January 30, 2005

Sorry, I didn't realise

If you've read the comments for my entry Union Elections then you'll know one of the comments I made was:

Don't vote awsome, vote for RON!
RON for all Union positions!!!
Who's with me!?

I have just received an email from Simon Lucas, the President of the Student's Union, in which he said

I'd imagine you were unaware that this comment constitutes a breach of the Union's Constitutional appendix on elections, which states that:

"6.9 - No member may promote Re-Open Nominations."

I'm afraid that as a member of the Students' Union you are bound by these rules whether you were aware of them or not.

and asked that the comment be removed.

If we were to go by the letter of the rules (as some people would have me do) then I should now be convening a disciplinary to look into this

So, of course, I'm very grateful that he'd prefer not to do this, and he also said he knew I didn't mean any harm.

The comment was not meant to be at all serious but, as requested, I have removed it and would just like to say:

Sorry, I didn't realise

- 15 comments by 2 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. sounds like a fairly dumb rule to me…

    30 Jan 2005, 22:35

  2. dammit, did I just breach a rule about commenting on rules?

    30 Jan 2005, 22:35

  3. Lee Davis

    Hmmm, well I must confess to not having a clue what any of the union regulations are here. When I stood for election in a place far fra away a long time ago there was a joke candidate against me (his mates had somehow proposed him without his knowledge) who withdrew then on elction day persons unknown (though I have a fairly good idea who) ran a fairly large campaign for RON against me. Towards the end of my term of office several of the people I suspect Of running the campaign against me did make a point of saying I had done a lot better job than they expected.

    30 Jan 2005, 23:38

  4. Why shouldn't people be allowed to promote RON? What's the point in having a "candidate" if you aren't allowed to promote them?

    Oh what do I care. It's not as if I'm going to be allowed to vote anyway.

    31 Jan 2005, 00:40

  5. I think the reason why you're not allowed to promote RON is that it is by nature a totally negative campaign which focuses solely on attacking the candidates.

    31 Jan 2005, 01:10

  6. But by campaigning for a candidate surely you attack all other candidates for that post?

    31 Jan 2005, 12:20

  7. Ah, no, you don't.
    There's a difference between supporting your candidate and attacking the others; "Vote Candidate X" is not the same as "Candidate Y is useless and pathetic and would make a worse [position] than a lump of fetid cheese".
    I would say that supporting is basically saying that everyone would be good but ours would be better, whereas attacking would be saying that everyone else is awful and pathetic and crap so vote for ours.

    31 Jan 2005, 12:59

  8. You got SERVED, motherfucker!

    31 Jan 2005, 13:48

  9. It worries me the President of the SU has the time to not only read everyones Blogs but the comments aswell! :)

    31 Jan 2005, 23:19

  10. I manage it…

    31 Jan 2005, 23:39

  11. Dean, I suspect someone complained; I doubt Simon personally found it.

    31 Jan 2005, 23:58

  12. Indeed. He opened the email with:

    Yesterday I was informed by the Union's Elections Group of a posting on your blog saying:" Don't vote awesome, vote for RON! RON for all Union positions!!! Who's with me!?"

    So he doesn't spend all his time trawling through blogs, although it would be possible to search for Union–related key words…

    01 Feb 2005, 00:32

  13. I was attempting humour. It failed.

    03 Feb 2005, 03:53

  14. I think it was the ":)" that gave it away…
    Still, serious or otherwise, the point was made and commented on, just like the comment that started this whole thing off wasn't in any way, shape, or form intended to be in any way even slightly serious, but the Student's Union still wanted it gone…

    03 Feb 2005, 09:39

  15. It's amazing how many infractions Elections Group manage to detect; they have eyes and ears everywhere it would seem.

    03 Feb 2005, 11:31

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

January 2005

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Dec |  Today  | Feb
               1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Search this blog


Google PageRank


Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder