Questions about intent and plagiarism have predominated the community concerns segment of Honor Committee meetings this semester. Sunday night, Emeritus History Prof. Alan Briceland of Virginia Commonwealth University gave a presentation about the role of intent in plagiarism cases and what steps the Committee should take to address the subject’s complexity.

Briceland specifically drew a distinction between grammatical plagiarism and honor plagiarism. Grammatical plagiarism arises when sources are not given appropriate credit in a student’s work either because of unintentional errors in citation or from ignorance of the proper method of attribution. Honor plagiarism occurs when a student deliberately misrepresents the work of others as his own. Briceland said the Committee should work to educate professors about these two kinds of plagiarism, as many professors cannot distinguish between the two. “Too many professors are only attuned to honor plagiarism; their knee-jerk reaction is that ‘plagiarism is plagiarism,’” Briceland said. He added that as a result, professors often report honor violations before considering a student’s intent.

Briceland helped start VCU’s honor system about 40 years ago and has experience with the policies of both that institution’s undergraduate and medical schools. His words should not be taken lightly, and his recommendations ought to be given due consideration.

He cautioned the Committee about pursuing honor trial offenses dealing with plagiarism. A student’s intent can be hard to decipher, and the corresponding evidence can be difficult to gather, he said. Not all Committee members appeared to affirm Briceland’s position. “It seems to me that the point of a trial is to answer these questions,” Vice Chair for Education Rob Atkinson said.

The intent and plagiarism issues are closely intertwined. The Committee must reconsider its definitions of both terms if underlying concerns with the honor system are to be addressed thoroughly. The consequences of imprecise meanings and confusion about the nature of offenses themselves have already materialized. The 2008 Semester at Sea incident — a case that saw two non-University students found guilty of plagiarism charges during the University-sponsored voyage — continues to be a source of much anxiety about the honor system. The complicating factor of the SAS case was that it occurred away from Grounds, but the fundamental matter at stake was the puzzling nature of intent in plagiarism cases.

Briceland’s comments Sunday, as well as statements he has made in the past, indicate there may be a degree of circularity in how the Committee views intent. “Intent doesn’t mean ‘should have known,’” Briceland said in an interview last year about the SAS cases. He noted that plagiarism, in his opinion, has become one of the most misunderstood of potential honor offenses, not only at the University but at many other higher education institutions across the country. “What has happened is that the people in charge think the physical paper, the plagiarism, proves the moral,” Briceland said. “And it does not.”

Past editorials have called for reform to both the intent and plagiarism clauses in the Committee’s bylaws. The current definition of intent reads that “the actor knew, or should have known, that the act in question was or could have been considered lying, cheating, or stealing.” The “should have known” operator makes proving intent during an honor trial startlingly easy; under the current system, charged students are found to have acted with dishonest intent almost by default. Making this particularly troubling is that it is one of three criteria used to determine guilt. As such, the Committee must establish more fair and rigorous standards for plagiarism and intent.

These issues have proven to be long-standing. They will not simply disappear without being properly addressed. The Committee must make a concerted effort to amend these definitions in a manner that is clear and consistent with the ideal of honor.

The search for President John T. Casteen, III’s successor entered the fourth stage of the five-stage process yesterday at the committee’s meeting. Photo by Bennett Sorbo.

The Special Committee on the Nomination of the President met yesterday, beginning the closed session of the search process.

This is the fourth of five parts in the process. At the meeting, the committee began to approve nominations for the presidency, University spokesperson Carol Wood said.

There have been almost 200 nominations for the position, she added, and the committee is now moving on from the research stage, which included discussions with higher education leaders across the country as well as presidents of other colleges and universities.

Currently, “we’re not in the stage where we’re talking to any candidates,” Wood said. “This is all the preliminary, looking at who they believe should make it to move to a list of possible candidates.”

John Wynne, the committee’s chairman and rector of the University’s Board of Visitors, did not comment on specifics of what was discussed during the meeting.

“Everything is confidential from here on out,” Wynne said. He noted that if the process does not remain confidential, candidates who have jobs elsewhere may see their employment jeopardized.

Wynne noted that the search process has five steps, and that the committee is advancing to later stages. After establishing the process and gathering information from constituents, the committee completed the third step: putting together a profile.

That job description was posted last week, Wood said, and accompanied an e-mail to the University community in which Wynne gave an update about the search process.

The position description, called “Seeking an Extraordinary Individual to Lead the Institution into its Third Century,” is available on the committee’s Web site. The committee put the profile together after gathering input from “all the various constituents,” Wynne said.

The profile outlines the qualities the committee is looking for in a president, as well as the challenges and opportunities ahead for that individual, Wood said.

“[It’s] important because you want to listen to everybody to understand what they think,” Wynne said, “and to be sure when you’re out there looking for candidates [you are able to] match against what people have told you is important.”

Starting with yesterday’s meeting, the committee began to gather and to evaluate a specific pool of candidates, Wynne said. He added that there is no deadline for the selection of the next president.

“It’s [going to] take until we find somebody who is superb,” Wynne said. “Then the Board of Visitors will choose that person and we will at that point announce who that person is.”

Wood described the committee members as strong, diverse and engaged, acknowledging the seriousness of their undertaking.

“The group has really come together in, I think, an amazing way,” Wood said.

Junior Scot Robison took first in the 100-meter freestyle Saturday, helping the men’s team claim victory, 165-125. Photo courtesy Virginia Athletics.

Despite what coaches considered a lack of mental discipline, the Virginia men’s and women’s swimming and diving teams swept Kentucky in Charlottesville over the weekend.

The men’s team defeated the Wildcats 165-125, while the women’s 172 points trumped the opposition’s 110.

“The coaches definitely feel that the Kentucky meet was not the greatest showing of our mental and physical toughness at this point in the season,” junior Elizabeth Shaw said. “But after some motivational words from Mark in our mid-meet meeting, I think they were more pleased with the second half of the meet in terms of our enthusiasm and racing.”

To refocus his athletes, coach Mark Bernardino emphasized the importance of unwavering attentiveness to every event from start to finish.

“We talked about concentration and focus, not only during their own race but during their teammate’s races,” Bernardino said. “You need to be a student of the sport if you’re going to be good at a sport, and that was the main thing that I wanted them to focus on.”

Maintaining that mindset helped the team during the weekend, and the benefits of being able to preserve such a focus will help the team in the future.

Junior Liz Shaw boosted the Cavalier women to a 172-110 victory against Kentucky Saturday with victories in both the 200-meter butterfly and 400 IM. Photo courtesy Virginia Athletics.

“I wanted them to be better students of the sport so that in the long run it would help them be better athletes,” Bernardino said.

Freshman Lauren Perdue took her coach’s advice to heart and recorded first-place finishes in the 50-meter, 100 and 200 freestyle.

“We’re seeing pretty steady performances [from Lauren],” Bernardino said. “She’s been rock-solid steady. There’s been no drop-off in her performance whatsoever. What we’re looking to do is teach her how to take her training to the next level.”

While Perdue’s time of 23.06 seconds in the 50 free, 50.30 in the 100, and 1:48.39 in the 200 were impressive, the coaches expect her to shave off even more time as training progresses.

“We think she’s going to be capable of quite a bit as time goes on,” Bernardino said. “It’s just a matter of hoping that it happens at the right time and the team’s able to benefit from her performances.”

Perdue is not the only freshman whose performance has benefitted the team thus far. Newcomer Christine Olson swept the breaststroke events for the second week in a row, winning the 100 breast and touching first in 2:17.82 to take the 200.

In the 200, Olson was followed by teammates senior Katherine McDonnell and junior Anne Summer Myers, making it a 1-2-3 finish for Virginia.

Myers, meanwhile, added to the Cavaliers’ weekend haul with a performance that impressed Bernadino.

“The biggest surprise was how well Anne Summer Myers performed in the 1000 freestyle,” Bernardino said. “It was a wonderful early season swim for her. It speaks well to her mental approach to the sport and how she’s attacking and trying to make something special happen.”

Shaw also turned in solid distance performances at the meet.

“I was happy with my 400 IM for this point in the season,” Shaw said.

Her 4:18.85 finish in the exhibition event, coupled with her 2:00.19 victory in the 200 fly, made the meet a positive one for the junior.

On the men’s side, junior Matt McLean and sophomore David Karasek had solid swims in the 500 freestyle, finishing in 4:26.48 and 4:36.73, respectively.

McLean’s 1:38.09 performance in the 200 freestyle earned him an NCAA B title and marked another first-place finish for him against the Wildcats.

Senior Eric Olesen, senior John Azar, sophomore Peter Geissinger, and junior Scot Robison formed the winning 200 medley relay team, which finished in 1:31.89.

Coming off their relatively easy defeat of the Wildcats, the teams will face their next opponents two weeks from now at Penn State.

A couple of weeks ago, I was sitting attentively in a statistics class which started off very beneficial, as the professor was answering questions following our first midterm. Approximately twenty minutes into the lecture in Wilson, piercing noises echoed through the room as builders outside were scraping the windows. I was not the only one distracted. The professor began to talk very loudly, almost yelling, in an effort to be heard. Even he was having a tough time concentrating, as he kept saying, “Why are they doing this during my class?” Over the next thirty minutes, approximately half of the class left, including myself, as the lecture was no longer productive.

I don’t intend to sound unappreciative of the University maintenance department’s numerous hours of hard work, but couldn’t they have saved this work for another time? The construction created an incredibly difficult learning environment. Surely there are times during the week when the classroom is not being used for academics. This event made me consider that aesthetics and academics may be considered equally important for the University. To prove the higher importance of academics, different facets of the University need to improve communication between them. This would certainly help put an end to construction disrupting classroom environments.

Harrison Shure
CLAS 2013

On Oct. 17, Morgan Harrington was denied re-entry into the Metallica concert at John Paul Jones Arena. That night, she disappeared. This disappearance could possibly have been prevented — if she had been allowed back into the venue, there’s a chance she would not have disappeared. In light of these recent events, JPJ, along with numerous other arenas and concert venues that have this same no re-entry policy, should reconsider this potentially dangerous policy, and adopt more lenient ones that could potentially prove much safer for concert patrons.

The JPJ Web site states that “Exiting and reentering with the same ticket is not permitted.” This policy is not a unique one; many concert venues across the nation adopt the same policy, and for good reason. The main reasons for policies like these are to prevent patrons from sharing tickets or from visiting their cars during the concert to consume alcohol or drugs, and then returning to the concert. In an interview with The Hook, Larry Wilson, venue manager at JPJ, stated that this policy of no re-entry is “standard operating procedure for every facility I know of in the country” and cited the numerous bathrooms, smoking areas, and concession stands available inside JPJ, implying there is no need for concert-goers to exit the arena.

While this policy has its merits, it also has huge disadvantages. Like in Harrington’s case, such a strict policy can prove extremely dangerous. For concert patrons that need to exit the arena for any reason (granted this is surely rare), arenas should provide a way for patrons to return, if even just for safety issues. Many concert-goers, like Harrington, attend concerts with a group of friends and don’t always have access to cars or anywhere else to wait out the rest of the concert if for some reason they need to leave. Waiting outside of the arena is not a safe option, especially if for some reason the person can’t get hold of a friend inside the concert. There are a number of ways in which JPJ, and similar concert venues, can change their policy in favor of a more safety-conscious one.

Instead of allowing no re-entry, the venue could easily follow the model of the Charlottesville Pavilion. This well-known concert venue located at the Downtown Mall does, in fact, allow re-entry to a majority of its concerts. Its Web site states, “If you plan to leave and come back, you will receive a hand stamp and then will need to show your hand stamp and ticket for reentry.” This model is a simple, inexpensive, and popular one that could increase safety of concert-goers. Wristbands would serve this same purpose. With the presence of either a stamp or a wristband and a ticket stub, patrons would not be able to share tickets, a major reason for the no re-entry policy.

Furthermore, the idea that re-entry is denied because of the fear of patrons going to their cars and consuming drugs or alcohol mid-concert seems fallacious. This sounds like a good reason on paper, but hundreds, perhaps thousands, of patrons enter the arena drunk, high, or with flasks, and are rarely denied entry by security. If security personnel don’t seem to mind the first time around, why would they mind the second? But if this is a legitimate concern for arena managers, a simple solution could be implemented: breathalyzers are quick to use and cheap to purchase — simply test patrons that appear clearly intoxicated (we’re talking slurring words and falling over, not just everyone) and don’t allow them into the concert in the first place.

Understandably, many argue that allowing freedom of entry and exit into and out of these large arenas could potentially create logistical nightmares; more parking-lot fights could ensue and there would surely be a rise in parking lot drug and alcohol usage. More police would have to be hired and perhaps more security cameras installed. But these are not precautions that should only be taken if re-entry is allowed into arenas. If large concert venues such as JPJ refuse re-entry into the concert, there should be a large police presence and security cameras covering all angles of the parking lots, manned at all times.

The current no re-entry policy of JPJ and most other concert venues across the nation is a dangerous one. There are a number of possibilities that these venues could pursue to better ensure the safety of their patrons. Allowing concert-goers to re-enter the concert with a hand stamp or wristband and a ticket stub and increasing security outside of these arenas through more police presence and more surveillance cameras would be a step toward safer concert environments. JPJ would not comment on its current policy, but in light of the recent disappearance of Morgan Harrington, JPJ and other concert venues across the country should seriously consider revising their re-entry policies.

Claire Shotwell’s column usually appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at c.shotwell@cavalierdaily.com.

Will someone please explain to me what’s so alluring about vampires?

If you have a kid sister, or if you secretly are a kid sister, the next two weeks may stretch much longer than the days on the calendar indicate. Because on midnight, Nov. 20, the next Twilight movie will be released, and millions of people, from tweens to adolescents to a large portion of interested adults, will follow in droves to see Edward and Bella gallivant around a world where young lovers face the additional challenges of working vampires and werewolves into their relationships, on top of the mundane awkwardness and confusion that trifles the rest of us. It is a highly anticipated movie, the subject of much discussion fluttering through high school hallways, and it has become difficult to decide whether its love story has struck such a resonant chord with our culture in spite of the fact that it involves cross-species love with a blood-sucking vampire — or because of it. The Twilight phenomenon, just like those that accompanied Harry Potter, The Da Vinci Code, and so much popular fiction before it, has coincided with other popular new fiction of the same genre, such as HBO’s popular True Blood and MaryJanice Dickenson’s Undead series. It seems that falling in love with a dashing vampire is much more exciting than falling in love with a dashing person. The vampire character has always been an outcast, a scourge, an unfortunate, universal annoyance … not the exactly the heartthrob type. Yet parts of our society are quietly obsessed with them, and I think that belies something very sophisticated about our collective tastes. The fact that a significant percentage of American girls can fall in love with a figure so tragically dangerous and alone as a vampire suggests that we have learned to accept a new cultural peculiarity — perhaps open homosexuality in young men — that was once taboo.

If you dismiss the series’ popularity as a function of our culture’s hunger for fantasy and Robert Pattinson’s facial structure, you may be only partially right. Vampire fiction has resonated with the public in very curious ways throughout its entire history. Bram Stoker’s Dracula was a landmark work in horror literature and its burgeoning subset of vampire fiction. But unlike the horror genre in general, which rarely characterizes its antagonist in a very attractive light, vampire stories have diverged since 1897 to give their creatures a tragic element, one that gives birth to sympathy for the one who may need to devour you in order to continue to live. Why is this? One guess: vampires give a convenient medium to showcase social problems inside of an entertaining storyline. They are forbidden, shunned, often innocent and contagious victims of an unintentional condition — a position that will find a relatable niche within any stratified culture. For instance, vampire fiction became very popular in Victorian Europe, when infectious diseases like tuberculosis and syphilis turned ordinary humans into isolated vampires, cut off at a time of quiet sexual revolution and increasing personal liberty. The vampire character was able to reflect this tragic social state in that culture, and it continues in 21st-century America. It might not be a coincidence that vampire fiction began its resurgence as LGBT movements picked up and the AIDS epidemic accelerated, nor might it be unreasonable to suggest that some, maybe many, of Twilight’s adolescent female fans lust after its vampire protagonist in the same way they lust after gay men, men who are wanted but unobtainable, like a man with a venereal disease could have been in 1897 London. Any partitioned culture needs an empathetic monster to jump on the grenade that is social division, someone or something to represent an unpopular or ostracized segment of humanity. Edward Cullen is desired, yet forbidden, and it is possible that he represents gay men and his popularity stems from the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in high schools and colleges across the country.

That obvious paradox, between what is available and what is wanted, connects the vampire to every love story we have ever read or watched. The vampire is dangerous, and every lover lusts for that element of danger in his or her relationships. He represents torture on multiple levels: he will suck your blood, yes, but he is irrationally attractive nonetheless. This attraction derives not only from his unobtainable status, but also from his familiarity. A few decades ago, openly gay students were rare in high school and many colleges, but now, increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our culture has allowed many to feel comfortable coming out at younger and younger ages. Now that more gay young men inhabit the same social circles as straight young women, conflicts of sexual interest are bound to happen. Perhaps Twilight’s success reflects the frustration of straight women who desire gay men. It may be a stretch to argue that vampires represent gay men, but it’s not a new idea. For instance, in the opening credits of True Blood, a popular show on HBO, vampire protestors display signs with a familiar message: “God Hates Fangs.” This is only one possible explanation, though, and in any case, whether it be the risk of a one night stand or the tenuous trust issues inherent in long-term, long-distance relationships, we are never satisfied with total security, because it simply isn’t exciting enough. The vampire can capture that excitement without running the risk of being too realistic, too obtainable, connected to our own feelings without being too common. In doing so, vampire stories reflect our country’s love affair with social challenges. We can elect a black president and legislate gay marriage, but we may never, or never try to, eliminate the problems of racism and bigotry altogether. In the same way, Stephenie Meyer could have written a story about how a nice high-school girl named Bella falls in love with a handsome, gifted, well-rounded boy name Edward, but no one would have read it. Happiness is no fun.

So if you are one of Twilight’s millions of fans, enjoy November’s trip into the world of vampire love and know that it is more than a box office event. Over the past century, the popularity of vampire fiction and film may have become a trailing indicator of social strife, because it features a main character that can either be a protagonist or antagonist, evil or empathetic. This decade’s could represent any number of issues, and really, it’s up to the audience to decide which fits best. I wonder what our kids will think when the vampire returns, next generation through.

Tyler Slack is a Viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily.

Mayor Dave Norris, pictured above, was reelected last Tuesday to Charlottesville’s City Council. He is a 2006 alumnus of the University’s Sorensen Institute program. Photo by Nadia Minai.

Graduates of the University’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership won 27 of 49 races for political office in Virginia last week.

Executive Director Robert Gibson said unlike in years past, this month’s elections saw Sorensen alumni win office in all regions of the state. Of the Institute’s 1,200 alumni, Gibson said, “most don’t run [for office], but the ones who do have been doing very well in state and local elections all across the commonwealth.”

Eighteen of 140 members of the Virginia General Assembly are Sorensen alumni, Gibson said, as is Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris — a 2006 graduate — who was reelected to City Council last Tuesday.

The Institute’s flagship program, the Political Leaders Program, trains students for careers in public service as elected officials or community leaders. The Institute also offers a Candidate Training Program, which provides students with a condensed four-day course on how to win a campaign for office. Alumni from both programs won office last week, Gibson said.

The Institute’s non-partisanship is instrumental in allowing students to achieve success in elections and careers in public service, Gibson said, as students are forced to collaborate with each other regardless of political views.

“It’s a real benefit to candidates to have stronger leadership skills and work better across the aisle,” Gibson explained, adding that the Institute teaches roughly the same number of Democrats and Republicans each year.

The program also emphasizes the importance of running an ethical campaign and teaches students the skills necessary to do so. Gibson said students are told to create ethics rules for their campaigns to follow. A candidate often will pledge not to be the first to run a negative campaign ad.

“We teach campaign skills but also the value of looking at the long term and what you do once you’re elected to office, so you can actually have some impact on policy and not just win an election,” he said.

2009 alumnus James Brown, who was elected last Tuesday as the sheriff of Charlottesville, said the skills he learned from the program were vital in allowing him to achieve success during his campaign.

“When I went to Sorensen, I had already won the primary but it was helpful in fundraising and making sure you know how to stay focused on your message and making sure you can get it to the people,” Brown said.

Brown added that he felt the skills he learned from the Sorensen Institute were essential to the success of any politician.

“If you want to get involved in politics, you should go through Sorensen,” he said.

One of man’s most primal urges is to sit in the front seat of his friend’s car, and disputes about this critical issue can be dated all the way back through recorded human history. Among the earliest notable American disputes was an incident in the early 1800s when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson got into a fist fight about who would sit at the front of Alexander Hamilton’s horse-drawn carriage.

Jefferson won that fight, and that is just one reason that “shotgun” — named because of the high number of deaths that come from shotgun wounds following seating arrangement fights — is a very important issue for University students. Another reason is that students here should be familiar with all sports rules — or at least, the less popular competitions because the revenue sports are not generating anything.

For the rest of this column, I will outline basic shotgun rules and propose some exceptional circumstances or alternatives to standard shotgun semantics.

The basics

The most important principle for shotgun is that the owner of the vehicle — presumably the driver — holds the final word about who will sit in the front seat while he is driving. Let us say, though, that he will have no strong preference about who will sit next him as he drives.

As long as this underlying tenet is followed, the possession of the coveted front seat for any ride will be determined by shotgun-calling protocol.

In short, whoever first calls “shotgun” while approaching the vehicle for departure shall have control of the front seat for the ensuing leg of the trip. “Shotgun” can only be called by someone who is outside and who can see the car.

In the case of a dispute about whether all of the basic semantics of shotgun were followed or about who made the call first, the owner of the vehicle reserves full arbitration rights.

Special circumstances

As elegant as this system is, it does leave some holes open for exploitation. Thus, shotgun rules have been continually revised and improved over the years to deal with unusual situations in an attempt to make the entire scheme more watertight.

First, there will be instances in which the driver shall make the decision about who will sit in the passenger seat and not be considered a major tool-bag. First, as defined by the McDonald’s Maxim, anyone who foots the driver’s fast food bill will be allowed to take the front seat home.

Similarly, the Birthday Brocard states that anyone whose birthday it is has front seat priority.

A more pivotal exception is the Significant Others Axiom, which states that any boyfriend, girlfriend, fiancé or spouse shall have insta-dibs on the front seat. This rule should be tacitly assumed by all parties involved during the ride.

Other clarifications have been required for when exactly “shotgun” may be called. In general, if someone is already in the process of getting into the front seat — opening the car door or reaching for the handle — as “shotgun” is first said by another party, then the call shall be voided and whoever is about to sit down will claim the front seat.

Slight exceptions on the ‘outside’ rule are also necessary. For example, if the car is located in a parking garage, the call should not be made until the passenger has stepped into the parking garage and has the car in sight. If the car is in a personal garage, however, “shotgun” may be called if the door for the garage is in sight.

As always, the exact implementation and interpretation of these rules falls into the hands of the driver.

Given the tremendous significance the front seat plays in the general happiness of passengers during a long trip, modified rules shall be used if the trip is expected to be longer than two hours.

Shotgun can be used to determine who first sits in the front seat, but rotation of the front seat can be used with discretion so as to maintain contentment among all passengers.

Twists and variations

Although the previously outlined rules will cover just about every car trip, there are leading shotgun scholars who have proposed curious improvements to the shotgun system.

The most prominent and controversial of these variations is the blitz rule, which states that a passenger who fails to call “shotgun” first can nullify the other passenger’s claim to the front seat by shouting “blitz!” Blitz rules are, in general, frowned upon and should be avoided.

At that point, whoever touches the car first can sit in the front seat.

Another unusual predicament that has divided practitioners of shotgun is whether the person who makes the call may donate the front seat privileges to someone else — perhaps the girl he’s crushing on or someone who just bombed a midterm and is having a bad day. In recent years, most have agreed that shotgun refers to control of the front seat, so that whoever calls it may choose to allow someone else to sit there.

A recent trend in shotgun utility has been the introduction of shambles. While most traditional shotgun advocates don’t allow this twist, some drivers will permit a call of “shambles” to challenge a call of “shotgun.” The two parties will rock-paper-scissors for the seat.

While only radical vehicle owners allow these overriding calls, it is wise to call “shotgun, no blitz, no shambles” instead of the usual “shotgun” when riding with a driver you’ve never encountered.

Another twist, as championed by the shotgun legend Brad, my little brother, is something called “SuperShotgun.” Like blitz and shambles, SuperShotgun rules state that a male may challenge another male’s call of “shotgun” by shouting “SuperShotgun.”

Then, the two must drop their trousers to their ankles and, undergarments fully exposed, race to touch the car first. Believe me that hilarity ensues every time “SuperShotgun” is called.

The final variation on shotgun rules I’d like to present is my personal favorite. If three people, a driver included, are preparing for a two-leg trip, the driver may decide to employ a prisoner’s dilemma-like setup in which each passenger quietly tells the driver whether they’re in or out.

If both passengers state that they’re out, they each ride one leg of the trip in the front seat. If one says he’s in and the other says he’s out, the one who claims to be in gets to ride in the front both ways. If both riders state they’re in, neither sits in the front.

Of course, a system like that is perhaps a bit too Machiavellian for a democratic society. Then again, it might’ve saved John Adams from sitting in the back seat of the carriage both ways.

Try, if possible, to imagine going to the Foxfield Races without Solo cups and actually watching the horse races.

Inconceivable? Not quite.

Welcome to the 75th running Montpelier Hunt Races; a National Steeplechase Association event, as made evident by the presence of many red (“pink,” if you are in the know) jackets and beagle hounds roaming the course.

This past Saturday, the races were held on the grounds of James Madison’s historic Montpelier. But as one’s math might indicate, the races were not initiated by the Madison family, but rather, in the mid-1930s by later occupants of the manor, the DuPont Scotts.

Held the first Saturday in November, the day is a must for every Virginian in the Piedmont area worth their social salt. Testimony is given by the variety of hunter-jumper attire, especially hats or real mink stoles, on exhibit. The day is something of a mass tailgate, though as my housemate and second-year College student Maggie Graham noted, “it’s a sophisticated tail gate with wine and brie, rather than chips and salsa.”

If the Foxfield Races are about the beer, Montpelier is most definitely about the food — and the horses. The award for most elaborate tailgate, based both on table décor and morsels offered, is another unusual part of the Montpelier Races. Our tailgate might not have won, having only an orange mini-chili potted plant centerpiece, but none of us could doubt the number of tasty morsels offered. From four different types of cheese and crackers to salmon, satay chicken to Virginian ham, spinach and feta triangles to pound cake, I doubt we could have gone hungry if we had been silly enough to try. Easily flowing wine also meant the group never went thirsty.

The tailgates are on the field encircled by the track, while all other parking is on the outside of the track, a short trek away that feels somewhat arduous in heels. We had a prime spot about 40 yards from the finish line and directly across from the walkers’ ring. This afforded all manner of good photographic opportunities, as I managed to take a solid 180 shots.

The gorgeous weather made for perfect shooting: Autumn colors make the best backdrops. For November, we were pleasantly cool in dresses and skirts — yes, fashion is a crucial part of the day — and there is something about clear skies that makes for happy people.

Throughout the day, there are seven races, not to mention the morning’s Jack Russel Terrier Races. Of these, the Noel Laing Stakes Race, a steeplechase, has the biggest prize purse at $40,000. The unofficial flutter going on at our plot had a slightly smaller purse of a dollar a horse in each race. I managed only to pick the second-place horse in most races. Evidently, my strategy of horse-hindquarters assessment was not quite sufficient. An 8-year-old girl named Caroline fared much better, winning the first bet. She chose based on the creativity of the horses’ names.

There is something thrilling about the last seconds of a horse race, and even though half the time I couldn’t remember who I backed, I found myself screaming numbers as they came galloping up the straight. The last turn after the final fence could be a little terrifying when a jockey took the turn too sharp and his horse fell. This happened several times, but so far as I could tell, no horses or riders were seriously injured. They all struggled — experience tells me rather painfully — to their feet to walk the race’s last yards.

A race ran about every half an hour. In between, we found time to peruse the 20-odd stalls selling everything one could need on a race day.

I revisited the hat stand where last year I purchased the black woolen hat I finally had an occasion to wear, but decided this time to leave only with photographs in the most ridiculous hats we could find. Pheasant feathers are my personal favorite.

Many of the stalls are related to equestrian sports and it me took considerable self-restraint to stop myself from buying a pair of Irish riding boots. We also spent a while nosing through the stalls of several photographers, primarily focusing on hunt scenes or personal commissions. I know how hard it is to convince a horse to pose. After years of trying, I have little to show for it, so I could truly appreciate the work exhibited.

In short: Montpelier Races are by no means exclusive but seem to be the area’s little secret — one I am glad to have unearthed.