![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aggienaut so I went to upload some more pictures onto freepichosting.com, and discovered it tracks the number of viewings of pictures. As the pictures have only been linked from my livejournal, the information corresponds directly to the number of times that specific livejournal entry was viewed.
The most recent picture posted was on November 6th, and has been viewed 2,684 times in the month or so since. The all time high for the picture was 192 views in one day, which incidentally occured on the day that my journal was discussed in Senate and likely discovered by most of the government (11/20/03). The following day was the second highest, at 125.
Compare this to the two other times pictures were posted in my journal. On September 2nd I posted pictures of wild rivers (for the 150+ of you who apparently are new here, thats where I worked over the summer). The ratemeter on that entry triggered 719 times total, though only 19 people bothered to look at the pics that were behind the lj-cut. Shame on you all.
One more picture I linked to on the 5th of September (Of a newt or salamander or something), required that one follow a link to view it, so the hit number corresponds only with the number that followed the link, which 38 persons did.
Anyway, as I mentioned I discovered this because I was going to post some pictures.. so in a show of shameless narcissism and ostentation, I now present you with the pictures taken of me since I've had the mohawk. Also you get to see me mum.
Also, the verdict on ASUCD Court Case # 22 is finally official and public.
THE ASUCD STUDENT COURT
CASE # 22 Nathan Thomas et Alii vs. Paloma Pérez
Before: Court Members Fricke, Middleton, Johnson, Konz, Shahabi, Zheng
OPINION COURT ORDER – CASE # 22
The ASUCD Student Court in Case # 22 was faced with the following questions:
1. Definition of “co-author”
2. Applicability to 2003 Senate Bill #41
3. Culpability of Defendant Pérez
For clarity’s sake we shall address each of these three points in turn.
1. DEFINITION OF “CO-AUTHOR”
The ASUCD Standing Rules address authors and co-authors in Rule Four, Section 2.1.3: “Legislation will bear the name of only one author. The author may only list as co-authors individuals who have been directly involved in drafting the legislation.”
The root of this case in the opinion of the Court is a difference of opinion of the definition of “co-author” and “directly involved” between the Plaintiffs and Defendant. Therefore the Court found it prudent that the definition of these things be further clarified.
It is the finding of the Court that a co-author must (A) agree with the substance of the legislation, (B) demonstrate an understanding of the substance of the legislation before being added as a co-author, (C) be responsible for coming up with at least one substantive clause of the legislation.
A. We believe it is fundamental that a co-author must support the resolution in its specific written form; not just the general idea behind it.
B. The potential co-author must see or be read the resolution in its final draft before it is first presented on the Senate floor (or if co-author is added at a later point, its most current form), and agree to it.
C. Contribution of information alone does not constitute co-authorship. One can get information from a webpage, book, or other passive object and that object would certainly not be eligible as a co-author. The co-author must contribute ideas specifically intended for the resolution.
2. APPLICABILITY TO 2003 SENATE BILL #41
In the case of 2003 Senate Bill #41, we find that the disputed co-author, Mrs. Whalen, does not fit the definition of having been directly involved with the legislation.
A. In “highlighted section three” of the letter Whalen addressed to the Plaintiffs, Defendant and Court, Whalen states that she does not agree with the substance of the legislation.
B. Whalen did not see the legislation or know of its specific content at all until after it had passed entirely through the legislative process.
C. It appears that Whalen provided the information and resources relevant to her program, but not ideas specifically intended for the resolution. The information she provided is more similar to something one could look up in a website or book than something one expects an author to contribute.
3. CULPABILITY OF DEFENDANT PÉREZ
Senator Pérez is charged in this case with violating the co-authorship policy (provided above), and the her Oath of Office
(“I Paloma Pérez, Student of the University of California, Davis, in good academic standing, promise to abide by the ASUCD Guidelines for Ethical Conduct; and promote the welfare and interests of the members of ASUCD; and in consistency with the ASUCD Constitution, enact rules and procedures necessary and proper for the efficient operation of ASUCD; and carry out and faithfully execute the duties enumerated in the ASUCD Constitution, ASUCD Standing Rules, and ASUCD Government Codes at all times during my term as a Voting Member of the ASUCD Senate, so help me God.”)
We find that as the existing co-authorship policy is extremely vague, and her interpretation is not culpably in violation. She followed her interpretation of the existing definition of co-authorship in good faith, and therefore did not violate her Oath of Office.
CONCLUSION
Historically it has not been the habit of Supreme Courts on a state or national level to reverse votes already made even if it is proven that there was something erroneous about the process that may have affected the outcome. Following this precedent, and considering that the legislation has already completed the legislative process and the monies have already been allocated, we shall not interfere with the bill’s execution.
We expect, however, that in future considerations of co-authorship the Senate and other authors of legislation shall abide by the precedent we are setting for the qualifications of co-authors. Unless it is changed through legislation, the definition shall continue to be interpreted by the Court as we have here established.
Wherefore, the Student Court having taken all of the facts into consideration, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that the Senate consider elaborating upon the current co-authorship policy in the Standing Rules. They are free to accept our definition in whole or in part, or to make a different one entirely; and it is further
ORDERED, Whalen’s name be stricken from 2003 Senate Bill # 41.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-11 10:59 pm (UTC)bus-lines
no subject
Date: 2003-12-11 11:46 pm (UTC)2) FINALLY case 22 is over. I'm happy with the verdict! One less thing for GASC to worry about now. It was really a pain to find time outside of GASC and the other crap that we do to address this case. I never understood why Miss Perez kept trying to get the case dismissed, we were (or at least I was) never trying to dishonor her reputation or anything.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-12 02:10 am (UTC)THE COLOR IS SO DROOLWORTHY ^-^
Though I like it better with the hair than shaved, although it looks like you have a very well rounded head for that :D o.o I could never shave my head...it's all weird and bumpy I swear o.o It scares me.
green
everyone told me I should go blue but I was like NYET and went ahead with green regardless. The End.
Re: green
Date: 2003-12-12 03:48 am (UTC)Re: green
Date: 2003-12-12 05:30 am (UTC)they don't pay me to think
Date: 2003-12-13 02:59 am (UTC)Re: they don't pay me to think
Date: 2003-12-13 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-12 04:01 am (UTC)<33.
-julia
less than three
Re: less than three
Date: 2003-12-12 06:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-12 05:26 am (UTC)whens the next show, buddy?
shows
Re: shows
Date: 2003-12-12 05:31 am (UTC)something on there.
Re: shows
Date: 2003-12-12 05:45 am (UTC)Its been just about exactly nine hours since this entry was posted and the pic outside the lj cut has been viewed 323 times (those inside 68). That is actually kinda scary.
Re: shows
Date: 2003-12-12 12:31 pm (UTC)Re: shows
Date: 2003-12-12 06:47 am (UTC)Re: shows
This just in: It looks like I'll get a ride down on Monday with Eric from The List and his girlfriend. I dunno if I'll be able to make the chain show that night but I really want to. If we leave early enough its highly possible.
Troo
Date: 2003-12-13 07:10 am (UTC)AHHHH!
Date: 2003-12-12 06:15 pm (UTC)we need to hang out during x-mas. I want to meet Kristy because she sounds cool. you have to meet my boyfriend. There is much to talk about.
Re: AHHHH!
Date: 2003-12-13 06:23 am (UTC)...we might even come back for the punk rock prom.. (=
But yea, I'll be back in OC very soon, we will talk.
Re: AHHHH!
Date: 2003-12-13 11:05 pm (UTC)but my boyfriend hates punk. poo on him.
dude. I made these stick figure toons while at work about certain people we know, and they're funny as hell.
Re: AHHHH!
Date: 2003-12-14 05:25 am (UTC)sweet cartoons about people one knows are awesome, I msut see these.
Re: AHHHH!
Date: 2003-12-15 12:49 am (UTC)he likes metal.
like Tool.
I have to isten to the same goddamned album everytime I get in his car.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-13 04:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-13 06:25 am (UTC)