TalkBoard Topics - Motion Passed: Sense of TalkBoard on Mileage Run forum content access restrictions

Moved by B747-437B and seconded by Markie

"The TalkBoard, after consideration of input from the forum Moderators, believes that some content in the Mileage Run Discussions forum should be subject to access restrictions to be determined, that could include either minimum standards of community participation or mandatory login to view."
This vote will close on June 7, 10 at 3:34 pm or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.
Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:

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.

So while there is already a thread and discussion on this general topic and it is safe to assume that TalkBoard members have reviewed that thread, this thread is about this specific motion. Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback.

A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’

Can I ask... what is actually being voted on here? I would assume you have private discussions that should give you the "Sense of Talkboard" on this issue... why a vote to know?

Is this actually a vote to recommend a closed off portion of Mileage Run Discussions?

As the proposer of this motion, I should clarify that it is actually a multi-part motion as I posted in the other thread.

PART I

Is there a need for some restriction.

If vote is no, stop here.
If vote is yes, proceed to PART II.

PART II

Should the restrictions be applied to the existing forum (MR Discussions) or should a new sub-forum be created?

PART III

Should the restrictions in either the new or existing focum (depending on result of PART II) be a login restriction or a community participation standard similar to that of Coupon Connection?

It's a weird 3-part vote, but given the various options, it kind of needs to be a 3-part vote. FWIW, I've voted in favor of this. I support a logged in requirement...

It's a weird 3-part vote, but given the various options, it kind of needs to be a 3-part vote.

Not to nitpick but whether it's weird or not the whole motion should've been outlined in OP, at least IMHO.

I support a logged in requirement...

As do I. ^

Not to nitpick but whether it's weird or not the whole motion should've been outlined in OP, at least IMHO.


The vote that is presently underway is only on Part I of the motion.

PART II

Should the restrictions be applied to the existing forum (MR Discussions) or should a new sub-forum be created?

I think that I will take part II voting to says yes to put on the restrictions on MR discussions thread. Because it was too many members who post on the MR discussions thread. So I think you should do considered to put on the restrictions.

There was really no other way to structure the votes to accommodate the wide range of views held by the TB. Discussion did not appear to be build a simple consensus, so we will all need to wait to see where we end up.

Thanks again for raising this as a vote on TB. ^

Original discussion thread link (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1080180-request-2nd-sub-forum-mileage-run-criterias-similar-coupon-connection.html)

Given the period of time for the original proposal and subsequent discussion, I'm confident TB representatives have enough information to do thier due diligence, debate and decide the issue.

All the best!
BiziBB

For what it's worth, I've gone ahead and voted in favor of this proposal, somewhat reluctantly. I'm not convinced there's a need to restrict access to the mileage run forum, but having read the other thread (and especially the arguments by moderators and frequent users of the forum) I'm certainly willing to consider it. So can't guarantee I would actually vote in favor of some form of restriction if/when we come up to the next vote, but I'd definitely like to investigate it further and hear more thoughts on specific ideas.

And per my reasons articulated in the larger thread, i have voted against...

After much deliberation and discussions with people on both sides of the argument, I have chosen to vote AGAINST the proposal.

I do appreciate there are many users who have articulated very valid and convincing arguments in favour, but this is an issue upon which I feel compelled to vote my conscience.

And although it'll come out when the votes are finalized - I vote for this...if it passes, my intention would be to vote for just a logged in requirement as I think anything past that is unnessary.

Moved by B747-437B and seconded by Markie

The TalkBoard, after consideration of input from the forum Moderators, believes that some content in the Mileage Run Discussions forum should be subject to access restrictions to be determined, that could include either minimum standards of community participation or mandatory login to view.

Yes:
bhatnasx, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Radioman, Spiff 6 75%

No:
B747-437B, gleff 2 25%

Abstain:
0 0%

Voters: 8.

Not Voting:
skywalkerLAX

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines, a motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’

so what happens if part 2 doesnt get a 2/3 vote either way?

so what happens if part 2 doesnt get a 2/3 vote either way?

IMHO, ideally, we address it & come up with something that does go 2/3rds either way - or, if we come to an impass, then basically, IMHO, nothing happens. Members have been quite passionate about this, so my instinct tells me we'll get somewhere.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a restricted subforum - I just like the login requirement at most.

Hopefully "something" is a start, which will give us more info and a base to see what developes. I'm pleasantly surprised we've gotten this far. Please don't kick this down the road for a future board. Thanks for your work.

What do the TB bylaws say about multipart motions? Must all three parts be passed by a sufficient TB majority to proceed or can the motion which was proposed and seconded in OP be a starting point regardless of which way the other two votes go?

What do the TB bylaws say about multipart motions? Must all three parts be passed by a sufficient TB majority to proceed or can the motion which was proposed and seconded in OP be a starting point regardless of which way the other two votes go?

Nothing to my knowledge - this is the first of its kind.

Reason seems to have been victorious in the part one vote...so when does the next motion appear?

Do TB members who were on the losing side feel obliged to do their best to shoot down anything that follows by voting no on every such subsequent motion?

Reason seems to have been victorious in the part one vote...so when does the next motion appear?

Do TB members who were on the losing side feel obliged to do their best to shoot down anything that follows by voting no on every such subsequent motion?

Can't answer part II, but for part I, methinks the next motion will appear once the wording is agreed upon by a motioner and a seconder.

Nothing to my knowledge - this is the first of its kind.

So if there's nothing on the books specifying linkage between separate motions and nothing specifically written into the motion as proposed and seconded in OP about TB actions being contingent upon subsequent motions can this vote be taken as a stand alone and TB act upon it as is?

So if there's nothing on the books specifying linkage between separate motions and nothing specifically written into the motion as proposed and seconded in OP about TB actions being contingent upon subsequent motions can this vote be taken as a stand alone and TB act upon it as is?

Right now it doesn't look like there's a whole lot to act upon, this first vote was pretty much an acknowledgment that there's a problem. There isn't anything concrete (like adding, deleting, or changing a forum, for example) to be done, so right now there can't be any action.

Right now it doesn't look like there's a whole lot to act upon, this first vote was pretty much an acknowledgment that there's a problem. There isn't anything concrete (like adding, deleting, or changing a forum, for example) to be done, so right now there can't be any action.

A motion with no action? I disagree as the motion as written and approved says that some content in the Mileage Run Discussions forum should be subject to access restrictions to be determined, that could include either minimum standards of community participation or mandatory login to view, which to me means TB is now tasked with determining what those access restrictions should be. Or am I being too literal again?

Actually, if TB fails to be able to agree upon anything subsequent to this motion, then by passing this motion, it appears that there could also be admin action to do something - TB has apparently agreed to something being done and not necessarily by them.

Hopefully, that's an unnecessarily technical reading of the motion and round 2 will go peachy, with TB agreeing a way forward.

Or am I being too literal again?

Nope, you're right...something should be coming out very shortly! ;)

Right now it doesn't look like there's a whole lot to act upon, this first vote was pretty much an acknowledgment that there's a problem. There isn't anything concrete (like adding, deleting, or changing a forum, for example) to be done, so right now there can't be any action.

A motion with no action? I disagree as the motion as written and approved says that some content in the Mileage Run Discussions forum should be subject to access restrictions to be determined, that could include either minimum standards of community participation or mandatory login to view, which to me means TB is now tasked with determining what those access restrictions should be. Or am I being too literal again?

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear... I guess what I meant was that nothing other than a vote for Part II can be done, as it's as yet undetermined what the restriction will be. That's what I get for going on FT at 5:15 in the morning! :p

I guess what I meant was that nothing other than a vote for Part II can be done, as it's as yet undetermined what the restriction will be.

And I would hope that isn't the case as this motion IMHO has to be taken for what it is and what it says and not be bound by what other future motions may or may not say or the result of TB votes on those future motions. But I'll leave it to wiser members than I to determine a way forward and will watch with interest. :)