NAF Presidential Election

[VoodooMike]

I disagree - if you're not a member you don't get to vote, so why should you get to take part in the discussion. It's got nothing to do with "TT" vs "non-TT" and never has.

This represents NAF as an organization that people need, not an organization that needs people. In essence, it's saying "pay us up front for the opportunity to speak, and then we might consider what you say".

Certainly it's the NAF's call, but it needs to decide if it wants to attract new membership or if it wants to portray itself as an insular old boys club. Given the fairly lackluster results over the past few years I'm not sure the latter is the best choice... but I have no dog in the fight

Voting should certainly be members only, but I'm not sure what harm comes of having open and public discussions... unless the people in question are worried they wouldn't fare as well under open scrutiny.

[besters]

Not often I agree with Mike but on this I do.

[Regash]

...but I'm not sure what harm comes of having open and public discussions...

Well, there is always the danger of finding out WHY people think a NAF membership is of no use for them!
Means you would have to consider changes...

[sann0638]

unless the people in question are worried they wouldn't fare as well under open scrutiny.

They are not

[koadah]

The Q & A does seem more interesting than I thought it would be. If people are going to be making their presidential statements public then maybe the Q & A should be too.

[Shteve0]

Ultimately it's not up to this set of candidates what happens during this election - really it's up to the membership in that previous presidents mandates are ultimately set in the charter, with deviations basically established during their campaigns.

If you want the members to vote for a candidate who plans to open things up for viewing in future elections, you're free to appeal to them to use their vote in that manner. You can also appeal to the candidates to focus their appeal on non-members rather than people who can actually vote. And of course, good luck with that.

But to sit on the outside and wail about a lack on transparency on this single front expecting immediate change is fairly naive. This is still fundamentally a members organisation, and while a great many people within it would equally like to see an expansion of the NAF's appeal into new areas, the difference is that they've already put their interests on the line in an effort to secure it rather than sit on the fence and gnash their teeth.

I say this from a position of some understanding - 3 years ago I was a new member (but long time coach) who felt the NAF didn't deliver what I necessarily felt was the best fit for my local community. I took it upon myself to campaign, to deliver solutions locally off my own back, to engage with the q&a and to volunteer for various minor NAF roles, eventually running for an elected office earlier this year. As a resuly I'm now on the committee, have been charged with leading on the development of a new website model, and as a result being prepared to give up the hours in this way absolutely feel that we're moving towards a position that - in the next year or two - will be a lot stronger than when I (and others like me at the same time) started down this path.

Basically, I'd say these things are what you make them. I agree it would ultimately be good to have the q&a in the open, but Rome wasn't built in a day and you don't reform this stuff from a distance - speaking as someone who agrees, if you want transparency, imo your best chance of getting it is to sign up and tell the candidates in no uncertain terms that you'll vote for the one who best matches what you're looking for.

Anyway, Happy Christmas, and good luck to all the candidates taking part in this election!

[VoodooMike]

But to sit on the outside and wail about a lack on transparency on this single front expecting immediate change is fairly naive.

Nobody is going to pay to become a member of a group on the off chance that through hard work and time they can turn it into an organization they'd feel is worth paying to become a member of. If that concept were at all rational we could advocate everyone become a member of the KKK, or the republican party!

What people are telling you is "as those not interested in a NAF membership, these are things that could get me interested in what's happening with the NAF". You're free to ignore what non-members say with the tacit understanding that it'll keep them in that category.

If NAF is happy with its membership and standing among BB players then really, don't sweat it.. keep on doing what you're doing. If NAF is looking to expand its membership then asking members how to do it is pretty silly - you already have them as members, so you already appeal to them on some level. If you're trying to get people who are not NAF members to become members then telling them that they have to become members before you'll listen to them is understandably goofy.

As a resuly I'm now on the committee, have been charged with leading on the development of a new website model, and as a result being prepared to give up the hours in this way absolutely feel that we're moving towards a position that - in the next year or two - will be a lot stronger than when I (and others like me at the same time) started down this path.

That's cool. I've heard a LOT of promises from the NAF over the years, and most don't materialize. I'm glad you're excited about your promises and hope that unlike a long line of NAFsters, you have carry-through. I bet every one of them intended to keep their promises when they made them but... y'know... life 'n stuff.

I agree it would ultimately be good to have the q&a in the open, but Rome wasn't built in a day and you don't reform this stuff from a distance - speaking as someone who agrees, if you want transparency, imo your best chance of getting it is to sign up and tell the candidates in no uncertain terms that you'll vote for the one who best matches what you're looking for.

Pass. That's exactly what I was talking about: nobody is going to join a group to try to turn it into a group they feel is worth joining... that's silly circular logic. Instead, they'll ignore NAF altogether because it fails to have relevance on their experience of Blood Bowl, and those people will instead throw their support (monetary and otherwise) behind organizations that are relevant to their Blood Bowl experience.

Good luck to all the candidates. I hope you succeed in your quest to become the best mayor of candyland you can possibly be!

[Shteve0]

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.

We recently reached out to non members and members alike about what's important to them in a 2800+ respondent survey, and that's starting to inform many of our decisions going forward. Like league hosting not requiring membership. And a change to our approach to included league teams. 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.

[Darkson]

If you're trying to get people who are not NAF members to become members then telling them that they have to become members before you'll listen to them is understandably goofy.

This isn't a membership drive though, this is the election for the the President of the NAF, a position voted on by members.

[Regash]

Darkson, there is noone saying EVERYONE should vote.
The election is definitely an "internal affair".

It's the "no info for non-members" policy that is being critized.

[sann0638]

Skulls and Ones review the opening statements from 28 minutes in or so: http://baconwrappedskullsandones.libsyn ... podcast-16

[PercyTheTroll]

If you're trying to get people who are not NAF members to become members then telling them that they have to become members before you'll listen to them is understandably goofy.

This isn't a membership drive though, this is the election for the the President of the NAF, a position voted on by members.

I can't speak for Mike, but I see it as symptomatic of the wider issues that the NAF has to face. I would hope that prospective presidential candidates would welcome questions and opinions from out with the traditional NAF members even if the wider community are not voting members. If I were voting I would see NSF engagement with the wider community as a key issue.

Unless the NAF is solely for tabletop tournament players in which case it needs to make that position clear. I don't think that's what the NAF wants but it would be a valid position for them to adopt.

I've seen Sann's response to this sorry of question on Facebook. I'd like to know what the other candidates think

[Shteve0]

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.

Not only have we reached out to non members through the survey this year, but between me, Mike, and Gaixo, three of the current NAF committee have been on four different podcasts in the last three months to talk about the NAF and our plans and views.

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.

[VoodooMike]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Regash]

Why does it matter to you what the candidates think? The only one who matters to you is the one the members choose.

But with a candidate whos thoughts are going in the right direction, at least in my opinion, could make me want to support that candidate.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't give zero shots about the election, for me, as a non-tournament player, the NAF has nothing to offer but some block dice.
At least in my perception as I am very well capable of hosting my own league website if need be. (And if I got that right, you don't even have to be a member for that!)

As long as there is no other reason than some colored block dice (and even these will no longer be available in the future).
I've been a member way back in time for 2 years, only because the opponents on the two tournaments I attended back then, were pissed of as the games against me wouldn't count for there statistics. So, you see, even those two years were only because I'm a nice guy and for the benefit of others.

Therefore, I will not post in this thread anymore as I can't be interested any less.
I just hoped that some people would understand that the "we're a super secretive club" is turning away people rather than attract them.