Nominations for the 2012 CCJ committee - ** CLOSED **

bd-850 · Postby **bd-850** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:20 pm

i guess it is Strange that Doreen Nominated 3 people in QLD, but really does it matter. it still comes down to everyone else having the final say

DORA_ANNE · Postby **DORA_ANNE** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:39 pm

bd-850 wrote:i guess it is Strange that Doreen Nominated 3 people in QLD, but really does it matter. it still comes down to everyone else having the final say

Lol Ben I do seem to do strange things sometimes *ohwell*

..... I was mainly thinking like Pete had mentioned In Multiple candidates who I thought was worthy as you can Nominate 3 ppl's but you don't know if all of them are going to Run for that position ? And then that gives the other person a chance to Run ... Ummm If that makes sense :roll:

Fitter · Postby **Fitter** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:42 pm

im confused again lol

however i must remember to thank sharyn for nominating me for QLD rep

bd-850 · Postby **bd-850** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:03 pm

Yep I understand Doreen. Its all good

sleeper · Postby **sleeper** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:07 pm

i thought u couldnt run for 2 positions, or am i wrong?

tadz0rz · Postby **tadz0rz** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:10 pm

Wow....This structure is so well orchestrated it almost seems disorganised to me lol.

Good luck to everyone who has been nominated, should be an interesting new start to clubcj

The X · Postby **The X** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:22 pm

sleeper wrote:i thought u couldnt run for 2 positions, or am i wrong?

That was my original idea and intent. However the (now) one man army thought otherwise and wanted to be nomianted for every possible position and run for every nomination. I was against that as it's clearly a way of stacking the vote. So to maintain some peace, Mizta B suggested a middle ground, which I ran with, so this is what we have currently. Imperfect? Yes, but sacrafices have to be made sometimes.

sleeper · Postby **sleeper** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:25 pm

no sweat, i didnt want the process to be called invalid due to an oversight is all

BlueWRX · Postby **BlueWRX** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:42 pm

VRX_Pete wrote:[quote:f283d49a6a=aspir3]Are you going to email temporary suspended members on their nomination/s? They are entitled to run for positions if they choose too.[/quote:f283d49a6a] Im sorry Troy, Id have to disagree. Banned members are banned for a reason and have to serve out their ban. So the timing is unfortunate, but thats the way it is. However I fail to see why you have to post this in a pubic thread. Are you trolling for trouble? If so, please dont. Enough already. This is the first warning. You want to try for a second warning?

Troy i really thought you were alot more mature for your age.
If this was the case does that mean if SIR-VRX, tryg & Blakey was nominated therefore they would be allowed to run cause they was nominated???

What is wrong with you people??

Postby **aspir3** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:19 am

BlueVRX wrote:[quote:22269b3a34=VRX_Pete][quote:f283d49a6a=aspir3]Are you going to email temporary suspended members on their nomination/s? They are entitled to run for positions if they choose too.[/quote:f283d49a6a] Im sorry Troy, Id have to disagree. Banned members are banned for a reason and have to serve out their ban. So the timing is unfortunate, but thats the way it is. However I fail to see why you have to post this in a pubic thread. Are you trolling for trouble? If so, please dont. Enough already. This is the first warning. You want to try for a second warning?[/quote:22269b3a34] Troy i really thought you were alot more mature for your age. If this was the case does that mean if SIR-VRX, tryg & Blakey was nominated therefore they would be allowed to run cause they was nominated??? What is wrong with you people??

Stacy we are not talking about permanently banned members but a temporary suspended member. Big difference.

BlueWRX · Postby **BlueWRX** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:37 am

big difference?
how so?
he was banned for a reason great reason i think after reading thru some of his post made me happy i had not been apart of this club for a while.

Postby **aspir3** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:16 am

VRX_Pete wrote:[img:c5029bd766]http://www.clubcj.net/img/images/20120223214659_2012ccjnomsumm.png[/img:c5029bd766]

I would like to point out a few things. I do not want to be SA rep.

But I would like members and future committee I did respond to Sa rep nomination.

I can not help it if my PM sits in my outbox for 24 hours and it is not read.

BlueWRX · Postby **BlueWRX** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:20 am

How did you even become a Moderator in the first place?
With such negativity you have towards the club and people in it.

bd-850 · Postby **bd-850** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:09 pm

aspir3 wrote:[quote:f8d7d67283=BlueVRX][quote:22269b3a34=VRX_Pete][quote:f283d49a6a=aspir3]Are you going to email temporary suspended members on their nomination/s? They are entitled to run for positions if they choose too.[/quote:f283d49a6a] Im sorry Troy, Id have to disagree. Banned members are banned for a reason and have to serve out their ban. So the timing is unfortunate, but thats the way it is. However I fail to see why you have to post this in a pubic thread. Are you trolling for trouble? If so, please dont. Enough already. This is the first warning. You want to try for a second warning?[/quote:22269b3a34] Troy i really thought you were alot more mature for your age. If this was the case does that mean if SIR-VRX, tryg & Blakey was nominated therefore they would be allowed to run cause they was nominated??? What is wrong with you people??[/quote:f8d7d67283] Stacy we are not talking about permanently banned members but a temporary suspended member. Big difference.

Banned is Banned yet it be permantly or a temporary Ban, they did something wrong and do we need someone like that in the Committee?

Cant beleive im saying this but agree with you Stacey

Nominations for the 2012 CCJ committee - CLOSED

Who is online