SU Council Motions, Mon 13th November 2006

cast_iron

Vainglory wrote:

cast_iron, could you give us the text of the motions you have proposed to Council, or asked your rep to propose for you?

You've made a false assumption. I haven't made any.

So because i don't propose a motion means I can't have an opinion on those that are proposed. If so, most of us can leave now.... Also, what's the point of this thread then?

In fairness, I did state two amendments to the above mentioned motions. so i'm not just sitting here criticising.

Vainglory

cast_iron wrote:

You've made a false assumption. I haven't made any.

So because i don't propose a motion means I can't have an opinion on those that are proposed. If so, most of us can leave now.... Also, what's the point of this thread then?

In fairness, I did state two amendments to the above mentioned motions. so i'm not just sitting here criticising.

But why spend your life amending motions you think are stupid? If you care enough about what the Union does to spend ages posting on a thread criticising motions then surely you have some ideas yourself about what the Union should be doing, no?

cast_iron

Vainglory wrote:

But why spend your life amending motions you think are stupid?

I'm not spending my life doing that. I spend time reading the motions while i'm online. I'm usually busy enough running a large sport club here in the college, and also sit on it's NGB. That's where I do the donkey-work. You do it on the SU. Best of luck to you.

Vainglory wrote:

If you care enough about what the Union does to spend ages posting on a thread criticising motions then surely you have some ideas yourself about what the Union should be doing, no?

I think you have some issues with logic too.

Motion proposed = Motion stupid.

I propose a change to it to make sense.
New motion proposed = Not stupid.

So, a recap - The original motion was stupid in the form it was proposed. I suggested a change to (what i thought) make it more workable. Motion is no longer stupid (in my opinion, at least.)

Vainglory

But I'm not even saying you have to do extra donkey work. You have, or should have, a rep to do it for you.

If you have no original ideas about how your Union should be run, or what it should be working on, then that's fine, but I was just curious really.

humbert

if only there was someone from the union here who might read what cast_iron and other ucd students were saying and take it on board.

Vainglory

humbert wrote:

if only there was someone from the union here who might read what cast_iron and other ucd students were saying and take it on board.

What?..

"Don't propose motions, because I think they're stupid, and my castigating wit will reign down upon them from a heighth on boards.ie if they so much as dare do something pro-active with their involvement in the Union and try and get active on things that they care about."

elmyra

cast_iron wrote:

I'm not spending my life doing that. I spend time reading the motions while i'm online. I'm usually busy enough running a large sport club here in the college, and also sit on it's NGB. That's where I do the donkey-work. You do it on the SU. Best of luck to you.



I think you have some issues with logic too.

Motion proposed = Motion stupid.

I propose a change to it to make sense.
New motion proposed = Not stupid.

So, a recap - The original motion was stupid in the form it was proposed. I suggested a change to (what i thought) make it more workable. Motion is no longer stupid (in my opinion, at least.)

I wouldn't have said anyone takes issue with people who don't sit on council offering opinions, as you've rightly pointed out that is the point of this thread. If I were an SU head I'd probably take issue more with those criticisms being made using works like 'farcical' and 'stupid'. You can make a point without being insulting, I think everyone else has managed to.

Chakar

I agree with the proposed motions to amend the standing orders because most degrees in UCD are three years and so I think its better to have it that way rather than the previous five year limit.

Also the motions to ban Bebo and to protect people from sexy people in posters are just ridiculous.You know the usual arguments against those motions.

Now back to my essay.

Vainglory

elmyra wrote:

I wouldn't have said anyone takes issue with people who don't sit on council offering opinions, as you've rightly pointed out that is the point of this thread. If I were an SU head I'd probably take issue more with those criticisms being made using works like 'farcical' and 'stupid'. You can make a point without being insulting, I think everyone else has managed to.

Which is what I was trying to say, put less sarcastically and more eloquently

cast_iron

elmyra wrote:

I wouldn't have said anyone takes issue with people who don't sit on council offering opinions, as you've rightly pointed out that is the point of this thread. If I were an SU head I'd probably take issue more with those criticisms being made using works like 'farcical' and 'stupid'. You can make a point without being insulting, I think everyone else has managed to.

A fair point.
Though we all have our style (Take Hulla's 1st comment, and Sangre's sole comment).

Having said that, I criticised for a reason. I think the motions as proposed were stupid, stated why, and gave possible amendments.
I was making the point that out of 6 motions, that 4 of them were stupid as they stood. That's alot, you know!
Why not defend the motions instead of/as well as criticising my methods?

I mean, really, sending software to homeless girls in Africa?? I assume the proposers got word of a load of PS2s that just got delivered to them to make the software usuable. I'm sorry but i really should stop laughing here.

Ideas are great, but if people can't put some sort of reality to them, then they really shouldn't waste time with them.

Vainglory

cast_iron wrote:

A fair point.
Though we all have our style (Take Hulla's 1st comment, and Sangre's sole comment).

Having said that, I criticised for a reason. I think the motions as proposed were stupid, stated why, and gave possible amendments.
I was making the point that out of 6 motions, that 4 of them were stupid as they stood. That's alot, you know!
Why not defend the motions instead of/as well as criticising my methods?

I mean, really, sending software to homeless girls in Africa?? I assume the proposers got word of a load of PS2s that just got delivered to them to make the software usuable. I'm sorry but i really should stop laughing here.

Ideas are great, but if people can't put some sort of reality to them, then they really shouldn't waste time with them.

I've probably had a run-in over something or other with every single person on this site, and I always, as I saw it, "criticised for a reason". But I don't think I ever called them or their views "stupid."

elmyra

cast_iron wrote:

A fair point.
Though we all have our style (Take Hulla's 1st comment, and Sangre's sole comment).

Having said that, I criticised for a reason. I think the motions as proposed were stupid, stated why, and gave possible amendments.
I was making the point that out of 6 motions, that 4 of them were stupid as they stood. That's alot, you know!
Why not defend the motions instead of/as well as criticising my methods?

I mean, really, sending software to homeless girls in Africa?? I assume the proposers got word of a load of PS2s that just got delivered to them to make the software usuable. I'm sorry but i really should stop laughing here.

Ideas are great, but if people can't put some sort of reality to them, then they really shouldn't waste time with them.

I didn't mean to single you out, I don't particularly like anyone making comments in that way.

As it happens, further up the thread, I have in fact defended and/or criticised the motions. I was particularly harsh about one or two aswell, but I still see why they were put forward and everything needs to be argued out. Nothing would ever be put on notice if people expected that reception. Some ideas might seem stupid, but they're close to the hearts of the people who put them forward or at least mean enough for them to make that effort. If you're on a sports council then you should know that getting ideas shot down is harsh enough and people need to do it diplomatically.

cast_iron

Well forgive me for calling something i think is stupid, stupid.
I've been called alot worse over the years, and have no issue with somebody calling a spade a spade - even when i'm on the wrong end of it.

Vainglory wrote:

But I don't think I ever called them or their views "stupid."

I'm delighted for you.

Jonny Arson

1. i pretty much support, too many posters on campus use whatever opportunity they can to put some girl in a bikini inot the picture, yes sex sells but tacky little clothed images should only be used where appropriate and not for charitable events in aid of breast cancer

2. absolutely, great idea

3. absolutely, the tutorial system has been a an absolute mess since modularisation was introduced, unfortunately there's some tutors who don't have ****ing clue and tutorial attendance is representive of this

4. absolutely ridiculous, BEBO should be banned every PC in this college and not just the library! BEBO is a huge problem, i was in the daedalus last week just needing to print something off and i was queuing for 15 minutes while half the people on the PCs in the room were arsing around on that drivel. Sorry, i never see half the room on my myspace or msn or boards or anything, BEBO is the major problem when so many students need those PCs for college work and it must be singled out as it may hit home to some people. If BEBO isn't banned then those ***** using it should be gassed instead.

gubbie

The_Minister wrote:

Rossport is not an enviornmental campaign, it is a political one.

Here here

Vainglory wrote:

It is both, but that isn't really what the thread is about.

If it were an environmental campaign, then they'd be supporting not using our natural resources. Theres as much danger it being out at sea as there is going through Mayo-only difference is it would affect water life and not our land if a spillage happened out at sea, but then again who cares about that-we'll just melt some more ice caps

panda100 wrote:

I go to the gym often and eat healthily but my thighs still move when I walk and I dont have a six pack stomach

You're perfect love

Byrno

Can I just make the point on the Bebo thing that if you see someone on Bebo or the ilk in the library, Daedalus or anywhere else you are perfectly within your rights to ask them to get off the computer if they are not doing any actual college work. I think most people would say fine and get up and leave.

The reasons I proposed the motions... well I'm tired so I'll copy and paste from ucdsu.net :

The reasons I'm proposing the time limit motion are to ensure that motions get acted on and due to the transitory nature of both council and the student body as a whole.

There is no point in having a motion sitting around after being passed without being acted on. I think we can all agree on that. At the minute there is no time limit on the validity of motions and I feel that this would rectify the situation. Sure even USI have a five year limit on the validity of motions.

I decided on the three year limit as situations change a lot in three years. Both the student populace changes and the situation regarding motions. For instance I would hope that the situation regarding the Corrib Gas Field will have changed by then. Then there is no point in us having a motion there regarding an outdated situation. If it hasn't changed well councillors are free to repropose the motion. TCDSU have this three year limit for, I would assume, the same reasons.

The reason I'm bringing the 9a) motion is that for a long time now I've been p***ed off with people proposing 9a)'s after a proposer has spoken. Sometimes it has been innocent, sometimes tactical by supporters of the motion. It leaves an imbalance in the speakers and leaves the debate imbalanced too. This would rectify that situation and allow a balanced debate to take place.

pretty*monster

humbert wrote:

If some girl thinks that by starving herself she'll look like that that's a whole different problem.

Yeah... and it's a problem that might be alleviated just a little if there were just a few less posters of super thin models about the place.
But heaven forbid that the union was in the business of minimising the problems of student.

Yes easing disorders are probably caused for by low self esteem, depression and personality disorders for the most part. But unrealistic images of skinniness exacerbate the problem, trigger behaviour, and disrupt recovery.

If using realistic images in posters was going to have major financial implications for the union or cause some kind of other hassle I could understand objection to the motion, but it isn't, so what's the problem.

Yeah, maybe sex sells, it probably does. But it's not like nothing else sells. Plenty of posters on campus (including union ones) are inventive and well designed with nary a trace of sex, (super thin or otherwise) to be seen.

Sangre

Good thing I've left UCD. Think it would be overload with me *and* the posters.

Being beautiful is a cruel mistress sometimes. I'm sorry for all those whose self-esteem I've shattered with a flick of my locks and a dash of my smile.

Sangre

pretty*monster wrote:

But heaven forbid that the union was in the business of minimising the problems of student.

Yes, and banning cigarettes and alcohol and alcoholic events would no doubt beneft the general health of students.

Most people went to college so people would stop telling them what to do, something that the SU always gleefully ignores.

pretty*monster

Sangre wrote:

Yes, and banning cigarettes and alcohol and alcoholic events would no doubt beneft the general health of students.

Most people went to college so people would stop telling them what to do, something that the SU always gleefully ignores.

The motion refers to union publications only, it doesn't tell anyone other than the union designer and various union heads who want a poster for this that or the other what to do.

Anyone else postering on ucd is free to do what they like within the bounds of ucd's dignity and respect policy.

If B&L or whoever want to put unhealthy models on their posters then they can. I don't agree with it, but I'm not member and it's not on my concsience. But when it comes to a student union poster I am part of a collective responsibilty (or some less wanky phrase I might be able to think of were it not past my bedtime) for its publication by virtue of being a member of the union (never mind a class rep).

If I owned my own company I wouldn't have to use images I disagreed with, so as part 'owner' of ucdsu, why can't I, if I can get 50% plus one of those part owners (or in this case, their representitives) to agree with me why can't I (or... we) decide what images we will and will not use?

I don't see how this interferes with anyone's personal freedoms.

cast_iron

pretty*monster wrote:

I don't see how this interferes with anyone's personal freedoms.

It doesn't.

But simply put, i think it's stupid.

It's all about where you draw the line. Draw up a motion encouraging UCD students to boycott going to a swimming pool or beach. They will see the same thing there.
Of course that would be equally as stupid, but it's not too far removed from the proposed motion (in practice), and in principle it's pretty much the same thing!

Blush_01

1: It's a pretty serious issue. I mean, all those fatties on posters are causing obesity too. I know that's how I got to be the way I am. Damn those evil fat people. I say down with humans, bad cess to them all. In all seriousness though, eating disorders are more usually a control issue than a general visually-stimulated viewpoint. People suffering from anorexia have a skewed body image - it's their own body they're unable to visually reconcile with reality, not every individual body in the world. People don't get to be 5 stone in weight solely because they imagine Victoria Beckham and Lindsay Lohan live by licking carrot sticks for nourishment, they become ill because of their own incompatibility with realistic body images and (more often than not) a deep-seated desire to control an aspect of their lives when other elements of their environment leave them with a feeling of chaos. It works on both ends of the weight scale too. Neither a very overweight nor a very underweight person see their body as the general populace see it. Getting rid of visual images of human beings will probably have next to no impact on these root and, dare I say it, BIGGER issues, it'll just push them further into the dark. It's like putting your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes really tightly and singing "la la la, I can't hear you" repeatedly at the top of your voice, simply because you've taken away the hot girls (and guys) advertising things.

2: I don't quite get how it's going to work, but hey, I say, well that's ok... ('cos I'll see you very soon I know...) If it helps, I'm all for it.

3: In addition to the regulation of tutors, there should be proper support systems put in place for said tutors. Tutors are not the "baddies" here, and quite often their own research work suffers as a result of putting too much effort into preparing for tutorials. I never had a tutor who did less work before a tutorial than I did - I'm sure most people are the same. Maybe we could mandate students to work a bit more too? (Sorry, but fair is fair.)

4: Be brazen. People may not like you for it, but if you walk into a computer lab and people are doing nothing but mess around when you urgently need to print off an essay, then loudly ask that all those students not using the computer for academic purposes please give their computer up to those waiting to do academic work. People in Daed can always pop over to Arts to use the rows of computers near services for recreational purposes. I'd imagine those computers have taken some of the pressure off the LGs too. That said, it can't be hard to put a temporary firewall up in order to limit access to recreational sites within peak hours. But then again, I'm red in the face from suggesting that. :mad:

pretty*monster

cast_iron wrote:

It doesn't.

But simply put, i think it's stupid.

It's all about where you draw the line. Draw up a motion encouraging UCD students to boycott going to a swimming pool or beach. They will see the same thing there.
Of course that would be equally as stupid, but it's not too far removed from the proposed motion (in practice), and in principle it's pretty much the same thing!

Ok... but you do see that there's a differece between student's choosing to go to the beach/swimming pool which they A) already have a free choice of doing or not doing and B)will see a multiplicity of shapes and sizes (and colours) with no one being held up as an idealised example since it's just people milling around doing their thing.
And saying ok, we as an organisation of 20,000 some students of all shapes and sizes, some of whom have eating disoders, issues with their appearance, etc will chose not to uphold idealised images of the perfect body which students cannot avoid.

It's really not the same thing in principle.

pretty*monster

Blush_01 wrote:

People don't get to be 5 stone in weight solely because they imagine Victoria Beckham and Lindsay Lohan live by licking carrot sticks for nourishment, they become ill because of their own incompatibility with realistic body images and (more often than not) a deep-seated desire to control an aspect of their lives when other elements of their environment leave them with a feeling of chaos. It works on both ends of the weight scale too. Neither a very overweight nor a very underweight person see their body as the general populace see it. Getting rid of visual images of human beings will probably have next to no impact on these root and, dare I say it, BIGGER issues, it'll just push them further into the dark. It's like putting your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes really tightly and singing "la la la, I can't hear you" repeatedly at the top of your voice, simply because you've taken away the hot girls (and guys) advertising things.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that these images cause eating disorders or that their removal will cure them.
But they do, to quote myself, "exacerbate the problem, trigger behaviour, and disrupt recovery" maybe not in all cases but certainly in some and since there is no intrinsic harm (as I can see it) in not using such images I really don't understand why people are objecting.

Blush_01

pretty*monster wrote:

Ok... but you do see that there's a differece between student's choosing to go to the beach/swimming pool which they A) already have a free choice of doing or not doing and B)will see a multiplicity of shapes and sizes (and colours) with no one being held up as an idealised example since it's just people milling around doing their thing.
And saying ok, we as an organisation of 20,000 some students of all shapes and sizes, some of whom have eating disoders, issues with their appearance, etc will chose not to uphold idealised images of the perfect body which students cannot avoid.

It's really not the same thing in principle.

Can I just ask, when did you get over your eating disorder? Or Panda, or AngelOfFire? I'm actually curious. Because you all seem to have such a clued-in idea of what eating disorders are like. You can't avoid what appears to be perfection wherever you go. We actually seek our own versions of perfection out - be it the perfect mate, perfect accessory, perfect item of clothing, perfect course, perfect book (I'm currently trawling e-bay in an attempt to get the perfect perfume!) - we all strive for relative perfection, in our own way. Those people on the posters are doing their job. They're employed because people want that ideal - the like the image, they like what it implies, and most of all, it represents what they're striving for. Funnily enough, they'd strive for it even if there was no visual representation of it in the media, because they'd still have their idea of perfection, against which they would most likely measure themselves. Does that make any sense to you?

pretty*monster

Blush_01 wrote:

Can I just ask, when did you get over your eating disorder?

I'm a recovering bulimic I don't think I could honestly say that I'm 'over it'.
I don't think it has anything to do with this thread.
I didn't attack you, only your argument, I'd appreciate if you did likewise.

Blush_01

Gubbie - yer fantasmic! (Sorry, just spotted that now!)

Pretty, so are plenty of other people - many of whom who have too much going on in their own heads to give a toss who's in an SU publication, or on a poster. Can you honestly tell me that those images impact on you so totally when you openly abhor how they represent women in what's portrayed as a vitriolic feminist manner? This is basically SASS or SASAS or whatever it was all over again, just with different people crusading - why not be honest about it?

With regard to my genuine curiosity, I apologise if you (or indeed if Panda, AngelOfFire or anyone else, for that matter) misunderstood it to be a personal attack. It wasn't meant as such, rather as inquisitiveness.

elmyra

Blush_01 wrote:

(I'm currently trawling e-bay in an attempt to get the perfect perfume!)

Wow, does your laptop have scratch and sniff?

OT: Look, I can see that there's no harm in not having beautiful types on su lit, I just don't see the benefit of pursuing making it mandatory not to have them. Blush is making sense, as have others. Get to understand eating disorders, because I really wasn't speaking from an uninformed point of view, and some of you appear to be. It honestly seems like eating disorders are being used as a new vehicle to achieve the same result of regulating SU posters and the like in the same way the last motion tried to, and that, quite frankly, isn't cool.

pretty*monster

Blush_01 wrote:

Pretty, so are plenty of other people

Yes, I am aware of that fact, You brought it up. I didn't.

Blush_01 wrote:

- many of whom who have too much going on in their own heads to give a toss who's in an SU publication, or on a poster.

Blush_01 wrote:

Can you honestly tell me that those images impact on you so totally when you openly abhor how they represent women in what's portrayed as a vitriolic feminist manner?

... er... what?
I'm not terribly happy with the students union using it's resources to promoating unrealistic images. Are you saying that because I am a also feminist I am barred from having an opinion on this? There are far more pressing issues for feminism than this one. I commented on this thread mainly because I was suprised at the number of people defending their right to put sexy ladies or whatever on posters as if that right is more important than the possibility that not having these images might help some few people in some small way.
I don't think I've displayed any vitriol.

Blush_01 wrote:

This is basically SASS or SASAS or whatever it was all over again, just with different people crusading - why not be honest about it?

I havn't the faintest idea what SASS or SASAS is, if you enlighten me I can perhaps be honest about it.

elmyra

pretty*monster wrote:

I havn't the faintest idea what SASS or SASAS is, if you enlighten me I can perhaps be honest about it.

Students Against Sexism in Society at a google (as opposed to at a guess ).