simonclifford wrote:As to your later point about sticking to an argument, I was simply trying to answer your points and many others in previous posts, so any sway from my original and continued point is simply to answer my critics. As for “throwing in a needless jibe ” followed by “Is there a Jeremy Morton School of Debate that I don't know about? ” threw me, but I think it is a Jibe, which speaks for itself really.
simonclifford wrote:I don't see where in my discussion I have said anything that deserves these attacks on my character. If you can't debate the issues, but attack the messenger through slurs, you are not really debating, just name calling.
simonclifford wrote:My point about telling volunteers what you want them to do, and if they agree to do it and they don't repeatedly, surely the answer is you replace them with someone more reliable. But this is very abstract.
simonclifford wrote:The rest of that paragraph smacked of excuses and I am not looking for that. The “oh we are so busy defence”; when you do something do it to the best of your ability and as part of a team, listen when a member gives you a helpful hint that something was missed.
simonclifford wrote:I know numbers of posts seems to be held in high regard to those that post a lot, I think quality not quantity is most important. Another implied jibe, “oh I posted more than you, so that make me better/more committed”, really do people have to keep harping on like that.
simonclifford wrote:As to your last point, I was simply responding to your point of the same vein, suggesting that this thread was not created by any other member who is in such a role, and I am therefore the UNOFFICIAL election overseer (which as a post means nothing) in their absence.
jez9999 wrote: People who knew about the nominations process are going to be regular users of the forum, and are thereform much more likely to be engaged with the party rather than just doing it on a whim having received e-mail telling them the nominations had started. That could actually be an argument *against* sending the e-mail about start of nominations, and announcing it somewhere where only people who are getting involved regularly can see it.
Our manifesto is yet to be written, there is time. And seriously if we get more votes than the monster raving loony party in the general election I would be surprised.
And really if you have read my posts, for the umpteenth time I am not expecting to become Party Leader, I think there is more chance that we win the next election than that heppening.
scuzzmonkey wrote:yes it would have been good to inform the members through e-mail, an action that was sadly overlooked, and will be definitely utilised in the future.
rancidpunk wrote:jez9999 wrote: People who knew about the nominations process are going to be regular users of the forum, and are thereform much more likely to be engaged with the party rather than just doing it on a whim having received e-mail telling them the nominations had started. That could actually be an argument *against* sending the e-mail about start of nominations, and announcing it somewhere where only people who are getting involved regularly can see it.
So to continue in the same vein, someone who pays to join the party wouldn't get to have a say in the election unless they met some sort of criteria that proves they are engaged with the party.
Is it post count you would base that on or perhaps the amount of land that they own?
jez9999 wrote:rp, I said nothing of the sort.
I said that all members should be informed of *the vote*, I was talking about maybe not sending an e-mail being a good idea for the *nominations process* to encourage those who seem to take more of an active interest to stand. The nominations process and the vote itself are 2 different things.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests