Home

by **someone** on Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:20 pm

1) I'm sorry Tom was disqualified. I don't know why he was disqualified, as the EOC will not tell anyone, including the other AP candidates. His appeal is pending and a result will not be available until then.

Furthermore, while I did whinge about an unapproved banner for awhile, "15 complaints" is more than an exaggeration. It is absurd. Nobody knows how many complaints anyone filed anyways, as the EOC is obliged to keep this information confidential.

2) I was penalised appropriately for making remarks in McIntosh--- a penalty I find ridiculous, considering I was invited to be there and no rule was in place regarding this--- and since then have not campaigned inside hall dinners. I'm much more of a "private accommodation" person so I'm not used to the authoritarian restrictions of the Wardenial system.

3) I was received rather warmly, actually, and I did leave on my own... the sub-wardens followed me, but I left on my own accord. I will with-hold my personal opinions on the sub-wardens in question.

4) Should I be fortunate enough to win I do not intend to relinquish my office.

Honest answers.

by **cam** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:13 am

All i would say is this,: in reference to lovely Chattan; ignore the Irish 'ditch' warden... vulgar and nasty, put simply. It leaveas McIntosh in a poor state, I say.

by Al on Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:16 am

Quoting cam from 00:13, 18th Mar 2006
All i would say is this,: in reference to lovely Chattan; ignore the Irish 'ditch' warden... vulgar and nasty, put simply. It leaveas McIntosh in a poor state, I say.

That doesn't make any sense.

Still, you can always judge the quality of a candidate by the nature of their supporters.

by **Midget** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:32 am

Quoting rocky mountain from 09:43, 17th Mar 2006
Preston has obviously realised who is greatest competitor is,

Did you go to the hecklings? The many lectures who clapped me after my 1min spiel?

and has therefore made not one, but 15 complaints against him. Tom did his best to run his campaign according to the rules - and was mostly successful.

Whilst I know they were not directly Tom's fault I noted multiple rule violations by his publicity, I had not the time, energy nor inclination to complain.

As Senior Student of John Burnet Hall, a much loved one at that, he had many people supporting him.

A major advantage. With a major disadvantage, you have to be able to control your campaign team. If you have a big campaign team that is no excuse.

[b]
Unknown to him, a Facebook group supporting him was created, and many people changed their photos to "Tom D'ardenne for Association President." Apparently this is against the rules, but for Tom to tell all of his supporters these rules would have been extremely difficult.

If you are going to have a huge campaign team then you have to be able to control them.

Even then, if all other candidates had played by the rules, maybe Tom's disqualification would have been fair. However, partly because the rules for this election are so ridiculous, all candidates have broken them.

WHAT THE FUCK? I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO FUCKING INSULTED, DO YOU REALISE HOW CAREFUL I HAVE BEEN THIS WEEK DO YOU REAlISE JUST HOW MUCH FUCKING EFFORT I PUT INTO KEEPING EXACTLY TO THE BOOK? I HAVE BEEN ON THREE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGNS THAT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED/FINED TO DEATH FOR FAR LESS THAN TOM. I HAVE PLAYED BY THE RULES. FUCK YOU!

I know people who have received bulk Facebook messages telling them to vote for Preston. Just to really demonstrate his pettiness, Preston also made the Grill House take Tom's banner down so that it could be officially measured. Since it is actually only just over half the maximum size (which surely, knowing the maximum measurements, Preston should have been able to estimate from looking at it), it was perfectly 'legal', but it never went back, the Union never having got round to officially measuring it.
I am sorry that this post is so long, but I would just like to make a point. I know that Preston is not the kind of person that I would like to have representing the University to the outside world. I want someone genuine, which is why Tom would have been so great. He is one of the nicest people I know,

If he broke rules then his niceness is pretty damn irrelevant sorry. I admit you make some valid points, only the banner I believe was taken down because it did break rules, not because of size but because it hadn't been approved by election officers.

and I am extremely disappointed that this has happened. I urge you all to vote to re-open nominations and see if we can't sort this Union out.

Yeah lets make all mine and other people's hard work, sun burn, cuts, exhaustion, count for nothing. Cheers.

Seth Ewin

Thanks everyone for voting/&campaigning. If this election is declared void I shall not be standing again, I have neither the time, money, energy or inclination sorry.

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg Too far.
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100090

by **Cain** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:00 am

Quoting Midget from 05:32, 18th Mar 2006
Yeah lets make all mine and other people's hard work, sun burn, cuts, exhaustion, count for nothing. Cheers.

Unfortunately, the election result is not decided by the amount of physical pain candidates and their teams put themselves through.

Otherwise we would have Johnny Knoxville as rector.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

by **tordenskjold** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:52 am

I completely agree with Midget. I spoke to Tom on polling day and I think what is most annoying is that neither he nor anyone else knows what is going on. The election rules need to be changed. I for one think the rules about posters, budgets etc should stay the same but the Facebook etc should be free game. As far as I'm concerned people should be allowed to come up with as much publicity as they want. I know some people will say this infringes on their rights but then they can vote against them. It's only one week of campaigning. At the end of the day everyone worked very hard including Dardar, Midget, PJB and Anders.

What annoys me the most is the people starting all this RON bullshit. At the end of the day people whine about RON every bloody election. If they think the positions should be re-opened they should bloody well run themselves or find someone they want to do it. All this poncing about with RON posters etc is just irritating. If they want to help they should run an information campaign, not some campaign that makes them seem like martyrs standing up to the tyrrany of the elections.

The amount of bad feeling on this board is quite ridiculous. If you have a problem go and sort it out. If Tom is disqualified is that PJB's or Midget's fault? I would say it is the fault of the EOC and the stupid rules they have. If there were 15 complaints against him (I doubt PJB could have been the orginator of all of them) then maybe Tom's campaign had had sufficient warnings? If rules are broken they are broken and if the EOC decided to uphold the rules then take it up with them. I'm sorry Tom was disqualified but it seems he will be re-instated (something they should have told him BEFORE voting started), sadly I think talk of his disqualification and lack of campaigning in the morning may affect the results.

Once again election time proves what a farce the whole process is. They were badly publicised, lacking in candidates, and the amount of sniping and animosity that follows in their wake has, once again, been astounding. If you hate the results so much then transfer. If you are just here to slag one person or the other off because you don't agree with their policies or because you are an apologist for one of the other campaigns you really need to get a grip. The system has functioned to the best of its ability, don't like it then change the damn system.

Congratulations to all those who won positions yesterday I hope you all do well. (I think the large RON vote on uncontested ballots was precisely because the feeling is that the people don't need the votes, not because they actually want the sorry escapade to be rerun)
To the presidential candidates, good luck, thanks for some good publicity and amusing few days.

[hr]

Kæmp for alt hvad du har kært,
Dø om så det gælder.
Da er livet ej så svært,
Døden ikke heller.

by **DrAlex** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:36 pm

Quoting tordenskjold from 11:52, 18th Mar 2006
What annoys me the most is the people starting all this RON bullshit. At the end of the day people whine about RON every bloody election. If they think the positions should be re-opened they should bloody well run themselves or find someone they want to do it.

I think you're over-simplifying the issue here. I voted RON on many positions, but not because I thought I, or someone I knew, could have done a better job, but because I had no idea who they were. I was not given a 100 word statement for any position, most positions had little to no campaigning presence, and so I had no reason to vote for them. I voted for the candidates that I knew personally and/or thought would do the best job, and for every other position I voted RON. This election was, in my view, a joke run for the hacks, by the hacks. You say record high turnout, but it was still just over 1600, right? 25%?

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

by **someone** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:31 pm

WHAT THE FUCK? I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO FUCKING INSULTED, DO YOU REALISE HOW CAREFUL I HAVE BEEN THIS WEEK DO YOU REAlISE JUST HOW MUCH FUCKING EFFORT I PUT INTO KEEPING EXACTLY TO THE BOOK? I HAVE BEEN ON THREE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGNS THAT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED/FINED TO DEATH FOR FAR LESS THAN TOM. I HAVE PLAYED BY THE RULES. FUCK YOU!
...
Seth Ewin

Gosh.

someone
Nominated for Association President, waiting for results to get published.

by **Akasha** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:19 pm

Quoting tordenskjold from 11:52, 18th Mar 2006
As far as I'm concerned people should be allowed to come up with as much publicity as they want.

it seems he will be re-instated (something they should have told him BEFORE voting started),

1. The point of limiting publicity is to create economic parity in a town where surely anyone can see that financial resources of candidates can differ wildly.

2. It does not "seem he will be reinstated". He requested to be left on the ballot paper pending his appeal. He WAS notified of this. At 7:30am on the morning of the election to be precise. If he doesn't check his e-mail it's hardly the EOC's fault.

by **Dardar** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:37 pm

Quoting akasha from 14:19, 18th Mar 2006
Quoting tordenskjold from 11:52, 18th Mar 2006
As far as I'm concerned people should be allowed to come up with as much publicity as they want.

it seems he will be re-instated (something they should have told him BEFORE voting started),

1. The point of limiting publicity is to create economic parity in a town where surely anyone can see that financial resources of candidates can differ wildly.

2. It does not "seem he will be reinstated". He requested to be left on the ballot paper pending his appeal. He WAS notified of this. At 7:30am on the morning of the election to be precise. If he doesn't check his e-mail it's hardly the EOC's fault.

I was NOT notified. I was sent an email by Ann Kettle, which was also sent to the EOC at 7.30AM on the day, SUGGESTING my name be replaced on the ballot paper. It is completely different.

I was NOTIFED after waiting for nearly half an hour in the general office at 10.45AM on the Friday itself, wanting to know what the hell was going on.

No confirmation was ever made until this point that my name had been replaced on the ballot paper. Furthermore, No ATTEMPT was made by the EOC to inform my campaign manager or myself, either by email or by telephone, of their decision. Their excuse - 'they were too busy' to confirm, and it should have been obvious what the email sent at 7.30 had implied.

Well I'm sorry. It was far from obvious – especially as it was implied by the EOC on Thursday evening it was now too late to have my name reinstated on the ballot papers themselves.

Hence, I know of MANY people who voted for RON believing my name being written on the ballot paper was simply an error, and did not vote for me believing that my name appearing on the ballot paper was a mistake. Most were quite upset about it when told they could have actually voted for me.

I intend to write a list of all of the problems I have seen throughout this election as soon as possible. It should make a sizeable tome. In the meantime, I intend to take a break from the whole thing because, as I am sure all of the people involved will confirm, it was an exhausting week and we all deserve an afternoon off.

Tom

by **tordenskjold** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:47 pm

I actually wrote that I think poster rules and budgets SHOULD stay the same so that there CAN be economic parity. Everything else should just be fair game and if people then don't like the material they can complain or they can not vote.
I think that Tom wasn't dealt with as well as the EOC would like to aspire to, but then again everyone is fallible so let's not dwell on it.
On the topic of RON I wasn't saying people shouldn't vote RON. I voted RON on most of the uncontested positions as they would win anyway. What I meant was I get annoyed at the unofficial RON campaigns that have started to spring up at every election where people go on about RON as if not having someone filling the post was a substitute for someone doing the job.

[hr]

Kæmp for alt hvad du har kært,
Dø om så det gælder.
Da er livet ej så svært,
Døden ikke heller.

by **Akasha** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:41 pm

It makes me so angry that i cannot defend the EOC despite the repeated attacks.

We are bound to protect his privacy.

I can however say that he was given plenty of lee-way on account of his disfamiliarity with the rules and the election process.

He shouldn't (in the spirit of fair and free elections) have been given any lee-way at all. It isn't fair to the other candidates.

Edit:typo x2

by **atreus** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:03 pm

Quoting tordenskjold from 15:47, 18th Mar 2006
I get annoyed at the unofficial RON campaigns that have started to spring up at every election where people go on about RON as if not having someone filling the post was a substitute for someone doing the job.

I don't believe that any RON campaign has every been so pro-anarchy as you make them out to be. In fact, I have it on good information that the RON campaigns were doing so out of protest for the way in which the Students' Association has continued to handle elections and the dissemination of information, as well as other issues it has continued to ignore. In addition, had RON been successful, the post would not remain unfilled, as you seem to assume. Instead, nominations would be re-openned and another election run. Thus, a RON vote can also be interpreted as a belief that all available candidates were not qualified for a certain post.

by Al on Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:09 pm

"I can however say that he was given plenty of lee-way on account of his disfamiliarity with the rules and the election process.

He shouldn't (in the spirit of fair and free elections) have been given any lee-way at all. It isn't fair to the other candidates."

Then surely, by the same token, a candidate who is intimately familiar with the rules and election process should be given absolutely no leeway at all. Surely?

by **Dickie** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:13 pm

Quoting atreus from 20:03, 18th Mar 2006
Quoting tordenskjold from 15:47, 18th Mar 2006
I get annoyed at the unofficial RON campaigns that have started to spring up at every election where people go on about RON as if not having someone filling the post was a substitute for someone doing the job.

I don't believe that any RON campaign has every been so pro-anarchy as you make them out to be. In fact, I have it on good information that the RON campaigns were doing so out of protest for the way in which the Students' Association has continued to handle elections and the dissemination of information, as well as other issues it has continued to ignore. In addition, had RON been successful, the post would not remain unfilled, as you seem to assume. Instead, nominations would be re-openned and another election run. Thus, a RON vote can also be interpreted as a belief that all available candidates were not qualified for a certain post.

The problem with R.O.N. is that no one has EVER lost to R.O.N. here, not even when you ask people to vote R.O.N. over yourself. I do seem to have a rather high (21%) R.O.N. vote but still have a majority of over 800. This is after asaking in my hecklings speech "please vote R.O.N." and on my thread here.
Better luck next time R.O.N.

Preston, Sorry to fill more of your thread with R.O.N.

Dickie Doulgas, SRC Member for Absent Students!!!!!!

[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

by **someone** on Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:19 pm

Quoting Dickie from 22:13, 18th Mar 2006
Preston, Sorry to fill more of your thread with R.O.N.

Don't worry. It's seen worse.

by **ShinyHappyPerson** on Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:34 am

Don't worry. It's seen worse.

Yes, yes it has Preston.
Personal attacks on members of staff and a willfulness to mislead the student electorate for a start.

And as i really ought to ask a question of the candidate on this thread...

"Would it be part of your Presidential policy to harrass students/members of staff in a private residence or slander them for their personal opinions on a public message board?"

[hr]

"its the best thing since instant mashed potato"

by **exnihilo** on Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:05 am

The bile being exhibited by certain people on these threads is deeply unbecoming. And wholly out of proportion.

by **tordenskjold** on Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:04 am

The elections are over now. I suggest people who have some problem with the candidates start looking to transfer. Also to atreus about the RON thing you are completely right, I am making it out to be more anarchistic that it really is.

[hr]

Kæmp for alt hvad du har kært,
Dø om så det gælder.
Da er livet ej så svært,
Døden ikke heller.

by **Akasha** on Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:26 am

Quoting Al from 22:09, 18th Mar 2006
"I can however say that he was given plenty of lee-way on account of his disfamiliarity with the rules and the election process.

He shouldn't (in the spirit of fair and free elections) have been given any lee-way at all. It isn't fair to the other candidates."

Then surely, by the same token, a candidate who is intimately familiar with the rules and election process should be given absolutely no leeway at all. Surely?

They weren't

Home

TheSinner.net

someone: Nominated for Association President

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Who is online