regarding that whole vampire business: obviously you understand that it was a joke, but that situation perfectly exemplifies the issue with you stalking our message boards in an attempt to find incriminating evidence against mary. just like i can make a harmless simpson's reference (targeted towards my friends who i knew would understand it), i should also be able to voice my opinions and concerns with your candidate to my peers without having to feel like big brother is watching. the only reason i stopped was because i didn't want to tarnish mary's reputation; however, the fact remains that it is my prerogative to say whatever i wish about my perceptions of a candidate's character, and that should not reflect poorly on mary in any regard.
that's all i have to say on the matter. now, let's all forget our troubles with a big bowl of strawberry ice cream. and go vote!

Originally Posted by Ian Finlay

Mary brought the posts to our attention saying she saw many Art Sci students concerned with Kieran and the way he was conducting his campaign.

I'm curious as to whether she brought forth actual posts or just sentiments that were a summary of posts. Because I'm rather certain that she doesn't check the forum regularly enough to keep up...and it seems much more likely that a Team Mary member who isa forum regular conveyed to her the sentiments expressed, which she then conveyed to Team Kieran. Hardly not

Originally Posted by Ian Finlay

[not telling Team Kirean] what was happening in good faith

In conclusion, I disagree with your assertion that Mary was not proactive enough in preventing slander on an anonymous forum on the basis of faulty premises.

Originally Posted by neila.b

however, the fact remains that it is my prerogative to say whatever i wish about my perceptions of a candidate's character, and that should not reflect poorly on mary in any regard.

There in lies our beef with the whole issue. That someone with Mary Koziol Profile Picture and apparent supporter has "personal" remarks about "a candidate's character". We have tried our level best to keep our criticism limited to platform points and Intellectual discourse and the pursuit of the "ultimate truth"(J.S.Mills)
hence we fully welcome any debate or critique of our platform even if it is on Art Sci anon forums. But we didn't see a good deal of that, instead it was saddening to see personal remarks and Kieran's "Cult" and other stuff.

Also secondly according to the *new* rules this year ALOT of categories of supporters can be held liable as supporters, even people outside the campaign team who just have a Kieran DP and Tshirt on.

But yeah I hope this is the last post in this unnecessary exchange; You guys clearly feel you did no wrong and we feel otherwise. I don't see a consensus!

Everyone pleas just go out and vote!

i can see how you might be saddened by remarks made about kieran's "cult". however, the fact remains that these remarks were not made with any malice. i personally never had anything against kieran, and was even considering ranking him on my ballot, until you guys decided to invade our forum and try to use it against mary. but i digress. the point is, when i referred to kieran's "cult", it was a joke, and anyone who read it knows me and understands that it was meant as such. the fact that none of you a)have any knowledge about our forum's dynamic and b) took the comment entirely out of context is probably what led it to be misconstrued.

Ian,

Sorry for the time lag; I thought your response to my post was timely, and for that I thank you. I would love to let this slide, but I noticed that your post seemed to misconstrue my point, and I wanted to clear things up. Reproduced below is your response to my posting; just so everyone's clear, there's different colors to the font, and I"ll preface my comments with a little --> just to be safe. Apologies for the stylistic choice, but it seems like the best way to clear up this misunderstanding.

First of Bothwell, There is conclusive proof that there were two members of her team writting these things. Scrambles it is not iffy, It would be enough to prove it. Either way...

--> See my post; I specifically suggested that if there is conclusive proof, you should offer it. For example, you could name the people you are insinuating have been slandering you, and put this in the open. I was unfamiliar with the purpose and benefits of free speech, but I have heard that the right to face your accuser is worth considering also. The entirety of my point (which I'm glad you has three lines to address before getting in a campaign plug) is that your accusations are slander without evidence; further, you haven't even defined a target (other than the most expedient group available, another campaign platform). Further, due to the nature of political campaigning, it's not enough for you to say you have evidence. As a discerning citizen, I have to consider the possibility that you are mistaken, and so decide for myself. As such, if you have evidence of slander, please put it into the public arena. Mary's campaign team is a well-defined group (as opposed to her supporters, who she's taken pains to address which seem pretty reasonable, considering the difficulties involved in reigning in other people in a free society, who respond poorly to being told to censor themselves in the interests of public safety). Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood again, I'm suggesting that if you have the names of two people on Mary's campaign team who have been slandering you, then you should make the accusation and produce your proof, or cease acting like said proof exists. Your accusations are slander without that proof and third party verification of it (here, the voter is the third party). Alternatively, you could try to argue that although you have the proof, there is some compelling reason why you shouldn't share it with me (and I don't think concern over someone's reputation is sufficient; either they acted inappropriately in the public arena, or they didn't, and regardless the public has a right to know).

Second, Kierans Campaign has been about his platform. He has a stronger one than any other candidate with support already amounting from Students, and University Officials. To say that Kieran has not developed a platform is extremely wrong.

--> I'm sure he has. I was a bit taken aback, and spent some time trying to relate this to my post, before I realized it in fact did not relate to my comments, and was instead a generic hurra! for Kieran's platform. Good job on refuting the contention that Kieran has not developed a platform; too bad I didn't make that contention.

The point of campaigns is for political discourse. If you are upset someone is attacking your points and they have valid concern, instead of being upset you should find ways to make your platform better. This is the idea which underlies Mill's arguement of freedom of speech. If you cannot discuss ideas you cannot prove you are right, or find out why you are wrong. This provides an arena to find truth. This is the heart and soul of our Democratic Political Process. If you can't deal with the criticisms while running, how can you deal with the criticisms when in office. Look, even Vishal is getting ragged on right now on a seperate thread. This happens and if it is about someones character without proof that is beyond unfair, but if it is about the ideas and platform points which a candidate puts forth, that's Democracy!"

--> Thanks for the democracy tutorial; I am just wondering, though, who it is that is upset someone is attacking their points with valid concerns? Who is upset over these valid criticisms, and responding with slander instead of improving their platform? This whole discussion (here I"m referring to the discussion started by my initial post) consists of me pointing out that you could well be slandering Mary's campaign, and you responding with the hard truth that said slander did occur, followed up by vague insinuations that other platforms are slandering you because they are angry/upset/concerned/other that they cannot punch holes in your platform. How about you take your own advice (which is again, ironically, back where we started) and ensure that you are not perceived as slandering another team while protesting about how platform team memebers are slandering you?
Here's a gem:"if you cannot discuss ideas, you cannot prove you are right, or find out why you are wrong." I'm glad to hear we're on the same page. I'm trying to find out if this slander did or did not occur, without trusting you or your campaign team's word (I think you'd agree that it would be unhealthy for democracy if the voter blindly trusted the candidate's word, instead of considering ulterior motives (see Cleon, Lysander, George Bush, et al). Being as this is the heart and sould of 'our' democratic political process, how about you substantiate the claims you're making, or cease to treat them as true. We've got a lovely forum here to find truth; no sense wasting time in taking advantage of it.
Thanks for the time; hopefully this clears things up.

Justin Bothwell

Originally Posted by neila.b

regarding that whole vampire business: obviously you understand that it was a joke, but that situation perfectly exemplifies the issue with you stalking our message boards in an attempt to find incriminating evidence against mary. just like i can make a harmless simpson's reference (targeted towards my friends who i knew would understand it), i should also be able to voice my opinions and concerns with your candidate to my peers without having to feel like big brother is watching. the only reason i stopped was because i didn't want to tarnish mary's reputation; however, the fact remains that it is my prerogative to say whatever i wish about my perceptions of a candidate's character, and that should not reflect poorly on mary in any regard.
that's all i have to say on the matter. now, let's all forget our troubles with a big bowl of strawberry ice cream. and go vote!

I think im so glad I'm not an artsci.... shit these guys are cool.

Originally Posted by neila.b

regarding that whole vampire business: obviously you understand that it was a joke, but that situation perfectly exemplifies the issue with you stalking our message boards in an attempt to find incriminating evidence against mary. just like i can make a harmless simpson's reference (targeted towards my friends who i knew would understand it), i should also be able to voice my opinions and concerns with your candidate to my peers without having to feel like big brother is watching. the only reason i stopped was because i didn't want to tarnish mary's reputation; however, the fact remains that it is my prerogative to say whatever i wish about my perceptions of a candidate's character, and that should not reflect poorly on mary in any regard.
that's all i have to say on the matter. now, let's all forget our troubles with a big bowl of strawberry ice cream. and go vote!

the issue is, as said above, you support mary and under the new rules you CANT say anything about another candidate's character without reflecting poorly on mary. its unfortunately a new rule which we made sure everyone who was supporting kieran was aware of and that there was not to be personal attacks against other candidates, questions made were to be strictly about campaign platforms and if we heard backtalking there would be consequences. Kieran wanted a professional campaign.

regardless of everything, i hope everyong went out and voted today

wow andrew, very insightful of you. i'm glad to see you guys are running such a 'professional campaign', just like kieran wanted. all best tomorrow- i think i may have overheard one person today say they were going to vote for you?

p.s. where were these new rules stated? perhaps they were made clear to campaign team member, but just in case you didn't catch that the first time...i am NOT on mary's team. cheers.

I think i should say (for their campaigns sake ) that Im not on kieran's team either, not sure if that was clear anyone really been as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


and yes i will except that vote for me! cool

Originally Posted by andrew22

I think i should say (for their campaigns sake ) that Im not on kieran's team either, not sure if that was clear anyone really been as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


and yes i will except that vote for me! cool

i'm sorry...i read that a few times but, try as i may, i just can't make sense of it. what was your question?

I ran into two of Kieran's campaign team members today in Arts Quad and they were really nice. They were giving out slips of paper (which I find is just a waste) and telling people to vote Kieran but they were really nice, and I told them I planned on putting him 2nd on my ballot and they were like that's cool etc and didn't try and convince me otherwise which I appreciated. I've found members of another campaign team to be pushy so I appreciated the contrast.

Hey Stephanie, being a member on Kieran's team I really appreciate your post! Despite the criticism we may have had of other platforms we have attempted to be completely professional. If someone doesn't want to vote for Kieran we won't badger you and thank you for putting him down for #2! The bottom line is I think is everyone involved in campaigns should be proud of the turnout we all have seen thus far!

- Matt D-L

Originally Posted by sew12

I ran into two of Kieran's campaign team members today in Arts Quad and they were really nice. They were giving out slips of paper (which I find is just a waste) and telling people to vote Kieran but they were really nice, and I told them I planned on putting him 2nd on my ballot and they were like that's cool etc and didn't try and convince me otherwise which I appreciated. I've found members of another campaign team to be pushy so I appreciated the contrast.

Though that wasn't me personally, most of us generally have made it a point to ask everyone explicitly to make an informed decision and atleast go on the website themselves and see his "platform points" and some of us even try and explain some of them briefly before we ask people to vote! I think that approach is better then just telling & pushing people to vote for so and so without specific reasoning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
& Neila well done! So now you think anyone who doesn't agree with your rhetoric/opinions is on Kieran's campaign team just so you can bunch the entire team as unprofessional and condescending, impressive. But what I find hilarious is that you managed to link Andrew22 here as a "kieran campaign team" member when in the same thread earlier on he left an interesting post for us!

I was in the hope that you would have some respect for yourselves and Kieran and stop spamming with the cyclical arguments that are unrelated to Kieran's candidacy.

And I would also suggest going through Andrew22's previous posts to find out that he is a completely independent and interesting character around here!