Censorship of ULSU discussions

reunion

MrsStuffings wrote: »

I'm not attacking Kelly, merely giving my opinion on the manner in which she is behaving. and yes, I do think that her behaviour is being snooty and cuntish. Putting roadblocks in the way so nobody can gain access to the minutes of the meetings, please don't pretend that's anything other than being a spiteful little so and so just because she feels aggrieved/annoyed at certain people. (or else she has something to hide)

It may sound nasty, but she hardly thinks this behaviour is going to get her plaudits and platitudes ?

Your behaviour isn't exactly the shining example to follow...

Actually it was the board that put those roadblocks in. Kelly wanted to give out the minutes (judging from her email) but the board decided against it.

From those emails and others, the board members seem to act independently of each other which is extremely unprofessional.

I do feel this entire situation could have been handled better by ULFM and a lot of anger is due to their unprofessional and immature behaviour.

Students have followed the constitution but the ULFM board haven't. They changed it (and then scrapped it) and have been becoming more secretive and exclusive with each passing day. They haven't represented students properly and the controversy this has created should highlight this.

As a student i actually feel alienated and don't ever want to invest time in ULFM due to the actions of the board and my representative in office. I currently would vote for a communications officer who wished to scrap ulfm.

I some people would like an apology from the board for their disgraceful behaviour in the last few weeks.

wnolan1992

MrsStuffings wrote: »

I'm not attacking Kelly, merely giving my opinion on the manner in which she is behaving. and yes, I do think that her behaviour is being snooty and cuntish. Putting roadblocks in the way so nobody can gain access to the minutes of the meetings, please don't pretend that's anything other than being a spiteful little so and so just because she feels aggrieved/annoyed at certain people. (or else she has something to hide)

You could phrase your displeasure better, calling her behaviour "cuntish" will inevitably cause a backlash, which will only cause the thread to descend into the same utter bullsh*t that happened in the last ULFM thread. (Unless that's what you want? Which I assume you don't.)

I'd like to know what people suspect they're hiding? What could they possibly be hiding from us in the high powered board meeting that will drastically effect the daily lives of us poor students?

I'd imagine that all that get's discussed in the board meetings is plans for competitions, how badly all involved in ULFM want to throw the current PC off the highest roof and other stuff related to the day to day running and development of the station.

There's a procedure in place to get the minutes. Has anybody followed it and been refused? We can argue all night about whether it's a reasonable process or not. If, after following the procedure set out, she still refuses to give the minutes, then yes, there's a problem.

Beruthiel

MrsStuffings wrote: »

I'm not attacking Kelly, merely giving my opinion on the manner in which she is behaving. and yes, I do think that her behaviour is being snooty and cuntish.

Do NOT come onto this website to abuse someone.
If you have a problem with an individual, go talk to them directly instead of using the internet.

Mods, if you see anything else like the above posted in this forum, please inform me so I can site ban.
Thanks,
B

Peteee

MrsStuffings has been banned for personal abuse.

Ginge Young

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I'd imagine that all that get's discussed in the board meetings is plans for competitions, how badly all involved in ULFM want to throw the current PC off the highest roof and other stuff related to the day to day running and development of the station.

Then explain to me why they can't be posted online?

People have requested via the old methods (which keep changing), and inevitably leaves it up to the board to deny anyone they want. There isn't even a process by which to appeal.

The point is I can get minutes to what I would call much more serious issues and meetings by a much easier process, yet we have to jump through this many hoops for ULFM?

I never thought I would find myself saying this, but it's either:

1: A power trip.
2: To one up certain posters on boards again.
3: They are hiding something.

I hope I'm wrong, but as you said yourself what can they be talking about that such a system is put in place, in which a student has to PAY for minutes of their radio station board of directors meetings.

wnolan1992

Ginge Young wrote: »

Then explain to me why they can't be posted online?

People have requested via the old methods (which keep changing), and inevitably leaves it up to the board to deny anyone they want. There isn't even a process by which to appeal.

The point is I can get minutes to what I would call much more serious issues and meetings by a much easier process, yet we have to jump through this many hoops for ULFM?

I never thought I would find myself saying this, but it's either:

1: A power trip.
2: To one up certain posters on boards again.
3: They are hiding something.

I hope I'm wrong, but as you said yourself what can they be talking about that such a system is put in place, in which a student has to PAY for minutes of their radio station board of directors meetings.

Probably 2 to be honest considering the amount of sh/te that's been posted on this forum over the past few weeks.

My point still stands though, jump through the hoops if you really care that deeply about the minutes, then you've every right to complain.

Fo0r what it's worth, the procedure is a bit OTT in my opinion, but I don't really envisage myself ever wanting to use it so meh.

I have my own views about why the requests under the old method were rejected, but posting them here would open a can of worms.

Ginge Young

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Probably 2 to be honest considering the amount of sh/te that's been posted on this forum over the past few weeks.

My point still stands though, jump through the hoops if you really care that deeply about the minutes, then you've every right to complain.

Fo0r what it's worth, the procedure is a bit OTT in my opinion, but I don't really envisage myself ever wanting to use it so meh.

I have my own views about why the requests under the old method were rejected, but posting them here would open a can of worms.

Very very very true. The reason however why I am worked up over it (and a request will probably be made for the minutes to just prove a point) is that these people serve the students, that is what they are there for. Kelly and each and every person who volunteered to be on the Board.

Putting in procedures to +1 anyone of the student body (if that is in fact why they were put in, maybe it wasn't, but taking that it could be) is a joke and mockery and makes the SU look terrible to the minority audience that uses boards. Yes, it is a minority, but does that really matter?

John_Smith123

Haters gonna hate

edanto

Wow. What a train wreck. Saw this on the main page, and the word 'censorship' got me interested in the thread.

What a total mess. What the hell is going to be in the minutes anyways, it will just be a few lines if you're lucky saying what decisions were made.

Makes me very glad I didn't get involved in student politics, the few union meetings I went to (not at UL) were mainly filled with contrary people bickering about this type of thing.

I can tell there's a legitimate gripe, but posting details on the busiest discussion forum in the country is possibly the worst way to try and solve a conflict.

Ginge Young

Haters may hate, but just to let you know a lot of the "haters" here are people who when motivated (it doesn't take much) can get stuff done and get stuff heard.

Jester252

Ginge Young wrote: »

Haters may hate, but just to let you know a lot of the "haters" here are people who when motivated (it doesn't take much) can get stuff done and get stuff heard.

Oh Snap

sceptre

MrsStuffings wrote: »

I understand Spectre and Petee are both long gone from UL now

You understand incorrectly.

Actually, given that the opener stated that threads are immediately locked, you understand that one incorrectly too. The most recent thread was locked after a few hours. The previous one stood for a few weeks and was locked after numerous moderator warnings were roundly ignored. Currently on the front page, I notice one thread on "Political allegiance of SU" and one on "ULSU Spar Shop". If threads critical of the SU are being locked immediately, as you say, then we're pretty damned slack about it.

I have a bias against idiocy and against abuse. I'm totally biased against both of those. I'm firmly and repeatedly on the record on that. Other than that, well, I'm disinclined to be biased as there are better things to do with time. There are, unfortunately, plenty of people who are biased against a lack of these things. Some of them post here. That's unfortunate. Happily there are those who aren't.

This came up on my facebook page (well, someone called me a killjoy and was concerned "ABOUT THE LULZ"). Obviously plenty of people aren't worried about the lulz and we're not here for lulz but anyhoo... This is part of the response I gave:

sceptre, elsewhere on the Internet wrote:

There isn't enough criticism of the SU (and I repeatedly said that when I was in the SU) but there's a middle ground between macro-complaining ("the SU does nothing") and micro-complaining ("I hate how messy the X Officer's desk is") and it's that precise middle ground that constitutes useful complaining. I love the middle ground of informed complaining. Those guys are useful.

Calling someone (anyone) "(see you next Tuesday)ish" rather demonstrates the problem faced with reasonable discussions between reasonable people anywhere in society but particularly here. There are plenty of reasonable people here too, thank the cosmos. Those that aren't should really examine their own motivations and behaviour as that sort of idiocy won't be tolerated at any point.

As I've said myself, there's a legitimate gripe. But we still don't tolerate rampant idiocy on this forum.

Oh, on a non-moderator note, I really dislike the use of "haters gonna hate". While it can be true and while the biblical notion of removing the plank from your own eye before examining the speck in the other guy's is quite a good one (lack of public availability of accounts information is unfortunately, well, rampant in the SU building and it shouldn't be so. Though at least the main SU administration accounts (one-third of capitation) are available online, which is a good example that should be followed) and while there are people who will get on a hobbyhorse while most of the world realises that the horse they're on may not really be the problematic one, "haters gonna hate" must have originally been coined by someone who watched too much early-morning My Sweet Sixteen. It's not a get out of jail free for redemption putdown card.

Sid_Justice

moving on from mrsstuffings use of the c word and the frailties of the mods what has kelly got to say on this?

can someone just explain the rational for the cryptic process other than stopping time wasters. she hardly accuses keith young of being a time waster.

John_Smith123

My last post may or may not have been a reference to a post a Ms Dawg previously posted. That's for you to decide.

Tea_Bag

subbing on mobile..

CJKeane

Hello all,

We have met formally over the past couple hours and have decided to remove the procedure to obtain the minutes/agendas from our board meetings and make them freely available on the ULSU website under the ULFM page (see link). We will release future agendas/minutes when they are passed by the development board in this same location. At the moment there are only minutes for two of our meetings as they have not been transcribed on to the computer yet.

We as a board are striving to achieve total transparency within ULFM. We concede that mistakes have been made regarding the dealings through Boards.ie and we will do our best to ensure these mistakes are not repeated. We promise you that, as a group, we are doing our best to achieve the highest standards for our fledgeling radio station.

We would like to thank contributors for their constructive criticism. We are trying to take as much as we can on board but, as we are all students, time constraints affect us all. Please be patient with our young station as we are all learning, and are bound to have our hiccups.

Signed,
Conor Keane
Production Manager ULFM

http://ulsu.ie/officers/communications/ulfm

Sid_Justice

what a victory for the student body. great to see the SU and ULFM finally succumb to the interests of the students. i wlll let mrsstuffings know and thank her for her hard work bring this injustice to an end.

J_E

Sid_Justice wrote: »

what a victory for the student body. great to see the SU and ULFM finally succumb to the interests of the students. i wlll let mrsstuffings know and thank her for her hard work bring this injustice to an end.

Come off it...it was more of a cheap, abusive stab at the members more than hard work to be honest.

Sid_Justice

minutes wrote:

Kelly & Colm tried to stick up the foam with sticky tape

minutes wrote:

Programming: Leah was not present to speak about it

so programming isn't really been looked at that closely

reunion

Conor, that was the best response from any ULFM board of directors so far.

I request that this thread be locked for a few days/a week to avoid pointless posts.

Except for an AGM, I don't think there is any more issues with ULFM (none that boards can productivily sort anyway).

I would like to see the new SU constitution, the one with class reps removed and what not on the ULSU site (the 2009 one is available).

Denners.ie

CJKeane wrote: »

At the moment there are only minutes for two of our meetings as they have not been transcribed on to the computer yet.

It would have been better for Ms. O'Brien to have stated this was the reason she wouldn't disclose the minutes in her e-mail rather than spout some cock-and-bull story about procedures and whatnot.

A lesson learned for all at HQ in ULFM anyway.

Thanks for the in-depth response Conor, it is appreciated by everyone I presume.

Jester252

As the minutes have been got I think the Admin should do this to the thread

CiaranMT

Have been lurking on these threads for the last while and was reminded of a wee pic IO replied to me with a while back...

Sid_Justice

can the last two nonsense posts be deleted

Nockz

Someone isn't looking at the kittens :mad:

Insect Overlord

CiaranMT wrote: »

Have been lurking on these threads for the last while and was reminded of a wee pic IO replied to me with a while back...

I wish I could always mod with cat pictures!

Sid_Justice

I think if people stopped posting stupid comments saying "calm down" or "relax" we'd have a lot more productive discussion. People on this forum don't seem capable of engaging in a discussion without resorting to infantile internet memes such as kittens or stupid gifs. It's posts like that that should be deleted and the posters' banned. It's ridiculous the type of tripe that gets posted on these forums unchecked and when someone is making a genuine and legitimate post of some signficance they're shouted down for being a troll.

What we've discovered about the UL student over the last couple of weeks are:

The SU are corrupt - engaging in irregular accounting activities, the president duping C&S councils and acting beyond his remit behind their backs
The SU are inept - SU VP makes radio station but hasn't got a clue how to run one, programme one, delegate effectively, run news, do her role properly
Students are vandals - Thomond, Graveyards, Castletroy all vandalised and littered this weekend and every other
Students are immature - can't hold a discussion on this forum without regressing into infantile antics
Students are unintelligent - UL students gain the least 1st and 2.1 class degrees of irelands unis
Moderators - combination of all of the above

kflynn

wow!! Does anybody meet your standards?? I shouldn't even reply to that but oh my god!!!!

To be honest you are coming across as dis approving of everything, I have issues with certain things that happen in UL, and in the SU, but you cant paint everybody with the same brush...Some members of the SU are extremely helpful and great at what they do, as are students. Credit where credit is due!

CiaranMT

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I think if people stopped posting stupid comments saying "calm down" or "relax" we'd have a lot more productive discussion. People on this forum don't seem capable of engaging in a discussion without resorting to infantile internet memes such as kittens or stupid gifs. It's posts like that that should be deleted and the posters' banned. It's ridiculous the type of tripe that gets posted on these forums unchecked and when someone is making a genuine and legitimate post of some signficance they're shouted down for being a troll.

What we've discovered about the UL student over the last couple of weeks are:

The SU are corrupt - engaging in irregular accounting activities, the president duping C&S councils and acting beyond his remit behind their backs
The SU are inept - SU VP makes radio station but hasn't got a clue how to run one, programme one, delegate effectively, run news, do her role properly
Students are vandals - Thomond, Graveyards, Castletroy all vandalised and littered this weekend and every other
Students are immature - can't hold a discussion on this forum without regressing into infantile antics
Students are unintelligent - UL students gain the least 1st and 2.1 class degrees of irelands unis
Moderators - combination of all of the above

You forgot the resident FFer not being capable of doing his job without bringing party politics into it. :pac:

We're lightening the discussion here. No need to be so serious about it. We can have a decent discussion, as I attempted in your Derek Daly thread, which you completely went OTT on. FFS, it's a student radio station and union we're discussing, not the latest IMF negotiations.

People don't like to be browbeaten, which is all you're doing (quoted post exemplifies it). You clearly have a set view but you have to be willing to accept concessions to advance the discussion.

ULChieftain

Everything since CJKeanes post has been a waste and barely on topic.

Just ignore the irrelevant stuff, you will get it nearly everywhere, and concentrate on what matters. In fairness this thread is called censorship of ULSU discussions, that hasn't happened. This thread should be locked.

If you want to start a new thread about for instance

reunion wrote: »

I would like to see the new SU constitution, the one with class reps removed and what not on the ULSU site (the 2009 one is available).

The stuff you are mentioning Sid has a thread, if there isn't one, start one.

If the standard of ul is the standard of some posters here, no wonder we don't have a lot of first or upper second class honours.