OK, more clear now, thanks Nick and Neil!
First of all, let me agree with
bhatnasx in that I will do my best to meet the standards of discipline you mention. I haven't been suspended in the first 15K posts/few years, and have no intent on it happening anytime in the future.
This is one of those issues where I really see both sides.
On one hand the FT'ers elected the TalkBoard members, so why not let us (the voters) learn from our mistakes and elect "better" people in the future. For the most part the people that have spent much of their terms suspended in the past didn't just do that while they were serving on TB- they did it before as well, so voters should expect that.
On the other hand if a TalkBoard member is suspended for a lengthy period of time it's kind of hard for them to vote and do their "job." Makes me wonder what value they really have representing the members. Similarly, for the most part it's kind of hard to imagine that an TB member has the best interest of FT in mind if they can't follow the relatively simply rules FT has.
So ultimately I can see both sides of the issue and would like to hear what others think. If most are fine with being represented by people that are suspended, then so be it. If not, then I'm all for seeing debate on this issue.