As I mentioned in the OP, I don't think mods are the right people for it. Just my opinion. I also don't think I'm the right person for the role.
It makes no odds to me, but there are several posters from this board already attending, I think there'll be five at the next meeting, I'm not sure we need to insist on a sixth.
None of those attending officially represent this board as such, which given it's probably the largest single collection of City fans, I think is wrong. Some represent other groups, that not all board users support. That's why I suggest a vote, so we have a dedicated person, with a mandate from the board users. That's not to say that others may feel differently and decide that the current situation's okay. I just feel the question needs to be asked of board users, or it's just a random group selected by the club, rather than an accurate representation of fans.
A single person off here could be voted to be the FLG representative for NOT 606 and that would be seen as having a mandate. But and its a big one. As this is an open to all forum that representative could never represent all or even the majority of opinions.
As the minutes of the meeting will be available (or should be) is there any need for another elected rep (who like in any election would only represent a small percentage of members of the messageboard) What needs to be agreed is a number of points to be raised. I'm sure standing would be an issue for some but again what point should be presented as if the request was for standing then they would not be representing me (I believe I should be able to see the game while remaining seated)
Because 2,000 years after he gave his life so that we could sit around arguing about football, people still can't be bothered to read properly.
I'd love to but it's too far for me. Going to games takes it outa me as it is, despite the miles I do, I frigging hate driving. Personally I'd like to see someone like Chazz but it's probably too difficult for him what with his work travel and monthly jaunts to Benidorm. Biggest problem for us would be choosing someone who doesn't pass half the board off. I'm happy with who has been going, James seems to manage people with axes to grind and keeps the discussion to things the majority of us care about and mostly agree with.
Oh, forgot to add, if PLT is invited as the official Not606 rep, that's fine with me. I'd trust him to take our questions with him and to give us any feedback in the same way OLM does, except PLT is obviously not on the CTWD committee. That's not a dig at OLM BTW, he does a good job for us, but it looks like CTWD want to be officially recognised at these and in any case I suspect he'd want to go in his own capacity as much as CTWD. PLT is more "ours".
You're big on this reading properly stuff; what about "So, without knowing if they'd accept, my nominations would be, Obadiah or Happy Tiger." is misunderstood? Granted the first sentence was a question, but then we had statements of opinion and then this nomination. Fair enough, it was later explained it was just an example.
Everybody else in the world will have read it as he intended it to be read. It made perfect sense. Just accept that you ****ed up and move on.
That seems to say I didn't **** up and you believe I should have second guessed what was meant (dangerous on here, it leads to all sorts of circular arguments!) - I responded to DMD, matter closed and it is only you who seems to want to progress it.
No, it says you did **** up - it says you're the only one who misread it. No second-guessing was required. You responded to DMD, but you didn't acknowledge your ****-up in your response - instead you tried to blame him. That's why I'm not letting go.
I like the idea as long as said person is there to raise issues on behalf of people on the board rather than being there to speak for the board as a whole. So we can have a thread for issues to be raised or PM the person. The person raises the issue and reports back.
