someone: Nominated for Association President

[Al]

I think you are in no position to call anyone else pathetic. And even if I am "actually pathetic" I would still win just by not being you. Your entire Association record to date has been one of failure, incompetence and pettiness.

[someone]

Quoting Al from 16:01, 19th Mar 2006
I think you are in no position to call anyone else pathetic. And even if I am "actually pathetic" I would still win just by not being you. Your entire Association record to date has been one of failure, incompetence and pettiness.

And Alex Yabroff, who is the Association President, as well as the vast majority of students at this university have less criticism to offer about these elections and my candidacy than a long-gone graduate who I've never met.

A graduate with, presumably, a job and a life outside of St Andrews.

[Cain]

Quoting someone from 16:07, 19th Mar 2006
A graduate with, presumably, a job and a life outside of St Andrews.

Because people like that are just the lowest

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[exnihilo]

You do seem to have awakened Al's ire in a more than usual way. I wonder if he's ever met you? Or if some other motive lurks behind all this vitriol?

[someone]

Quoting exnihilo from 18:01, 19th Mar 2006
You do seem to have awakened Al's ire in a more than usual way. I wonder if he's ever met you? Or if some other motive lurks behind all this vitriol?

Actually, T, I've never met the guy. If I did he didn't make much of an impression. Any chance he hangs out with my long-standing non-fan club (Marco et al.)?

[Al]

I have never met Preston. As daft as it may sound, I have no personal dislike of him. I dislike what I have heard of him in this election and his past actions. Motive? The only motive I have is the defence of what I see as the best interests of the Association. Perhaps what I said did sound like vitriol. It is very easy to get carried away on these boards.

[exnihilo]

That's certainly true. But I stand shoulder to shoulder with you as far as defending the interests of the Association go.

[someone]

Quoting exnihilo from 20:03, 19th Mar 2006
That's certainly true. But I stand shoulder to shoulder with you as far as defending the interests of the Association go.

All I know is that wherever Al's getting his information, it isn't very good and has very little relevance to the past year. I can tell that his information has something of a slant. Not his fault, mind you: it is the fault of his sources.

I too am committed to defending the interests of the Association. My interpretation of "interests" may be different from those of others, but the voters will decide in the end.

[Paranoid]

aaah St. Andrews and its annual attempt at politics...good to see that not much has changed (i.e. supposed' favourites' being DQ'd at the last minute by fellow candidates).

Despite this, I think there has been only one consistent failure in St.A's history at running elections, and that is one of communication by the EOC (forgive me if it's not their sole fault, but as has already been expressed by Preston several pages ago, I'm not all clued up on the Acronyms that fly around the Union Building...theres enough in management consulting as there is!!).

Communication with both candidates AND the electorate is disgraceful, as has been proven by both Tom's earlier post on the electorate believing his name on the ballot as a mistake, and his e-mail warning (if you ask me, an incredibly fallible and hardly prompt form of communication for a situation that needs immediate clarity - given the timing of said warning).

From my experience in these things it is the candidates who take on the brunt of promotion of the vote, and therefore those most passionate (or even just their most passionate (unoffical?) supporters) about the cause are the ones to put themselves at most risk of disqualification. I think its about time that the Union took active steps towards promoting the event far more effectively, and as has already been sugggested provide set resources online for candidates to use as promotion over the internet.

From the sounds of things, the promotion of Tom via Facebook was completely out of his control, and to be honest it would be completely out of anyones control to monitor such a medium, nevermind police it!

In every election there are winners and losers, but unfortunately despite guarantees from past winners to sort this sorry mess out its never come to bear, and I only hope the eventual winner on Wednesday - or April - will take this issue up seriously and immediately (i.e. don't leave it as a last minute decision at the end of your term a la an AGM after the elections!)

Thanks for your time, can't wait to get back up there for a drink and to read all the goss in the Saint!

[hr]

..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[Bonnie]

It was 40% as quoted in SRC. Remember? Someone said under their breath "oh, so that means it went up to 40".

Quoting someone from 22:22, 16th Mar 2006

Quoting haribo from 21:30, 16th Mar 2006
And while im here, a question for you...
What is your opinion on the calls to ban/strictly control future Raisin Weekends?

Firstly, haribo is an excellent username.

This was brought up at SRC on tuesday night. There are two issues:

1) Police crackdown on students

2) Estates shutting down the quad and not letting it be used for the Foam Fight.

My positions:

1) Raisin weekend is fun. However, fun needn't be dangerous. This year's incidents regarding the death of harmless animals and a severe injury on Kinnessburn road are tragic indeed, but an all-out ban on Raisin Weekend

There is talk that the Uni wants to withdraw official support for the Weekend. However, if the Uni decides to do this, I will make sure that the Association picks up the slack with regard to student welfare and getting help for students who need it.

Furthermore, the Fife constabular told the Uni that petty crime increases by 4000% (yes, four thousand) in the week prior to Raisin Weekend (mostly due to thievery of Raisin Receipts.) Thus, the constabulary will be taking a zero-tolerance policy on petty crime in Raisin Weekend 2006. As Association President, I will do anything in my ability to keep students out of trouble with the law and will do my best to get appropriate representation for those who do get in trouble.

2) A foam fight in the quad, besides being something which is a heck of a lot of fun, adds to the unique character of the University and is part of the attraction of attending. Whilst the tradition has only been around for 20-odd years, it is an important one to continue and I oppose any move by the University to move it to the North Haugh or elsewhere.

I like Raisin Weekend. If the University were to ban it, I'd celebrate anyway and support anyone else who wanted to.

someone,
Candidate for Association President.

[hr]

I love cheese.

[Bonnie]

As DoR I promise to make the bops better.

Quoting exnihilo from 00:53, 17th Mar 2006
D'you know this territoriality is really starting to annoy me. It crops up again and again in the election threads. That's for the DoR, this is for the DoES. What happened to all the officers of the Association having a say and a view on its activities? What happened to collective responsibility? Why shouldn't a Presidential candidate make promises in respect of any other officer's "remit"? What is true of the Association's structure today may not be tomorrow, God knows it has changed enough recently. What is, however, utterly unproductive is the mind set that you keep exhibiting, Ben, of "this is my turf, back off".

[hr]

I love cheese.

[exnihilo]

Why not? I used to sit on SRC and UMC, remember? Why shouldn't any officer standing for any post be able to say what they think should be happening in the Association without people leaping down their throat and saying "that's not your area!"? Surely at the end of the day the SRC/SSC make the decisions so who proposes an initiative isn't that relevant - unless it really is about protecting turf and not the good of the Association generally?

I can clearly remember officers who took an active interest in the Association as a whole and who weren't bound up in protecting their territory. Is that so unthinkable now? This is not rose-coloured glasses, Bonnie, that's how it was. When we had a President and Vice-Presidents there was more of a sense that each VP was wholly a VP of the Association as well as having oversight responsibility for particular areas.

Now you've parcelled it up into Directorates and put up the barricades, there's clearly no sense of involvement beyond one's own narrow territory. And the fact that nobody but Union insiders stood for those directorates - and all unopposed - speaks volumes about how effectively their function in the overall structure has been communicated to the student body.

So, be as facetious as you like, but the current arrangements are failing and my concerns and comments are entirely legitimate. Doubtless you'll disagree, but then you can hardly do otherwise.

[Ben Reilly]

Tobias,

I think that you are misunderstanding where we are coming from on these. Of course we can say we'll get involved, and vote on those issues. On the other hand, to promise to deliver something that is clearly the responsibility of somebody else who is equally as responsible to the student body is misleading at best.

Edit: I suppose for a good example, what would you think of a member of the SRC promising to run great debates?

[exnihilo]

I'd applaud their interest. They wouldn't actually pledge to run good debates though, they'd pledge to get the issues that matter to the student body onto the debating calendar or something of that ilk. And I see no reason why they should not.

[someone]

Quoting Bonnie from 22:22, 19th Mar 2006
It was 40% as quoted in SRC. Remember? Someone said under their breath "oh, so that means it went up to 40".

I remember someone saying that it increased "40 times." Not "forty per cent." Yes, I understand the difference between the two.

However, whatever it means, the difference is irrelevant. Crime goes up and it appears Raisin Weekend is the cause. The Constabulary will be cracking down. That means that the Association will need to adopt a new set of priorities regarding the weekend in order to protect and represent its members.