Discussion Random Chat Megathread Mk II

[TheLoungeLizard]

Ok so, I'm planning my move into real full time work... pros and cons?

 

[Andonis1997]

Ok so, I'm planning my move into real full time work... pros and cons?

Take me with you.

 

[Matele]

Yes we would lose competing in the Commonwealth Games which could threaten the games itself, and we would lose our connection with England

I don’t think anyone really cares about the commonwealth games. It’s pretty much the games where Australia schools all the other nations anyway. No loss.

We’ve already lost any close connection with England. We’ll always have the connection through things like cricket, vernacular, food and pastimes. We’re our own nation now, not ‘England MKII’. Haven’t been for sometime.

 

[TheLoungeLizard]

Take me with you.

Haha, you and I share a common problem Andonis!
And it's due to music commitments

 

[aCunningPlan]

The current model advocated by the chair of the Australian Republican movement:

1) The 'Australian' monarch is abolished.
2) The Governor-General maintains its current title, but, instead of acting as the Queen's representative they act on behalf of the Australian people as its official head of state. Note: No need to use the term 'president' but still regarded as 'Governor-General'.
3) The Governor-General to be elected by a two-thirds majority of the Federal Parliament for a period of five years.
4) The Governor-General's executive roles remains unchanged
5) Australia remains part of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth games similar to India and South Africa competing as republics.

Essentially, all remains the same but instead of referring to a meaningless crown, the Australian people are the ultimate source of power.

Yes we would lose competing in the Commonwealth Games which could threaten the games itself, and we would lose our connection with England

Australia will be 'respecting' its British influence by remaining part of the Commonwealth. Being a republic will not change that.

Anyone aspiring to wield power will still aspire to become Prime Minister rather than Governor-General as GG will remain a largely symbolic position, so the suggestion that any politician advancing the republican cause for personal gain is a nonsense.

There is only one argument that Grandsun made that holds any water, is the fact that it will cost money to implement these changes. For a nation that is forever questioning its identity however, taking such a strong step can only be a good thing.

I love the queen and the royal family but most importantly the Commonwealth. I will only continue remain in Australia while we are a commonwealth nation. The commonwealth built our fabulous country and it would be a big shame and disrespectful to the United Kingdom If we left.

I have one simple question for you. Do you believe political power is derived from the collective will and consent of the Australian people...or a piece of jewellery?

 

[Red Crow]

I remember when I was 12 and the country actually had a referendum to decide whether or not to become a republic.

I was absolutely 100% against it! My reason? The official name of our country would become "Republic of Australia" rather than just "Australia" and that just didn't fly with me (clearly I wasn't aware at the time that our official name is actually "Commonwealth of Australia" anyway).

There is a very good reason that voting rights don't kick in till 18 years old....

 

[aCunningPlan]

I remember when I was 12 and the country actually had a referendum to decide whether or not to become a republic.

I was absolutely 100% against it! My reason? The official name of our country would become "Republic of Australia" rather than just "Australia" and that just didn't fly with me (clearly I wasn't aware at the time that our official name is actually "Commonwealth of Australia" anyway).

There is a very good reason that voting rights don't kick in till 18 years old....

I was dead against it too being firmly of the view that if it's not broken, don't try and fix it. But upon learning the minimalist republican model maintains all of our institutions and conventions with the exception of referring to the crown, I realised it was a great idea. We are an independent nation is all but name...let's fix that.

I do apologise about my long responses, I have an active role in the Republican campaign and couldn't let falsehoods being spread without them being corrected. I have no issue with opposing views, if however they are based on false assumptions I think it would better inform debate and opinion if the facts were accurately presented. While I and the Australian Repiblican Movement leadership support a minimalist approach, there are other means of achieving a republic that will be debated such as parliamentary two thirds vote, a directly elected head of state, or the establishment of a special body charged with selecting a head of state as is the case in Germany.

Three steps need to take place for a republic to occur.

1) a national plebiscite asking if the head of state should be Australian.
2) a national plebiscite selecting the appropriate mode of election for the head of state
3) a national referendum to change to constitution to establish an official republic under the agreed model.

 

[Dylan8]

Lynton is so good man

 

[Fizzler]

Actually a republic would mean Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

 

[Cody_]

Think its time your school holidays ended Lynton, back to hitting the books mate.

 

[Grandsun]

Think its time your school holidays ended Lynton, back to hitting the books mate.

Final week this week then start Friday

 

[TheLoungeLizard]

Final week this week then start Friday

Skoolz 4 foolz

 

[Matele]

I was dead against it too being firmly of the view that if it's not broken, don't try and fix it. But upon learning the minimalist republican model maintains all of our institutions and conventions with the exception of referring to the crown, I realised it was a great idea. We are an independent nation is all but name...let's fix that.

I do apologise about my long responses, I have an active role in the Republican campaign and couldn't let falsehoods being spread without them being corrected. I have no issue with opposing views, if however they are based on false assumptions I think it would better inform debate and opinion if the facts were accurately presented. While I and the Australian Repiblican Movement leadership support a minimalist approach, there are other means of achieving a republic that will be debated such as parliamentary two thirds vote, a directly elected head of state, or the establishment of a special body charged with selecting a head of state as is the case in Germany.

Three steps need to take place for a republic to occur.

1) a national plebiscite asking if the head of state should be Australian.
2) a national plebiscite selecting the appropriate mode of election for the head of state
3) a national referendum to change to constitution to establish an official republic under the agreed model.

From what I've read (See; Shaky memories from Year 11/12 Modern History), the last time a referendum on an Australian Republic was delivered the general public were lead to believe they'd be receiving a system similar to the US, where the PM holds all the constitutional powers, more direct voting for PM, etc. Then the minimalist concept was floated at the eleventh hour and people dropped their support in an instant.

I think a republic model where the PM/GG (whoever is 'in power' effectively) is more directly reflective of what the people want is the system that'll get through overall. That'd be my preference anyways. It'd make a mess of our current system though.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The last time there was a referendum on Australia becoming a republic, our Prime Minister was John Howard, a staunch monarchist. Howard ensured that the proposed structure of the government if the republic movement got up was a deeply unpopular one, and then campaigned hard against the republic movement. He effectively split the republic movement in two and republicans to vote against the republic because the model sucked.

If we voted now we'd become a republic in a canter, but we're probably waiting for the Queen to die first out of respect.

 

[Freight Train]

Not sure if it’s really the right place to post this or whatever, but anywho.

I’m gonna stop designing for at least a while - to simply put, I’m just not enjoying it right now, and haven’t been for quite a while, with the exception of some of the stuff I did for the NSL folio.

There’s also a tonne of stuff with work and my personal life that is taking a toll on my passion for design - especially when a large chunk of my working life involves design. It’s not much of a wind down anymore, so much as a chore trying to reach deadlines etc.

I’ll finish running the NAFL ressies, but will probably get someone who is willing to take over FLO at least for a season.

 

[Andonis1997]

Not sure if it’s really the right place to post this or whatever, but anywho.

I’m gonna stop designing for at least a while - to simply put, I’m just not enjoying it right now, and haven’t been for quite a while, with the exception of some of the stuff I did for the NSL folio.

There’s also a tonne of stuff with work and my personal life that is taking a toll on my passion for design - especially when a large chunk of my working life involves design. It’s not much of a wind down anymore, so much as a chore trying to reach deadlines etc.

I’ll finish running the NAFL ressies, but will probably get someone who is willing to take over FLO at least for a season.

That's fair enough. Looking forward to your return

So, definitely no Olympics bid from you this year?

 

[Freight Train]

That's fair enough. Looking forward to your return

So, definitely no Olympics bid from you this year?

Nah not this time around. I don’t see myself entering any competitions at least for the rest of the year.

 

[Grandsun]

That's fair enough. Looking forward to your return

So, definitely no Olympics bid from you this year?

While we are at it.. how far do we think till we hear more about the Olympics?

 

[Andonis1997]

Nah not this time around. I don’t see myself entering any competitions at least for the rest of the year.

Alrighty!

While we are at it.. how far do we think till we hear more about the Olympics?

Just have your nation ready so you can bid soon

 

[Craegus]

Just have your nation ready so you can bid soon

The Most Serene Republic of Phoronu are excited to return to the world stage in this forthcoming Olympic Games after quickly quelling a rebellion (was ended within 15 minutes). Happily the government of Phoronu can report that the perpetrators have been slowly, very painfully, but most enjoyably for those watching, executed*.

The government of Phoronu has been able to appease the restless masses by making the significant change in the form of releasing a new national flag (really doesn't take much to get the people back on side here, especially with the treat of execution if they step out of line).

Former Flag

New Flag

*More information about the execution methods employed available upon request.

{Edited - We apologise but the new flag was posted backwards. Apparently no-one was responsible for this as there are no records of any person working on the original post).

 

[Storm20]

Do we have a non-footy design thread? Swear we did but cannot find it anywhere, wanted to show off some of my new cycling kit merch.

 

[TheLoungeLizard]

Should drug addiction be treated as a crime or mental health?

 

[Gibbsy]

Here's a super-cool, super-nerdy post about what coloured shorts were worn in finals across the history of the VFL/AFL.

In 1924, the league introduced the convention whereby home teams would wear black shorts and away teams would wear white (a couple of clubs were a bit slow in making the conversion. Fitzroy was noted as wearing blue knicks in 1924, while Richmond still sported blue pants as late as 1928).

The allocation of black and white shorts in finals matches was decided by coin toss. Club secretaries would meet early in the week to toss the coin to decide which dressing rooms would be allocated to each side, and which club would wear the black shorts.

The winner of the toss did not automatically choose the black knicks for his team. For example, when Collingwood secretary Frank Wraith won the coin toss from his Carlton counterpart Harry Bell before the 1945 preliminary final, Wraith decided that Collingwood would wear white shorts in the match.

From 1924 to 1984, there were 276 finals matches played. All but two of these games featured one side wearing dark shorts and the other wearing white. The two exceptions were i) when a misunderstanding occurred that resulted in Geelong wearing black knicks in the 1934 second semi final against Richmond rather than white as the league had determined, and ii) Essendon wore black shorts and North Melbourne royal blue in the 1982 elimination final. The Bombers had received permission from the league to wear dark shorts (black or red) in away matches during 1982, and this was extended to its finals appearance that year.

Of the 274 finals where one team wore white shorts, 136 were won by the team in dark shorts and 132 by the team in white shorts. Six matches were drawn.

The first-named teams were allocated the dark shorts in 148 matches, while the second-named teams were allocated the dark shorts in 126 matches.

Geelong wore black shorts in 16 consecutive finals from 1956 to 1969. Similarly, Collingwood wore black shorts in 15 consecutive finals, starting from the 1953 grand final and ending when it wore white shorts against Geelong in the 1964 preliminary final. Essendon had the white shorts in 15 consecutive finals from the 1942 grand final until the 1949 first semi inclusive. Essendon then had another run of 11 consecutive finals in white shorts from 1951 to 1962. Stats like those make me question whether it was actually done randomly after all.

Carlton was allocated the dark shorts in 11 consecutive finals from the 1972 grand final until the run was broken in the 1979 grand final.

In the 1924-1984 era, Geelong played 56 finals and wore the dark shorts 44 times (including the mistaken time in 1934). That is about 79% of its finals in the dark shorts. The table below summarises shorts colour distribution from 1924 to 1984:

Club Dark White % dark
Geelong 44 12 78.6%
Melbourne 29 20 59.2%
Collingwood 58 44 56.9%
North Melb. 20 17 54.1%
Hawthorn 16 16 50.0%
Carlton 33 35 48.5%
South Melb. 9 11 45.0%
Richmond 28 35 44.4%
St. Kilda 9 12 42.9%
Fitzroy 8 13 38.1%
Essendon 20 46 30.3%
Footscray 4 13 23.5%

Three sides wore the same coloured shorts throughout a 4-match finals campaign. Carlton was the first, wearing white shorts in all 4 finals in 1962 (this included a replayed preliminary final against Geelong). Twenty years later, Carlton was again allocated white shorts for all four finals it played in winning the 1982 flag. And Collingwood was allocated white shorts in the 4 finals it played in 1980 as it progressed from the elimination final to the grand final.

No club in the 'random shorts' era (1924-1984) ever wore dark shorts in a 4 match finals campaign (under the Final Four system, a club playing 4 finals was a rarity as it required a draw and a replay), however several teams wore dark shorts throughout a 3-match series. Most recent was North Melbourne, which wore royal blue shorts in its 3 finals during 1978, while Carlton wore black shorts in its 3 finals in 1973.

Since winning the 1930 flag in white shorts, Collingwood has made 7 grand final appearances in white shorts for 6 losses and a draw. Collingwood's last 6 premierships have all been won in black shorts.

Essendon went into the 2001 grand final having never lost a decider in black shorts. The Bombers had won all 6 of the black-trousered grand finals it had played - 1950, 1962, 1965, 1985, 1993 and 2000. Brisbane beat the black-shorted Dons in 2001 to prompt the unprecedented sight of dejected black-trousered Bombers on grand final day. Essendon's grand final record in white pants is poor. The Same Old played 15 white pants GFs from 1941 to 1990 for just 4 wins and a draw.

Collingwood wore black shorts in all 18 finals it played against Fitzroy.

Collingwood and Melbourne played 16 finals from 1937 to 1989, with the Magpies being allocated the black shorts 14 times. The exceptions were the 1946 preliminary and the 1964 grand final.

Geelong wore dark shorts in every final it played against Essendon from 1897 to 1989 (12 matches). The two clubs have only met in one final since then - the 2004 first semi final. The Cats wore white shorts in that one.

Essendon played Melbourne in 10 finals from 1926 to 1959 and wore white shorts every time. The run was broken at the next finals meeting between the two in the 1991 first elimination final when Essendon wore black shorts. This was repeated nine years later in the 2000 grand final.

Geelong played in 16 first semi finals from 1926 to 1994 and wore dark shorts in every one of them. Since then, Geelong has played in first semi finals in 1997 and 2004 and wore white shorts in both.

Geelong also wore dark shorts in 15 of 16 second semi finals from 1927 to 2005. The odd one out was the 1951 game against Collingwood.

Sydney has worn red shorts in all 47 finals games since first it first made the finals in 1986. This beats the previous record, which was Collingwood's 43 consecutive finals in black shorts from 1897 to 1925. South Melbourne never wore red shorts in a finals match.

Geelong was allocated the black shorts in all 16 finals that it played from 1956 to 1969. The Cats wore navy blue shorts in 17 of the 20 finals it played between 1980 and 1994. Changing football fashions have dictated that since 1995, Geelong has played 38 finals and has worn white shorts 33 times.

From the 1972 grand final to the end of 1975, Richmond played in 10 finals and wore white shorts 9 times (the exception was the 1973 first semi final against St. Kilda). Of the next 10 finals Richmond played (from 1977 to 1995), 9 were in black shorts (white shorts were worn in the 1980 second semi against Geelong).

In the 21 first semi finals played from 1951 to 1971, the first-named (i.e. third-placed) side was allocated the black shorts 19 times. The two occasions where the first-named team wore white shorts in this era were Essendon against Collingwood in 1960 and Essendon against Geelong in 1964.

In contrast, over the 13 second semi finals played from 1962 to 1974, the first-named side (i.e. the team that finished on top of the ladder) was allocated white shorts 12 times. The one minor premier to wear the black shorts in the second semi during this period was Collingwood against St. Kilda in 1966.

In the 11 grand finals played from 1961 to 1971, the first-named teams (i.e. winners of the second semi finals) wore black shorts 9 times. The two exceptions were St. Kilda against Essendon in 1965, and Richmond against Geelong in 1967.

In 11 second semi finals from 1948 to 1958, the winning side wore white shorts 9 times. The two exceptions were Essendon against North in 1950, and Geelong against Collingwood in 1952.

Hawthorn had the white shorts in 5 consecutive second semi finals it played from 1976 to 1984. Since then, Hawthorn has played in 10 second semis for 9 brown shorts and 1 white (2001).

Carlton wore white shorts in all 13 finals it ever played against South Melbourne and St. Kilda.

Hawthorn never wore white shorts in the 13 finals it played against Melbourne, Fitzroy and Footscray.

After wearing black shorts in the 1958 first semi final against North Melbourne, Fitzroy's next nine finals were played in white shorts.

After appearing in black shorts in the 1953 first semi final against Essendon, Footscray never again wore black shorts in a final. Nine consecutive white-trousered finals from 1953 to 1974 were followed by the club's only final in red shorts - the 1976 elimination final loss to Geelong.

Footscray and North Melbourne never played a grand final in black shorts. Footscray only ever wore black shorts in three finals - the first semis of 1942, 1944 and 1953. All of the other 13 finals it played from 1925 to 1974 were in white shorts. North Melbourne never won any final in black shorts.

(note - from 1985, it became quite common for both sides to wear coloured shorts. The last league match featuring both teams in white shorts was the Essendon-Fitzroy grand final of 1923. In 1980, Collingwood made an administrative mistake that saw both teams wear white shorts in a night competition match against Essendon. Fitzroy was fined by the league for mistakenly wearing blue shorts in a night competition match against North Melbourne in 1977. North Melbourne deliberately wore blue shorts in a league match at South Melbourne in 1976 and received a fine for its trouble.)

 

[Bryce_Jersey17]

Should drug addiction be treated as a crime or mental health?

Can it not be treated as both? Possession of drugs and addiction. Why should it be one or the other?

 

[TheLoungeLizard]

Can it not be treated as both? Possession of drugs and addiction. Why should it be one or the other?

I'm no drug addict, but I would think unless you have them to sell - you only have them to feed your mental health