That’s too bad that Micah was the one who trashed the UOC, because I’m really into the student-run cafe in the works and pretty unenthusiastic about Spahn’s leadership stipend proposal…

Mike Pernick. 4 more years.

16 yeah, I meant Micah.

As far as your comment on bradley, all his dumbass resolutions would get voted down in the WSA, so he’d be kept in line.

Micah, I don’t know about. He’d just fuck shit up on his own…

Bradley’s more predictable and much less likely to be a loose cannon.

It’s so sad that everyone is so pathetic. Why the fuck couldn’t firke just run? He’s much less polarizing.

#14 I think you meant Feiring not Firke with the shitty track record comment, right? Also, it seems like this race is picking the lesser of two evils: in touch with student needs but unpredictable, or completely off-base in terms of policy but a bureaucrat at heart… I guess progressive and backed up by the support of the WSA is better than out of touch. it’s tough though

I think it made sense that Jeff’s e-mail was taken down, because it was unnecessarily inflammatory and unprofessional, but the description of Micah sounded about right to me. Maybe it’s not fair, because I don’t know him very well, but whenever I have heard anyone talk about him, it’s because of some ridiculously dumbass thing he did. I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but I’m not sure why he should be WSA President. A funny video does not a good student representative make.

Braille, I hadn’t read that before. And that just reinstates every gut feeling that I have about Micah. I think Firke’s a good candidate. Why the hell Micah is running for prez is behind me. He’s fucked up everything I’ve seen him touch…

For as big a dbag as he can be at times, Pernick has helped make good strides with the admin and that can’t be done with someone who has such a shitty track record, aka firke.

Too bad Bradley’s an idiot as well with his student leadership stipend and so. If that’s his first initiative, he needs to take his head outta his ass.

Goddamn, I’m almost glad I’m leaving this year because neither of these two candidates are worth a damn.

Giant fucking joint…

I agree with #6. The post was not unprofessional. In fact, it offered much-needed insight into the candidates’ work in the WSA that most Wesleyan students don’t have. The most effective strategy to counter this would have been for a WSA rep supporting Micah to counter the claims, not to take it down altogether. Candidates’ behavior in meetings and towards administrators matters. “Loud and obnoxious” may have been an aggressive choice of words, but if it’s accurate, why not say it?

Look Wesleying readers, this blog was started to help bring a disjointed campus together. We do this by providing a forum that celebrates all of our activities and achievements, and provides information about the school that everyone can relate to (more or less). The statement given to us was one that is counter to that goal – it only incites divisions and conflict among the student body.

Also, this isn’t some kind of Soviet-era suppression of free speech. Each media organization at Wesleyan covers a different type and style of content (with some overlap), and this post was outside of our domain. I and other bloggers have asked the author to respect this and have suggested that the author publish his post to the other forums Wesleyan has for that kind of statement – namely the ACB and Wespeaks.

- Avocado

fuck wesleying

I like the subtle smear against the Argus:

“If you want to rant and rave incoherently and just generally make an ass of yourself, then we won’t post it here. Just submit your load of shit as a Wespeak, or (if you don’t want to slum it that bad) on the ACB.”

@2 @6 The mistake you are both making is that wesleying had a problem with the content of the post. The problem is with the tone.

The poster/writer should be feeling embarrassed and foolish because the way they delivered their criticism was unprofessional. If they have legitimate complaints that need to be aired, then they should be voiced in a way that lets the facts speak for themselves.

Rob,

You should recognize that there is a difference between raising issues and being completely disrespectful and downright mean. I don’t see how a candidate’s potential competence in an elected position has anything to do with a single person’s opinion of their character. If someone wants to write crap about a person being “loud and obnoxious,” that does not belong here. Period. If someone wants to make students aware of the work (good or bad) that a candidate has done in the WSA it should not come packaged with a slew of personal attacks.

The Argus can go ahead and publish this kind of “campaign” material if that’s what you see fit. Wesleying has no obligation to foster that kind of negativity.

Giant joint, you’re always the voice of reason…

I agree that it’s probably embarrassing for the candidate, but I don’t think it’s Wesleying’s place to decide what gets advertised and what doesn’t… Maybe add a disclaimer by Wesleying stating that you guys don’t support these kinds of negative attacks, but taking it down is uncharacteristic of Wesleying’s usual open, dialogue-promoting practices…

Why was it an ill-thought-out screed? Jeff Stein was a WSA rep who worked closely with both Micah and Brad. He is well-placed to decide who is the better leader and endorse who he deems fit. It is definitely relevant for the campus to be accessing that sort of information. While Wesleying has the right to take down any post they wish, they’re going a little too far in throwing a backhanded insult towards a candidate and his colleague just because the latter writes something in support. Very unprofessional on the part of Wesleying and I’ve very surprised at the subsequent comment that they posted up.

giant joint just wants peace for everyone. chill out, wesleyan, vote for me

@Rob: There was absolutely no honor in that post. It was an ill-thought-out screed, and I’m sure its author regrets such a childish statement. Wesleying should be an open forum, but if they want to distance themselves from posts that are asinine, immature, and embarassing, that’s their prerogative. Besides, negative campaigning is going to hurt these guys in the long run, and I’m sure they’re relieved that the post is history.

^One of the best comments on the matter I’ve seen yet…

I think this is a terrible, terrible policy. If we want to believe that this is an actual democratic election, then airing serious questions about the competence of one of the candidates is completely honorable, even courageous since it will certainly result in social discomfort for whoever is doing it. The post in question wasn’t a playground insult, and if the concerns in it were accurate they should affect how people vote. I think it’s ridiculous that Wesleying wants to banish campaigning, even negative campaigning, to a forum known as a hive of irresponsible rumor-mongering. A rare miss, Wesleying.

the original post:

http://collegeacb.com/sb/wes/thread/258750