SU Council Motions, Mon 13th November 2006

singingstranger

To keep up the newfound tradition, here's the second of the threads...

The next meeting of UCDSU Council will take place next Monday, November the 13rd, in Theatre O of the Arts Block (that's the one closest to the front wall when you go in the Restaurant entrance) at 6:15pm. As per usual attendance is open to all and anyone is welcome to seek speaking rights to speak on a motion. Personally - and I'd imagine this is something Dave and the other relevant Sabbats would like too - I'd recommend that if you haven't already, to pop along to ucdsu.net/classreps and find out who your Councillor is, and tell them how you'd like them to vote. Remember their job is to represent you and your views so make sure you have them know your opinion as one of their constituents.

Anyway, the following motions are on notice for the meeting...

Motion on creating a positive body image in Union publications wrote:

Council notes the steady increase in body image disorders in Irish society today.

Council notes with concern that eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia are steadily increasing in both males and females in the 18-25 age group.

Council is aware that many of these problems stem from unrealistic role models used in advertising and in the media. Council acknowledges that these images generate a stereotypical conception of what men and women should look like.

Council notes that in recent weeks the union has used images that may generate a poor body image in both male and female students. Council realises that many alternative images can be used by the union.

Council therefore mandates that in all union publications the showings of male and female bodies are not to be used except in the promotion of health awareness. In such instances where images of unclothed males and females are used, Council further mandates that they are of a realistic nature and non stereotypical.

Proposed by: Elisa O'Donovan, 3rd medicine UCDSU representitive
Seconded by: Chris Bond, Arts and human sciences programme officer

Motion Regarding Charitable Donation of Computer Software wrote:

Council mandates the Student Union to run a campaign this year to ask
UCD students to donate their old Play Station 2 and PC games to be sent
to Adama, Ethiopia to help aid the Tony Blair Project which mostly works
with homeless street girls in the town.

Council notes the Tony Blair Project has donated over 30 Modern PC's to
Adama but unfortunately their software selection is very limited. During
UCD Volunteers/ Camara joint trip to ethiopia this year, they were asked
if they could donate a wide range of computer software particular
computer games.

Council further notes that the computer games will be collect by the
Student Union and then given to the Camara charity to be sent to Ethiopia.

Proposer: Abey Campbell, Ph.D. Science
Seconder: Conor Fleming, 3rd Science

Motion regarding strict monitoring of the tutorial system within the teaching and learning framework wrote:

Council notes learner-focused tutorial teaching is one of the essential tools in the teaching and learning apparatus of the university.

Council also notes that student lecturing is, without doubt, effective for transmitting information to students, but if we wish to advance thinking skills, analytical abilities and lifelong learning credentials, a more student-centered approach is necessary.

Council further notes that such learning which takes place at tutorials, juxtaposed to lecture learning, is key to allowing students, especially from larger class groupings, to address their area of study by facilitating and guiding learning from their peers, in a smaller group setting.

Council recognises the realisation that this type of learning environment depends to a large extent on the skill of the tutor to direct and assist the group, the tutor’s role being as subject-matter expert, resource guide, and facilitator of the group.

Council notes with concern there is a major discrepancy within the tutorial system in the university at present concerning the level of excellence achieved at some levels by particular tutors against those tutors who are failing to meet the benchmark standard which should be evident at all levels.

Council affirms the need to address the anomalies existing between these standards of tutorial teaching across the University.

Council believes there should be a degree of accountability on the tutor to be answerable to the necessary Programme Office during the academic year, with a greater degree of scrutiny to be paid to the work, preparatory and otherwise, undertaken by the tutor to facilitate the learning of the group to cultivate and develop in students the processes of thinking, learning how to learn, problem solving and team-working.

UCDSU mandates the President and Education Vice President to highlight student concern regarding this issue at any meeting with college authorities.
Furthermore, UCDSU also mandates all Programme Officers to highlight this issue at their next Programme board meeting to promote collaborative learning between the students and the tutors immediately at course level.

Proposed by: Ciara Brennan, Final Law Class Rep 06-07
Seconded by:Aileen Gittens, 2nd Law Class Rep 06-07

Motion to ban Bebo from all Library computers wrote:

Council notes that due to the implementation of modularisation and semesterisation students’ workloads have been greatly increased.

Council also notes the lack of computers available for use by the student body.

Council is concerned about the amount of time spent by students on non-academic sites, such as Bebo, while others are forced to queue in order to do course related work.

Council therefore mandates the Student Union President to contact the Registrar and to discuss the introduction of a ban of Bebo sites from all library computers.

Proposed by: Linda Phelan, 3rd Science Class Rep
Seconded by: Jane Tiernan, Science Program Officer

As per, anyone wishing to comment on these motions in this thread should, if they haven't already, declare any Union interests or affiliations in the relevant thread. This thread is reserved for discussion on the motions on notice.

Cheers
Gav

hullaballoo

The first motion is ridiculous.

Blowfish

This may seem like a stupid question, but what use is PC software and games to homeless street girls? Surely donating money would be more effective?

[edit] And in regard to the PC software, Syth was involved in something similar last year, which brought Linux pc's to africa.

Chakar

hullaballoo wrote:

The first motion is ridiculous.

I agree its a incarnation of a motion which was defeated at the last Council.

panda100

hullaballoo wrote:

The first motion is ridiculous.

please elaborate on why you think its ridiculous hullabaloo........

panda100

Chakar wrote:

I agree its a incarnation of a motion which was defeated at the last Council.

Also this is not true.The last motion focussed on breast cancer and sexism.I am not suuggesting that images used by the union are sexist or anything like that.Just that for too long, beauty has been defined by narrow, stifling stereotypes. Stereotypes that are continuously used by the union in advertising...dall,dark,muscualar handsmone guys and blonde girls who look fantastic in bikinis with not an inch of fat on them. Real beauty comes in many shapes and sizes and the union should acknowledge this.

I relaise that people may think this motion petty but If we,the union can do anything to help people feel more positive about themsleves then I think its our duty to do it.While the outside world doesnt at least UCD can aim
to change the status quo of what the perfect man and women look like and offer in its place a broader, healthier, more democratic view of beauty. .

hullaballoo

You know why I think it's ridiculous, panda. We've had this argument plenty of times in this forum already.

There's nothing wrong with using sex to sell an event. It's not like it's porn, or degrading at all. It's just the type of thing you'd see if you were on a beach, or in a hot country, or even around UCD on a sunny day.

There's no valid reason to disallow this sort of thing. It happens everywhere in our staunch catholic Ireland, in our staunch, Western world.

Garret

if they were to ban bebo and other such sites from library computers, would that effect people who were using the wifi for their laptops



once you open the gates to ban sites it wont stop

and when you ban sites you can inadvertantly ban other sites

LIT banned their own site earlier this year

panda100

hullaballoo wrote:

There's nothing wrong with using sex to sell an event. It's not like it's porn, or degrading at all. It's just the type of thing you'd see if you were on a beach, or in a hot country, or even around UCD on a sunny day.

.

Once again this is not a motion about using sex to sell things. Its a motion about promoting a healthy body image among students.

A lot of poeple dont go to beaches or take their clothes of in hot countries cos they are so ashamed of their bodies.I know at least two of my friends who would rather wear a sweater on the beach then be seen in their bikini. For us who dont have a problem showing off our bodies,then we are the lucky ones.
Just some fact that were published by the eating disorders association of Ireland this year in conjunction with the HSE last year:

• About 20% of early cases of eating disorders become chronic and about 6% will die of their illness
• Eating disorders have become more common in adolescents during the past 20 years. Anorexia nervosa among young females increased until the late 1980s, while bulimia is still increasing.

Binge Eating Disorder has been estimated at 4% of the general population

The World Health Organisation stresses that eating disorders must be seen as disorders with lifelong consequences , citing a study of college students that found that 21.6% of females with eating disorders still met the clinical criteria 10 years later


Body image disturbance is more complex than just a fear of being overweight or a drive for thinness. There is overwhelmingly evidence , , , that body image is intrinsically linked with self-esteem. The factors that affect and shape it include the beliefs and behaviors within individuals, families, peer groups and the media. Our society’s emphasis on how we look also seems to affect the way people feel about themselves , , .

If the union can do a small bit to help raise students self esteem then they should help. By not showing gorgeous men and women with perfect bodys in advertising events or in publications,It may just help encourage those to become more confident with their bodies.

hullaballoo wrote:

There's no valid reason to disallow this sort of thing.

Not even the fact that 6% of those who develop body disorders will die of their illnesses and the age group aneroxia and bullimia most effect is the college going age group?? But perhaps your right aand what is a couple of deaths and chronic illnesses for the sake of me seeing a yummy guy in his swimming trunks advertising me a union event..........

Vainglory

Does anyone agree that supporting a ban of Bebo from college computers would alienate more students than giving support to an environmental campaign would?

dajaffa

Well here's my brief short opinion type thing:

1: Fundamentally the same as the last one (different motivation, but essentially asking for the thing as the one from last council), I don't think the differences between it + it's predecessor will make much of a differnce + I'd be suprised to see it passed. Phrases like "they are of a realistic nature and non stereotypical", I think this could potentially be open to interpretation. For instance should we not use pictures of caucasian people as they are stereotypical. I don't see the point of this line if the pictures are only to be used for health promotion tbh.

2: Should go through no problem. Abey is involved in UCD Volunteers overseas + I'm sure will illustrate why the software is of use etc

3: Not something that affects me (just pointing out my lack of experience) but those I've spoken to who have tutorials tell me that it's a good motion to ensure standards are met etc

4: Unrealistic. As the computers in question are owned by computer services, imo, bebo is either going to be banned across campus or it isn't. It was decided last year that it wouldn't, and though this could change, I don't think it will. If bebo was banned people would just start using myspace or something else instead.

Anyway I'll be asking my class what they think to determine my vote, that's just my personal reaction.

hullaballoo

Come on panda, that's like tackling crime by bolting everything valuable to the floor. If there's an issue with students' self-esteem and eating disorders, then the issue needs to be tackled at its root - programmes to deal with depression/self-esteem and other psychiatric problems that lead to those sorts of problems.

You can't hide people from imagery just because you think it aggrevates an illness they have. There's no way that's an answer. You don't go around killing children just so paedophiles don't do anything wrong.

panda100

hullaballoo wrote:

Come on panda, that's like tackling crime by bolting everything valuable to the floor. If there's an issue with students' self-esteem and eating disorders, then the issue needs to be tackled at its root - programmes to deal with depression/self-esteem and other psychiatric problems that lead to those sorts of problems.

You can't hide people from imagery just because you think it aggrevates an illness they have. There's no way that's an answer. You don't go around killing children just so paedophiles don't do anything wrong.

But there is an answer to this problem and we can help students in these situations and At the end of the day that is the unions job,to help students. Also this motion is tackling the root of the problem.The HSE and eating disorder association of Ireland did extensive research before they released their report on body image disorder last year and their research was conclusive:
There is overwhelmingly evidence that body image is intrinsically linked with self-esteem. The factors that affect and shape it include the beliefs and behaviors within individuals, families, peer groups and the media. Our society’s emphasis on how we look also seems to affect the way people feel about themselves
While obviously the union can do nothing about beliefs your family and friends inflict on you,we can help change the beliefs of peer groups while in collge and college society as awhole. I am under no illusion that this motion will solve the epidemics that are aneroxia and Bullimia in our age group but If we can help it by doing little then I think its our duty too.

dajaffa wrote:

For instance should we not use pictures of caucasian people as they are stereotypical.

I would ask the union and those in charge of union publication to use their initiative on little indescrepincies like this.
I left the motion open ended and opened for interpRETATION for a reason. I didnt want to say the union 'must show this' and 'mustnt show this'.I most certainly dont want the union to become a nanny state shielding us from sexual imagery used in the outside world. If passed hopefully this motion will just act as a guideline for what to include in union publications and to realise that the majority of the student body do not all look the same (I.e fit,tanned,toned,gorgeous etc etc) and the union by using differnt looking people will make a lot of people feel better about the way the look.:)

panda100

Vainglory wrote:

Does anyone agree that supporting a ban of Bebo from college computers would alienate more students than giving support to an environmental campaign would?

Good point. I think I would support the Rossport campaign over banning bebo......

Blowfish

panda100 wrote:

and to realise that the majority of the student body do not all look the same (I.e fit,tanned,toned,gorgeous etc etc) and the union by using differnt looking people will make a lot of people feel better about the way the look.:)

In fairness, if they think that, they must be walking around with blinkers on.

Sangre

Council affirms the need to wrap the SU body in cotton wool.

Council notes that in the increasingly environmentally conscious world that this wool should be bio-degradable.

Council further notes that this should be non-Coca Cola brand wool

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

Does anyone agree that supporting a ban of Bebo from college computers would alienate more students than giving support to an environmental campaign would?

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

elmyra

1. Go 'way ourra that! Exactly, as Hullaface said, address the real problem. I personally don't look twice at the 'type' of people on posters and in publications, I just see people. But jeez, next time I run off to puke up my lunch cos the girl in the fresher's guide is thinner than me, I'll let you know.

2. Meh...if I hear a good reason for it then why not. Giving stuff to the lesser well off is good.

3. Hmmm...I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, I've been relatively lucky in that I've only ever had one bad tutor...on the other hand, I don't think a tutor makes or breaks you. While I would like to see a general high standard across the board, I can see a lot of students being petty and saying 'oh well I didn't hand in my essay cos my tutor cut off my hand because I didn't know what the Diet of Worms was...'. A lot of students will use a scapegoat if there's one to be had. It would have to be a very clear process whereby the feelings of one student wouldn't dictate the ability and fitness to teach of one tutor. Also, you don't just get to be a tutor because you passed your degree. There is a selection process, as far as I'm aware, and people probably do care about doing a good job if they step forward for it. After all, they're involved in further study, so they probably want their department to like them, so they're probably not gonna walk in hungover and accidentally puke on you when they're handing around the attendance sheet. We're all S&M now people....get your ass on SIS and swappy swappy tutorials...

4. I think the only in the library idea is good. The fact is that if you're in the library then you shouldn't need recreational sites. A blanket ban across campus would be stupid. There are people from the country ( like me, awww ) who have their only access to pc's all week in college. Banning bebo is one thing, but it could then extend to blocking other stuff. That's not fair on people who don't have any other internet access while in Dublin. In summary- yes, ban bebo in the library but leave other pc's alone. I wouldn't mind if the library ban extended to laptops either, I'm as guilty as anyone else of mass procrastination.

Vainglory

The_Minister wrote:

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

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

Some information on the environmental nature of the campaign though, FYI.

http://ireland.indymedia.org/article/77807

singingstranger

FYI - there are two amendments to the Standing Orders of UCDSU Council on notice aswell; under Article 8.8(i) of the Constitution they're required to be on notice for three weeks so they won't be dealt with at the Council next Monday, but rather at the following meeting on Nov 27th.

Motion to amend Standing Orders for the provision of a time limit for Motions passed By SU Council wrote:

That this Council amends the Standing Orders to insert a paragraph 7. of Order III that shall read as follows:

'Motions passed by Council shall be Policy for a period of no more than 3 years'

Proposed by Colm Byrne, Health Science Programme Officer
Seconded by Dave Curran, Deputy President

Motion to amend the procedure for proposing Procedural Motion IX (a) wrote:

That this Council amends the Standing Orders to insert the following paragraph into Order X:

Order IX (a) may only be proposed after an opposition speaker has spoken.

Proposed by Colm Byrne, Health Science Programme Officer
Seconded by Dave Curran, Deputy President

humbert

I think the green eyed monster is at work. The eye candy on the posters look perfectly healthy to me, they probably eat very healthy food and go to the gym often. If some girl thinks that by starving herself she'll look like that that's a whole different problem.

I'd love to see the council deciding on the girls to put into the posters if that was passed, "nope, too pretty, nope, nope, ah I'm prettier than her, she'll do!"

panda100

elmyra wrote:

1. Go 'way ourra that! Exactly, as Hullaface said, address the real problem. I personally don't look twice at the 'type' of people on posters and in publications, I just see people. But jeez, next time I run off to puke up my lunch cos the girl in the fresher's guide is thinner than me, I'll let you know.
.

As I said to Hulla before this really is adressing the real problem. The HSE and eating disorder of Ireland did extensive reaearch on this matter and there conclusion was that images of 'perfect' women and men we see everyday in the media and society etc are the main reason to blame for eating disorders. So by passing this motion the union is doing one thing to help tackle the increase of body issue problems on campus. If we can help these people a little dont you think we should? It will only benefit people in the long run,no one is going to be inconvenieced if this motion is passed,

elmyra wrote:

I personally don't look twice at the 'type' of people on posters and in publications, I just see people. But jeez, next time I run off to puke up my lunch cos the girl in the fresher's guide is thinner than me, I'll let you know. .

Elmyra as I said to Hullabaloo of course not all people are affected by this. Your lucky that you were brought up to know that looks arent important and not to compare yourself to the thin,beautiful goddesees seen on many poster around UCD. This is to help the people who really do look twice at the posters and publications and feel crap cos they can never achieve that figure.

I hope that may change your mind a bit on this motion.

panda100

humbert wrote:

I think the green eyed monster is at work.

Give me some credit humbert:D

humbert wrote:

The eye candy on the posters look perfectly healthy to me, they probably eat very healthy food and go to the gym often. If some girl thinks that by starving herself she'll look like that that's a whole different problem.

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.I have a little overhang like most people but its healthy to have this.Most girls on campus dont have a washboard stomach yet this is what we regulalry see on posters. Is there something wrong with not having a washboards stomach??Of course not!But being bombarded with these images on a regular basis would make you think so. Also,most guys I know are healthy but none have muscles and are as tanned as toned as they guys I regularly see on on posters around campus.

humbert wrote:

I'd love to see the council deciding on the girls to put into the posters if that was passed, "nope, too pretty, nope, nope, ah I'm prettier than her, she'll do!"

Not at all.Through this motion council will just use images of all types of people and all types of people are pretty. Everyone is beautiful and there is no such thing as a perfect man or women as many images around UCD would have us to believe.

singingstranger

There's an amendment that's been put on notice for the third motion (regarding tutors) which has been accepted by the proposer; the motion will now be presented that way at Council.

Delete: Furthermore, UCDSU also mandates all Programme Officers to highlight this issue at their next Programme board meeting to promote collaborative learning between the students and the tutors immediately at course level.

Replace With: Furthermore, Council mandates the President and Education Vice President to highlight the issue with at all relevant decision making bodies and to encourage all student representatives on College programme boards to raise the issue of promoting collaborative learning between the students and the tutors at course level.

The reasoning for this is that technically PROs can't be mandated (yet) by Council.

The motion then, in its entirety, will look like this:

Motion regarding strict monitoring of the tutorial system within the teaching and learning framework wrote:

Council notes learner-focused tutorial teaching is one of the essential tools in the teaching and learning apparatus of the university.

Council also notes that student lecturing is, without doubt, effective for transmitting information to students, but if we wish to advance thinking skills, analytical abilities and lifelong learning credentials, a more student-centered approach is necessary.

Council further notes that such learning which takes place at tutorials, juxtaposed to lecture learning, is key to allowing students, especially from larger class groupings, to address their area of study by facilitating and guiding learning from their peers, in a smaller group setting.

Council recognises the realisation that this type of learning environment depends to a large extent on the skill of the tutor to direct and assist the group, the tutor’s role being as subject-matter expert, resource guide, and facilitator of the group.

Council notes with concern there is a major discrepancy within the tutorial system in the university at present concerning the level of excellence achieved at some levels by particular tutors against those tutors who are failing to meet the benchmark standard which should be evident at all levels.

Council affirms the need to address the anomalies existing between these standards of tutorial teaching across the University.

Council believes there should be a degree of accountability on the tutor to be answerable to the necessary Programme Office during the academic year, with a greater degree of scrutiny to be paid to the work, preparatory and otherwise, undertaken by the tutor to facilitate the learning of the group to cultivate and develop in students the processes of thinking, learning how to learn, problem solving and team-working.

Furthermore, Council mandates the President and Education Vice President to highlight the issue with at all relevant decision making bodies and to encourage all student representatives on College programme boards to raise the issue of promoting collaborative learning between the students and the tutors at course level.

Proposed by: Ciara Brennan, Final Law Class Rep 06-07
Seconded by:Aileen Gittens, 2nd Law Class Rep 06-07

cast_iron

Motion 1: Farcical
(Get over it - it was defeated at the last Council)

Motion 2: Farcical
(I agree with the principle - but playstation games wouldn't be any use to me or the homeless in Dublin, not to mind the poor people in Africa. I'm not sure, but there may well be compatibility issues anyway. But i'm sure whoever drew up this motion has researched all this:rolleyes: Elisa?? Chris??)

Motion 3: I'm ignorant of tutorials - no opinion.

Motion 4: Farcical
(One site in one building?? Yeah right. Then Daedalus, then Science, then.... Then MySpace, then boards.ie:eek: .....)

Motion 5: Farcical
(Would it not be better to propose a new motion to rescind a old motion rather than it expiring after 3 years? It would only add to the workload to have to re-visit it it every 3 years.)

Motion 6: I'm not sure i quite understand it.


So, 4 out of 6 stupid motions (and possibly 6 out of 6).
Glad to see the Council is doing something meaningful with it's time.

Vainglory

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

elmyra

panda100 wrote:

As I said to Hulla before this really is adressing the real problem. The HSE and eating disorder of Ireland did extensive reaearch on this matter and there conclusion was that images of 'perfect' women and men we see everyday in the media and society etc are the main reason to blame for eating disorders. So by passing this motion the union is doing one thing to help tackle the increase of body issue problems on campus. If we can help these people a little dont you think we should? It will only benefit people in the long run,no one is going to be inconvenieced if this motion is passed,



Elmyra as I said to Hullabaloo of course not all people are affected by this. Your lucky that you were brought up to know that looks arent important and not to compare yourself to the thin,beautiful goddesees seen on many poster around UCD. This is to help the people who really do look twice at the posters and publications and feel crap cos they can never achieve that figure.

I hope that may change your mind a bit on this motion.

At last year's Galway IV there was a motion for round five that went something like 'This House Would Ban Models Who Appear Too Thin From The Media' or something like that. There's a lurker around who could probably correct me on it and say what I'm about to better, since it was his point but here's the thing, anyway...

There has also been research done to say that illnesses like anorexia and bulimia in fact always occur at a steady rate among the populus. The affected percentage of people never increases or decreases. The same percentage of people suffer now as did in the sixties, seventies, eighties.... yet all the while this culture of thin models and increased use of advertising and media has, well, increased! Therefore there is no correlation between media and illness, there are simply always going to be that demographic of people who will be affected because they are predisposed for whatever reason to be so.

I know debaters tend to lie to win, but I also know the guys who argued this and know it to be true...

So, like I said, go address the illness.

cast_iron

panda100 wrote:

Most girls on campus dont have a washboard stomach yet this is what we regulalry see on posters. Is there something wrong with not having a washboards stomach??Of course not!But being bombarded with these images on a regular basis would make you think so. Also,most guys I know are healthy but none have muscles and are as tanned as toned as they guys I regularly see on on posters around campus.

I think your logic is a bit confused.

If people are so easily influenced by what they see, shouldn't they be more influenced by "most people" - ie. the non-perfect people, seeing as there are far more of these people in every day life than glossy posters?

The simple fact of the matter is - sex sells.
Somehow, I dont think I - and I think most people - would go to an event that had fat, ugly people people on the poster advertising it. And that really is the long and short of advertising these type of events.

elmyra

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?

Zing.

Vainglory

What does "Zing" mean?

/dumb

humbert

It means she thought you riposte was clever.

for the record I've never proposed a motion or asked what ever rep is mine to propose anything but I can still spot a stupid motion when I see one.

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.