My 8 Point Plan to Reform Student Politics

Denerick

In the interests of reducing the prevalence of hacks in our fine institution:

1) Disband the SU.

2) Replace it with a voluntary body. Students can choose to pay out of their own pocket -voluntarily- for their own institution. No longer will we be coerced into paying an annual fee for an institution none of us were given a choice for. Students who pay for the institution will have a franchise in which to vote for their new, reformed body. Students who don't pay for membership will miss out on... those cool emails. We'll soon see just how many individuals are willing to pay for this hack infested pit of idiocy.

3) Appoint two Law PHD students to act as 'legal rights officers'. The university will pay a small monthy stipend for their legal advice for students, funded by the savings from the dissolution of the SU. Nuisance complaints will in future be dealt with by faculty convenors.

4) Faculty convenors will be nominated by elected student reps. Faculty convenors will act as the mediator between faculty and staff. Students with legal complaints will go first to the faculty convenor, who will in turn pass it on to the legal rights officer's. (If necessary)

5) Cut society funding by 50%. Force members to raise funds for themselves.

6) Merge both College newspapers into one. Eliminate both the Piranha and the Miscellany, as their writing is cringe inducing. Plough savings into the production of higher quality student publications, such as Icarus, or the Social/Political Review. Cut opinion pieces by half.

7) Charge a 'hack tax' on all student politics paraphenalia. For example, political tee shirts, posters etc. will be forced to pay a small, arbitrary fee to the university.

8) Sell the SU shop. The shop in the front square is un-necessary as the Arts block students can go to Nasseau St. and the Hamiltonians to Pearse St.

I believe that if these reforms are introduced, hack levels would be reduced by 45-55%

Boston

Denerick wrote: »

In the interests of reducing the prevalence of hacks in our fine institution:

1) Disband the SU.

2) Replace it with a voluntary body. Students can choose to pay out of their own pocket -voluntarily- for their own institution. No longer will we be coerced into paying an annual fee for an institution none of us were given a choice for. Students who pay for the institution will have a franchise in which to vote for their new, reformed body. Students who don't pay for membership will miss out on... those cool emails. We'll soon see just how many individuals are willing to pay for this hack infested pit of idiocy.

3) Appoint two Law PHD students to act as 'legal rights officers'. The university will pay a small monthy stipend for their legal advice for students, funded by the savings from the dissolution of the SU. Nuisance complaints will in future be dealt with by faculty convenors.

4) Faculty convenors will be nominated by elected student reps. Faculty convenors will act as the mediator between faculty and staff. Students with legal complaints will go first to the faculty convenor, who will in turn pass it on to the legal rights officer's. (If necessary)

5) Cut society funding by 50%. Force members to raise funds for themselves.

6) Merge both College newspapers into one. Eliminate both the Piranha and the Miscellany, as their writing is cringe inducing. Plough savings into the production of higher quality student publications, such as Icarus, or the Social/Political Review. Cut opinion pieces by half.

7) Charge a 'hack tax' on all student politics paraphenalia. For example, political tee shirts, posters etc. will be forced to pay a small, arbitrary fee to the university.

8) Sell the SU shop. The shop in the front square is un-necessary as the Arts block students can go to Nasseau St. and the Hamiltonians to Pearse St.

I believe that if these reforms are introduced, hack levels would be reduced by 45-55%

Facism.

1) PhD Law students cannot give out legal advice in the manor your describe, you need to be a member of the bar association.

2) Most of the publication you've mentioned have nothing to do with the SU or any other capitated body, they are self funded.

3) Political T-Shirts are not paid for by trinity, students pay for them, and a tax to stop them wearing what they want would infringe they're human rights. Next you'll be saying arts students can't dress like orange whores.

timmywex

Denerick wrote: »

In the interests of reducing the prevalence of hacks in our fine institution:

1) Disband the SU.

2) Replace it with a voluntary body. Students can choose to pay out of their own pocket -voluntarily- for their own institution. No longer will we be coerced into paying an annual fee for an institution none of us were given a choice for. Students who pay for the institution will have a franchise in which to vote for their new, reformed body. Students who don't pay for membership will miss out on... those cool emails. We'll soon see just how many individuals are willing to pay for this hack infested pit of idiocy.

3) Appoint two Law PHD students to act as 'legal rights officers'. The university will pay a small monthy stipend for their legal advice for students, funded by the savings from the dissolution of the SU. Nuisance complaints will in future be dealt with by faculty convenors.

4) Faculty convenors will be nominated by elected student reps. Faculty convenors will act as the mediator between faculty and staff. Students with legal complaints will go first to the faculty convenor, who will in turn pass it on to the legal rights officer's. (If necessary)

5) Cut society funding by 50%. Force members to raise funds for themselves.

6) Merge both College newspapers into one. Eliminate both the Piranha and the Miscellany, as their writing is cringe inducing. Plough savings into the production of higher quality student publications, such as Icarus, or the Social/Political Review. Cut opinion pieces by half.

7) Charge a 'hack tax' on all student politics paraphenalia. For example, political tee shirts, posters etc. will be forced to pay a small, arbitrary fee to the university.

8) Sell the SU shop. The shop in the front square is un-necessary as the Arts block students can go to Nasseau St. and the Hamiltonians to Pearse St.

I believe that if these reforms are introduced, hack levels would be reduced by 45-55%

1) People might not like it but its pretty essential to be fair!
2) No, handful of people will pay in, could only afford part time officers, would be a disastor, the whole college would benifit/or otherwise from the handful of people funding it
3) Has some merit to be fair!
4) Pretty much happens already
5) No. Youve clearly never been involved alot, if you were youd know sociieties beg borrow and steal over the summer for freshers week!!
6)Bit of competition cant be bad, different view on things, piranha is a satrical, its funny, leave it as
7) Some merit here i suppose, for the election stuff!
8) Yet the queue tends to be out the door...!? And while they make money may aswell leave them

Denerick

Boston wrote: »

Facism.

No. Its libertarian. The present system is authoritarian as it 'presumes' I consent to membership of the SU before I even join the university. The reform proposals 'presume' you to be an individual, and hence hold the burden of responsibility to make an informed individual choice.

1) PhD Law students cannot give out legal advice in the manor your describe, you need to be a member of the bar association.

You overinterpret, sir. I envisage that the Rights Officers would offer the same 'legal' protection that the SU allegedly offers students. They would assume all the protective roles the SU supposedly takes for our welfare. I'm not expecting them to give a speech from the dock.

2) Most of the publication you've mentioned have nothing to do with the SU or any other capitated body, they are self funded.

I'm aware of that. I'm talking about their funding which comes from MY registration fee. They are still acoloytes of student politics.

3) Political T-Shirts are not paid for by trinity, students pay for them, and a tax to stop them wearing what they want would infringe they're human rights. Next you'll be saying arts students can't dress like orange whores.

Government is allowed to discriminate on specific taxable items (Milk, condoms, clothes etc.) Universities are allowed to charge on any item in which their logo is invoked.

Boston

Denerick wrote: »

Government is allowed to discriminate on specific taxable items (Milk, condoms, clothes etc.) Universities are allowed to charge on any item in which their logo is invoked.

Not a government, trinity would have to charge for every use of their logo by Clubs and Societies, equally.

Denerick

timmywex wrote: »

1) People might not like it but its pretty essential to be fair!

Do you understand the difference between tyranny and liberty?

2) No, handful of people will pay in, could only afford part time officers, would be a disastor, the whole college would benifit/or otherwise from the handful of people funding it

The whole college retards by SU participation, hence the whole college would benefit if it took a lesser role in our daily lives.

5) No. Youve clearly never been involved alot, if you were youd know sociieties beg borrow and steal over the summer for freshers week!!

Ah, typical society hack. In the future, you'll be expected to beg even more to provide the services you do.

6)Bit of competition cant be bad, different view on things, piranha is a satrical, its funny, leave it as

If they establish themselves free from university money, they're more than welcome to. Otherwise, they should be abolished. Piranha is not a funny publication, its the manifestation of typically crap Irish student humour, which shames us all.

8) Yet the queue tends to be out the door...!? And while they make money may aswell leave them

The shop cannot exist if the SU does not exist.

Denerick

Boston wrote: »

Not a government, trinity would have to charge for every use of their logo by Clubs and Societies, equally.

Yep.

Fo Real

Bloody excellent post Denerick. Post of the year in my humble opinion.

If these steps are taken to remove the "hack" element from the university it will make daily life in Trinity much more tolerable. There will be more money to fund important things like the buying of books.

I imagine that Trinity will also attract a better breed of student. No more idiots clogging our corridors, wearing their hoodies with hilarious slogans on them (the hack uniform), defacing our college with hideous semi-pornographic posters. Hopefully it will also bring an end to the weekly themes that are forced upon us. What's it this week - Shag week? Ughh. I'm embarassed that this is the image we give off to tourists. How vulgar.

just-joe

1) Pirhanha is indeed crap.

(2)

Oh no wait thats everything.

just-joe

Oh wait I do have another small bit to add:

(1) From what I can see, a cut in societies budgets would be grand... Wine receptions every week, and money to go out to a restaurant at the end of the year, wtf?! Or at least a rethink on how they're allowed to spend their budget.

andrew

1)TL;DR
2)TL;DR
3)TL;DR
4)TL;DR
5)TL;DR
6)TL;DR
7)TL;DR
8)TL;DR

Denerick

andrew wrote: »

1)TL;DR
2)TL;DR
3)TL;DR
4)TL;DR
5)TL;DR
6)TL;DR
7)TL;DR
8)TL;DR

Is this an abstract criticism?

Mark200

Denerick wrote: »

In the interests of reducing the prevalence of hacks in our fine institution:

1) Disband the SU.

2) Replace it with a voluntary body. Students can choose to pay out of their own pocket -voluntarily- for their own institution. No longer will we be coerced into paying an annual fee for an institution none of us were given a choice for. Students who pay for the institution will have a franchise in which to vote for their new, reformed body. Students who don't pay for membership will miss out on... those cool emails. We'll soon see just how many individuals are willing to pay for this hack infested pit of idiocy.

3) Appoint two Law PHD students to act as 'legal rights officers'. The university will pay a small monthy stipend for their legal advice for students, funded by the savings from the dissolution of the SU. Nuisance complaints will in future be dealt with by faculty convenors.

4) Faculty convenors will be nominated by elected student reps. Faculty convenors will act as the mediator between faculty and staff. Students with legal complaints will go first to the faculty convenor, who will in turn pass it on to the legal rights officer's. (If necessary)

5) Cut society funding by 50%. Force members to raise funds for themselves.

6) Merge both College newspapers into one. Eliminate both the Piranha and the Miscellany, as their writing is cringe inducing. Plough savings into the production of higher quality student publications, such as Icarus, or the Social/Political Review. Cut opinion pieces by half.

7) Charge a 'hack tax' on all student politics paraphenalia. For example, political tee shirts, posters etc. will be forced to pay a small, arbitrary fee to the university.

8) Sell the SU shop. The shop in the front square is un-necessary as the Arts block students can go to Nasseau St. and the Hamiltonians to Pearse St.

I believe that if these reforms are introduced, hack levels would be reduced by 45-55%

The same crap that you've said before, except you just numbered it.

Denerick

Mark200 wrote: »

The same crap that you've said before, except you just numbered it.

I don't expect my plan to appeal to hacks.

Agent Smith

Denerick wrote: »

In the interests of reducing the prevalence of hacks in our fine institution:


6) Merge both College newspapers into one. Eliminate both the Piranha and the Miscellany, as their writing is cringe inducing. Plough savings into the production of higher quality student publications, such as Icarus, or the Social/Political Review. Cut opinion pieces by half.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGHzOJlC6eo

Denerick

Mark200

Denerick wrote: »

I don't expect my plan to appeal to hacks.

If you're calling me a "hack", I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.

Is it because I disagree with you?

Denerick

Mark200 wrote: »

If you're calling me a "hack", I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.

Is it because I disagree with you?

Are you involved in any societies/SU/Sports Clubs/Students publications etc.?

cantankerous

Denerick wrote: »

In the interests of reducing the prevalence of hacks in our fine institution:

1) Disband the SU.

2) Replace it with a voluntary body. Students can choose to pay out of their own pocket -voluntarily- for their own institution. No longer will we be coerced into paying an annual fee for an institution none of us were given a choice for. Students who pay for the institution will have a franchise in which to vote for their new, reformed body. Students who don't pay for membership will miss out on... those cool emails. We'll soon see just how many individuals are willing to pay for this hack infested pit of idiocy.

3) Appoint two Law PHD students to act as 'legal rights officers'. The university will pay a small monthy stipend for their legal advice for students, funded by the savings from the dissolution of the SU. Nuisance complaints will in future be dealt with by faculty convenors.

4) Faculty convenors will be nominated by elected student reps. Faculty convenors will act as the mediator between faculty and staff. Students with legal complaints will go first to the faculty convenor, who will in turn pass it on to the legal rights officer's. (If necessary)

5) Cut society funding by 50%. Force members to raise funds for themselves.

6) Merge both College newspapers into one. Eliminate both the Piranha and the Miscellany, as their writing is cringe inducing. Plough savings into the production of higher quality student publications, such as Icarus, or the Social/Political Review. Cut opinion pieces by half.

7) Charge a 'hack tax' on all student politics paraphenalia. For example, political tee shirts, posters etc. will be forced to pay a small, arbitrary fee to the university.

8) Sell the SU shop. The shop in the front square is un-necessary as the Arts block students can go to Nasseau St. and the Hamiltonians to Pearse St.

I believe that if these reforms are introduced, hack levels would be reduced by 45-55%

I would agree with all except 7 and 8. I like the idea of there being shops on campus where students can buy essentials without having to pay through the nose. Students shouldn't have to leave campus to get a snack or an A4 pad etc.

As for the hack tax, hacks do not charge anything for their paraphenalia, i don't think it's a workable system. They're hardly going to go around asking everyone wearing a ceratin t-shirt to show a tax receipt are they?

I believe students are allowed wear pretty much whatever they want provided it's legal. The only way to get around this is if gowns were made mandatory. I for one would be all for this move,for one thing it would help keep the idiot brigade out of trinity as they'd want to go somewhere more "fun".

Mark200

Denerick wrote: »

Are you involved in any societies/SU/Sports Clubs/Students publications etc.?

No. Although I do occasionally buy a sandwich in the SU shop at the Hamilton....

Denerick

cantankerous wrote: »

I would agree with all except 7 and 8. I like the idea of there being shops on campus where students can buy essentials without having to pay through the nose. Students shouldn't have to leave campus to get a snack or an A4 pad etc.

Think about it logically. The shop on front square is further away than Reads or the Spar on Nasseau st. for Arts students and further away than the Westland Row shops for Hamiltonians. Its completely un-necessary.

As for the hack tax, hacks do not charge anything for their paraphenalia, i don't think it's a workable system. They're hardly going to go around asking everyone wearing a ceratin t-shirt to show a tax receipt are they?

Political tee shirts are either

A) Bought in bulk and distributed for free
Sold by the leadership to the minions.

If a batch of 50 tee shirts can be raised in price by 25 or 30 euro, do you not think people will be less willing to buy the same stuff?

I believe students are allowed wear pretty much whatever they want provided it's legal. The only way to get around this is if gowns were made mandatory. I for one would be all for this move,for one thing it would help keep the idiot brigade out of trinity as they'd want to go somewhere more "fun".

I'm not preventing them wearing whatever they want. I'm suggesting that they pay a price for making a parody of our institution.

Denerick

Mark200 wrote: »

No. Although I do occasionally buy a sandwich in the SU shop at the Hamilton....

So you're a crypto-hack then?

Mark200

Denerick wrote: »

Think about it logically. The shop on front square is further away than Reads or the Spar on Nasseau st. for Arts students and further away than the Westland Row shops for Hamiltonians. Its completely un-necessary.

Yeah, but the "Hamiltonians" go to the Hamilton SU shop...

Mark200

Denerick wrote: »

So you're a crypto-hack then?

I don't understand why you have the need to label anyone who doesn't agree with you as some sort of "hack". I'm not a crypto-hack, I'm a trinity student.

The Walsho

Can't we just make Denerick provost and be done with it?

Denerick

Mark200 wrote: »

I don't understand why you have the need to label anyone who doesn't agree with you as some sort of "hack". I'm not a crypto-hack, I'm a trinity student.

You support the present hack infested system, so at the very least you're a hack enablor.

Mark200

Denerick wrote: »

You support the present hack infested system, so at the very least you're a hack enablor.

I don't particularly "support" it, I just think your "plan to reform student politics" is idiotic at best.

Denerick

Mark200 wrote: »

I don't particularly "support" it, I just think your "plan to reform student politics" is idiotic at best.

It is the first draft of an election manifesto. I plan to run as SU President next year and will pledge to disband the institution.

cantankerous

Denerick wrote: »

Think about it logically. The shop on front square is further away than Reads or the Spar on Nasseau st. for Arts students and further away than the Westland Row shops for Hamiltonians. Its completely un-necessary.

But the hamilton SU shop is much closer than westland row, aswell you have the fact that the centra there is notorious as being one of the few shops that still charge rip-off celtic tiger prices due to the traffic it recieves from commuters getting off at pearse st. station.

Political tee shirts are either

A) Bought in bulk and distributed for free
Sold by the leadership to the minions.

Unenforceable, each candidate would just claim to have ordered less t shirts than they did. What are you going to do, send around someone to count the number of people wearing each candidate's tshirt? Besides, I'm not even sure if what you're proposing is legal :eek:.

RexMundi

Denerick wrote: »

It is the first draft of an election manifesto. I plan to run as SU President next year and will pledge to disband the institution.

So you're a hack then?

Denerick

RexMundi wrote: »

So you're a hack then?

One cannot be a hack if he proposes to enter office in order to abolish it.

Mark200

Denerick wrote: »

One cannot be a hack if he proposes to enter office in order to abolish it.

Funny how you plan to run for SU President when you constantly make fun of anyone who ever bothers to vote in SU elections.

Denerick

Mark200 wrote: »

Funny how you plan to run for SU President when you constantly make fun of anyone who ever bothers to vote in SU elections.

Please understand how retarded that statement is. I mock anyone who votes to continue the status quo. Turnout is so tiny because the vast majority of students agree with me. If I pledge to abolish the institution and then peacefully walk away, I believe I may increase turnout by at least 15-20%. The silent majority will have a field day getting rid of this whore of Babylon.

Mark200

Denerick wrote: »

Please understand how retarded that statement is. I mock anyone who votes to continue the status quo. Turnout is so tiny because the vast majority of students agree with me. If I pledge to abolish the institution and then peacefully walk away, I believe I may increase turnout by at least 15-20%. The silent majority will have a field day getting rid of this whore of Babylon.

No, turnout is tiny because the vast majority of students don't care. I hope you do run next year, so you can finally understand that very few people have the same opinion as you. You aren't party of the silent majority, you're part of the loud minority.

Denerick

Mark200 wrote: »

No, turnout is tiny because the vast majority of students don't care. I hope you do run next year, so you can finally understand that very few people have the same opinion as you. You aren't party of the silent majority, you're part of the loud minority.

Nah, I'm not actually running next year. I won't even be a student here next year. I just thought it would provoke a bit of a response if I dramatically announced my candidacy for the office of Student President here on boards.ie

Shelga

Denerick wrote: »

So you're a crypto-hack then?

This is the single most retarded post I have ever read on boards. Because the guy buys a sandwich in the SU shop, he's a hack?? I'm sick of hearing that stupid word anyway.

I don't like the SU either. Go ahead, run for president. Turnout will still be tiny because NO ONE CARES. You seem to think that everyone has just been waiting on a revolutionary such as yourself to shake up the "status quo" and disband the SU. The fact that the overwhelming majority are completely indifferent to it hasn't occurred to you?

I'm glad I'm out of here in 6 weeks and will start living in the real world outside of Trinity. Y'know, maybe if you put all the time and energy you waste in your hatred of the SU into something worthwhile, you might find your horizons will expand and you could be part of something that actually matters.

Instead of focusing on making college an unbearable place where societies and group activities of any kind are forbidden, and being labelled a 'hack' is akin to being called a child murderer :rolleyes:

Seriously, get a life.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Shelga wrote: »

This is the single most retarded post I have ever read on boards. Because the guy buys a sandwich in the SU shop, he's a hack?? I'm sick of hearing that stupid word anyway....

Game, Set and Match!!

Denerick

Shelga wrote: »

This is the single most retarded post I have ever read on boards. Because the guy buys a sandwich in the SU shop, he's a hack?? I'm sick of hearing that stupid word anyway.

I don't like the SU either. Go ahead, run for president. Turnout will still be tiny because NO ONE CARES. You seem to think that everyone has just been waiting on a revolutionary such as yourself to shake up the "status quo" and disband the SU. The fact that the overwhelming majority are completely indifferent to it hasn't occurred to you?

I'm glad I'm out of here in 6 weeks and will start living in the real world outside of Trinity. Y'know, maybe if you put all the time and energy you waste in your hatred of the SU into something worthwhile, you might find your horizons will expand and you could be part of something that actually matters.

Instead of focusing on making college an unbearable place where societies and group activities of any kind are forbidden, and being labelled a 'hack' is akin to being called a child murderer :rolleyes:

Seriously, get a life.

Hack.

andrew

I bet Denerick is actually the provost. Hey Denerick...do you like lasers?

gamma23

Denerick wrote: »

In the interests of reducing the prevalence of hacks in our fine institution:

1) Disband the SU.

3) Appoint two Law PHD students to act as 'legal rights officers'. The university will pay a small monthy stipend for their legal advice for students, funded by the savings from the dissolution of the SU. Nuisance complaints will in future be dealt with by faculty convenors.

4) Faculty convenors will be nominated by elected student reps. Faculty convenors will act as the mediator between faculty and staff. Students with legal complaints will go first to the faculty convenor, who will in turn pass it on to the legal rights officer's. (If necessary)

You want to disband the SU then recreate it exactly as it is but you want it for free. With only 2 sabbatical officers that are appointed not elected. Appointed how, and by who, I would ask, if the plan had not already been ridiculed much more extensively above.

You have no problem with the SU, you just have a problem with the people who are running it and how they spend your money.

That's something you could do something about but you have just been too lazy and have spent your college years on boards attacking those who tried to be proactive about it.

If you hate 'hacks' and anyone who does anything but moan without giving constructive critism is labelled a 'hack'; by you. Then you have been resisting any changes the whole time and are as bad if not worse than those who continue them year on year.

This college and this forum will be a much better place without you. Please leave soon.

Denerick

gamma23 wrote: »

You want to disband the SU then recreate it exactly as it is but you want it for free. With only 2 sabbatical officers that are appointed not elected. Appointed how, and by who, I would ask, if the plan had not already been ridiculed much more extensively above.

No, please learn how to read. 'I' would have absolutely nothing to do with the founding of the SU, I'm merely saying that if people wish to have it they should make a conscious decision to pay for it themselves - in other words, to make it a voluntary institution. In other words, to remove the authoritarianism from the system which presumes that I should have to pay for it without giving it my consent. This is authoritarianism. If people like to claim that the SU represents my legal rights, I contend they do it badly and that people with knowledge and experience in the legal field should do it instead. On the contrary, the point hasn't been scrutinised, so how you think it has been ridiculed beggars belief and says more about your idea of what a political debate is.

You have no problem with the SU, you just have a problem with the people who are running it and how they spend your money.

Its getting irritating trying to explain ethics to people from a very basic foundation. 'I' am indifferent to the existence of the SU. 'I' object to been forced to accept its existance, without been given a choice. 'You' seem to think its perfectly fair that an institution with no popular mandate (Less than 30% of the student body turn up at elections) is allowed to exist. You are the bad guy, not me.

That's something you could do something about but you have just been too lazy and have spent your college years on boards attacking those who tried to be proactive about it.

Oh shut up. Buzz words.

If you hate 'hacks' and anyone who does anything but moan without giving constructive critism is labelled a 'hack'; by you. Then you have been resisting any changes the whole time and are as bad if not worse than those who continue them year on year.

This college and this forum will be a much better place without you. Please leave soon.

You're going to get a sore awakening when you enter the real world.

Boston

Am I the only one who thinks Denerick is a hack? Before he joined there was a max of two SU threads a year, now they're all over the place, and each has his stamp on them. There's something not quit right about caring that much about the SU.

Denerick

Boston wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks Denerick is a hack? Before he joined there was a max of two SU threads a year, now they're all over the place, and each has his stamp on them. There's something not quit right about caring that much about the SU.

The games up I suppose. I'm actually the auditor of the Phil.

BlueCam

Go Denerick. Why should we stop at the SU? Let's make the government a voluntary institution, and only those who voted for it shall pay taxes. Down with authoritarianism!

... Don't people usually grow out of their teen-anarchist stages when they're about 15?

Denerick

BlueCam wrote: »

Go Denerick. Why should we stop at the SU? Let's make the government a voluntary institution, and only those who voted for it shall pay taxes. Down with authoritarianism!

Reductio et absurdium is it? Why don't you just compare me to Hitler while you're at it? The difference is, my dear fellow, that when I apply to join Trinity College Dublin I do it in order to complete a degree. Things such as the societies and the SU are auxiliary to that purpose and not part of the broader package. It stands to reason then that the SU should be voluntary and democratic body, not an institutionalised authoritarianism which nobody has a choice over (They do have a choice to vote for hack no. 1 or hack no.2 at elections, however) Which is why the previous comment that 'I could have changed things' is so patently absurd and naieve.

... Don't people usually grow out of their teen-anarchist stages when they're about 15?

I am not an anarchist and you are employing a dishonest tactic.

gearoidof

In the interests of reducing the prevalence of Denerick in our fine institution:

1) Disband Denerick's posting rights.

2) Replace it with a voluntary body. Students can choose to flame this body -voluntarily-. No longer will we be coerced into flaming a man none of us were given a vote on. Students who flame Denerick will have a franchise in which to vote for their new, reformed body. Students who don't pay for membership will miss out on... those cool posts. We'll soon see just how many individuals are willing to pay for this hack infested pit of idiocy.

3) Appoint two Law PHD students to act as 'legal rights officers'. The university will pay a small monthly stipend for their legal advice for Denerick. These students will help to defend him from his numerous upcoming lawsuits

4) Flame convenors will be nominated by elected voluntary body reps. Flame convenors will act as the mediator between the banned denerick and posters. Posters with complaints about Denerick will go first to the flame convenor, who will in turn pass it on to the legal rights officers. (If necessary)

5) Cut Social flaming by 50%. Force members to flame for themselves elsewhere.

6) Merge both of Denerick's fake accounts into one. Eliminate both Fo Real and Mr Pain, as their writing is cringe inducing. Plough savings into the production of higher quality posters such as Jonathon, actually, anyone really... Cut opinion pieces by half.

7) Charge a 'troll tax' on all Denerick or supporter posts. For example, for all of his posts, he'd be will be forced to pay a small, arbitrary fee to the university. This would be backdated to Denerick's registration date.

8) Ban Denerick from the SU shop. Denerick's use of the shop in the front square is unnecessary for him.

I believe that if these reforms are introduced, Denerick levels would be reduced by 45-55%

Boston

But he doesn't study English?

Denerick

Boston wrote: »

But he doesn't study English?

I'm not actually a hack. My identity is unknown. I am a subversive element within several societies whilst simultaneously plotting their downfall. I am Edmond Dantes.

Denerick

gearoidof wrote: »

In the interests of reducing the prevalence of Denerick in our fine institution:

1) Disband Denerick's posting rights.

2) Replace it with a voluntary body. Students can choose to flame this body -voluntarily-. No longer will we be coerced into flaming a man none of us were given a vote on. Students who flame Denerick will have a franchise in which to vote for their new, reformed body. Students who don't pay for membership will miss out on... those cool posts. We'll soon see just how many individuals are willing to pay for this hack infested pit of idiocy.

3) Appoint two Law PHD students to act as 'legal rights officers'. The university will pay a small monthly stipend for their legal advice for Denerick. These students will help to defend him from his numerous upcoming lawsuits

4) Flame convenors will be nominated by elected voluntary body reps. Flame convenors will act as the mediator between the banned denerick and posters. Posters with complaints about Denerick will go first to the flame convenor, who will in turn pass it on to the legal rights officers. (If necessary)

5) Cut Social flaming by 50%. Force members to flame for themselves elsewhere.

6) Merge both of Denerick's fake accounts into one. Eliminate both Fo Real and Mr Pain, as their writing is cringe inducing. Plough savings into the production of higher quality posters such as Jonathon, actually, anyone really... Cut opinion pieces by half.

7) Charge a 'troll tax' on all Denerick or supporter posts. For example, for all of his posts, he'd be will be forced to pay a small, arbitrary fee to the university. This would be backdated to Denerick's registration date.

8) Ban Denerick from the SU shop. Denerick's use of the shop in the front square is unnecessary for him.

I believe that if these reforms are introduced, Denerick levels would be reduced by 45-55%

Hack.

gearoidof

Denerick wrote: »

Hack.

Denerick.

Couldn't find a better insult, tbh

Denerick

gearoidof wrote: »

Denerick.

Couldn't find a better insult, tbh

Uber hack.