I'm pretty sure many people don't want there careers and MIL/LEO history being aired out to everyone so some Armchair quaterbacks can be satisfied, some members make a career off it after there MIL/LEO over, but some are still in.
All right...why don't you explain your process for vetting people's claims, and your background for interpreting the significance of those claims, and we can get some other people to do the same, and vote on whether you should be allowed to get PMs on other people's backgrounds or if they should go to someone else.
Maybe there could be a tiered system in which people at tier zero could receive PMs about other people first, then, if they're sufficiently important, they could be forwarded to other people for further consideration?
I think possibly we could arrange a method for weighting the votes on the committee to judge backgrounds and weigh the tier rankings of our various members. For example, a person with no experience might only get 20% of the voting power of someone with a career in the industry. Say 5 tiers of voters to vote on the selection of the committee to determine the tiers of the members of the committee, then those members could discuss the guns, and get back to us on what tiers the guns are on. Or that committee could evaluate all of us, assign us tiers, then give us information relevant to our tier.
Who would like to start the process for selecting the people who make up the committee to determine who should be on the tier that evaluates the rest of us, and would they please post an explanation for why they are starting the process, including sufficient information that we can assess what tier they are on?
