logomancer: Xerxes from System Shock 2 (Default)
[personal profile] logomancer

A few of you have been wondering what was up with my cryptic comment last night. It involved a series of events that, until recently, have not been resolved. So here it goes:

First, a little background: The VT Alumni Association holds an annual event called Hokie Day, a day when alumni go down to Richmond when the General Assembly is in session and talk with legislators. In recent years, they've been inviting SGA members to come with them. As I wanted to actually see the people I was being represented by face-to-face to have an honest discussion with, I signed up. At this point, everything was fine. I confirmed my willingness to go at the last SGA meeting. I got an email from Brandon Bull (who co-chairs the Exec. Political Affairs Cmte.) asking me to confirm me going. I got a call from Katie Hoffman (the other Exec. Political Affairs Cmte. co-chair) asking if I was going. Exasperatingly -- having been asked this twice already -- I said yes, and stated my needs (a ride and a hotel room, which the SGA paid for). At that point, everything was fine, and I went to a meeting I had that evening.

When I got back at around 10, there was an email timestamped at 9 PM saying that I had had my info taken down, and that those who needed a ride would be called later. I also got a message on my voice mail from Mike Barnett, who heads the House Legislative Action Committee, and was also going. When I called him back, he told me that I couldn't come to Hokie Day. When asked why, he said that there were a number of reasons which he would elaborate on when he got back. I asked him who made this call, and he said he did.

Problem was, that wasn't his call to make; this was being done through the Executive Branch. So I told him I'd be calling Brandon. He suggested I call Sumeet (the SGA President), and gave me a number. It turned out to be the wrong one, so I went on VT People Search trying to find the number of someone in charge. Eventually, I found Sumeet's real number, and called him. He didn't know what was going on, and was going to get back to me. After about 15 minutes, I hadn't heard from him, so I called him again. He still had no clue.

I figured someone would be in the SGA office the day before the trip, so I went there. Mike Barnett called on the way over, but I missed it, so I called back. No response. When I got to Squires, I found Sumeet and Brandon on the 2nd floor talking. Apparently, they had been there for something else. Anyway, I talk to them, and then Brandon and Sumeet ask me to wait over somewhere else, and they go off and whisper conspiratorially before going into the stairwell to talk more. Anyway, Mike calls me back, and I ask him what reasons he had for making "his" decision. He said that my mercurial temperament would cause problems, citing a minor disagreement with the SGA Faculty Advisor last year and my exasperated reply to Katie's query that afternoon as evidence. I wasn't angry at either person, and even if I was, that's pretty flimsy evidence to back a decision that wasn't his to make in the first place. Anyway, I sensed this was all I was going to get from him, and went back to tell Sumeet and Brandon what I had heard. Brandon told me to wait a few minutes more.

Then Sumeet steps out, and asked me what happened. I tell him the story, and he says that he didn't know anything about this, and that it wasn't Mike's call to make, that Mike would get what's coming to him, and that I would be able to go. But for one issue. Apparently, there weren't enough drivers to take everybody, and the cars were filled in the order people replied to the 9:00 email. Unless something changed, I wouldn't be able to go anyway. A few hours ago, I called to see if there was any news, and there was no change, sorry dude.

Sumeet says the two incidents were not related. But I'm not so sure. Things don't quite add up. How did Mike Barnett know the details of my conversation with Katie? Why was I not on the carpool list when my info was some of the first taken? How did this lack of car space come by so suddenly, when most of these people were yuppies and people living off-campus who couldn't function without one? Something stinks, and it's not the laundry.

In any event, Mike has effectively won. I'm still here while he's in Richmond. Sumeet says he's going to take some shit for this, and will look into it next week. If I were in his position, I would have kicked Mike off the delegation and put the person in my place in. But I'm not. I imagine the most that will happen to him is that he'll be forced to apologize, or some other slap on the wrist, or that nothing will happen and the Exec Committee will never get back to me. In any event, the probability of Mike losing his position over this is virtually nil; he'll still be in SGA, and he'll still be the head of my committee.

I don't think I can get anything accomplished with Mike around, as he has no respect for me or my ideas and he will most likely sabotage anything I've worked on or will work on. I have been thinking about resigning from SGA. At this point, the only thing keeping me from doing so is the fact that Mike will still be in SGA, and with nobody to counter him, he and his College Republican friends will run rampant. But I don't know what else to do at this point. I'll have to think about it.

On the plus side, my copies of Fallout, Fallout 2, and Planescape Torment came today. Maybe I'll go play those for a bit.

Date: 2005-02-02 06:15 am (UTC)
rbandrews: (Default)
From: [personal profile] rbandrews
Sounds to me like they're somewhat embarrassed to be seen with you. Also sounds to me like they have a reason to be.
You tend to spaz in response to, well, stimuli, and you've apparently had a fight with their faculty adviser before. I've heard you whine quite a bit about what you don't like regarding the SGA... They're probably afraid that you'll start yelling and stamping your feet while talking to a state legislator or something.
I have to say, also, that it doesn't sound like you dissuaded them from this, either. As soon as you found out you went on a rampage, you spend a couple paragraphs talking about how horrible Mike is and what you would do to him if you could, and in paragraph six you basically call the president of the SGA a liar. I'm not in the SGA and I never have been, but if this is the tone you took with them then I'm not at all surprised that they didn't want to introduce you to the congress.
I don't mean any of this to be offensive. You have to look at this from their point of view. You're a hard person to not smack in the head often, and meeting the state legislators is a thing where you want pleasant, mature people who will reflect well on the university. Yeah, they probably could have just explained this to you directly, but they probably also figured that you would throw a fit if they tried to. Suck it up this time and try to get along with them, and eventually you'll lose your reputation for being a spaz.
Or decide that you don't want to deal with the SGA and quit (not a bad option; why would you want to deal with a bunch of rich pricks?). Either way, it's not the SGA's fault.

Date: 2005-02-02 10:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vt-andros.livejournal.com
you've apparently had a fight with their faculty adviser before
It wasn't a fight. Argument, yes. Fight, no. I didn't yell at him or anything.

They're probably afraid that you'll start yelling and stamping your feet while talking to a state legislator or something.
When have I ever stamped my feet? I don't do that.

As soon as you found out you went on a rampage
Rampage is a strong word to describe my reaction. I was in a bit of a panic, and I made a lot of calls. But I wasn't out for someone's blood or anything.

but if this is the tone you took with them then I'm not at all surprised that they didn't want to introduce you to the congress
I did not call Sumeet a liar to his face. I did not tell Mike what I wanted to happen to him, but doubtless he knew; we have had our squabbles before.

I don't mean any of this to be offensive
Well, I'm offended. You caricaturize me and I don't appreciate it.

Date: 2005-02-02 11:08 am (UTC)
rbandrews: (Default)
From: [personal profile] rbandrews
"Caricaturize" isn't a word.

I'm sure you didn't mean to yell at the adviser, but you have this tendency to scoff and speak loudly that makes people annoyed at you, so he probably found you a lot more offensive than you were trying to be.

The stamping of the feet of the feet is a metaphorical thing, as is the rampage. I didn't mean that you literally picked up a shock rifle and got five kills in a row, but that you started making a bunch of calls and going over this guy's head, rather than just sitting down and talking with him rationally.

I never said you called him a liar to his face. I said that you did just now, in this post.

Be offended, be not offended; matters not at all to me. What I said is true, and you'd be a lot better served by fixing it instead of having a hissy fit.

Date: 2005-02-02 11:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vt-andros.livejournal.com
1. The faculty advisor wasn't involved in the planning, so that wasn't an issue. Besides, I hardly think he'd hold a year-old grudge.

2. It wasn't Mike's call, so discussing things with him would not have helped. He wouldn't listen to me anyway; he doesn't like me very much.

I'd like to point something out: if I've been consistently bad with SGA, why were the only things Mike used in his argument were two incidents a year apart, both of which I didn't express anger in? We were in the same committee as well as the House for two years, and that's the best he could do?

Date: 2005-02-02 12:05 pm (UTC)
rbandrews: (Default)
From: [personal profile] rbandrews
The point is that you've already shown yourself willing to get into arguments with people. While you may not have intended to express anger, that's how your normal behavior comes off: frustrated angry guy. The people in the SGA probably figured they'd rather not take the risk of you going off on a legislator.

It may not have officially been "Mike's call", but he was the one who made the decision anyway; he was the one who had a problem with you going. It probably didn't help your relations with him to go over his head.

My guess is (and I don't know this guy, I have never been to an SGA meeting, and I really don't know any more of the situation than your side of it) he didn't want to say "I don't want you to come because you're a spaz", so he made up an excuse. That's pretty insulting, but it's understandable, I think.

Anyway, I am going to step off the thread now, before it goes into flamewar mode.

Date: 2005-02-02 06:20 am (UTC)
rbandrews: (Default)
From: [personal profile] rbandrews
Oh, and you should complete your collection with a copy of Fallout Tactics. IMO, it's the best of the three, but then, I like tactical RPGs. A lot.

Date: 2005-02-02 07:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robertliguori.livejournal.com
Blasphemer. Fallout: Tactics had nothing on the original two. The new combat system was nice, yes, but the story was drastically, drastically lacking.

Plus, you couldn't build an agility-10, perception-10 Finesse-based sniper who can shoot you in the eye from across the map as easily as you could in the origiinal two.

Date: 2005-02-03 12:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acid-rose.livejournal.com
*not paying attention to gigantic thing that makes her brain hurt*

fallout and fallout 2...so hard to find people who actually like those games <3

Profile

logomancer: Xerxes from System Shock 2 (Default)
logomancer

January 2015

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 09:38 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios