TalkBoard Topics - Adjusting bylaws to require TB members actually have to post in TB threads

So I was thinking - given that it's cropped up a # of times over the years (the recent Mileage Run subforum being an example) that we don't usually hear from all the TB members in the threads & what their thoughts are re: proposals or suggestions, I'm wondering if we should change the bylaws to say they need to post at least once so we know they're reading & taking what is being said into consideration.

Otherwise, some threads just die a death w/o any input at all from TB members & other times we just get a vote summary w/o thoughts that went into why they chose to vote as they did.

Note, there are a few TB members that are quite good about responding/posting, but weirdly enough it seems they're in the minority each term.

I'm not asking for transcripts or minutes, but I'd like my TB representatives, who supposedly represent me & other FTers, to be required to post at least once in a thread so at least we know they're taking into consideration what is being proposed. And while I'd like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, simply saying oh every single one of us is discussing it on the private TB isn't good enough. Because I'm pretty sure that would result in a liar, liar, pants on fire situation by some.

I realize that TB members are volunteers, but come on really, there aren't that many threads in a year that crop up that you can't post at least once your thoughts or leanings in a thread that's being presented for your review, or why (if it gets to that stage of an actual vote), you can't post this is why I voted the way I did. It shouldn't have to be a ask me why I voted/thought the way I did and I'll tell you scenario. Again there are some TB members who are quite good about posting, but let's face it - there are a # who aren't. I think it should go along w/ being elected that one needs to post.

PS - It will be interesting to see if those who don't post regularly suddenly pop up on this thread & say I read, I listen, etc, etc. Kind of like those who don't post on a forum that's going to get closed suddenly popping up ;)

Cheers.

while we're at it, maybe we could get a "none of the above" checkbox on the next ballot :D

PS - It will be interesting to see if those who don't post regularly suddenly pop up on this thread & say I read, I listen, etc, etc. Kind of like those who don't post on a forum that's going to get closed suddenly popping up ;)

Cheers.

I'm hoping I don't fall in that category! ;)

I don't like the the idea to ammend the rules for a couple of reasons...

1) Not all threads really require a response from 9 people...

Some are targeted to one or two people (like the Prez & VP):

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1052939-whats-going-voting-notification-periods.html

Others sometimes fall to the wayside with a lack of interest:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1041240-proposal-sports-athletics-olympics-games-forums.html

Others, the general members give vocal & valid opinions on that they slow down & the TB doesn't necessarily need to get involved in that stage of the conversation:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1070140-forum-proposal-design-hotels.html

2) Sometimes its better to listen first & add commentary only when necessary (granted, there's no way, without maybe doing a poll on every thread to determine if a TB member is "listening" - and I don't support a "have you read this" type poll on every thread as that'd be ridiculous IMHO - and even if that idea was suggested, it probably couldn't be done so only 9 people have voting ability).

3) It probably helps the members decide, when they read, who they want to vote for in the future - someone who posts a lot may not have a lot to add from a content perspective - someone who posts a little may still have great wise things to say when they post - and someone who's never posts at all probably won't get voted for again.

Just my 2 cents... :)

I'm also against this. We already have provisions for members missing votes. Someone who does not participate in the discussion might not have anything to add or might not be interested or might be waiting for the discussion to gain momentum before adding their opinion.

Furthermore, someone could start for perhaps the third for fourth time a thread demanding say... a Traveling with Furniture forum. 9 people should not have to waste their time panning the idea, especially if it's been panned several times already.

If you feel your elected TB representative is not participating, then the time to let them know that is during elections if they choose to run again.

I am disappointed that a member feels it necessary to try and change the rules to handle a non-problem as I see it. I see your concerns but wonder if you really want threads padded with lots of 'I agree with XXXX threads...' from TB members just so that they comply with this requirement. It wouldn't really add to the debate.

Personally, I read TB every day - as a Moderator I have to do this or face the sack. I read, but do not always comment on every thread. This is usually for one of several reasons:

- I hate the (agree with XXXX) posts. It looks like post padding to me. So if a point has been made before I won't make it again. Often, with the time difference a US based member posts, and then the TB members from the US post replies whilst I am still asleep in Europe. This often means that I come late to the debate.
- Often there is clearly no support from TB members who have posted already for a proposal and so it would be defeated in a vote and so I wonder if I need to post my views. If this is an issue, I can state my views in public or private.
- The issue raised is specific to an office holder
- Sometimes there is no clear proposal and so I keep 'my powder dry' until a formal proposal is made.
- The question is one made of the TB. As only Lucky can speak on behalf of the TB, I cannot answer.

I hope this explains some of my positions.

Wow - it never once occurred to me that TB members would 'post-pad' :eek:

Cheers.

- I hate the (agree with XXXX) posts. It looks like post padding to me. So if a point has been made before I won't make it again.

Great post! ^

Despite my 20k+ posts I usually only post when I think I have something to contribute. I may state my opinion but if I have little to add to a discussion I let others make the articulate case. Though I do think folks generally know where I stand. FWIW.

Great post! ^

+1 ;)

Great post! ^

+1 ;)

TB PW time! :p


[While it takes all kinds of personalities to make a FT forum and the TB is no exception. While extremes of post-whoredom or non-posts exist on the forum, I think the issue might also be about how the TB deals with 'do nothing' representatives. This thread might be an unneccessary worry, but the fact that it is important enough to be raised indicates that this is an ongoing 'appearance of a problem'.

What are the sanctions or remediation options when a TB member fails to publicly participate? If they are privately participating, I think there could be some way of noting that participation, so we have some indication that the elected member has had little or nothing to do, to represent the people who voted at the election - and everyone else.

Thanks. Great post by the OP! ^]

So what I hear you the TB members saying is that you ALL (:rolleyes:) read the threads. Realize you can only speak for yourselves & not for the other TB members, but I find it ironic that the same TB members who actually do respond sometimes or a lot on the threads are posting here, and the 'MIA's are again MIA.

Ok, fair enough.

But I guess when there are votes we're going to have to do the please explain why you voted thing. FWIW - I'd like at least a post saying (if one hasn't posted already in a thread that's up for a vote, in which case we can guess from those posts) here's why I voted the way I did. Again, to me it shouldn't have to be a dig it out of TB members. And btw - when did 'I agree w/ a post or thought process' become a bad thing? Why shouldn't a TB member say that's what I think, even if it's a 1-liner? It means you're actually expressing what you think so FTers know where you stand. Why is that bad, and...

That to me doesn't mean someone is 'post-padding'. I'd also like to see the MIAs actually post more often so that we don't feel they're MIA & actually are contributing. Again, not post-padding. If posting as an TB member in TB threads, even if it's I agree, is considered post-padding, you all have bigger problems IMO.

BTW - I realize this won't get to a proposal stage, nor am I sure I wanted it to. But I did want to point out an issue that FTers do talk about re: TB, even if they don't say it to your face. And I'd like not to be ridiculed for suggesting something.

OVMV. Cheers.

What are the sanctions or remediation options when a TB member fails to publicly participate? If they are privately participating, I think there could be some way of noting that participation, so we have some indication that the elected member has had little or nothing to do, to represent the people who voted at the election - and everyone else.

There are no sanctions if a TB member fails to publically participate per the TB Guidlines (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/11201712-post2.html)

Section 3.C.i.d. - d. TalkBoard members are encouraged to participate in public dialogue with regard to the mission of the TalkBoard and to gather as much input from posters as possible. This includes but is not limited to: asking for input, posting threads in affected forums when a proposal is under consideration that might affect that forum (with the indulgence of that forum’s moderators), making their personal case for or against a proposed change, participating in brainstorming, etc.

Section 3.F.vii -
vii. Grounds for censure or removal of a TalkBoard member:
a. Fails to participate in three consecutive discussions on pending motions without prior notice, where prior notice constitutes a post posted in the thread kept for that purpose in the private TalkBoard forum
b. Misses three consecutive calls to vote without prior notice where prior notice constitutes a post posted in the thread kept for that purpose in the private TalkBoard forum
c. Has been permanently removed from the rolls of active, registered members of the FlyerTalk community
d. Demonstrates by his/her actions that he/she is not able to actively participate in the TalkBoard duties
e. Acts in willful and gross serious, repeated violation of the FlyerTalk member Terms of Service (TOS)
f. Acts in willful and gross serious, repeated violation of these guidelines
g. Abuses the censure and removal process
viii. As with any motion approved by the TalkBoard

Section 4.D.iii
iii. The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

But I guess when there are votes we're going to have to do the please explain why you voted thing.
BTW - I realize this won't get to a proposal stage, nor am I sure I wanted it to. But I did want to point out an issue that FTers do talk about re: TB, even if they don't say it to your face. And I'd like not to be ridiculed for suggesting something.

OVMV. Cheers.

I'm happy to make a motion to amend:

Section 4.D.iii
iii. The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

to read

Section 4.D.iii
iii. The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. Members of TalkBoard must post at least once in each 'TalkBoard Topics' thread indicating why they support or supported a motion, or opposed the motion.


I am not sure we'll find a seconder from TB, but if anyone wants to put it up I'd be happy to propose the change.

to read

Section 4.D.iii
iii. The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. Members of TalkBoard must post at least once in each 'TalkBoard Topics' thread indicating why they support or supported a motion, or opposed the motion.



The way I read what you have written implies that a TB must post in every TB Topics thread - not just on the motion result thread.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not sure I feel the need to make it a requirement. If a TB member doesn't post right away, are they in violation? Will they be removed? What if they post 6 months later? What if the TB member decided to abstain? What if they didn't vote at all?

Members elect people to represent them - if you, as a member, take issue with how someone is representing (or not representing) you, contact the TB'er.

I really don't think it's necessary to create requirements to have every member post in all the threads. Most that are active will do so on their own - and if they're not as active, that's the person/culture that the general membership elected...

FWIW, I agree TB'ers should be able to validate their logic & reasoning and should be active in the community & a variety of fora (especially this one), but it's not like your tax dollars are at work here & there's a requirement to be accountable - vote them off the island next time...or, if you really have an issue, take the time to call them out individually - PM them, email them, publically shame them if you have to (within the TOS, of course! ;))...just don't see the need or value in changing the requirements...

I'm only posting on this thread to say that even though I don't hesitate to make my position known on most issues (unpopular as that position may be in many cases!), I don't agree with any proposal that makes it mandatory to voice an opinion. TB members are of course encouraged to ask questions and seek feedback via both the public and private TB forum threads. Concerned members are also welcome to PM the TB members if they have any questions that are not addressed in the public threads.


The official position of every TB member is very clearly communicated via their vote, which is publicly posted. Failure to take an official position (viz. missing votes) is already grounds for censure and removal.

While I wouldn't mind knowing exactly where each member of TB stands on a particular issue (and we find that out when the official voting record gets printed, so perhaps this is moot anyway), there is one awful scenario I can envision if TB members are forced to post an opinion before the vote... TB all post their opinions one way or the other, proposal proposer (I couldn't think of a better way to put it :D) sees that there is majority support for the issue, and then starts the following:

Is it ready for a vote yet?

Now?

Now?

Now?

Now?

You get the idea... NOT a good scenario, obviously.

It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

I see one Talk Board member has posted exactly ONCE in the public Talk Board forum since the 2009 election. Nice to know they have the discretion when and where to post. I can see why SkiAdcock has some concerns. If all Talk Board members had utilized similar discretion and only posted once in the last 6 months, we might as well close down the Talk Board forum.

You know what would be cool: making the TB Member's debate forum open for all posters to see on a read-only basis! @:-)

:D

[ducking]

You know what would be cool: making the TB Member's debate forum open for all posters to see on a read-only basis!

^^^^^

I've always maintained that both the TB and Moderator "private" forums should be opened to all users to view. Didn't make me very popular when I was a mod and won't be too popular as a TB member either! :D

I see one Talk Board member has posted exactly ONCE in the public Talk Board forum since the 2009 election. Nice to know they have the discretion when and where to post. I can see why SkiAdcock has some concerns. If all Talk Board members had utilized similar discretion and only posted once in the last 6 months, we might as well close down the Talk Board forum.

Yeah, but not all TB members utilize that discretion...and that one member you're referring too hasn't even been on FT in almost a month...unfortunately, that's not grounds for dismissal...but, missing 3 votes is...which is tough to do... :(

So someone opens a thread with bs like "We should have an Ice Cream Forum" and you honestly expect a TB member (or anyone else) to be required to comment on that ? :o

I can gladly do so but then many of my posts would be censored ! :p

I'm not sure I see a benefit to this. My opinions are often swayed as a result of the discussion in the threads in this forum. I used to always post my initial thoughts and then once again stated my thoughts a couple of weeks later, and they often differed because of the compelling arguments made in thread. Then I got accused of being a "flip flopper." ;)

So instead I read the threads. Most votes are no brainers, in my opinion. And when there's a controversial vote or I don't vote in the "obvious" direction, I believe I've always stated my opinion and I'll certainly continue to do so.

Just my two cents...

^^^^^

I've always maintained that both the TB and Moderator "private" forums should be opened to all users to view. Didn't make me very popular when I was a mod and won't be too popular as a TB member either! :D

Lol, I am sure you found out just as quickly as I did that such a notion is a 'non-starter,' as they say. ;)

I actually think the TB bylaws are ok on this issue. If a TB member doesn't vote they'll seen be booted by the TB. If a TB member doesn't comment in the TB Topics forum they'll eventually be booted by the voters.

anyone know what the deal is with radioman ??? no posts anywhere for over 4 months. Is he/she still alive ? anyone heard from him privately? what's 2/3s of 8

He voted on the Ambassador proposal this week, so he is most certainly around. One of the other Talk Board members pointed out a few weeks ago that there is no requirement for any Talk Board member to post on the public Talk Board forum.