My apologies for such an overly overdue opinion. I speak not just in behalf of the team I head, but for the people I meet along that merit these observations.
The Intramurals 2008 in totality was a remarkable improvement from last year’s proceedings. I appreciate the foresight of Saligan in managing the teams responsible for a number of committees. By management, we do not only mean group compression of their specific capacities, but more than this is effective communication relayed by their heading superiors. I see, that the supreme council has also extended their efforts to aggressive information dissemination (not that I am compelled to make a comparison) especially to those uninvolved in the major and minor events in the said event. They must have honored that intuition that unless they make a move to inform, the students will remain in their stereotyped assumptions. It is good that they added and maintained these progress boards. Unfortunate people who failed to witness the result announcements have been granted the privilege and convenience to refer to the teams they support and their current standings. These bulletin boards gave justice especially to minor games, who in my opinion, suffers lack of support from participating teams. The intellectual people in ST battling for word power may discount the idea of active encouraging (preferring an environment that is more languid to their taste). Nevertheless, active or languid support, as the case may be, defines a multifactorial sphere that influences ones performance on a good note. The likes of dart, chess, and table tennis aren't exemptions. I move for the supreme council to engage students to witness more of these equally exhilarating games. The people are much more obliged to the obviously visible and “cheerables". It's all about right advertisements.
I also appreciated the GACP’s heading of the attendance this year primarily because they heeded (for a major institutional event high risk for absences) a good majority’s clamor for the abolition of paper jog due to issues of uselessness and time constraint. However, the same issues that went perfectly unresolved yet have come to surface during the 5-6 day event. Checkers tasked to designated rooms left at most 5 minutes before the scheduled closing hour. Not that I am a lover for extending the extendable. Nonetheless, for students who were basking under the thought of fine redemption until the last minutes the organization has promised to save them, a good 5 minutes is crucial. I am speaking with reference to a lot of people who reportedly were disappointed about the early exit. The time I checked was accurate. And another thing, I do not know if this was already a previous issue from GACP’s evaluation last year, but it would be a privilege if departmental organization officers were given a package of little compensation. A cackle and an incongruous retort maybe unsurprising, dismissing the idea as absurd and out of the context of virtues, maybe even because this suggestion is not in every inch very scientific and people might resolve to ideas equating the real essence of service. However, I consider this a consolation for the efforts made. I am not keen to processing how this package works, but a lot of officers were fined because of failure of signing the attendance sheets because of fairly excusable reasons. More than the departmental officers, I believe the GACP should have a list of all the players of each department with their specific schedules of play. Automatically, these participants will be saved from signing their attendance. As a playing faction for example, it has been an arduous task to submit and resubmit schedules to the GACP for attendance clearance. I think this is also consolation for participating students. It is not I believe as what others would want to engage to believe, materializing the reciprocal of what they can give. Games at crucial schedules are not easy to abbreviate. They need all the time to prepare physically and mentally. The delegation for the formal cheerers for example paid an equal fine with those who failed to sign the attendance just because the attendance sheet was not passed by one of the officers accountable. It is cumbersome for some whose tasks are concentrated on trying to even out the details for a competition. I also appeal for pro-players package, by which participating individuals can get lesser fines at each attendance missed. Its all about consolation, about seeing these people sacrifice much even to the extent of academics (the prioritization mantra not always workable because by all means, we are only humans), and getting the lesser dues compared to other people. I would likened it to the best of my understanding on taxation, where tax cuts were offered to those who give much but in average, still remains inadequate, and no-tax cuts for those who can establish an equilibrium of what they spend and earn, maybe even securing a little more of something for future uses. The figurative counterpart translated to intramurals business in connection with the earlier statements is what I wanted to express. Departmental praise may be fleeting and trivial. At the end of the day, they look at class receipts with discontentment, carefully criticizing the balance of efforts made and grants reaped.
One of the things I also appreciated is that whenever there are protests and obvious delineations to the guidelines spelled, the Office of Student Affairs, really makes the effort to consult all the teams concerned and discuss appropriate consequences. I thought that this was the mature and formal proceeding of any civilian concerned, however in the latest gathering our departmental organization has attended in the name of our course, it was pretty insensitive for the organizers to place the least importance towards considering this unavoidable side of competition. Teams who clearly violate deserve to get the equal consequence depending on its gravity, or if it’s all-or-nothing, disqualification. The guides should not be distorted by any philosophical rationalizing of probabilities. It is what it is, just what an average person would understand.
The scheduling of the intramurals was organized, and the proceedings from registration, to sports-related jargon of issues, to announcement of winners, to protests were fairly successful. I agree that everybody appreciates punctuality and this was clearly actualized from Day 1 to Day 6 of the night events, as the case would normally be the opposite in the past. I looked at my watch everytime and I agree that 9 and not later than
I myself learned a lot from the formalities at how the upper forms conduct parliamentary meetings and though I must admit, I chuckled at such formality, the benefits we reap from effective communication and careful recognition of opinions lead much to the establishment of solutions for issues that govern the event. I myself am planning to adopt a modifiable parliamentary approach for the organization next year. That a systematic approach at things and being extra attentive to the smallest of details can entail reaps of security. That one is never too old to learn about temperance, the one thing leadership books should not miss describing as unfortunate circumstances may favor unique reactions from people we meet. I learned a lot about people and how to appreciate even the smallest movement of their arms and how it pains them especially if team resources are inadequate to cure them. It is with these simplicities and complexities that I learned more to love others, more of myself and more and more of God.
