategy.
I posted on this thread because there was discussion of experts being
relied on for support. My contention is that not many members know the
rules and some cannot be applied in practice.
My original intention was to create the scenario where the speech was
substantially original, but written by another person. That is, the
speaker delivered a commissioned original speech.
That scenario fell flat when I saw the statement on the certificate of
originality and eligibility.
In compliance with current speech Contest rules, I certify that I
alone prepared my speech and that it is substantially original
It is my contention that there would not be a speech in the contest
that met the requirement <<alone prepared my speech>>. What does
prepared>> mean, anyway? It is up to the judgement of an official -
hardly the basis of a world championship. Does it mean wrote?
practiced (alone)? adjusted (without involvement of anyone else at any
stage)? Could commissioning a speechwriter to write the speech,
engaging a choreographer to script the gestures, hiring a voice coach
to insert vocal variety be done alone?
There is also the issue of voting in. Again created to show the real
rule.
This is all against a setting where a lively, creative, enthusiastic
Toastmaster is fearful in another thread that her contribution is not
valuable, because she is challenging the accepted norm.
I say the system needs a good clean out and there are plenty of posts
in this newsgroup that brought me to that conclusion, including many of
yours. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject: Re: Giving feedback to Former Leaders |
|
|
rich.hopkins@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | If you are trying to disprove the legitimacy of a World Championship....
|
Quite the opposite, actually.
I was researching the rules as an aspiring competitor.
| Quote: | We all come in from a level playing field,
facing good/bad judging, dealing with other contestants of varying
skill levels, and handling pressures based on our own experiences.
It is subjective.
|
My point is that the playing field can be made more level by tidying up
the rules.
There appears to be a great deal of frustration expressed on this board
about judges making decisions based on whether a woman wears a skirt or
not.
Such a situation demands leadership rather than interpretation of the
rules.
The best speech choice must be subjective. I contend that this year's
winning speech may not be placed in three years time, or three years
ago. The taste of the audience changes that quickly.
What wins in one region may be unplaced in another - even if the same
contestants performed the same speech before different judges and
different audiences.
However there are also objective requirements:
Membership long enough to have completed six assignments. Fine. But
what does completing an assignment mean?
Substantially original - what does it mean? As Joy said:
| Quote: | As for originality, it is almost impossible for a speech to be completely
original. Every speech has been influenced in some way by our
experiences,
by what we have read, and by other people.
|
As you put it:
| Quote: | In terms of preparing a speech alone - who can prove what?
|
I would suggest that a Toastmaster could not prepare a speech alone. As
soon as it was test run in the club, someone would could up with an
idea for improvement. The statement on the eligibility and originality
form forces every contestant and contest official to interpret the
rules subjectively.
That statement needs to be reworded or removed.
I would say removed, in that the delivery is being judged far more
highly than the script. And coaching by others on the delivery is the
reason d'etre for existence of this movement. Others in this group in
the past have commented on the research that shows the content of
communication is only 7 per cent words. The numbers may be wrong but
the concept is not. I heard a twenty five year old woman read Martin
Luther King's dream speech as an advanced manual assignment, and it was
woeful to someone who was inspired by the original.
Reworking Shrek or Erin Brokovitch could be inspirational. When does a
speech on <<beauty is more than skin deep>> (Shrek) or <<small person
triumphs against the big organization>> get treated as not original?
That shouldn't have to be subjective.
You also said:
| Quote: | Seriously posing an unlikely theoretical scenario to illustrate your
point can often be seen as inflammatory.
|
On the contrary. I believe that such a case study would make an
excellent training activity at District Officer or Director level
training.
The learning outcome could be: "Check the rules."
The past directors and district officers who choose to be <<difficult,
nit-picking and snyde>> would quickly be pulled into line if the
greatest communication and leadership program in the world took more
care in its fundamental documents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
"Toastmasters
International", "Toastmasters" and the Toastmasters
International emblem are trademarks protected in the United
States, Canada and other countries where Toastmasters Clubs
exist. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
|
|
|
