Shteve0 wrote:I'm not standing. I've already been elected, I'm already on the committee, and I'm already working to deliver what I see as a components to a far wider and broader appeal for the NAF overall. The website got passed to me recently, so specifically I'm working on that.
Bully to you, Shteve0, but the comment you're replying to was directed to the candidates in the presidential election (see also: the thread title). As to things passed to you recently... that's great.. let me know when there are some results. Obviously that job got passed around to a lot of people over the years and there isn't much to show for it yet.
Shteve0 wrote:If you want to be a part of the change process, you're welcome to help out, member or no member, I think that's been clear enough (and I for one would welcome your skillset on the team). But sitting on your high horse from a safe distance and throwing stones isn't really particularly productive, no matter how many strawmen you butcher along the way.
Technically, sitting on my lovely high horse and throwing stones is
exactly as productive as NAF has been when it comes to the areas of Blood Bowl I care about. I didn't even need to pay or be voted onto that horse. Efficiency in action.
Darkson wrote:This isn't a membership drive though, this is the election for the the President of the NAF, a position voted on by members.
Unless I'm mistaken, nobody has suggested that non-members be allowed to vote.
Shteve0 wrote:Devils advocate: Why does it matter to you what the candidates think? The only one who matters to you is the one the members choose. If you've no intention on joining either way, insisting on anything more is rubbernecking. This is an election for the members.
Ignorant horseshit, that. Maybe you should ask why, for example, presidential candidates don't check the passports of reporters that ask them questions? Why do they sit down for interviews at all.. I mean, its just one person and it'd take them a thousand years to sit down with each individual voter, right?
It doesn't matter where a question comes from, it matters what the voters think about a candidate's response to the question. The more people who hear a candidate's platform, the more opportunities there are for people to come up with probing and insightful questions about the platforms and candidates and to ask them... the only thing an attempt to limit the scope of discussion does is protect a candidate from difficult questions, and only dishonest candidates are afraid of those.
The people who love walls are the people who need them to hide behind.
Shteve0 wrote:Pick your battles. This is a total non issue and as far as I can tell those still moaning about this are just virtue signalling.
Funny you should accuse people of virtue signalling after multiple posts of virtue extolling. If transparency is a non-issue to the point of repeated patronizing and insulting recriminations from you on the topic then its a good thing I'm not a member, because you'd have just lost yourself a vote when it comes time to hold on to your position.