But I had to. I had no choice. I am writing this not because I didn't win the president but there's two fundamental flaws within the SRC - openness and self-control
When I try to get something done for a person that wanted to be in SRC ( and someone that I like, I admit but still I am going to keep it fair here ) but couldn't because of the infamous "majority wins" theory which is both inept and naive . It takes a lot of courage to ask her what she need help on . It also takes a lot of effort to get it done. And now what? Saying that we can't second her because the constitution is not done yet? It's like saying "meh, we don't want her to be seconded in because she doesn't deserve it." Yes, I am pointing straight at someone here.It's indeed true that the basic framework has not been laid down yet. But couldn't we just refer back to the two-thirds majority rule for now and try to get something (not seconding) done? We need more functional members to make SRC more effective here.
By the way, it's not even SRC anymore. It's a place where one start an argument and it goes on until ∞ (or when the bell goes as it's known to be the point where it reaches ∞). When one compare this to last year, people were more controlled back then and discussions were a lot more sensible. It's way different to this year's SRC. Just quote today's meeting example (hopefully I don't get shot in the head or get hit by a flying CRT), it was absolutely ridiculous. We had two radical factions trying to outlast each other (I don't even have to name them, you would know). So much crossfire was going on that I gave up trying to stop and smashed my tripod against the floor in anger. Where was the president? Nowhere to be seen. Obviously not doing anything.
From this, I am going to ask "How on Earth SRC can claim that they can run a meeting without Mr. Pas?" and I can answer that myself. "Hell no, not even a chance." Can everyone just control themselves and try to get a functional SRC going?
