I have a little experience with a similar kind of idea to this and a few things to say:
It’s horribly stressful on the players to be involved with such a thing; every community member has their own agenda/perceives others to have their own agenda in such a way that this would only work as a group - and even then, harassment and disagreement would ensue.
It requires a dedicated amount of communication between staff and playerbase, it’s essentially an unpaid CM position.
Involvement in the game can’t be too deep or too casual, there’s a fine line to walk between having knowledge and having a conflict of interests.
I believe there’s great benefits to having the playerbase able to talk to the community, but wading through all of that information and making it usable is a CM job. If a CM should chose to have contacts that are more succinct in their words and give laid out reasons and explanations for what they put forward that’s great, but it’s still on the CM to do that.
Online game playerbases tend to be quite immature and capable of crossing the line and unless the representatives were protected by the company, the whole initiative would fail. If they’re anon they don’t gather the same kind of trust (and distrust) as a known player would… they may as well be staff at that point.
It may be better to have a well moderated area of communication if people feel their concerns aren’t being met as needed.
Just speaking from my own experiences here tho. Feel free to flame or whatnot, it could be different elsewhere than what I’ve gotten used to and observed.