Ad Hoc crises are similar in format to regular crisis committees. Both types follow a continuous crisis format, with crisis updates coming in every so often that present new issues and problems for the committee to deal with. In both types of committees, personal goals for your portfolio power can matter more than the committee goals, as there doesn't need to be a neat resolution at the end of the conference. With all these similarities, what's the difference and how does this change the dynamic of the committee?

Crisis committees allow time before the conferences to prepare for the conference. While you still won't know exactly what will happen during the committee, you have time to prepare for the topic, understand it, and spend time doing extra research on your portfolio power and the topic in general. This makes it easier to understand your personal goals during the committee and where you want it to go. Position papers are also helpful for establishing your personal goals during the conference, allowing you to dive deeper into your character and the committee's topic. Background guides are packed with important information that is available to you beforehand, including a bibliography which contains links to even more detailed articles.

Ad Hoc crisis committees, however, leave you very little time to embrace your character and establish your personal goals during the committee. While you won't have to worry about writing a position paper, I think that writing a position paper is a useful tool for comprehending the issue at hand. Reading the background guide at the beginning of the conference can invite some more intensity and quicker thinking to the committee. Many students don't perform well under pressure, because it takes time and practice to master that skill. Jumping right into a fast paced crisis committee with no idea what to expect can be intimidating to many.

When it comes to utilizing, learning, and practicing important skills, I believe that Ad Hoc crisis committees can be better at that. The main difference between the two committees in terms of skill use is that one invites more pressure and quicker thinking, which is often what you find out in the real world. While regular crisis committees don't lack this skill, it doesn't appear as prominently as in Ad Hoc crises.

In my opinion, I think Ad Hoc committees are better because of these reasons, but it always depends on the person. Both are great learning opportunities and fun committees, and both invite you to challenge yourself in different ways.