Caption Contest

Posted by: | February 29, 2008 | 68 Comments

“VP-Admin elect Tristan Markle adding ‘Right to Cheat’ to posters in support of
VP-Academic elect Alex Lougheed”

This was obviously meant to be public. If you’re not up on the controversy surrounding the VP Academic race, refer to the Ubyssey here and here. The implications of publicly discrediting a fellow executive-elect are unclear, but probably relevant to future working relationships. Tristan, and Nathan Crompton, the runner-up in Alex’s race are close friends and colleagues. Retrospective and analysis about executive dynamics by Gina coming soon.


68 Comments so far

  1. Anonymous on March 3, 2008 4:05 pm

    Anon 1:28:

    Most people in the AMS do agree on what we should be working on for students; we may differ on small things, like what is the best model for student financial aid, but most of us are willing to discuss and arrive at a consensus, and go and get stuff done. The problem is the knolligarchy, who think the AMS is the battleground for some all out revolution, and because of that, everything has to fit some preconceived ideology, and if it doesn’t, well, they won’t even consider the proposal. Anon 11:37 had the right idea – its the few knollies who have taken the AMS hostage that have put the AMS in the state it is today, mainly no-one cares. Either act in the best interest of students, no matter who that means working with, or get your marxist, communist, whatever(I don’t even know what you would call their particular brand of fundamentalism) the hell out of our student society.

  2. stefanie on March 4, 2008 2:50 am

    The commentary on this messageboard is a prime example of why some people gag in disgust when anything “political” is mentioned. And rightly so. It is a disgrace to UBC students, and the AMS.

    As a student that is new to the internal workings of the AMS, as well as a person who has been active on campus, especially on issues around the Knoll (both the grassy and paper kind), I will acknowledge that I am personally insulted by some of the comments on this board.

    If you feel it is necessary to take issue, for whatever reason, you can contact me directly at, or in the AMS offices in SUB 238J. I will not be commenting any further on this board.

    Please think before you speak.
    – stefanie

  3. Anonymous on March 4, 2008 3:17 am


    “Retrospective and analysis about executive dynamics by Gina coming soon”

    How soon is soon? I really wanna see ur two cents

  4. Anonymous on March 4, 2008 3:34 am

    Stefanie, it is really too bad that you disagree with the comments written on this board, but you must understand and respect students’ rights to free speech. I personally have found many of these comments to be highly informative. If you don’t, nobody is forcing you to read them.

    What I find disgraceful to the AMS, is the fact that a senior executive is so openly condemning discussion by members of the student body, on the sole basis of difference of opinion. As hurtful as I know this sounds, I regret voting for you.

  5. Anonymous on March 4, 2008 7:02 pm

    It’s funny how everyone is acting all surprised about the “knolligarchy” after voting them in. Seriously, what was expected? They never appeared to be willing to work in a productive way with people of other mindsets prior to this election, why should anything change now? I guess all students can do now is this. Keep watching, being aware, and holding the exec accountable when their personal loyalties and agendas get in the way of their democratic responsibilities.

  6. Anonymous on March 4, 2008 7:08 pm

    Alfie- I think it’s seriously unfair of you to hide your partisan politics behind faux ams insider knowledge. You have never been in any position to have insight into whether or not Alex or any exec being connected to “contraversy” changes the dynamic or makes the exec work poorly. Your job as a senator does not give you that kind of insight.
    Maybe what you really mean is that it would be easier for this exec to work as a knoll slate than it would be for them to compromise with different thinkers on exec…

  7. Steven on March 5, 2008 6:43 am

    “Stefanie, it is really too bad that you disagree with the comments written on this board, but you must understand and respect students’ rights to free speech.”

    Um..excuse me? Did Stefanie say that she was going to try to shut down this blog? That everyone here should stop expressing their opinions? FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN HAVING YOUR OPINIONS GO UNCHALLENGED! She simply stated that she did not want to participate in these discussions. Given the outrageous accusations leveled at the so-called “knolligarchy” in this thread, I can hardly blame her. But it only adds to the blatantly partisan pile-on to then accuse her of being opposed to free speech.

    Alex Lougheed tampered with an electoral process. He worked to undermine the authority of the official in charge of ensuring a fair and open election. When confronted, he shrugged it off. And, now that other students started asking questions, we are accused of being part of some cynical ploy to attack the AMS. Who is really cynical here? Who are really the political elitists who believe they can act with impunity?

    Since it was revealed that Alex Lougheed tampered with the election, there has been a co-ordinated effort to attack and discredit those students trying to get a fair hearing over what happened. It’s no surprise that Freeman Poritz was the one who took the photo and passed it on to UBC Insiders. Those who ran against more progressive students have done everything they can to make it seem like there would be a catastrophe if students with diverse viewpoints were elected. It’s that fear-mongering (of which there are outstanding examples in this thread, especially from Matt Naylor), and not Tristan speaking out against Alex Lougheed and his lackeys, that makes the AMS dysfunctional.

  8. Anonymous on March 5, 2008 7:50 am

    “Who are really the political elitists who believe they can act with impunity?”


    Clearly everyone except the knolligarchy is a white anglo-chauvinist male political elitist, and all we want to see is the systematic oppression of progressive candidates.

    Come on. Give me a break.

  9. Steven on March 5, 2008 4:10 pm

    “Clearly everyone except the knolligarchy is a white anglo-chauvinist male political elitist, and all we want to see is the systematic oppression of progressive candidates.”

    That’s quite the straw man – and not a very good one. Go back, read what I wrote, and it should be clear what I was talking about. Of course there is no “systematic oppression”. Yes, there are a lot of white men involved, but I’m hesitant to say that is a conscious factor. There are, however, a lot of arrogant jerks who seem to think it is acceptable to say and do whatever they want. They attempt to justify it by saying that everyone in the student body actually agrees with them, and so any elected person with a different political position must be enacting some sort of internal coup. Yes, Alex Lougheed one (narrowly), but so did Tristan and Stef. And their opponents made sure to let everyone know they had “dangerously” progressive political views.

  10. Anonymous on March 5, 2008 5:09 pm

    The Ubyssey just proved themselves to be foolish and childish with their latest edition, attacking some of the new AMS VPs. It is also weird how some of their articles go unsigned. No one with the guts of saying what they think in public. Why do we need to be reading hate rants obviously made up to protect certain people and attack others? Should student media be taking sides when it comes to student politics? Why aren’t they committed to showing both sides of an argument? Why don’t they report on political issues that are important and their solutions (such as lack of student involvement/apathy)??

    Why aren’t we concentrating on issues that are actually important, and just playing a cult of personality game?

    “Oh, I support and forgive Loughweeds and want him to keep on cheating as long as we can get drunk together”, and the opposition “We are progressive radicals and you don’t understand our views”… and “you are communists trying to bring down the university”, and “you are right winging sell outs who will do anything to flatter and get flattered”, and yadda yadda and so on, and sooooo on… WAKE UP!?

    The university administration will never take you seriously if you continue to add fire to petty “whodunnit” and “I don’t like you” discussions/whining. Go get to work and take care of business, and try to work together – you need a make up fetish party or something…(wih Tristan carrying Lougheed on a leash and underwear and vice versa)

    As to the foolish rift between lefty knollers and right winging ‘radicals’, it’s up to student court to decide… but in the long run, it makes students in general look very silly, and student politics very unattractive and spendable – a true waste of time – wake up get back on track, and try to make it interesting for uninvolved people!

    -university administrator

  11. Anonymous on March 5, 2008 6:17 pm

    this is nonsense, and its indicative of the kind of personalities that now populate the AMS Exec. Isn’t it funny that the students for a democratic society are the real facists.

  12. Anonymous on March 5, 2008 6:21 pm

    “It’s no surprise that Freeman Poritz was the one who took the photo and passed it on to UBC Insiders. “

    You know what’s not a coincidence you bloody hypocrite? The fact that Freeman, who was running against a kolligarch candidate, had his name and reputation slandered and attacked throughout the election and even had Knoll-involved individuals create the “Freeman Poritz Watch” group.

    Its the exact same thing with Alex here. Complaining and applying to Student Court is one thing. Slander, libel, torment, and abuse are quite different.

    “Lougheed and his lackeys”? Are you kidding me? Alex hasn’t said a word against the public harassment levied at him. How can he have lackeys?

    Further, Stefanie sounded anti-free speech by suggesting that an open discussion was not the place for this sort of debate. Instead she suggested that people contact her directly. However, what she totally missed was that in order for a public debate to have any effect, it has to be public. Private emails are well and good, but no one reads them except the two parties involved and that helps no one.

    In conclusion, Steven, you know who the arrogant jerk here is? Take a good long look in the mirror. That’s right: it’s you my friend. Just because you hide behind words like “progressive”, “fear-mongering”, etc, it doesn’t make you wiser or more sane. “Partisan pile on”?? I think you’ll find that there’s only one party here: yours. The Knoll’s party. I also think you’ll find, if you take 5 min to look at the situation, that unlike the Knoll’s actions, there has been no organized or disorganized attempt to discredit, slander, or in any other way unfairly misrepresent either Stef or Tristan.


  13. Anonymous on March 5, 2008 6:56 pm

    For those content to complain about the Knoll, the simple fact is this – they are an influential group because the AMS consistently fails to renew its leadership by taking responsibility for recruiting people to run for Council or the exec. It is not sufficient to start looking in October. Execs need to start thinking about their successors in March. Council should be doing the same. Look around in your classes and clubs – find the people that you think could contribute something and encourage them to get involved.

    These kinds of things don’t happen when mature, intelligent people are the norm rather than the exception. The Knoll is organized in advancing its world view and that’s its right. If you disagree with it you have the right to do the same.

  14. tariq on March 5, 2008 8:37 pm

    Though I don’t want to put more fuel on the fire, I think it might be worth mentioning that newspaper editorials are typically published without bylines and that the editorial board is listed in the masthead. Perhaps the irony of such a complaint made by those who don’t list their names is lost on me.

    At the risk of being conciliatory (and somewhat sarcastic) could I suggest that another possible interpretation of the comment “VP-Admin elect Tristan Markle adding ‘Right to Cheat’ to posters in support of VP-Academic elect Alex Lougheed” could be one of affirmation for Alex’s actions? That is, using the word “right” as an adjective rather than a noun, meaning righteous, upright, suitable, appropriate, straight, in accordance with what is just, good, or proper, etc.

  15. Anonymous on March 5, 2008 8:57 pm

    Look here lets be realistic. All this squabbling like children is not going to better the UBC society, its going to hurt it. We walked 50 steps back and the students doesn’t deserve this treatment at all. In the end, I believe its all about being a sore looser. You lost , too bad…suck it up like man and run next year. What does all this fighting do? Nothing. By creating a unhappy environment, everything else is unhappy. Do you want to drive away students. Did AL cheat? No, he didn’t. He just wanted to make a point across the EA. In the REAL elections (fed/Prov), the code is to void the votes. Thats it. No punishment, no cheating donezo…no arguments. I am ashamed of all this nonsense. UBC is a great university that is being brought down by douchebags. Lets be real, radical agendas is not going to happen unless students wants that to happen, if not, no chance.

    Alfie- you character as a senator is in question. You did nothing, you just show up once in awhile in meetings, doing nothing. You haven’t done anything at all. You’re just wagon-hopper. You’re not a true senator.

  16. Anonymous on March 6, 2008 8:24 am

    The AMS is not a public enterprise, but a private one outside of the freedom of information act… which sucks. They can keep their docs and communications from the student body. All debates should be public, and there’s no reason to hide behind an office – and this applies not only to Stef and Tristan, but also to Lougheed.

    What is sad and tragic is that some claim to be democratic public figures, then whenever someone puts some politician on the spot by holding them accountable, accusations of ‘slander’ are tossed all around the place to see if anyone shuts up. SPEAK OUT! Do so, however, with facts and analysis, not personal name-calling (that makes you look like fools).


  17. Anonymous on March 6, 2008 3:20 pm

    The AMS bylaws due have freedom-of-information provisions.

    Also, I was reminded of this:

  18. Fire Hydrant on March 9, 2008 2:37 am

    Society Act, Section 37:

    Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, the documents, including the accounting records, of a society must be open to the inspection of a director or member on reasonable notice to the society.

    This was the reason the Coke deal became public.

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind

Spam prevention powered by Akismet