Impeachment of the University of Exeter Dodgeball Social Sec

Impeachment of the University of Exeter Dodgeball Social Sec

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!
At 100 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!
Anony Mous started this petition to University of Exeter Dodgeballers

This is a petition in which one shall put forward the many problems created by the University of Exeter Dodgeball’s social sec: a record comprised of the accounts of multiple individuals who have seen injustice within the society, and want to put an end to it. The only way one can truly achieve this is through the impeachment of this certain individual.

It is felt that the social sec is irresponsible, self-serving, cruel, ineffective, malicious and ignorant. If you would like some examples and explanations of this, please keep reading.

  1. At the moment, our society only has one social sec, and about a month ago attempted to hold another election to introduce a second person to perform this role. The idea was that having two individuals to organise social events for the society would result in more success and less stress for committee. However, upon hearing news of this, the current social sec decided to tell individuals not to vote for one of the running participants, simply because they did not like them. This has now led to the elections being paused after this incident was reported to the Guild.
  2. A social sec is supposed to be in charge of organising all social events for the society, yet this individual is both incapable and unwilling to perform the role they signed up for. We recently had our Dodgeball Christmas Dinner - an event that each year is organised by the social sec - yet this year said individual delegated out almost all of her responsibilities to non-committee members (such as organising the photographer), and still took credit for all of the work unless questioned otherwise (a very regular occurrence). Our social sec even demanded to be sat at the head of the table, simply because they claimed that they put in all of the hard work for this, and therefore deserved it. It seems to me quite ironic that someone can make a statement such as this, and not even bother to make the table name cards themselves.
  3. A problem also concerning the Dodgeball Christmas Dinner is the fact that this individual lied about funds. For each person, a ticket to this event was £22, yet the food itself, per individual, would only have cost £12.99. Upon questioning the social sec about this, we were told that the extra money was to put a tab on the bar after the dinner itself, so that people could go up and get drinks without dipping too much into their own money. This was not the case - as students, we do not have much money, therefore this financial fraud is ridiculous, and we demand our money back.
  4. This individual, being social sec, feels that they have the right to force people into doing things that they don’t want to do - both at and away from official socials - even after a firm ‘no’ has been stated. This is a form of bullying and peer pressure, and has made many people uncomfortable, and put them off dodgeball socials in general.
  5. Of course not all members are expected to get along, but our social sec makes a regular habit of talking about members behind their backs. This is often in a cruel or demeaning way, and often involves lies or unacceptable comments about member’s personal lives, such as in relation to their partners.
  6. Recently our society played a mass game of Assassins, and before the game started the rules were laid out on an event page. It was originally stated that in order to ‘kill’ someone, you had to be looking at them/make eye contact with them. It was also stated that you could only die as a result of direct (bodily contact) or indirect (using an item to make contact with the body, e.g. throw a ball) contact. These definitions were explained by the social sec upon questioning. Here, the problem is that said social sec broke the rules, and claimed it to be allowed. They launched an item (‘bomb’) through someone’s apartment window without looking at the people inside, and this item hit only one individual. In theory, this should not have been a ‘kill’ as they were not looking as their ‘victims’ in any form, even though the launched item hit an individual. Another problem here is that there were multiple people in the room who all got ‘killed off’ from the game, even if they were not hit. When the social sec was questioned about this by multiple individuals, they left the group chat abruptly rather than sort out the problem. Interestingly, they even deleted the rule on the event page about one having to look at those they wished to kill. Mature, doesn’t it seem?
  7. Our social sec is a person who claims to do many things ‘as a joke’, even when said actions and comments are morally questionable. Yet when others come back and do the same thing, they get reprimanded, and sometimes even accused of bullying. As a society in which equality and inclusivity are supposed to be key values, why should it be fair that certain individuals are allowed to get away with things simply because of their committee status?
  8. As a social sec, one should provide all members of the society with the same information, not just a select few that are higher up in terms of personal preference. Yet this individual feels that limited communication to the select few is the way in which the social side of a society is run. This has led people to feel excluded and upset, and is even the reason for which some members no longer attend any events in the society (or even those hosted by other members of the society).
  9. In our university, social events organised by Guild societies have to have at least one sober member of the committee at all times, just in case something serious were to happen. However, our social sec does not seem to understand the concept of either responsibility or sobriety, and that has led members to worry about their safety in the event that something did go wrong.
  10. As a continuation of the previous point, this individual is under the belief that all social events should include alcohol, despite their original election speech stating the opposite. This does not take into consideration those who choose not to drink, and therefore feel unwelcome at socials. It is also worth mentioning that the social sec expresses displeasure when being told that someone is not going to drink, and a number of times has made comments about this, such as calling those people “weak” or “pathetic”.
  11. When they do not get their own way, this individual often resorts to childish measures such as guilt-tripping and name calling. Blackmail has even been used when referring to the most recent social sec elections, in which they stated that they would quit if someone they disliked won the roll of second social sec. This, by coincidence, is also the person they told people not to vote for.
  12. The members of this society often participate in non-society-related socials, which means that the committee is in no way allowed to use their power over individuals at the time. However, our social sec feels that their title holds power over all social settings, and is constantly attempting to order people around, even after they have expressed displeasure at this.
  13. Our society offers a points-based scoring system known as ‘Dodgepoints’. Although one has not been able to gather evidence, it is believed that this social sec is falsifying their score. When you look at their lack of effort and contribution during both sessions and socials where points are involved, it is clear to see that these scores are in no way realistic. Going forward, we suggest that each action has a set amount of points that can be earnt, and that there are only a couple of committee members that decide point distribution, but can not earn points themselves as to not seem biased.
  14. We as a society want everyone to feel included and welcome, yet when we see our social sec purposefully trying to exclude and even embarrass members, this does not seem to be the case. A social sec should be someone who strives to make everyone feel like they are involved and comfortable, not pushed away and ridiculed. Quite frankly, this has not been the case this term.
  15. Being a very active and social society, the position of social sec is not one that should be taken lightheartedly - if you don’t put in the effort, you don’t get the results. Ironically, our social sec demands respect and authority when nothing has been done to deserve this. They don’t seem to understand that yelling at people is not how one organises a night, and this lack of leadership often leads socials to be chaotic, confusing, and sometimes unenjoyable.
  16. When someone happens to disagree with the social sec’s choices or opinions, they are almost always publicly insulted or told off. This is unacceptable, as it portrays the idea that the social sec’s choices and opinions are superior to everyone else’s. They don’t even take other’s requests or suggestions into mind, which leaves members feeling frustrated, and often, bored.
  17. Finally, ideas for socials. Many of the ones that this social sec has ‘come up with’ are often other people’s ideas, once again showing that credit has been stolen. Furthermore, this individual often won’t put any effort into trying to make the night enjoyable, and therefore does the same repetitive social plan again and again. Members have expressed their opinions on this, and even suggested other things that could be done instead. Yet, this always seems to fall on deaf ears.

If you agree that something needs to be done, please sign this petition. The option to sign anonymously is available. Thank you.

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!
At 100 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!