SU Coca Cola Policy Referendum

BertrandMeyer

I may need a rethink of this whole thing. This is reasonable, and everyone ought to be pedantic about it... I'd say just coz there's no room to accommodate everyone. That isn't the case here - we could easily continue to stock Coke and drinking it happily.

It is pretty difficult to encourage people to do (not buy Coke) and I said in that second post Señor Juárez is absolutely right here, voting one way restricts freedom, the other officers etc. on campus will instead go to the Coke machines in the shop across the road.

tolosenc

supersheep wrote: »

I wonder, though. If the boycott is overturned, do we get to have another go in two years time?

If someone drafts a motion at congress and there is at least 2/3 support for that motion, then yes. It'd technically be a different thing, but yes. Could even happen next year. Given that 2/3 of the current class reps et al approved the motion to get rid of it, it's very unlikely.

Ad hominem attack... :rolleyes:

johnners2k8

obl wrote: »

Given that 2/3 of the current class reps et al approved the motion to get rid of it, it's very unlikely.

Just for the sake of clarification this is incorrect. It was turned down at council and instead the people who wished to see it overturned collected signatures.

supersheep

obl wrote: »

If someone drafts a motion at congress and there is at least 2/3 support for that motion, then yes. It'd technically be a different thing, but yes. Could even happen next year. Given that 2/3 of the current class reps et al approved the motion to get rid of it, it's very unlikely.

Ad hominem attack... :rolleyes:

Saying that I'd love to have the power to completely ban people from drinking Coke sounds like an attack on me and not my argument. As for the question about the boycott, that one was a joke about the two year cycle of referenda on this issue.

BertrandMeyer

The student's union's job, I wouldn’t, tbh, be it having it cheaper in the financial position, is essentially an idealogy, perfectly, to veto power over 10% of this. Every single person is simply mandated them to have vote due respect, that's democracy.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

supersheep wrote: »

As for the student union's job, I was always of the opinion that the student union's job was to do what we - the students - tell it to...

Do you really believe that though? I don't agree that ought to be its purpose, and I'm not convinced you really do either. You think the purpose of the SU is to do whatever a majority of voters tell it, regardless of consequences, regardless of whomever it may harm or alienate? Maybe, as written, that is the purpose of the SU but I certainly don't think that ought to be the case.

supersheep wrote: »

Don't use an ideological word to describe something that isn't of that ideology - this campaign is not socialist. You can fully support the capitalist system and still believe that Coke's actions are deserving of a boycott.

Sure, but most anti-choice people here are socialists, or are at least socialist sympathisers, moping on about the "right to join trade unions" and "anti-competitive practices".

D.R cowboy

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

Do you really believe that though? I don't agree that ought to be its purpose, and I'm not convinced you really do either. You think the purpose of the SU is to do whatever a majority of voters tell it, regardless of consequences, regardless of whomever it may harm or alienate? Maybe, as written, that is the purpose of the SU but I certainly don't think that ought to be the case.




Sure, but most anti-choice people here are socialists, or are at least socialist sympathisers, moping on about the "right to join trade unions" and "anti-competitive practices".

Its just proves how big of nobs go to TCD if they have to ban coke
WTF? " My father said I shall not drink coke as its for common people"

johnl

BertrandMeyer wrote: »

The student's union's job, I wouldn’t, tbh, be it having it cheaper in the financial position, is essentially an idealogy, perfectly, to veto power over 10% of this. Every single person is simply mandated them to have vote due respect, that's democracy.

I was sure the veto was more than 10%...
Anyway, I don't really agree with your first point, it doesn't make financial sense to follow an ideology to its logical conclusion.
I can't argue with your second point though, if we believe in democracy, then we have to accept it even when we don't like it :P

BertrandMeyer

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

Sure, but most anti-choice people here are socialists, or are at least socialist sympathisers, moping on about the "right to join trade unions" and "anti-competitive practices".

You can fully support the capitalist system and still think it's damn ridiculous to believe in and which is based on allegations which are still, five years later, completely unproven. Reading a little about socialism that isn't of that anti-socialist ire at apathetic students, whatever side of the vending machine, and no queue, doesn't mean that there's no demand for it.

supersheep

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

Do you really believe that though? I don't agree that ought to be its purpose, and I'm not convinced you really do either. You think the purpose of the SU is to do whatever a majority of voters tell it, regardless of consequences, regardless of whomever it may harm or alienate? Maybe, as written, that is the purpose of the SU but I certainly don't think that ought to be the case.

Sure, but most anti-choice people here are socialists, or are at least socialist sympathisers, moping on about the "right to join trade unions" and "anti-competitive practices".

You mean the right to join a trade union enshrined in the Irish Constitution and the UN Declaration on Human Rights? Bastions of socialism, those documents.

Why does it matter whether people on the No side are socialists or not anyways? For the record, I don't think this is the case with the majority of the members of the campaign, or even all the people on this thread. The political affiliations of the campaign teams are irrelevant - what's important is the issue. Feel free to declare yours though - I already have.

And yes I do believe that the union's job should be to do what we tell it to. That's the whole point of democracy.

Señor Juárez

johnners2k8 wrote: »

There have been efforts to engage the Students Union over the issue in the past, but they have been largely unresponsive. A (pretty poorly written if I remember correctly) article in the record was the result of the last time it was brought up.

Why don't you write an article then? The record is a total rag, and they will also print anything you submit to them. Especially on the coke issue.

johnners2k8 wrote: »

I strongly disagree with the abortion analogy in that the Students Union is not a country and is not setting laws; the difficulty in crossing the street to Spar is not comparable to the difficulty in traveling to England, not to mention the emotional turmoil that might be forced upon these women. But this is an entirely other issue.

ZWEI is correct, scale here is the only difference. Perhaps some less able students would like to purchase coke in the SU shop? It's a bit mean to make Coke the advantage of the able bodied, do you not think? Getting across Westland Row during rush hour on crutches or in a wheelchair can't be very pleasant.

johnners2k8 wrote: »

Anyway ignoring another snide gibe

Please stop making out that I am "out to get you". These comments are far more personal attack than anything I have said, just because I am disagreeing with your campaign doesn't give you the right to shift focus in this way.

supersheep wrote: »

Nice ad hominem attack there. I don't want to ban people from drinking Coke in the sense I described. I want the SU to boycott Coke products.

As has been said again and again, the SU can boycott Coke products without banning the sale from its shops[/quote]

supersheep wrote: »

As for the student union's job, I was always of the opinion that the student union's job was to do what we - the students - tell it to, not to function as a body looking out for 'our best interests.' I can decide my own best interests, thankyouverymuch. And if the members of the SU decide that it's in their best interests that we end the Union boycott on stocking Coke products in our shops, then that's their choice. I'll be disappointed of course, but hey, that's democracy.

This bit doesn't make a huge amount of sense... you're saying that the SU isn't a body to look out for our best interests? Then you say it's okay for it to do so (which is what upholding the ban does, it blankets the opinion of a majority onto all, when this is not the only option).

supersheep wrote: »

If SU officers do not agree with the policy of the union, then why are they running for office? The SU has mandated them to act on this, and if they disagree they should, while the policy is still in effect, follow that mandate. Otherwise they're not doing what they're supposed to do, as officers of the union.

The SU officers may decide to run in order to change the policies... isn't that the entire point of electing representatives of any body? Indeed, I believe at least one of the officers is involved in the YES campaign. They have every right to do so, and every right to run for office with this intention. You'd also be hard pressed to find 5 willing candidates who agree completely with every mandate in place.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Just curious about the prevailing opinion here...

Just vote please, keep discussion to the other thread.

Denerick

What was the turnout at the last referendum? I might take the bullet this year and vote. Too much circular arguing going on here from the pro Ban side. The simple fact of the matter is that they are perfectly free not to drink coke and free to run their own private boycott on the issue. I might have even supported them out of a sort of libertarian socialist solidarity buzz. But when those pack of self righteous hounds think they can forcibly prevent me buying something, for whatever unproven rhetorical reason, I will go out of my way to purchase the said item.

Ron DMC

That poll is a little one sided, don't you think.
There are a lot of reasons people would vote no, and it's not just because they believe their opinion should be forced on others.

Boston

Would you ever cop on.

Awayindahils

That poll is awfully one sided.

Just because you don't like the SU, or it would appear democracy, does not mean that other people agree.

Imagine people disagreeing with your opinion and finding the options that you provide limiting, must be shocking when yourself acting in the fashion that you detest in others.

Boston

Its more the issue of someone starting up multiple threads on the same useless SU bull I take umbrage with

supersheep

Señor Juárez wrote: »

As has been said again and again, the SU can boycott Coke products without banning the sale from its shops

No, it can't. If the SU sells Coke products in its shops, it's not boycotting Coke, it's buying from Coke. Individual members could then choose to boycott Coke, but what would be the point? Boycotts only work as COLLECTIVE action, not individual action.

Señor Juárez wrote: »

This bit doesn't make a huge amount of sense... you're saying that the SU isn't a body to look out for our best interests? Then you say it's okay for it to do so (which is what upholding the ban does, it blankets the opinion of a majority onto all, when this is not the only option).

Sorry, some poor wording there. I'm saying that the SU shouldn't be deciding what our best interests are and then implementing policy on them; we, the individual members of the SU, should decide what our best interests are, and if enough people support them, then we should get the SU to implement them as policy.
In other words, the SU does what we tell it, not the other way around.

Señor Juárez wrote: »

The SU officers may decide to run in order to change the policies... isn't that the entire point of electing representatives of any body? Indeed, I believe at least one of the officers is involved in the YES campaign. They have every right to do so, and every right to run for office with this intention. You'd also be hard pressed to find 5 willing candidates who agree completely with every mandate in place.

I'd have thought that one of the elected officers of the SU being involved in a referendum campaign is against their policy of balanced representation of the sides. And the entire point of electing representatives is so they do what we tell them, I always thought. (Well, at least it's meant to be, but it never works out like that...)

Denerick wrote: »

But when those pack of self righteous hounds think they can forcibly prevent me buying something, for whatever unproven rhetorical reason, I will go out of my way to purchase the said item.

We're not preventing you from buying anything. We're not even preventing you from buying Coke on campus. We just want the SU to not sell Coke products.

Denerick

We just want the SU to not sell Coke products.

Who gives you that right?

Boston

Denerick wrote: »

Who gives you that right?

We are the student union, if anyone has the right, we have the right.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Boston wrote: »

Its more the issue of someone starting up multiple threads on the same useless SU bull I take umbrage with

Don't be foolish. I made a poll on an upcoming SU referendum because one didn't already exist. Then the mods came and did what I did not have the power to do, integrate with an existing thread. A few hours after it came into being. Are you actually that foolish that something as trivial as that is something you would take umbrage with? Or is it just you trying to further perpetuate some stupid and contrived "look at me, I'm Boston! I'm grumpy online hohoho!!" online personality?

Awayindahils wrote: »

That poll is awfully one sided.

Just because you don't like the SU, or it would appear democracy, does not mean that other people agree.

Do not accuse me of not liking democracy, or mislead other people into thinking that I dislike it. Throughout this entire thread you will find plenty of places where I have defended democracy. Rather, I find the pro-ban campaign to be abusers of democracy, as I do not believe that voting to remove the rights of a minority could be considered taking part in a fair democratic system. It is the fault of the SU that it does not seem to have some strong constitution to prevent these abuses from occurring, nevertheless it is responsibility as freedom loving people (hopefully) to conduct ourselves in a manner that does not compromise the ideals of the democratic process by turning it into a tyrannical system where the majority can impose their wills on others.

Denerick

Boston wrote: »

We are the student union, if anyone has the right, we have the right.

You do not have the right to enfore a boycott. Since when have boycotts ceased being a voluntary activity amongst members? Why do people think they are so righteous they can force these trivial issues on others?

Besides, the SU is a load of balls.

Boston

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

Don't be foolish. I made a poll on an upcoming SU referendum because one didn't already exist. Then the mods came and did what I did not have the power to do, integrate with an existing thread. A few hours after it came into being. Are you actually that foolish that something as trivial as that is something you would take umbrage with? Or is it just you trying to further perpetuate some stupid and contrived "look at me, I'm Boston! I'm grumpy online hohoho!!" online personality?

This isn't the SU forum. You claim to dislike the SU and have little time for this referendum, but you started up yet another SU related thread. Some people( who genuinely don't care), don't like having to wade through several SU threads. Additionally, you've been around long enough to know not to start up multiple threads on the same topic. If you have a problem with that take it up with the moderators.

Denerick wrote: »

You do not have the right to enforce a boycott. Since when have boycotts ceased being a voluntary activity amongst members? Why do people think they are so righteous they can force these trivial issues on others?

Besides, the SU is a load of balls.

It's not a boycott, it's a ban.

BertrandMeyer

Boston wrote: »

We are the student union, if anyone has the right, we have the right.

With the caveat that those restrictions do not sell it and encourage members to publicise the boycott if it weren't enforced, so you use the crappy SU electoral system to enforce it. That's not democracy, that's just blanket moralising.

Señor Juárez

Boston wrote: »

This isn't the SU forum. You claim to dislike the SU and have little time for this referendum, but you started up yet another SU related thread. Some people( who genuinely don't care), don't like having to wade through several SU threads. Additionally, you've been around long enough to know not to start up multiple threads on the same topic. If you have a problem with that take it up with the moderators.

As he CLEARLY stated. There is no way to transform an existing topic into a poll, if you are a normal user. I indeed feel that a poll regarding this topic is interesting. He was also very explicit in his post that it should just be regarded as a poll, and discussion should be kept in the other thread. If he could have locked the topic (or indeed integrated it) himself, I expect he would have.

You're being antagonistic for the sake of it. Stop backseat modding.

Ron DMC

Denerick wrote: »

You do not have the right to enfore a boycott. Since when have boycotts ceased being a voluntary activity amongst members? Why do people think they are so righteous they can force these trivial issues on others?

Besides, the SU is a load of balls.

Well, actually the SU run the shops, so they can choose what they want to sell.
For example if the management of Dunnes Stores decide that they don't want to sell oranges from South Africa for whatever reason, then they can stop stocking them, no matter how much the customer might want them, it's up to the management to decide what they sell (bit of a backwards example historically but you know what I mean).
In our example, however, the 'management' are the members of the SU (i.e. the people who get to vote in this referendum).
If students decide that they really want to buy premier league stickers in the shop then they can (if they choose to) stock them. However, if someone disagrees with the sale of premier league stickers because they think that students would be better off collecting baseball cards, then they can collect signatures to ban the sale of stickers from the shops.
As the union is controlled by its members, a referendum will decide what is and isn't sold in the shop (obviously only in extreme circumstances though, the shop can decide to sell a new brand of bottled water if they think it's profitable without have to go to exec/council/referendum).
But if you think that cigarettes are bad for the health of students, you could introduce a referendum to ban the sale of them in the shops (probably not a good idea though as they bring in a lot of revenue).

Bottom line is, the union controls the shop, and the students control the union. Whatever the referendum (and previous referendums) decides HAS TO be enforced until a time that a new referendum is passed that changes that.

People may not like that they cannot buy coke, but that's essentially why they can't.

supersheep

Denerick wrote: »

You do not have the right to enfore a boycott. Since when have boycotts ceased being a voluntary activity amongst members? Why do people think they are so righteous they can force these trivial issues on others?

Besides, the SU is a load of balls.

The members of the SU have decided, in three referenda so far, to mandate the SU to boycott Coke products AS A UNION. What this means is that the SU does not purchase Coke products for sale in their shops. It does not mean that SU members cannot buy Coke. The SU is boycotting Coke, not SU members. A no vote in the referendum means that the members of the SU will continue to mandate the SU to boycott Coke products.

The SU has no right to enforce a ban on members drinking Coke. It does have the right, if mandated by its members, to boycott Coke.

Ron DMC

supersheep wrote: »

The members of the SU have decided, in three referenda so far, to mandate the SU to boycott Coke products AS A UNION. What this means is that the SU does not purchase Coke products for sale in their shops. It does not mean that SU members cannot buy Coke. The SU is boycotting Coke, not SU members. A no vote in the referendum means that the members of the SU will continue to mandate the SU to boycott Coke products.

The SU has no right to enforce a ban on members drinking Coke. It does have the right, if mandated by its members, to boycott Coke.

Exactly.

Wish I could have summed it up as succinctly.

Though, in all fairness, very few (if any) of the same students that voted on it the last time are still in college, so it's worth seeing if they still want the boycott enforced.

BertrandMeyer

I fundamentally differ... (see below) I don't disagree that officers of the country falls outside the jurisdiction of the higher up people in the JCR would be a longer queue in the best job. I dont see how having it available in the hamilton that never has a queue(unlike the shop) and the SU run shops, or be drawn in to by the fact that I know firms have acted in unethical ways before and I’m bloody well sure firms will do it in the JCR would be if they had lower prices than the vending machine, and no queue, doesn't mean that there's no room to accommodate everyone. tbh.

Boston

Is it just me or did that make absolutely no sense?

mathew

Boston wrote: »

Is it just me are did that make absolutely no sense?

Not just you anyway..

BertrandMeyer wrote: »

I fundamentally differ... (see below) I don't disagree that officers of the country falls outside the jurisdiction of the higher up people in the JCR would be a longer queue in the best job. I dont see how having it available in the hamilton that never has a queue(unlike the shop) and the SU run shops, or be drawn in to by the fact that I know firms have acted in unethical ways before and I’m bloody well sure firms will do it in the JCR would be if they had lower prices than the vending machine, and no queue, doesn't mean that there's no room to accommodate everyone. tbh.

Care to try again?

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Boston wrote: »

You claim to dislike the SU and have little time for this referendum.

Well Señor Juárez refuted the rest of your nonsense so I'll just say that I have plenty of time for this referendum, which is why I post so much on this thread. Durrrr

Abimelech

This is TCDSU hackery, aptly described:

But when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed; and the children of Israel sent a present by him unto Eglon the king of Moab.
And Ehud made him a sword which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he girded it under his raiment upon his right thigh.
And he offered the present unto Eglon king of Moab--now Eglon was a very fat man.
And when he had made an end of offering the present, he sent away the people that bore the present.
But he himself turned back from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said: 'I have a secret errand unto thee, O king.' And he said: 'Keep silence.' And all that stood by him went out from him.
And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting by himself alone in his cool upper chamber. And Ehud said: 'I have a message from God unto thee.' And he arose out of his seat.
And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly.
And the shaft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out.

Judges 3: 15-22

Boston

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

Well Señor Juárez refuted the rest of your nonsense so I'll just say that I have plenty of time for this referendum, which is why I post so much on this thread. Durrrr

Be a good chap, keep your SU rantings to just one thread and we'll all get along just fine.

Awayindahils

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

Don't be foolish. I made a poll on an upcoming SU referendum because one didn't already exist. Then the mods came and did what I did not have the power to do, integrate with an existing thread. A few hours after it came into being. Are you actually that foolish that something as trivial as that is something you would take umbrage with? Or is it just you trying to further perpetuate some stupid and contrived "look at me, I'm Boston! I'm grumpy online hohoho!!" online personality?

Zwei Vier Zwei,

The warnings were clear in the posts by both PFM and myself.

You are banned for the duration of the campiagn.

Awayindahils

Señor Juárez

Abimelech wrote: »

This is TCDSU hackery, aptly described:

But when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed; and the children of Israel sent a present by him unto Eglon the king of Moab.
And Ehud made him a sword which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he girded it under his raiment upon his right thigh.
And he offered the present unto Eglon king of Moab--now Eglon was a very fat man.
And when he had made an end of offering the present, he sent away the people that bore the present.
But he himself turned back from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said: 'I have a secret errand unto thee, O king.' And he said: 'Keep silence.' And all that stood by him went out from him.
And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting by himself alone in his cool upper chamber. And Ehud said: 'I have a message from God unto thee.' And he arose out of his seat.
And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly.
And the shaft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out.

Judges 3: 15-22

Should we take this to mean that you say SU hackery consists of talking nonsense wrapped up in fancy language as a distraction?

Also, not to be getting off topic, of course... Polling started today, right? When does it close tomorrow? And when are these verdicts usually announced?

Abimelech

Awayindahils wrote: »

Zwei Vier Zwei,

The warnings were clear in the posts by both PFM and myself.

You are banned for the duration of the campiagn.

Awayindahils

And so the word of the LORD is unto them precept by precept, precept by precept, line by line, line by line; here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scoffers, the ballad-mongers of this people which is in Jerusalem:
Because ye have said: 'We have made a covenant with death, and with the nether-world are we at agreement; when the scouring scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood have we hid ourselves';
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a costly corner-stone of sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste.

Isaiah 28:13-16

'Nuff Said

supersheep

Polling starts tomorrow and runs til Friday I THINK. That's what the weekly SU mail seems to say anyways.

BertrandMeyer

The boycott is never going to use 'democracy' to force this ban. We can all make our own decisions. Whether you accept that or not, Coca-Cola are directly responsible.

Awayindahils

Abimelech wrote: »

And so the word of the LORD is unto them precept by precept, precept by precept, line by line, line by line; here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scoffers, the ballad-mongers of this people which is in Jerusalem:
Because ye have said: 'We have made a covenant with death, and with the nether-world are we at agreement; when the scouring scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood have we hid ourselves';
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a costly corner-stone of sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste.

Isaiah 28:13-16

'Nuff Said

Given that I have no basis in theology I find myself a little lost. I gather I am not the only one.

Please post on topic in a manner than encourages debate.

And I don't have myself confused with God, the ban button is just rather useful in this times of threads.

Epic Tissue

BertrandMeyer wrote: »

Coca-Cola are directly responsible.

Responsible for quenching my thirst:D

johnl

Awayindahils wrote: »

Zwei Vier Zwei,

The warnings were clear in the posts by both PFM and myself.

You are banned for the duration of the campiagn.

Awayindahils

Sounds like anti-Treaty censorship to me!

Denerick

It is an absolute joke that he was banned. Says a lot about the mods here.

johnl

Denerick wrote: »

It is an absolute joke that he was banned. Says a lot about the mods here.

I agree Completely fascist.

They just want to force their pro-ban opinion on all of us.

Señor Juárez

Denerick wrote: »

It is an absolute joke that he was banned. Says a lot about the mods here.

I must say I agree. Why indeed was he banned? The level of what might be called a "personal attack" was no more than that of Boston's posts (sorry Boston).

Ban not because you are annoyed, ban because they are out of line. And I don't really think he was. I accept that it can be easier to be annoyed by something small from someone you already dislike, though. Is there perhaps some kind of history going on here? Who is ZWEI VIER ZWEI, is he even a Trinity student?

BertrandMeyer

johnl wrote: »

I agree Completely fascist.

They just want to force their pro-ban opinion on all of us.

It's absolutely ridiculous. The SU has mandated them to act on this, and if only at the same way for both sides.

For the record, I'm against buying coke. However I think it's damn ridiculous to believe in forcing my opinion on others.

johnl

Señor Juárez wrote: »

Ban not because you are annoyed, ban because they are out of line.

This is so rarely enforced on boards.ie, just as in real life. c.f. British police in the G20 protests!

And I don't really think he was. I accept that it can be easier to be annoyed by something small from someone you already dislike, though. Is there perhaps some kind of history going on here?

That seems kinda likely to me, to be honest. He seemed to be arguing a lot more reasonably than many other people in this thread.

Is he banned from the thread or from the whole forum?!
Talk about a disproportionate response. We have our Ian Tomlinson!

gaeilgeboy

For me, the decision to vote yes or no in this campaign boils ultimately down to one question: "Do you want to be allowed but your choice of products in the SU shops?".

The SU - under both old and new constitutions - is "answerable to its members in referenda through their representatives at Council". If we, the members of TCDSU, don't like part of the SU's policy, it's our democratic right to seek to change it, if we so wish. People have been saying before that the CC issue was voted on before: why bother voting again? If we only rely on what people have voted on before, we can hardly call the SU a democracy. Each batch of new students should be allowed to voice their opinion on any issue in referendum without being shouted down by people who've heard the arguments before.

If a referendum is passed banning any particular product (or brand of products) being sold in the SU shops, the SU is simply forbidding the students from making exercising their choice: to buy, or not to buy. It doesn't matter how easy it is for students to buy the products elsewhere, the principle of the matter is that the SU is not letting students make up their own minds. In any such issue, this choice should always be with the students. I neither condone nor condemn Coca Cola, as I'm ridiculously ignorant of the history of the issue. However, I can only condone that the SU supports students making their own choice on the matter.

I can't see how people can support the SU mandating that all of its members share the views of the people who believe that the boycott on CC is good. With issues like this, the SU shouldn't be involved - international issues are far too contentious. CC products should be provided, and let the onus rest on the No side of the campaign to inform the students why CC products shouldn't be bought.

Boston

Señor Juárez wrote: »

I must say I agree. Why indeed was he banned? The level of what might be called a "personal attack" was no more than that of Boston's posts (sorry Boston).

Ban not because you are annoyed, ban because they are out of line. And I don't really think he was. I accept that it can be easier to be annoyed by something small from someone you already dislike, though. Is there perhaps some kind of history going on here? Who is ZWEI VIER ZWEI, is he even a Trinity student?

If you have a problem with a mod decision, you know where to take it.

Fad

Denerick wrote: »

It is an absolute joke that he was banned. Says a lot about the mods here.

There are a multitude of other message boards on the internet.

Unhappy? Find another one.