Not signed in (Sign In)

HESA Harvard Extension Student Association: Andre Bisasor For HESA President

Bottom of Page

101 to 107 of 107

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    • CommentAuthorilamont
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: sglantz

    If the accounts all do belong to the same person, there is no way of us knowing if Lavie was the one who did it, approved someone else doing it, or even if she had any idea that it was happening. Those accounts could have been just as easily created by you (after all you were the first one to notice and as the saying goes, whoever smelt it dealt it) to create an ethics controversy as it could have been Lavie trying to drum up support.[/p]

    To dispel the doubt that's hanging over this episode and the election, it would be very helpful to confirm if A) the three accounts in question were in fact created by the same person or another user on this forum and B) if so, whether ANY candidate or associate had anything to do with it.

    Can anyone enlighten us? Catamount? Shweths? Doppleganger? Laura? Lavie?

    -- Ian Lamont

    (Edited: Formatting, added signature)

  2.  

    I can confirm that the first post that the admnistrator made on this issue said " for the record, sweths, doppleganger, laura are the same person". A few minutes later it was edited to finally be the above: "since its come up, its ok to register multiple accounts ........doppleganger, sweths, laura..please dont abuse this feature.."

    This is what I saw. So it seems as if the administrator first confirmed it, then decided to try to be more "neutral" but in the process made it just a little ambiguous. Though, I think the logic inference is still clear in showing that the admonition to not abuse the feature is directed to one person (with three names) - otherwise it would make little sense. Why warn only those three and not the rest of us if those three were all different people and this was just a big misunderstanding?

    In any case, the administrator should probably consider clearing up what he meant by the second edited post and confirm the first post that I saw.

    ~ Andre

    • CommentAuthorsglantz
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2009
     

    Just to clarify nrs, I wasn't accusing you of creating the accounts and don't believe you did. I was simply pointing out that you can't assume someone is guilty based on circumstantial evidence and perceived motives.

    If Shweths, Doppleganger, Laura, or Lavie want to voice in, I would be glad to hear it, but I don't think it is necessary for Catamount to get involved. The polls have closed and people have already voted. While if the accusations are true, the incident would be ethically questionable, I don't believe any rules have been broken. This wouldn't be the first election and certainly won't be the last to have candidates with questionable ethics.

    • CommentAuthornrs
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2009
     
    Posted By: sglantz

    Just to clarify nrs, I wasn't accusing you of creating the accounts and don't believe you did. I was simply pointing out that you can't assume someone is guilty based on circumstantial evidence and perceived motives.

    If Shweths, Doppleganger, Laura, or Lavie want to voice in, I would be glad to hear it, but I don't think it is necessary for Catamount to get involved. The polls have closed and people have already voted. While if the accusations are true, the incident would be ethically questionable, I don't believe any rules have been broken. This wouldn't be the first election and certainly won't be the last to have candidates with questionable ethics.

    You are a lot more forgiving than I am on this issue.

    It's one thing to say that no rules might have been broken. It's another to say that something wasn't ethical.

    Lots of unethical things are legal to do. That doesn't excuse them. We might not be able to sanction someone formally for being unethical, but we can expose their behavior and extract a social cost for it.

    • CommentAuthorsglantz
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: nrs

    You are a lot more forgiving than I am on this issue.

    It's one thing to say that no rules might have been broken. It's another to say that something wasn't ethical.

    Lots of unethical things are legal to do. That doesn't excuse them. We might not be able to sanction someone formally for being unethical, but we can expose their behavior and extract a social cost for it.

    I am not forgiving her of any accused involvement in this incident (of which there is no evidence). I simply stated that I don't believe that Catamount should reveal the posters identity. I also believe that since the polls have closed, the issue is moot. I see no benefit in continuing to discuss the incident.

    • CommentAuthornrs
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2009
     
    Posted By: sglantz
    Posted By: nrs

    You are a lot more forgiving than I am on this issue.

    It's one thing to say that no rules might have been broken. It's another to say that something wasn't ethical.

    Lots of unethical things are legal to do. That doesn't excuse them. We might not be able to sanction someone formally for being unethical, but we can expose their behavior and extract a social cost for it.

    I am not forgiving her of any accused involvement in this incident (of which there is no evidence). I simply stated that I don't believe that Catamount should reveal the posters identity. I also believe that since the polls have closed, the issue is moot. I see no benefit in continuing to discuss the incident.

    Transparency. Accountability. Integrity.

    Those are worthy ideals even after the polls have closed.

  7.  

    This is so embarrassing for me to watch... how can a candidate be so stupid to do something like that?

101 to 107 of 107

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >

This site is not affiliated in any way with Harvard University or the Harvard University Extension School, the Harvard University Summer School, or the Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Division of Continuing Education.