the increasingly inaptly named cB rev 2.0, (By- laws or something like it) |
the increasingly inaptly named cB rev 2.0, (By- laws or something like it) |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() dripping destruction ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 ![]() |
yea. no changes, no complaints. so this should not be in feedback.
a thread to comment about the new staff selection. (ok so this is a complaint, this part, but it's not the main part of the thread) i for one don't like the practice of deleting applications after the new staffers are announced. i think some of us would like to be able to see who's application was better. of course, it could open up the selection people to criticism (if people think the application sucked), but sometime public criticism is a good thing. right. now on to the main part. were you suprised at any of the selections, or who wasn't selected? i was quite expecting michael to be people staff. maybe his app sucked, the world will never know... |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Another ditch in the road... you keep moving ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 6,281 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 85,152 ![]() |
oh, good!
then i agree. although if we try and have mass input, say in one thread its going to be messy, lots of distracting arguments, repetiotion etc. how about we assign a committee, say, 5 members, 5 staff, probably including at least one headstaff, who can deal with it on an invision board |
|
|
![]() ![]() |