And it begins... (according to the record)

clicks

The record have published who they think are running for sabats this year.
Anyone heard rumours of any other nominations??? Or anything intresting to say? Don't really know how this works.
But I do know that the pictures of the candidates are awful!!!!!

ilovemybrick

The pictures are not candidate pictures, rather a half tongue in cheek posing of them.

Since publication I have heard two others who are running.

Crash

Anyone care to post up what they wrote? or at least the suspects for each position? my nosiness has the better of me, and the record hasn't been updated since mid december (boo urns :P)

tolosenc

Does anyone else just not care?

ilovemybrick

Going Waterforward wrote: »

Anyone care to post up what they wrote? or at least the suspects for each position? my nosiness has the better of me, and the record hasn't been updated since mid december (boo urns :P)

Its not informative, just a list really and an introduction. Interviews and indepth coverage are for the next issue. Once nominations close we will start that.

tolosenc

Also, Ashley Cooke for Edu is what I heard. Also heard he's the only one.

ilovemybrick

obl wrote: »

Also, Ashley Cooke for Edu is what I heard. Also heard he's the only one.

Thats in the Record. and yes other than joke candidates he is probably the only one.

Crash

The old dirty hack in me just about gives a ****. Just about

Awayindahils

Hi All,

Following a rather unfortunate incedent where the EC felt the need to contact members of boards for having opinions about the candidates there shall be some rules with posting about canidates.

You will have to declare if you are on a campaign team. This counts as active affliation and there for commenting negatively without justification or proof about the other person running in a race, will be negative campaigning. Your canidate should win because they are better, not because the other person is mental. So those sorts of posts will be deleted by yours truelly. You may say any nice things about your candidate that you want but do realise that people will probably take your glowing recommendations with a pinch of salt.

If you are not on a campaign team you can more or less say what you like. Slander is never allowed, so you know avoid lines such as 'x eats babies' (unless its true). You can have negative opinions about people running or positive ones but don't just make things up.

Candidates should also beaware of the fact that once they run they are fair fodder for boards and getting upset at the fact that their merits are being discussed online is sort of ridiclous.

But anyway for the moment this is all meaningless speculation, as until a canidate nominates themselves, there are not candidates.

From 5pm on 6th there will be a new thread for discussing all things election.

As you were.

hils

AlanSparrowhawk

i hear boston is going for welfare.

any other boardies running?

Awayindahils

Going Waterforward wrote: »

Anyone care to post up what they wrote? or at least the suspects for each position? my nosiness has the better of me, and the record hasn't been updated since mid december (boo urns :P)

Suspects:

President

Cathal Horan
Conan O Broin

Dept. Pres

Rob Dohonue (not as a joke)
Emma Keavney

Edu

Ashley Cooke

Welfare

Simone Cameron Coen
Cormac Cashman

Ents

Mick Birmingham
Amy Dunne
Franziske Hensel

rc28

AlanSparrowhawk wrote: »

i hear boston is going for welfare.

any other boardies running?

Boston is not Cormac Cashman.

Awayindahils

rc28 wrote: »

Boston is not Cormac Cashman.

Lol.

Awayindahils

Awayindahils wrote: »

Slander is never allowed, so you know avoid lines such as 'x eats babies' (unless its true).

Heh heh. I remember a campaign meeting where this (or alternatively puppies, I think) was discussed about the other candidate since they were far too nice.

But back to seriousness, Cónán Ó'Broin eh. Interesting.

So Boston, what will you be doing when you get elected?

Boston

rc28: I could be. In all seriousness I'm Simone Cameron Coen. After I get elected I'll be continuing to slut around.

Mark200

obl wrote: »

Does anyone else just not care?

ME!

AlanSparrowhawk

Who wouldn't vote for a mixture of Tom Lowth and Joe Duffy?

pisslips

I don't know and have never heard or seen any of those names in my life, it was a similar case in the last college I was in. Actually, how many people vote for these things?What proportion of the elligible voters?

PurpleFistMixer

pisslips wrote: »

I don't know and have never heard or seen any of those names in my life, it was a similar case in the last college I was in.

Me too... how do you know a random person like that in a college of over 9,000 students?

Kwekubo

The only ones I would recognise are Rob Donohue (third time's a charm) and Mick Birmingham (which I suppose is understandable for an ents candidate).

gaybitch

I've met one or two of the names on that list.

To be honest, I don't really care who gets what. My experience of the Sabbats this year has been extremely limited and their impact on my college life is about the same.

Time Magazine

Awayindahils wrote: »

You will have to declare if you are on a campaign team.

How the hell is this going to be enforced?

Crash

Did I not tell everyone i'd enrolled for a night course btw? education ftw.

Jonathan

Going Waterforward wrote: »

Did I not tell everyone i'd enrolled for a night course btw? education ftw.

Did you find a job actually?

shay_562

purplefistmixer wrote:

Me too... how do you know a random person like that in a college of over 9,000 students?

Easily. Even aside from my vague involvement with the union in the past & proxy involvement now, I know one of these candidates through the LGBT, used to work with another in Argos (he's also a friend of my roommate), am in the same course as a third and would vaguely know a 4th via the Phil and the Ultimate Frisbee team, both of which involve people who are close to him. I'm not sure if that makes me a social whore or anything, but there's very few links of separation between any two people in Trinity.

Awayindahils wrote:

If you are not on a campaign team you can more or less say what you like.

Deadly! For the purposes of boards, I am completely unaffiliated, and definitely won't be wearing anyone's t-shirt. And if the EC want to take me up on that, they're more than welcome to. Useless, biased, crooked bunch of ****s. But it's not slander, 'cause it's technically true!

gamma23

I heard Ashley is running unopposed because the other people who were considering it decided not to run against him. It seems people respect how well he would do in the job. Well that's what persuaded me to back his campaign anyway.

It's nice to finally be on boards by the way, I've heard alot about it!

Awayindahils

shay_562 wrote: »

Deadly! For the purposes of boards, I am completely unaffiliated, and definitely won't be wearing anyone's t-shirt. And if the EC want to take me up on that, they're more than welcome to. Useless, biased, crooked bunch of ****s. But it's not slander, 'cause it's technically true!

Except for the fact that you're telling fibs.

How the hell are you going to enforce that?

Because I'm still all hacktacular and of the people who are still in college who are likely to be involved in campaigns on boards I more or less know who they are, and others I'll find out.

And they do it over on the UCD forum and it works quite well and it stops over zealous campaign managers and candidates from having the EC launch witch hunts on users here.

Boston I believe had a rather odd weekend in the middle of the elections last year. And he wasn't on anyone's team.

gamma23

Awayindahils wrote: »

Except for the fact that you're telling fibs.

Because I'm still all hacktacular and of the people who are still in college who are likely to be involved in campaigns on boards I more or less know who they are, and others I'll find out.

ok that's just scary!

Awayindahils

gamma23 wrote: »

ok that's just scary!

Ok to clarify just a bit. Shay is one of my best friends and I was asked by someone to ask if Shay would be on their campaign team.

Awayindahils

Awayindahils wrote: »

Hi All,

Following a rather unfortunate incedent where the EC felt the need to contact members of boards for having opinions about the candidates there shall be some rules with posting about canidates.

You will have to declare if you are on a campaign team. This counts as active affliation and there for commenting negatively without justification or proof about the other person running in a race, will be negative campaigning. Your canidate should win because they are better, not because the other person is mental. So those sorts of posts will be deleted by yours truelly. You may say any nice things about your candidate that you want but do realise that people will probably take your glowing recommendations with a pinch of salt.

If you are not on a campaign team you can more or less say what you like. Slander is never allowed, so you know avoid lines such as 'x eats babies' (unless its true). You can have negative opinions about people running or positive ones but don't just make things up.

Candidates should also beaware of the fact that once they run they are fair fodder for boards and getting upset at the fact that their merits are being discussed online is sort of ridiclous.

But anyway for the moment this is all meaningless speculation, as until a canidate nominates themselves, there are not candidates.

From 5pm on 6th there will be a new thread for discussing all things election.

As you were.

hils

Boards.ie is nothing to do with Trinity College, so why should EC rules apply here?
I would also think that banning someone or using any mod powers for breech of a local and non boards law will see you loose your modship pretty quickly. Negative and positive comments, provided they follow the rules of boards.ie should be allowed.

And as The Economist says, good luck trying to enforce it. It will be regreg central from a TCD proxy.

Awayindahils

Deleted User wrote: »

Boards.ie is nothing to do with Trinity College, so why should EC rules apply here?
I would also think that banning someone or using any mod powers for breech of a local and non boards law will see you loose your modship pretty quickly. Negative and positive comments, provided they follow the rules of boards.ie should be allowed.

And as The Economist says, good luck trying to enforce it. It will be regreg central from a TCD proxy.

All internet domains are considered campaigning by the EC. As such candidates can be fined if members of their campaign teams are found saying slanderous things/general abuse of the other candidates. But last year they went mental over boston. And they tend to be a mental. And this had nothing to do with the candidates in question, as boston was unaffliated. That didn't stop fine threats being banndied about.

I'm not going to ban people. At all. Thats not what i said.

Also anyone who's not on a campaign team can say what they like so long as its not slanderous. Not that that stopped some people saying things last year iirc.

I think it is worth declaring if your on a campaign team, it opens up the debate somewhat. People read this forum for information about all things Trinity. What is said here might change someones mind. knowing if that information comes from a campaign team member or not makes a difference.

Seeing as you and the economist have such a huge problem with this, it can be left for the moment as just people have to declare before posting in the election thread (which doesn't exist yet) if they are affilated to a campaign team. it has worked in other forums for years and is going to be tried out here.

I'll wait to see how its going during the elections to see if there is a need for rules about negative campaigning.

Awayindahils

Awayindahils wrote: »

All internet domains are considered campaigning by the EC. As such candidates can be fined if members of their campaign teams are found saying slanderous things/general abuse of the other candidates. But last year they went mental over boston. And they tend to be a mental. And this had nothing to do with the candidates in question, as boston was unaffliated. That didn't stop fine threats being banndied about.

I'm not going to ban people. At all. Thats not what i said.

Also anyone who's not on a campaign team can say what they like so long as its not slanderous. Not that that stopped some people saying things last year iirc.

I think it is worth declaring if your on a campaign team, it opens up the debate somewhat. People read this forum for information about all things Trinity. What is said here might change someones mind. knowing if that information comes from a campaign team member or not makes a difference.

Seeing as you and the economist have such a huge problem with this, it can be left for the moment as just people have to declare before posting in the election thread (which doesn't exist yet) if they are affilated to a campaign team. it has worked in other forums for years and is going to be tried out here.

I'll wait to see how its going during the elections to see if there is a need for rules about negative campaigning.

Point being: you can't prove that someone is who you think they are on the net as Boards won't release the personal information.

So if I say I am Joe Smith, and Joe smith is the campaign manager for Billy Jean, and I say that Sarah Perry (who is also running for the same position as Billy Jean) is not up to the job for the reasons which don't break the charter. You can't delete them, you can't ban me and the EC can't fine Billy Jean as I can just deny its me.

That is why Boards gets sued over user content, not the user who posted the comment.

Ron DMC

Deleted User wrote: »

Point being: you can't prove that someone is who you think they are on the net as Boards won't release the personal information.

So if I say I am Joe Smith, and Joe smith is the campaign manager for Billy Jean, and I say that Sarah Perry (who is also running for the same position as Billy Jean) is not up to the job for the reasons which don't break the charter. You can't delete them, you can't ban me and the EC can't fine Billy Jean as I can just deny its me.

That is why Boards gets sued over user content, not the user who posted the comment.

No one is who you think they are. Oohohoohhohhh. Sppoooooky.

In fact just to confuse you, myself and Zaraba are actually not who you think we are in real life.

online Zaraba = real life Ronny Mitchell
and vice-versa.

We've been working on this conspiracy for quite some time. It's a work in progress leading up to some kind of eventual end-game that is yet to be decided on.

Steve Higginson

Okay, I'm declaring to be on all candidates campaign teams. Now I can say what I want, right? :P

Time Magazine

Awayindahils wrote: »

Seeing as you and the economist have such a huge problem with this.

To be fair Hils, neither of us could be defined as having "a huge problem with this", I just don't think you can make assertions like that.

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

No one is who you think they are. Oohohoohhohhh. Sppoooooky.

I would like to point out that I am the chair of the Electoral Commission.

Ronny Mitchell

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

In fact just to confuse you, myself and Zaraba are actually not who you think we are in real life.

online Zaraba = real life Ronny Mitchell
and vice-versa.

Is that why we have never met?

shay_562

Awayindahils wrote:

Except for the fact that you're telling fibs.

Spoilsport

All internet domains are considered campaigning by the EC.

True, but even if you know who I am, they probably don't. And even if they do, I'd absolutely love to see them try to prove it.

AlanSparrowhawk

Deleted User wrote: »

Boards.ie is nothing to do with Trinity College, so why should EC rules apply here?
I would also think that banning someone or using any mod powers for breech of a local and non boards law will see you loose your modship pretty quickly. Negative and positive comments, provided they follow the rules of boards.ie should be allowed.

And as The Economist says, good luck trying to enforce it. It will be regreg central from a TCD proxy.

It's shilling. If a person comes on this forum posing as joe bloggs but he's actually part of boston's campaign team saying how swell boston is and how right for the job he is, that's in my opinion against the broader website rules.

either way it's all fun and games.

Awayindahils

Right. I went and spent my African lecture thinking about this. 2 whole hours that I could have spent on growth and development I spent wondering about this forum. My life is sad.

ANyway. The reason why I introduced the idea of saying if your on a campaign team is to portect posters. I think if there were a list at the start of the thread of your affliation, if you have one that is, it gives firstly a very clear sense of whether or not your opinions are campaign rhethoric and it secondly protects posters from the EC, as there is a list of those who can be held acocuntable for their opinions as they are campaign staff, should someone from a campaign report abuse.

I hadn't properly thought through the deleting posts thing. That would be silly. I do think the saying if you're on a campaign thing is however not an entirely stupid idea. I think ti provides clarity among other things.

However I can see that it in someways limits freedom of speach which is bad, and freedom of anonimity. Freedom of speech is bad in general, but there are incedents of some constraints being put on boards users due to legal threat or due to campiagns being sensitive issues (UCD). As for annon. you're not half an annoymous as you think you are on boards. Most people here are known in real life as boards users.

I agree that it would be difficult to police and have noted all your objections.

So I'm leaving it as a voluntary. If the EC come after people they come after people, I'm not going to try and help you as posters or them as an SU body in anyway.

ABUSE AND SLANDER ARE STILL NOT ALLOWED, though candidates are open to srutiniy and opinions on them are welcome. Lies make the baby Jesus cry among other things.

Crash

IMO, anyone who explicitly posts as an uninformed voter but is actually a member of a campaign team, or there's reasonably suspicion, should just be banned for a month - nothing worse than a dirty shill.

I'm pretty sure I banned a few like that back in the day.

Time Magazine

Going Waterforward wrote: »

IMO, anyone who explicitly posts as an uninformed voter but is actually a member of a campaign team, or there's reasonably suspicion, should just be banned for a month - nothing worse than a dirty shill.

Reasonable suspicion = banned for a month? Feel free to send this Feedback etc., but that's ridiculous.

There is feck all difference between random-poster who thinks Candidate A should be elected and campaign-team-poster who thinks Candidate A should be elected.

Your logic, if extended to Politics, would see people banned from posting because they have strong opinions.

Boston

The Economist wrote: »

Your logic, if extended to Politics, would see people banned from posting because they have strong opinions.

As we all know the rules on one forum apply to all boards....

Well I'm kind of scared to post on this now as I have a PM from a mod of the forum stating that threatening mod status as I did in this thread (would like to see where tbh) will result in me being banned from the forum.

But the way I say it, same rules apply for all threads on this forum. Candidates who run must be open to both positive and negative feedback. Abuse of course, is not allowed but saying that people can't criticize a candidate is just bollocks.

If you put your name forward, you have to take the criticisms as well as the compliments. And I am sure that the admins would take a very dim view of the EC imposing rules on a boards.ie forum.

Boards rules apply to all threads - you can't arbitrarily start adding to them.

Agent Smith

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

In fact just to confuse you, myself and Zaraba are actually not who you think we are in real life.

online Zaraba = real life Ronny Mitchell
and vice-versa.

We've been working on this conspiracy for quite some time. It's a work in progress leading up to some kind of eventual end-game that is yet to be decided on.

I'm secretly Emma Stokes

Crash

Would someone please lock this thread. What a massive pile of wankity **** it has devolved into.