E(&)Soc

Urizen · 25-09-2010 08:11PM

Green Hand Guy wrote: »

Technically I don't graduate until March :P
Also, lifetime associate member of Artsoc.

... Touché, my friend

Green Hand Guy wrote: »

Maybe you define a society by the name or by a few committee members or a logo, but I would define it by it's goals and purpose, and this society's are seemingly identical to those of E&S.

Were we to vote to disband drama, would you then allow it's former members to set up Do-a-Bunch-of-Plays-Soc just months later? Or if your own Parasoc was shut down, would it be acceptable to immediately apply to set up Spooky-Ghost-Hunting-Soc?

This is just a rebranding of E&S, and the SLC dropped the ball when they approved them. Now it's too late for them to go back on their decision so they're peddling this "It's completely different!" bull****.

I'd ask that you give them the benefit of the doubt, as the SLC did. If they get out of line, it'll be sorted. But I, at least, am not going to immediately expect them to behave inappropriately.

EDIT: With regard to AngelKat's comment, I realise I'm coming off a bit defensive. But I'm not on here officially.

Anyway, I remain adamant that this is not an overturning of any decisions. Hopefully that stands up to the test in the coming weeks. If everyone could calm down until then it'd be great.

Green Hand Guy · 25-09-2010 08:17PM

Urizen wrote: »

I'd ask that you give them the benefit of the doubt, as the SLC did. If they get out of line, it'll be sorted. But I, at least, am not going to immediately expect them to behave inappropriately.

Then I'd ask that when they do start treading on the toes of other societies, disrespecting the postering regulations, blaring music outside the CA labs people are trying to study in, leaving the Venue buried under a sea of red bull cans that they can't be arsed cleaning up and generally just being twats that something be done about it. Because for three years nothing was.

johan · 25-09-2010 08:27PM

Everyone seems to be focusing on the fact there a new society - this is a good thing.

So Make sure your society turns up at the term general meeting of the SPC, Where a vote has to be held on the formal approval of all new societies. <-- make sure they hold it, if you approve the accounts with the new society in them it could be seen as approval of the society

Ultimatly the Socities and Publications Committee (havn't heard of any general meeting held to change its name to the SLC) made up of the treasurers of the society (and publications) committees are responcible for the actions of the executive, and should hold them to account if they think they've made a mistake

lithiumoxide · 25-09-2010 08:45PM

Green Hand Guy wrote: »

As one of the people who voted in that meeting, I'm disgusted with the current SPC.

Considering it's so early in the academic year, I don't think the SLC would have had the time to approve ESoc. When I set up a soc a few years back, we were approved before the summer, to become active after summer, in the new academic year.

I may be wrong with this, but I would think that the SPC/SLC who approved ESoc was the same one that disbanded E&S.

I'm open to correction.

tomar-re · 25-09-2010 08:50PM

johan wrote: »

Everyone seems to be focusing on the fact there a new society - this is a good thing.

So Make sure your society turns up at the term general meeting of the SPC, Where a vote has to be held on the formal approval of all new societies. <-- make sure they hold it, if you approve the accounts with the new society in them it could be seen as approval of the society

Ultimatly the Socities and Publications Committee (havn't heard of any general meeting held to change its name to the SLC) made up of the treasurers of the society (and publications) committees are responcible for the actions of the executive, and should hold them to account if they think they've made a mistake

I agree with you in that we all have the ability to vote on this matter if we are a treasurer, which I am(never leaving DCU), but nobody held the last E&S incarnation to account until they actually did something that could get someone kicked out of the college.(Other societies in Ireland and England have had members expelled and punished due to fiddling books)

I think these guys deserve a chance to be the best orange skinned ug-boot wearing business students they can be, cos at the end of the day they didn't do anything last time so why not see how they go this time and pray for an SPC that can deal with them.

Oh I will be opposing the vote on changing it to the CLC and SLC until I see the constitutions as both have the mandatory line that name the organisation.

lil_cain · 25-09-2010 09:00PM

Obviously, I'm not a student anymore, so my opinion ultimately doesn't matter. And to a certain extent, I dislike attacking urizen over this; I spent time defending decisions here when I was on the SPC, and it's not a particularly nice position to be in.

But, really, this strikes me as a load of bollocks. The SLC (who, to the best of my knowledge haven't jumped through the hoops required by their own constitution to change their name) are essentially defending the decision to approve a society that brands itself *incredibly* similarly to a (in my opinion wrongly) disbanded society, not on the basis of any change in the societies remit, or any controls put in place, but on the basis that they get to make decisions about who gets approved.

The problem with E&S was *never* the actual committee. Don't get me wrong, they didn't help at all. The underlying issue though was that the society lacked any core activity to build themselves around. As such, funding them on the SPC was a nightmare, and it was an open secret that half of the things they were funded for had practically nothing to do with their supposed mandate of 'enterprise'. From my (totally uninformed) viewpoint, the S(P|L)C seem to be repeating *exactly* the same mistake as was made when E&S were approved. Maybe I'm wrong (and I hope I am), but if I am wrong, it strikes me as odd that urizen and attol aren't pointing out the actual differences.

Instead, we hear how the S(P|L)C has obviously looked at their proposed activities and constitution. Great, I'd love to believe that. I know it was something that wasn't done in enough detail for some societies when I was on the SPC, and we were working in the shadow of E&S' approval, so I'm somewhat dubious. If it is true however, surely urizen can point out where their list of proposed activities differs from the activities which E&S engaged in? Or where their mandate differs? We're told that they'll be treated like any other new society, and will be forced to follow the rules. Again, that sounds great, but I've *never* seen that happen to a new society in my time in DCU (and here, I have to hold my hands up. I was on the SPC that failed to crack down on E&S in their first year. Maybe if we had, they never would have had to be disbanded). How is this SLC going to differ from every SPC that's gone before it? We see urizen responding to people's queries with the comment that they're not in DCU. Fine, I agree, you should feel perfectly free to ignore all of us ex-student types. But really, if your arguments are reduced to that, you're in a pretty poor position.

So yeah. The days when the SLC could argue things on the basis of 'we know better' should be long over. Maybe they're not, and the non-executive membership of the SLC won't care. Unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me at all were this the case. But I'd really hope that this isn't the case, and that the SLC have thought long and hard about allowing this society, have ensured that the underlying problem with it has gone away, and that the SLC have put in place some actual controls on what E-Soc is going to do, I find it bloody hard to believe given my experience of society life in DCU, and the really singularly poor attempts at defending that decision here.

fun · 25-09-2010 09:21PM

I, for one, welcome our new fake tan and ugg boot wearing overlords. Long may they get funding from the SPC for pissups (money that could've gone to societies that, you know, have events relevant to their mandate) and parties.

Seriously though, they are a new society, and deserve to be treated as such. Fair enough at the end of the day they're practically the same as E&S, they'll have the same events and members, I just hope that after the shenanigans last year with E&S the SPC have learned a thing or two and will keep a watchful eye on them, and shut them down when they realise they're just raping the SPC for booze money.

Grudaire · 25-09-2010 09:26PM

phantom_lord wrote: »

They don't like it because all they do is "have the craic" I admit I'm out of the loop here, but what's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with having the craic - I just don't like thinking that I am funding them to have said craic. There are far more deserving groups of the funding.

Pygmalion · 25-09-2010 09:32PM

Cliste wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with having the craic - I just don't like thinking that I am funding them to have said craic. There are far more deserving groups of the funding.

This, if people want to go get pissed feel free, but taking money from the SPC for their pissups is bad form when there are groups who really need that money to organise their events and buy equipment.

Of course, there's always the chance that they'll actually organise a bunch of interesting, relevant enterprise events :rolleyes:

TheChrisD · 25-09-2010 09:38PM

phantom_lord wrote: »

They don't like it because all they do is "have the craic" I admit I'm out of the loop here, but what's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with having the craic under normal circumstances, except when their form of "having the craic" is basically doing events that there are dedicated societies for, and advertising as such as if those societies never existed.

tomar-re · 25-09-2010 09:47PM

Pygmalion wrote: »

This, if people want to go get pissed feel free, but taking money from the SPC for their pissups is bad form when there are groups who really need that money to organise their events and buy equipment.

Of course, there's always the chance that they'll actually organise a bunch of interesting, relevant enterprise events :rolleyes:

I hate to be saying this here but every society that gets money for it's trips away or competitions is guilty of using money for a pissup. The fact that they have a tangental reason for being on said trip doesn't give it a cloak of invulnerability to point at E&S's tangental events and say they are so much worse.

Creadak · 25-09-2010 09:52PM

I have to agree with lil_cain actually (something wrong with the world and such) I would love to know what the differences between ESoc and E&S actually are, mandate, aims, etc. Do they have a constitution that we can read? If so, where is it?

I personally didn't care about E&S nor do I really care about ESoc, but I'm somewhat intruiged now... Time will tell if this was a good or bad choice on the SLC's part, and I'll reserve judgement till I see what sort of events ESoc have.

fun · 25-09-2010 10:07PM

tomar-re wrote: »

I hate to be saying this here but every society that gets money for it's trips away or competitions is guilty of using money for a pissup. The fact that they have a tangental reason for being on said trip doesn't give it a cloak of invulnerability to point at E&S's tangental events and say they are so much worse.

I disagree with your statement. I've been on a few trips away with societies, and yes, some of us went to the bar afterwards, but the trip wasn't a "tangental reason" [sic] to have a few drinks. The drinks were tangential to the event I went away for, and 99% of the people who were with me would probably say the same.

Take for example Redbrick's trip to Bletchley Park. It was an amazing place with an amazing tour. I would, and plan to, go again. The committee didn't just decide to go for a pissup abroad and randomly pick a place nearby that was semi-relevant to the society. The sheer fact that you believe society trips away to be an excuse for a booze cruise, in my opinion, means you do not understand what a society is supposed to be and you should not ever be on a committee for one.

lithiumoxide · 25-09-2010 10:11PM

Creadak wrote: »

I have to agree with lil_cain actually (something wrong with the world and such) I would love to know what the differences between ESoc and E&S actually are, mandate, aims, etc. Do they have a constitution that we can read? If so, where is it?

I personally didn't care about E&S nor do I really care about ESoc, but I'm somewhat intruiged now...

I was wondering the same. I think all you need for a new soc to be considered by the SPC is a committee, 20 members, and a constitution. Surely it would make sense to also have an outline of aims, justification, who it's serving, etc.

A previous poster said (and I paraphrase) "all societies who got funding for trips away are guilty of funding pissups." If all societies are around simply to use and misuse alcohol, then the mandate for a new society that does the same has already been fulfilled.

Green Hand Guy · 25-09-2010 10:14PM

tomar-re wrote: »

I hate to be saying this here but every society that gets money for it's trips away or competitions is guilty of using money for a pissup. The fact that they have a tangental reason for being on said trip doesn't give it a cloak of invulnerability to point at E&S's tangental events and say they are so much worse.

I've organised society events and gone on trips for years and I don't drink at all. Any society that uses events as an excuse to go drinking shouldn't be funded.

Pygmalion · 25-09-2010 10:19PM

tomar-re wrote: »

I hate to be saying this here but every society that gets money for it's trips away or competitions is guilty of using money for a pissup. The fact that they have a tangental reason for being on said trip doesn't give it a cloak of invulnerability to point at E&S's tangental events and say they are so much worse.

I was about to respond to this but fun and Green Hand Guy said it better tbh.

I'm not saying it's just an E&S thing either, I'm sure other societies might do it too, but there's no other society that seems to have drinking as it's main focus at least outwardly, and the few societies I've been in have been incredibly faithful to their mandate (I've only been actively involved in 2 though so maybe I just got lucky).
The few trips I've been on definitely haven't been about drinking anyway, they were exactly as advertised with the inevitable pint or two afterwards.

supine · 25-09-2010 10:59PM

Surely we can temporarily close this thread until next year as iirc, as a new society, they aren't entitled to apply for any funding whatsoever in their first year, so noones money is being spent except money of their sponsors, memebrship etc.

Garseys · 25-09-2010 11:54PM

rabble rabble rabble...

I'm reserving judgement on E-Soc. If they have an actual core activity this time round, and abide by the SLC rules and regulations(including postering), I'll have no problem with them.

I can see where the tension & anger is coming from though.

btw how many business based societies are active now? 3?

eagleye7 · 25-09-2010 11:58PM

supine wrote: »

Surely we can temporarily close this thread until next year as iirc, as a new society, they aren't entitled to apply for any funding whatsoever in their first year, so noones money is being spent except money of their sponsors, memebrship etc.

I dont know where you heard that, but first year societies imo are entitled to the same funding as anyone else, because otherwise they arent a society, theyre just a bunch of people doing things. I think what you are thinking of is capital and equipment. They can be hard on societies buying equipment specific to their hobby, as they can be worried about it being a waste if the society doesnt pick up.

Incidentally, I dont understand how E&S ever got money to spend on booze. From my experience, any social event run by a society gets funded for two things, 15 euro for refreshemts, with more if you have over 25 people there, and 7 euro for posters. tbh this is all you should need, as its not relevant to your hobby, general interest, mandate etc. So surely a society that runs 95% "piss-ups" shouldnt get any funding?
Can someone correct me on that??

Garseys · 26-09-2010 12:09AM

eagleye7 wrote: »

Incidentally, I dont understand how E&S ever got money to spend on booze. From my experience, any social event run by a society gets funded for two things, 15 euro for refreshemts, with more if you have over 25 people there, and 7 euro for posters. tbh this is all you should need, as its not relevant to your hobby, general interest, mandate etc. So surely a society that runs 95% "piss-ups" shouldnt get any funding?
Can someone correct me on that??

I'm sure one of the old SPC members or current SLC members can elaborate on the nitty gritty but Societies can't fund for alcohol using the refreshments budget. ( and iirc alcohol at society events is in violation of OSL policy)

TheChrisD · 26-09-2010 12:12AM

Garseys wrote: »

I'm sure one of the old SPC members or current SLC members can elaborate on the nitty gritty but Societies can't fund for alcohol using the refreshments budget. ( and iirc alcohol at society events is in violation of OSL policy)

I thought the ruling was that if alcohol was being served at an event, there has to be an equivalent amount of non-alcoholic drink also made available?

Garseys · 26-09-2010 12:18AM

TheChrisD wrote: »

I thought the ruling was that if alcohol was being served at an event, there has to be an equivalent amount of non-alcoholic drink also made available?

but alcohol can't be funded for, anytime I have seen a society with alcohol at an event it has come from the pockets of the committee.(this is before the new policy was introduced)

also there has to be a ticket system, one member is entitled to one drink.

*goes searching for the actual policy*

its a bit cloudy tbh, which is why we go to the bar after the event.

tomar-re · 26-09-2010 03:33AM

Right fun and green hand guy I will admit that pissup was too general a word to use but I really think that a lot of the funded trips are too far outside the remit of a society to warrant funding.
I don't know the level of funding that the drama trip to broadway or the book soc trip to Auschwitz or the redbrick trip got but I honestly don't think that they are the main focus of where the money should be spent. I know I am about to be called a hypocrite for saying this but I think the money could be spent better on events for the general members of the society.

Now when it comes to society spending the SPC does not fund alcohol and any drink beyond a reasonable amount of wine at events, any alcohol distributed by E&S came from external money sources.

Their trips in the most part were not funded by the SPC and the majority of their events were in the same boat. They were very very good at getting money in for themselves and great at promotions.
We may have hated them for different reasons but they had a market and people took up their E&S cards in levels not seen since there was a faculty of computing and redbrick was new.

tomar-re · 26-09-2010 03:38AM

Garseys wrote: »

but alcohol can't be funded for, anytime I have seen a society with alcohol at an event it has come from the pockets of the committee.(this is before the new policy was introduced)

also there has to be a ticket system, one member is entitled to one drink.

*goes searching for the actual policy*

its a bit cloudy tbh, which is why we go to the bar after the event.

Hey can you post up that policy? I have never actually seen the wording of the OSL policy. I know you can get alcohol though cos wine receptions are allowed before events and were funded for at least one society last year. You could never have a load of drink but wine was always allowed under policy so long as it was bought from trispace(see college alcohol policy).

Cy_Revenant · 26-09-2010 10:39AM

tomar-re wrote: »

Right fun and green hand guy I will admit that pissup was too general a word to use but I really think that a lot of the funded trips are too far outside the remit of a society to warrant funding.
I don't know the level of funding that the drama trip to broadway or the book soc trip to Auschwitz or the redbrick trip got but I honestly don't think that they are the main focus of where the money should be spent. I know I am about to be called a hypocrite for saying this but I think the money could be spent better on events for the general members of the society.

How are trips not for the general members of the society? What do you even mean by that?

Art Soc took a trip to Budapest last year to visit a chain of art galleries. A big crowd went, I forget the exact numbers, close to 20 I think.
Most of these people were regular members of Art Soc, always at the weekly meetings and with a big interest in art. How are these people not general members?

Games Soc went to Cork and Belfast last year to visit gaming conventions and generally play lots of games. The people who went are the same people who go to all of Games Soc's weekly meetings. Are these people not general members? Are they some kind of upper tier elite membership?

Every member of a society is afforded the same opportunity to go on trips. And I've rarely heard of a trip that did not advance a societies core reason for existing.

Now when it comes to society spending the SPC does not fund alcohol and any drink beyond a reasonable amount of wine at events, any alcohol distributed by E&S came from external money sources.

Their trips in the most part were not funded by the SPC and the majority of their events were in the same boat. They were very very good at getting money in for themselves and great at promotions.
We may have hated them for different reasons but they had a market and people took up their E&S cards in levels not seen since there was a faculty of computing and redbrick was new.

Funny you should say that, when the main reason E&S' goose got cooked was for misappropriating SPC funding on a trip away.

Green Hand Guy · 26-09-2010 10:49AM

tomar-re wrote: »

I don't know the level of funding that the drama trip to broadway or the book soc trip to Auschwitz or the redbrick trip got but I honestly don't think that they are the main focus of where the money should be spent.

I've been on the drama trip to broadway 4 times. Every year everyone goes to three plays. Most years, people even decide to go to one or even two extra ones paid for out of their own pocket in their free time. You can't really get more drama-related than that.

lil_cain · 26-09-2010 11:13AM

Garseys wrote: »

I'm sure one of the old SPC members or current SLC members can elaborate on the nitty gritty but Societies can't fund for alcohol using the refreshments budget. ( and iirc alcohol at society events is in violation of OSL policy)

If this is the case it's a recent thing. The OSL policies on alcohol are incredibly stupid, but they're not *this* stupid (or weren't in my time).

fun · 26-09-2010 02:21PM

tomar-re wrote: »

Right fun and green hand guy I will admit that pissup was too general a word to use but I really think that a lot of the funded trips are too far outside the remit of a society to warrant funding.
I don't know the level of funding that the drama trip to broadway or the book soc trip to Auschwitz or the redbrick trip got but I honestly don't think that they are the main focus of where the money should be spent. I know I am about to be called a hypocrite for saying this but I think the money could be spent better on events for the general members of the society.

Far too outside the remit of a society? Really? A visit to the national museum of computing and home of the codebreakers during world war two, the place where Alan Turing (the father of modern computer science and cryptography) worked, the home of the first programmable computers is far too outside the remit of the Computer and networking society? A visit to Broadway too outside the remit of the drama society?
Cop yourself on here, these events are based around the core ideals of these societies, why shouldn't they get funding?

johnn · 26-09-2010 02:35PM

Let's get down to what everyone is really interested in.....

Will they be able to get me a discount in Abercrombie goys!?

public_enemy · 26-09-2010 02:59PM

fun wrote: »

I disagree with your statement. I've been on a few trips away with societies, and yes, some of us went to the bar afterwards, but the trip wasn't a "tangental reason" [sic] to have a few drinks. The drinks were tangential to the event I went away for, and 99% of the people who were with me would probably say the same.

Take for example Redbrick's trip to Bletchley Park. It was an amazing place with an amazing tour. I would, and plan to, go again. The committee didn't just decide to go for a pissup abroad and randomly pick a place nearby that was semi-relevant to the society. The sheer fact that you believe society trips away to be an excuse for a booze cruise, in my opinion, means you do not understand what a society is supposed to be and you should not ever be on a committee for one.

Every story I've heard from Redbrick folk about this (and their Finland trip) was about drinking. Every single one. I really can't say what else they did in either country. And I've heard both described by more than one committee member as simply reasons to get funding for international pissups. When I was on that committee several odd years ago, we had more than one informal discussion about finding "an excuse" to get financing for a trip away.

This is true of plenty of other societies too, I've been told by Snowboarding every year that if I join I can be a part of a pissup in Andorra - "It doesn't matter if you don't like snowboarding". I'm not saying people aren't interested in the activities societies book for their trips, but it's a little naive to think 99% (did you go with 100 people?) of them are there to be educated.

That said, I agree totally with what lil_cain posted (and I'm especially curious now about the machinations behind the SPC -> SLC name change), but pretty much every society is guilty of some funding abuse here and there and it's unfair to villify E&S or their illegitimate offspring over it without context. The key issue for me isn't that they allowed a new society of the same ilk, it's that they may have ignored a vote by their members in doing so.

E(&)Soc

Comments