Team Sportsman

See More About:    Team Sportsman        
This entry was written by one of our contributers and submitted to our resource section. The author's views below are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of Team Sport

Treasure Hunts

Treasure hunts have proven to be an exciting opportunity for any corporate or retail team. Many corporations, restaurants, retail stores, and more have participated in these fun and educational events.

A treasure hunt game usually includes a variety of elements. For instance, clues may need to be deciphered in order to pinpoint a location. Another activity that may take place during a treasure hunt is that of answering some quiz or trivia questions. Right answers will score more points for any team.

Another activity that sometimes takes place during a treasure hunt is the completion of a photo assignment. This is one thing that will further help a team score points and solve the treasure mystery.

It may also be necessary for a team to decide what it needs to help them better complete the treasure hunt tasks set before them. Therefore, they will often need to complete a shopping list.

Treasure hunts are easy to plan and they can take place almost anywhere. In fact, some organizations may prefer just to have these events take place right on the premises (the employer's property). Professional activity planners can help an employer set up this event.

Usually some of the items needed for a treasure hunt activity include a local survey map, instant camera, clues written out, and trivia questions. These can be made-up or they can be derived from any activity book or board game.

A typical day for a group participating in treasure hunts usually starts with an event briefing. This is during when the rules and regulations as well as game play instructions are given. Then, the treasure hunt would usually start.

There may then be a break for lunch. Sometimes prizes are given out before or during lunch to the winners of each completed treasure hunt mission-or to the team with the most points.

After lunch there may be an evening treasure hunt briefing if a new game is played. During this briefing may include tips on how to improve each team's overall play. This will further help each team succeed.

The prizes for winning a treasure event do not have to be very extravagant. Sample prizes that could be given to a winning team (or individual winners) usually are a bottle of champagne, dinner gift certificates, or a small amount of cash.

Treasure hunt days are probably one of the most economical of all events to place, as well as the most versatile. Likewise, these games can be played by a group of any size. Also, these events generally do not cost that much money.

Treasure hunts are ideal for many corporate or employer occasions. For instance, they could take place during an employee picnic, Christmas party, or incentive trip. These particular activity days sometimes occur during motivational conferences for managers as well.

The purpose of treasure hunt games is to foster communication and togetherness amongst a group of employees. Furthermore, this type of game also helps draw out the strengths of individual employees. This will allow management of a particular place of employment to see who is the most organized, the most creative, the most articulate, and who is the best listener.Bio for Treasure Hunts: John Tarr is a copywriter for Stag Party Weekend across Europe. Learn more aboutTreasure Hunts.

Article Source: http://www.simplysearch4it.com/article/51974.html

Team Sportsman

See More About:    Team Sportsman        
Team ASHMAN, WE Rock Tucson Sportsman class 2nd place, April 2011

Frequently Asked Questions...

What was Nelson Mandela's achievements or beliefs? What were some positive or negative effects?


Best Answer...

Answer:

For the first years of apartheid, from '48 certainly until the Defiance Campaign began in '52, and quite a lot after that, it wasn't taken all that seriously. There was an expectation that the whole thing was not going to work. It would crumble. That part of it, of course, was simply an extension of traditional segregation, and the world trend was against that.

You have to remember that black South Africans knew a bit about what was happening in America, and America was very visibly going in the opposite direction. It was difficult to believe that apartheid could really set a totally different course from what was happening in the famous cases in America, which were declaring segregation illegal. So it's important to remember how fragile apartheid seemed and how obviously absurd it did. While at the same time it was part of a old colonial tradition, which was clearly fading as other imperial countries were pulling out of Africa.

The Defiance Campaign was his first major protest organization, when he was the chief volunteer. That's when he really emerged for the first time as being a serious political leader. He was clearly a formidable one; but to me, anyway, he was quite distant. He was not easy to communicate with in the way that Sisulu absolutely was. Partly, as he says now, he was defensive, particularly amongst white people, when they were not directly part of the political scene. At the same time, he did have that aloofness to other people too. Even to people like Ruth First, who found him quite arrogant, even though she was a great loyal party member, who was very close to Mandela in many ways.

He had this chiefly element. There is no doubt. He had a sense of the dignity of an aristocrat. He was very fine looking and knew it. He always had a great presence and was always tremendously well-dressed. He intimidated some of his black contemporaries to quite an extent. Even people like Dr. Matlane, for instance, who was a very effective friend and supporter, and his doctor. Even he felt he had to choose his words quite carefully with Mandela.

There, obviously, was the political insecurity and this incredible shock of finding himself in a humiliating situation in a big city. But he was defensive with good reason. After all, he was a proud man, who had found himself in a pretty hostile setting. But I don't think he was basically insecure. No. He wasn't the most successful person. He wasn't the cleverest of his generation by any means. He wasn't an intellectual. He wasn't a great sportsman. He was a good boxer, but he wasn't a great sort of team sportsman. So it wasn't a glorious career, and he was never a great lawyer. But nevertheless, he was, quite obviously, it seemed to me, a formidable leader, and was regarded by other people as such.

In the early '60s, again, there was an optimism throughout the whole of Africa about victories being quite soon and rapid, and also quite painless. In some parts of the British empire that was true ... Ghana, for instance, was a push over. Tanzania--there was never really fighting, there was never a revolution. There, the British just pulled out. And that affected a lot of people in South Africa. Both ways. A lot of black politicians were misled about that, including Mandela, into thinking it was going to be an easy walk to freedom. Whites certainly got scared that there was going to be a sudden change in South Africa, which would have corresponded with what was happening elsewhere on the continent. But, of course, it wasn't until the real challenge came from the blacks that the white reaction became more vicious, because there was a feeling amongst many of the white liberals, as well as the Afrikaners, that the blacks in South Africa were simply not going to get their act together. They were not going to fight or to mobilize anything very much. Therefore, South Africa could have a separate future from the rest of the continent.

I think, myself, it is the classic achievement of the liberator, which you would associate with people like Washington or Lincoln or some of the great military leaders ... [he's] clearly, of course, not really a military leader. It wasn't a liberation by conquest. That's what makes the story more interesting. It's like a cross, if you like, between Gandhi and Washington. The idea being the unifying element itself was terribly important. He was influenced by both Gandhi and by Nehru into feeling that you could create that sense of national unity and self respect and idealism, without resorting to force to achieve it. Even though he wasn't, by no means, a pacifist, there was always that element of not wishing to be the military conqueror, which of course would have been a far bloodier path. But I think it is as a unifier, as a liberator, and above all as a multi-racial ...

What is striking to me is that fact that he is both a realist and an achiever in the multi-racial element. He has never thought, like so many people on the left have thought, that you could have an ideal sort of raceless society. He has always been very conscious of people's need to have a community which tends to be their own race, and to belong to that. He has never thought that you would have this idealistic conversion where people don't notice race. At the same time, he's achieved more in terms of multi-racial cooperation than most people thought possible--in his own cabinet, in his own government. And his own lifestyle, where he sometimes doesn't seem to notice what color anybody is at all. His friendships show no apparent discrimination, whatsoever. So that's what appeals to the world so much at the moment, to people like Blair or to Clinton or to other world leaders is his ability to be above race, not to be a great sort of campaigner or battler, no great anti-racist crusader, which is much less effective. But to somehow appear to be above the whole scene. That's where his own life makes such good sense.

See More About:    Team Sportsman        

What Others Found Helpful