ULSU AGM 2012/13 (Thursday 11th October @ 3pm in the Concert Hall)

wnolan1992

Date: Thursday 11th October (This Thursday)
Time: 3pm
Location: University Concert Hall, Foundation Building




IMO, the lack of publicity around this is a joke, given the difficulty in making quorum last year.

Jester252

They don't what people to be there so they make the SU stop wasting money

wnolan1992

^I'm inclined to agree with you Jester. There hasn't been a single All Student email about the AGM, not even one calling for motion submissions that I can remember.

I said it last year, and I'll say it again, getting rid of the Communications Officer when there was already such a disconnect between the SU and students was a mistake IMO.

The only way they'll even come close to making quorum is if there's a lot of passing traffic in the Foundation Building at that time that they can lure in.

Polar Ice

What do people think of cutting An Focal?

I'm about 80% in favour. Given the SU and it's current financial position I'm shocked that they haven't taken cost cutting action such as reducing the print run or reverting the paper back to black and white to save money. There are always hundreds of wasted copies of An Focal - why print so many?

Given their inability to cut costs by themselves I agree with scrapping the physical publication in order to reduce cost.

With an focal online, the new ULFM (which I don't support) and Thomond Student times, all new within the last year or two, there is even less of a need now for a printed version of the paper.

wnolan1992

I'd be more in favour of reducing the print run and reverting to b/w as opposed to scrapping the entire thing. I think there's a lot to be said for a physical publication. If An Focal did what I thought they were going to do, which was focus more on the online site (which I thought was a great development last year) then they could even reduce the number of editions per semester. But it seems as if the website is always in the backseat, as opposed to being the main outlet for news, with the printed edition being dedicated to more in depth analysis, reviews, opinion pieces, creative writing and the like a few times a semester.

I'd hate to see it permanently scrapped, but I would find it hard to argue against it tbh.



Anyone have the wording for the motions to hand? Intrigued by the "Proposal to Establish a New Company" one...

highlydebased

wnolan1992 wrote: »

But it seems as if the website is always in the backseat, as opposed to being the main outlet for news, with the printed edition being dedicated to more in depth analysis, reviews, opinion pieces, creative writing and the like a few times a semester.
.

I agree entirely. Website needs much more fresh content, it's almost embarrassing at this stage

Polar Ice

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I'd hate to see it permanently scrapped, but I would find it hard to argue against it tbh.

That's the problem. They aren't actively using the website and they are still printing the paper in excess (in colour) when the SU is asking for large sums of money from Clubs and Societies.

When I said I'm 80% in favour of cutting it, if they were able to manage their finances better then there might be less of a need for the motion (you don't need a colour paper when there is a shortage of funding & we can all see the wasted copies). Unfortunately if the Union can't manage its own funds then I'm a strong supporter of members of the Union imposing cuts upon those running the union.

shabouwcaw

jeez, that's a truly awful bit of graphic design for the poster. hope they didnt stay up all night knocking that together.

anywho, my 2c fwiw.

I think it's an atrocious idea to scrap An Focal, it's a valuable way of reaching people who won't ever take the positive step of liking the facebook page, listening to the radio or going onto the website. We can sit in our ivory towers and chat about how well we know what's going on in the SU, but the reality is that the majority of people in UL only know what little they do by picking up a copy in the Red Raisins, leafing through looking at the pictures and maybe reading something if it catches their eye. That might sound minor, but in terms of disseminating information it is invaluable and irreplaceable. Yes, we should print less, maybe it should revert to being in black and white and maybe there should be fewer editions, but those decisions should be made first. Scrapping it would make it a gargantuan task to restart it, and i think it would be a massive mistake. Act in haste, repent at leisure.

Let it also be known that until the Communications Officer was scrapped, the publication made a profit, with the excess it made from selling advertising subsidising other SU ventures. I'm not sure if that is still the case, due to the short sighted decision to remove the position of Communications Officer, without any firm proposal or alternative planned, but joined up thinking does not seem to run in the SU's playbook.

I'm also very disappointed that there doesn't seem to be any motions from the C&S, motions of censure for the u-turn on the financial agreement reached at the end of last year or a motion of re-assurance that the SU will sort itself out before continuing to attempt to turn the C&S into a piggy bank. I predicted that the removal of the shop wouldn't solve any financial issues at the end of last year, and all I got for it was personal abuse as a "failed presidential candidate". I also predicted that the independence of our on campus papers would be massively threatened in the absence of adequate safeguards. We now see one of the most independent editors of recent times having his position made untenable by people attempting to cut down the paper.

I have lots more to say, but trying to stay out of this fight this year for the good of my mental health, and regrettably, I won't be at the AGM, but if I were, I would really relish the ability to make a speech with nothing but the words "I told you so."

David.

garv123

shabouwcaw wrote: »

jeez, that's a truly awful bit of graphic design for the poster. hope they didnt stay up all night knocking that together.

The wolves and SU logo looks like a 5year old copied and pasted it from the internet. Isn't there logo's available without the white background for these purposes?

reunion

motions can be found here: http://ulsu.ie/news/agm2012

Spread the word, getting 200 people will probably be a hard task...

Jester252

An Focal needs to get it together.
I only saw quarter page ad that I can say was paid for. There is too much white space and some huge ass pictures.
A lot of it is very opinion pieces and slightly miss leading (The cartoon on the latest issue). The website is not updated much. Are they trying to keep exclusive content for the paper? At least they are cutting down on the ads for An Focal in An Focal. Could they not sell ad space on the website?
I don't see An Focal making money this year and its kinda sad seen as it is an award winning paper
TST does a much better job

reunion

Jester252 wrote: »

An Focal needs to get it together.
I only saw quarter page ad that I can say was paid for. There is too much white space and some huge ass pictures.
A lot of it is very opinion pieces and slightly miss leading (The cartoon on the latest issue). The website is not updated much. Are they trying to keep exclusive content for the paper? At least they are cutting down on the ads for An Focal in An Focal. Could they not sell ad space on the website?
I don't see An Focal making money this year and its kinda sad seen as it is an award winning paper
TST does a much better job

For figures I have seen, an focal has not been profitable in the last 2 years. it has spent nearly twice what it raised. It has also thrown out over 600 copies of the first edition of this years an focal.

There have been ~56,000 views of the online paper edition since summer 2009. No idea what the view count is for the website or what tst gets. Would be interesting to know if tst would like to share...

Gael23

Who has come up with the idea of scrapping An Focal? The SU or someone from the student body?
This would be a disastrous thng to do for so many reasons, having said that it could be scaled back slightly and reduce production costs.
I cant attend the meeting but like nearly SU meeting i've attended in the last 3 years, it wont make quoroum

Jester252

ryanf1 wrote: »

Who has come up with the idea of scrapping An Focal? The SU or someone from the student body?
This would be a disastrous thng to do for so many reasons, having said that it could be scaled back slightly and reduce production costs.
I cant attend the meeting but like nearly SU meeting i've attended in the last 3 years, it wont make quoroum

Its not to scrap An focal its to stop the print edition and have it exist on-line like TST. Just look at the figure Reunion said its hard to fight for the print when its a large cost and their strapped for cash

Stuxnet

The college could cut back on toilet paper expenditure,
and we use the excess an focal's scattered around the place instead :pac:

Fishooks12

Won't mention names but I see some of last years sabbats have already delved into personal abuse in their quest to save An Focal

reunion

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Won't mention names but I see some of last years sabbats have already delved into personal abuse in their quest to save An Focal

And the SU wonders why people don't engage with them....

Maybe it might create some drama that might get people in the door.

freyners

first i heard of this was this morning and i would be fairly good with keeping up with this side of things,

wnolan1992

reunion wrote: »

And the SU wonders why people don't engage with them....

Maybe it might create some drama that might get people in the door.

Well given the current SU team don't seem too keen on publicising it I guess every little helps. :P

No agenda, motions, or even notice that the meeting is happening distributed via an All Student email yet, and there's less than 24 hours to go. :rolleyes:


On An Focal, seen a figure of 1000 left over copies for issue #1 this semester, and also that the current print run is 2500 copies per issue.
By my (rather uninformed) calculations, cutting the print run by 1000 to 1500, and reverting to B/W could save around €6k a year. (obviously that doesn't take into account that if you reduce the number of printed copies, you'd have to reduce the price charged for ads).

MiamiMortimer

wnolan1992 wrote: »

On An Focal, seen a figure of 1000 left over copies for issue #1 this semester, and also that the current print run is 2500 copies per issue.
By my (rather uninformed) calculations, cutting the print run by 1000 to 1500, and reverting to B/W could save around €6k a year. (obviously that doesn't take into account that if you reduce the number of printed copies, you'd have to reduce the price charged for ads).

Gotta agree on that one. It is a shame to waste paper and funds like that, but reducing the print run makes much more sense than completely cutting UL's only (print) newspaper.

Another thing worth considering with reference to the paper - it's under new management this year. It isn't handled by a sabbat any more, but by a student, and there's only been two editions printed so far this semester. Both have, in my opinion, published pretty balanced articles which by no means show evidence of being SU-censored or controlled. So, it isn't fair to judge it based on last year's sabbat-controlled edition any more. Whatever your opinions of last year's sabbats are, positive or negative, they shouldn't be affecting your opinion of the new, student-led editions of An Focal.

KellingtonDawg

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Won't mention names but I see some of last years sabbats have already delved into personal abuse in their quest to save An Focal

Lol, if you're referring to me, then the situation is as follows:

I called KF 'a joke' in a comment directed at him on facebook today. Why? Because I think he's a joke, simple as.

Can you explain to me why I'm not allowed to freely express my opinion Fishooks?

KellingtonDawg

MiamiMortimer wrote: »

Gotta agree on that one. It is a shame to waste paper and funds like that, but reducing the print run makes much more sense than completely cutting UL's only (print) newspaper.

This is exactly why I think the proposal is a very extreme measure. I think the above makes a lot of sense.

MiamiMortimer wrote: »

there's only been two editions printed so far this semester. Both have, in my opinion, published pretty balanced articles which by no means show evidence of being SU-censored or controlled. So, it isn't fair to judge it based on last year's sabbat-controlled edition any more. Whatever your opinions of last year's sabbats are, positive or negative, they shouldn't be affecting your opinion of the new, student-led editions of An Focal.

Again, I agree with this entirely

reunion

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Well given the current SU team don't seem too keen on publicising it I guess every little helps. :P

No agenda, motions, or even notice that the meeting is happening distributed via an All Student email yet, and there's less than 24 hours to go. :rolleyes:


On An Focal, seen a figure of 1000 left over copies for issue #1 this semester, and also that the current print run is 2500 copies per issue.
By my (rather uninformed) calculations, cutting the print run by 1000 to 1500, and reverting to B/W could save around €6k a year. (obviously that doesn't take into account that if you reduce the number of printed copies, you'd have to reduce the price charged for ads).

It's poor form from the SU team to leave it this late.

There are 1000+ copies of an focal still in the SU (of the second edition), 600+ copies were binned of the first edition. They cost ~€0.92 per paper (thats €920 for that issue alone being over printed). There were 2,500 papers printed for the second issue or 2/5ths of the overall papers still remain.

Here is a link to the document of income and expenditure of an focal


The paper has not turned a profit in the last 2 years, it has cost the SU ~€31.5k in those 2 years. €16,678 last year and €14,892.52 the year before.

It raised €15,421.56 in 2010/11 and had to pay €8,473 in bad debts and then €21,841.08 for print/design/layout/distribution costs.

In 2011/2012, €18,843.60 was income and expenditure of €250 for bad debts and €35,280.78 for print/design/layout/distribution costs.

Income:
2010/2011: €15,421.56 2011/2012: €18,843.60
Expenditure:
2010/2011: €30,314.08 2011/2012: €35,530.78
Difference:
2010/2011: €14,892.52 2011/2012: €16,687.18

As I understand it, half the yearly budget (the budget was €10,000) has been spent already on 2 editions. Though this budget was rejected last night at C&S council and as such an focal has no offical budget now.

The online version in the mean time has had 56,000+ views on issuu.com which works out at roughly 11,000 views per semester of the paper online. I don't have any figures from before the 2010/2011 academic year and all the money figures come from the general manager in the SU.

MajesticDonkey

reunion wrote: »

The online version in the mean time has had 56,000+ views on issuu.com which works out at roughly 11,000 views per semester of the paper online. I don't have any figures from before the 2010/2011 academic year and all the money figures come from the general manager in the SU.

Just an FYI, anfocal.ie is currently serving 6000-7000 unique visitors every month.

wnolan1992

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Just an FYI, anfocal.ie is currently serving 6000-7000 unique visitors every month.

Which would be fantastic if the bloody thing was actually regularly updated.

MajesticDonkey

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Which would be fantastic if the bloody thing was actually regularly updated.

I know :mad:

KellingtonDawg

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Which would be fantastic if the bloody thing was actually regularly updated.

The AF team ARE working on this though - they know the site has a lot of visitors and are actively working on updating it more regularly.

In fact, they have just posted a very good article about last nights meeting - http://www.anfocal.ie/uncategorized/5670/cs-reject-proposed-change-to-capitation-split

To be honest, what really annoys me about the proposal, is that it's so extreme. The proposer has refused to give any constructive criticism to the AF team, and has instead called, very drastically, for the paper to be cut.

Last year, the paper was run by a sabbat, a sabbat who had their hands tied to some extend with what they could and couldnt print. Now that it's being student-led, there's a lot more freedom there. This is a great opportunity in my opinion, one that students should be embracing.

If people arnt happy with how An Focal is going, go into the office and let them know. They're current students, they're doing this for no monetary gain whatsoever, and they are trying to make the transition to being entirely student led.

For what its worth, I think they're doing a very good job handling the pressure. With a few adjustments - more activity on the online site, more b & w pages, more ad sales and less print run - they'll solve all of the issues that have been raised here.

And I can tell you now, all the above suggestions have been made to them, and from what I can tell they are being put into motion as we type.

For current students doing this job off their own backs, its very disappointing to see them having to deal with a proposal to cut the paper they're working on so hard. Its also very upsetting to see them being the subject of so much scrutiny on boards/facebook etc etc when they've done nothing but try and improve themselves, their work, and the paper in question. :(:(

MiamiMortimer

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Which would be fantastic if the bloody thing was actually regularly updated.

It's under new management. Just give them a chance to get to it!

reunion

KellingtonDawg wrote: »

The proposer has refused to give any constructive criticism to the AF team.

Actually that's incorrect, the proposer said no such thing, in fact he said he was approached by other students to bring this issue forward, maybe because of ramifications of such a motion from former sabbats and other SU staff? For anyone who missed the sabbats abuse (before she deleted it):

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Juc4x4hXMCcGhLMVV0UWpsM1E

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Juc4x4hXMCZ3lTTENLVzdyWUE

Apparently the former communications officer confirms figures given to Philip Mudge about an focal are wrong! Serious issues highlighted there.

Jester252

Well they do get a lot of scrutiny because its our money that paying for the paper at a cost of reduced services when with An Focal there is a lot of money could be saved for removing the print.
IMO all it adds to is an increased mess around the college.

On a side note good to see a little information about the AGM less than 24hr before it takes place

Cablecar

There's a lot of giving out about the quality of An Focal here which, I believe, would want to be more balanced.

Last year the paid position (Communications) of An Focal editor was deemed unfit to continue due to budget constraints.

This was done without provision for what would happen to ULSU media production for the foreseeable future. Many students seemed to be unhappy with a notion that An Focal be disbanded and it indeed would be a terrible thing if it were. But, again, no provision was made for its continuance at this meeting; apart from suggestions that it would be run voluntarily. The post was indeed taken up by a forth year student, a person whom I believe would make one of An Focal's best editors- had provisions and support been available to him from the word go. This has, unfortunately, not been the case. From my standpoint I've seen and heard instances of incessant, attempted censorship of the publication by other members of the SU staff who are currently engaged in very strong superiority complexes. Complexes which have urged them to quell, and to encourage their friends to quell, any open or negative discussion about their political positions and their institution. This has involved censoring facebook posts, an attempted retraction of an An Focal online article and the attempted censoring of this online forum. What adds insult to injury is that the SU staff have made an attempt to create an image which supports open discussion and debate, one such example being the very poster which advertises the upcoming AGM which, and let me make this clear, no one will attend. This very badly designed piece is enshrined by stereotypes of what typical students say in a 'lets make this lighthearted so young people can relate' kind of a way, which personally I find quite offensive.

The point here is that a small group of hard working, volunteer students are running one of the few concrete services coming out of the SU at the moment. I have found both publications to be lacking in certain aspects but their virtues far out way their faults. They seem somewhat refreshed and slightly less pro SU biased than in the past and this, for myself and many friends, reflects our attitudes towards this dying institution. I would like to congratulate the An Focal staff for their hard work and hope that they can gather some more well deserved support as they move away from the tight grip of ULSU

KellingtonDawg

reunion wrote: »

Actually that's incorrect, the proposer said no such thing, in fact he said he was approached by other students to bring this issue forward

"He" - you mean you. And that's not me giving away your identity... you said you were putting forward the motion in another comment on this forum.

reunion wrote: »

For anyone who missed the sabbats abuse (before she deleted it):

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Juc4x4hXMCcGhLMVV0UWpsM1E

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Juc4x4hXMCZ3lTTENLVzdyWUE

Firstly, I'm not a sabbat, I'm a current student.
Secondly, I don't think that's abuse, I just don't like you. I'm not going around saying I don't like you, but I've no problem saying it straight to you. As I did earlier.
Thirdly, I didn't delete the comments, I blocked you. Why? Because I don't like you, it's that simple.

reunion wrote: »

Apparently the former communications officer confirms figures given to Philip Mudge about an focal are wrong! Serious issues highlighted there.

I never said what information you got wrong, I just said you did in fact have information that was wrong. I have no doubt that Philip gave you correct figures, but you're quite clearly misinterpreting these facts and figures. As I said before, I'll outline all your errors to you in person tomorrow, at the meeting. Have a little patience ffs.

KellingtonDawg

Jester252 wrote: »

Well they do get a lot of scrutiny because its our money that paying for the paper at a cost of reduced services when with An Focal there is a lot of money could be saved for removing the print.

The idea is that An Focal covers it's own costs through advertising revenue. Last year, it was the Comms Office income that covered the Comms Office expenditure... so while An Focal might look like it lost money (on paper), it was actually covered by money gained through other advertising streams specifically for use on the paper.

This year, theres no Comms Officer. So all the other streams of advertsing have gone to Keith Quinlan. So the lads doing AF this year have to cover the costs of AF solely through ads going in the paper.

There wern't many ads in the first two editions, but the ad sales have been improving in the last week or so. It's very likely that it will pay for itself but I agree with you in that the print run needs to be reduced.

Jester252

KellingtonDawg wrote: »

"He" - you mean you. And that's not me giving away your identity... you said you were putting forward the motion in another comment on this forum.

Yes you are

Firstly, I'm not a sabbat, I'm a current student.
Secondly, I don't think that's abuse, I just don't like you. I'm not going around saying I don't like you, but I've no problem saying it straight to you. As I did earlier.
Thirdly, I didn't delete the comments, I blocked you. Why? Because I don't like you, it's that simple.

Call that person a joke is abuse
Not to mention the trolololol comment.

I never said what information you got wrong, I just said you did in fact have information that was wrong. I have no doubt that Philip gave you correct figures, but you're quite clearly misinterpreting these facts and figures. As I said before, I'll outline all your errors to you in person tomorrow, at the meeting. Have a little patience ffs.

Just give us a quick view on how he got the information he has is wrong but correct?

KellingtonDawg

Cablecar wrote: »

From my standpoint I've seen and heard instances of incessant, attempted censorship of the publication by other members of the SU staff who are currently engaged in very strong superiority complexes.

I think I know which article you are referring to. I agree with you totally on this. And whats more, I really didn't appreciate the fact that the person you are referring to had the nerve to stand up in front of Class Reps Council and tell a room full of reps to "disregard that article" because it was "full of inaccuracies".

Cablecar wrote: »

The point here is that a small group of hard working, volunteer students are running one of the few concrete services coming out of the SU at the moment. I have found both publications to be lacking in certain aspects but their virtues far out way their faults. They seem somewhat refreshed and slightly less pro SU biased than in the past and this, for myself and many friends, reflects our attitudes towards this dying institution. I would like to congratulate the An Focal staff for their hard work and hope that they can gather some more well deserved support as they move away from the tight grip of ULSU

Well said.

KellingtonDawg

Jester252 wrote: »

Yes you are

?? How am I? He said in an earlier comment on this forum that he was going to put forward a motion to cut An Focal. I'm not saying anything he hasn't said himself.

Jester252 wrote: »

Call that person a joke is abuse

But I think he is a joke... ?? Lol, maybe I'm just not getting it. I don't see anything wrong with telling someone what I think of them.

Jester252 wrote: »

Not to mention the trolololol comment.

Oh lighten up, you are a Jester after all!! :p Era, I've been trolled enough in my day, can I not have a bit of fun?

Jester252 wrote: »

Just give us a quick view on how he got the information he has is wrong but correct?

Era, sure you'll have to go to the meeting and find out wont ya!

freyners

first time ive got to use this, this semester



least we got into october this time

KellingtonDawg

I was wondering when that would crop up

It's so apt tho

Tablampa

KellingtonDawg wrote: »

But I think he is a joke... ?? Lol, maybe I'm just not getting it. I don't see anything wrong with telling someone what I think of them.

Kelly, even though you're not a current sabbat, this abuse is giving SU a really bad image. I saw that post on Facebook and your abuse was completely unprovoked. Telling someone what you think is one thing, but your behaviour is downright childish.

With regards to "An Focal", maybe printing it in black and white and printing less copies could be a better way to go instead of just scrapping it all together.

KellingtonDawg

Just found out I won't make it to the AGM - apparently I have an exam in shorthand

Not that it's gonna make quorum anyway, but wanted to be there to show Reunion how he has misinterpreted the info given him. Era, I guess I'll just post it here. For the sake of brevity, I'll try condense to three short enough points.

1. The motion
The motion calls to stop the print edition of An Focal and Magazines such as Cellar Door. The wording of this motion alone reveals some ignorance of the workings of the Comms Office seeing as Cellar Door was a once off publication that occurred almost exactly a year ago. It has not been published since, nor are there any plans to publish it again.

2. The online stats
The proposer states - “The online version in the meantime has had 56,000+ views on issuu.com which works out at roughly 11,000 views per semester of the paper online.”

These figures seem to be coming from thin air. I can't even find where they might have come from or any info it might be being confused with. Not only that, but issuu.com is the website that HOSTS the PRINT VERSION of An Focal. This is NOT an online news site – the online news site is completely separate and is located at www.anfocal.ie

Total views of An Focal Print Edition on ISSUU.com for AY 2011/12 is 31,325 (not 56k) and the www.anfocal.ie website is averaging between 6,000 and 7,000 individual hits per month.

3. The Finance

Firstly, Reunion includes a figure of €8,473 in his calculations which are amounts incurred BY THE ULSU in bad debts. Bad debts (in relation to An Focal), for anyone who doesn't know (I wouldnt have known until last year), was advertising sold by the Comms Office which was never collected by the ULSU. I find it unfair to include this figure in the calculations because the work was done and the advertising was sold, but the ULSU dropped the ball and never bothered to collect the monies owed it. This is not the fault of An Focal, and the figure should not be included in any calculations relating to it.

Secondly, the figures Reunion quotes are misleading. On paper, An Focal does seem to incur a deficit, but An Focal (in previous years) was never meant to be a money maker - it was meant to be a service provided to UL students. As far as money goes, any previous ULSU VP/Comms Officer will tell you - the cost of producing An Focal was always covered by the money made by the Comms Officer. In other words, the Comms Officers would take on additional duties that were not in their job description in order to cover the cost of An Focal. So while An Focal appears to have lost money in recent years, the Comms Office income (income generated by the Comms Officer his or herself specifically to cover the cost of An Focal) has always covered it. Therefore, no student monies were ever spent on An Focal - it was covered completely by advertising revenue.

This year, things have changed. No Comms Officer means no additional streams of income. Therefore, money-making ad sales such as On Campus Activations, Package Deals, Web Ads, Posters, Product Placement, Sponsorship etc etc have all become the remit of the Events and Promotions Officer. This means that An Focal has to cover its cost through ad sales exclusively. The first two editions have not done this. The people running it know this, and have been working pretty hard to make ends meet. In the past two weeks, they have been bringing in a lot more ad revenue for future editions and they are pretty confident that with this advertising revenue and with a few cost cutting measures, they will achieve a cost neutral platform - thus providing a service for UL students on a cost neutral basis. I'm sure this will come up at tomorrows meeting, but I thought I'd outline it for anyone who cannot make it.

The annoying thing is, all of the above - cost cutting measures coming into effect, more ad sales, more online presence etc - these are issues that have already been raised in a constructive way BEFORE this ridiculous motion was put forward. The motion only serves to create a bad work environment for those working on An Focal who, if I can remind you, are indeed current UL students doing this for no monetary gain whatsoever.

It's a pity I can't make the meeting afterall, because I'm sure that once all the above is outlined, those that have supported this motion will realise how truly insignificant their claims actually are... especially considering that there is a much more important issue still ongoing right now in the Union regarding the proposed change to the 1/3 to 2/3 split - in my opinion, thats the isue that students should be thinking about and discussing right now.

Era, had hoped that would be a short comment. Thanks to anyone who stuck with it til the end I'll head away now and study for this test. Good luck to all in the meeting tomorrow.

Kel

KellingtonDawg

Tablampa wrote: »

Kelly, even though you're not a current sabbat, this abuse is giving SU a really bad image. I saw that post on Facebook and your abuse was completely unprovoked. Telling someone what you think is one thing, but your behaviour is downright childish.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the fact of the matter is that I'm not a current sabbat and, therefore, nothing I say should be taken as a ULSU stance in any way shape or form. I spent enough time last year being told what I could and couldnt say, so I dont plan on continuing that trend to prevent the ULSU getting a "bad image".

The 'abuse' was not totally unprovoked by the way - myself and Kevin are no strangers and have had run ins before. I apologise if it looks unprovoked, but I can assure you it is not. I'm not being childish in any way shape or form - I consider the man in question to BE an absolute joke, for many reasons other than his stance on the current issue. I wont go into those issues, as this is a public forum. I had no intention of coming onto boards and calling him a joke, by the way. I said it to him directly on the facebook page of a mutual friend of both of us. He's the one who took a screenshot of a personal and restricted post and put it on boards for all to see.

Tablampa wrote: »

With regards to "An Focal", maybe printing it in black and white and printing less copies could be a better way to go instead of just scrapping it all together.

I agree with you totally on this

Tablampa

KellingtonDawg wrote: »

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the fact of the matter is that I'm not a current sabbat and, therefore, nothing I say should be taken as a ULSU stance in any way shape or form. I spent enough time last year being told what I could and couldnt say, so I dont plan on continuing that trend to prevent the ULSU getting a "bad image".

The 'abuse' was not totally unprovoked by the way - myself and Kevin are no strangers and have had run ins before. I apologise if it looks unprovoked, but I can assure you it is not. I'm not being childish in any way shape or form - I consider the man in question to BE an absolute joke, for many reasons other than his stance on the current issue. I wont go into those issues, as this is a public forum. I had no intention of coming onto boards and calling him a joke, by the way. I said it to him directly on the facebook page of a mutual friend of both of us. He's the one who took a screenshot of a personal and restricted post and put it on boards for all to see.

Actually, I'm fully aware of these issues you have. I realise you don't get on but you made it completely personal for no reason. You say you're allowed to have your opinions, I think he should also be allowed to have his. And you didn't even watch what you said when you were a sabbat, even if you were told to.

Look, I have no personal issues with you but I just don't think the way you've behaved was appropriate.

At least we agree on what should be done with An Focal

KellingtonDawg

Tablampa wrote: »

Actually, I'm fully aware of these issues you have. I realise you don't get on but you made it completely personal for no reason. You say you're allowed to have your opinions, I think he should also be allowed to have his.

Well we had gotten over some stuff... and believe it or not we were actually facebook friends up until today... but this latest stunt was genuinely just the last straw for me. Cmere, I dont want to get into that though, this is a public forum and as I said above, I didnt want to bring that kinda stuff onto here.

Tablampa wrote: »

you didn't even watch what you said when you were a sabbat, even if you were told to.

Believe it or not, most of the time I actually did! I could write a book with all the s**t I was told not to say :P :P

Tablampa wrote: »

Look, I have no personal issues with you but I just don't think the way you've behaved was appropriate.

Ditto, I've no problem with you either (well, I dunno who you are, but I assume I dont!). But I would like to apologise to you though, if you have a problem with anything I've said. And to anyone else who might have had a problem with it actually! I'm impulsive and rash and I say things I shouldnt say all the time :pac:

...but I would like to reiterate that all I did was get into an argument with him and call him a joke to his face (or to his virtual face?!) on a post that only a limited amount of people could see... I didnt call him anything worse, I didnt want to bring it on boards, I havnt plastered screenshots of it on public forums - that was his decision.

Tablampa wrote: »

At least we agree on what should be done with An Focal

There is that :P :P

Stephen_Byrne

Won't somebody please think of the principles.... :P

http://www.anfocal.ie/comment/5287/a-declaration-of-principles

MiamiMortimer

reunion wrote: »

For anyone who missed the sabbats abuse (before she deleted it):

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Juc4x4hXMCcGhLMVV0UWpsM1E

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Juc4x4hXMCZ3lTTENLVzdyWUE

Apparently the former communications officer confirms figures given to Philip Mudge about an focal are wrong! Serious issues highlighted there.

How very inappropriate and petty to bring a personal argument into this forum in the hope of publicly vilifying someone who disagrees with your point of view. And forgive me for saying so, reunion, but I have little faith in any of the figures you've been throwing around, considering how easy it was to unravel and detangle the Charity Week ones you attempted, earlier this week, to use as proof of An Focal's 'incompetency'. I'm all for hearing opinions contrary to mine, but I find your method of communicating yours - through blatent misinterpretation of figures and sweeping statements you rarely prove - to be innately flawed.

Annnnnnd now I'm done posting on this issue. Looking forward to hearing tomorrow's ruling. :pac:

KellingtonDawg

MiamiMortimer wrote: »

How very inappropriate and petty to bring a personal argument into this forum in the hope of publicly vilifying someone who disagrees with your point of view.

My heart lept into my throat when I saw this, I thought you were about to tear strips off me... imagine my joy when I find it to be the opposite!!!

Maybe boards isnt so bad after all

MiamiMortimer wrote: »

Annnnnnd now I'm done posting on this issue. Looking forward to hearing tomorrow's ruling.

Me tooooo

KellingtonDawg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp7_u0kcQRo

benchppress

Everyone involved with the SU, the officers, the C&S executive, the main detractors, are such horrible, horrible people. Just one thin veiled passive aggressive snipe at one another over and over again. Absolutely nothing positive has come out of both organisations in the last 5 years.

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour, extremely unprofessional and childish.

wnolan1992

benchppress wrote: »

Everyone involved with the SU, the officers, the C&S executive, the main detractors, are such horrible, horrible people. Just one thin veiled passive aggressive snipe at one another over and over again. Absolutely nothing positive has come out of both organisations in the last 5 years.

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour, extremely unprofessional and childish.

F*ck yes!

Jester252

KellingtonDawg wrote: »

The idea is that An Focal covers it's own costs through advertising revenue. Last year, it was the Comms Office income that covered the Comms Office expenditure... so while An Focal might look like it lost money (on paper), it was actually covered by money gained through other advertising streams specifically for use on the paper.

This year, theres no Comms Officer. So all the other streams of advertsing have gone to Keith Quinlan. So the lads doing AF this year have to cover the costs of AF solely through ads going in the paper.

There wern't many ads in the first two editions, but the ad sales have been improving in the last week or so. It's very likely that it will pay for itself but I agree with you in that the print run needs to be reduced.

Soooooo you're telling me that An Focal is making a loss and had to be covered by other income from ad not in the paper that it can't use this year.
You pointed out that the students who are doing it with there own spare time and all power to them but I'm still paying for what is a waste of money when you can do most of it for free (TST) and still generate money. People what the print edition and I understand the why but there is no point in looking of money when you have such money pits in the organisation. I'm kinda disappointed that they was not a motion to reduce sabbats pay. We need to fix the holes on this ship
not bailout the water. Unless you add one thing the print ed does to boost money that can't be done online I don't see why it should be kept. Right now the paper is all filler. The lack of content is scary and would not be as noticeable if it was online. Most of the extra segment was filled with ads for on focal that just annoyed me.

benchppress

are there any google ads on tst i can't see any