As folk who frequent this forum know, there is a TB vote ongoing right now re: Abstentions Don't Count Against Passage Motions - aka, Abstentions don't count as a No vote.
The topic, both in the pubic & private TB forums, has garnered a lot of debate & agreement, as well as disagreement. Let's just say it's not a slam dunk in either direction in terms of arguments being made, at least in my opinion.
Because of that, and because I'm the newbie member to TB, and Gawd help me I'm trying to take my responsibilities seriously and vote what I think is right, after viewing the pro/con arguments & taking into consideration my own thoughts, others, and others also includes 'regular' FT members who may or may not post in TB, and because there's concern about what the effect will have on voting (ie, doomsday or a walk in the park - pick your side) - and because I'm not good at Stats & hate math & I've had to re-read all the threads about a gazillion times (I really do have a headache from it all), I thought I'd do a bit of research on past votes to see if it would make a difference. Yes I do realize that was one long disjointed sentence, and I apologize!!
From what I can tell, I don't think the doomsday that some are thinking would occur if the vote passed would actually occur. Nor, given how many votes in total there have been, do I think too many things went off the rails in the past. No black helicopters here IMO.
So - for your viewing - and I hope quantifiable - pleasure, here are the votes from 2010 (to date - not including this one under debate or Brazil) back until the beginning of 2006. Yes there are votes going back much farther (much further!), but I derived the information I'm posting from the Town Hall - Talkboard Official Voting Decisions which is at the top of this forum & to which everyone has access, and that goes back to the beginning of '06. After that you have to scroll through all the threads in this forum. The TB decisions stickey is publicly available; all votes get posted. But you'd have to do what I did to get a feeling for stuff, so I'm trying to save you the trouble (feel free to buy me a drink or give me Excedrin later; a lot of both quite frankly!).
Early 2006 on to today final votes were listed by handle from what I can tell. Prior to that one would have to sift through a # of the threads to figure it out, although some were listed. Folks, I spent HOURS just putting this together. I had no idea when I started that literally 6 hours later I'd still be at it. So forgive me if I don't go back further. But truly I think you'll get a handle or appreciation on the issue at hand from the 2010-2006 posts. Or I hope you do. If you don't, trust me after 6 hours I'm not in the mood to hear any quibbles & I'm tired, so any arrows at me will not be appreciated by moi.
I've been told by both 'regular' FT members as well as TB folk that I'm taking this too seriously, and maybe I am, but you know us newbies. We do try to take our positions seriously & do our research & do the best we can on our votes (or at least I do). I will state right now sometimes I'll get it right & sometimes I'll get it wrong in the next 2 years, but I will always give it my best shot. And FWIW - even some of the 'regular' FT folk said they got headaches reading the threads & trying to figure it all out, so I figure I'm not alone & I'm in good company LOL.
Now a couple of things. This thread is to show votes & for folk to try & figure out if the new proposal/motion would really impact stuff based on votes to date.
It is NOT, I repeat NOT, put out there for you to bash particular TB members, whether past or present, nor is it there for you to say, why did they vote that way; it should be different, and start a debate on stuff already voted on. If you want to do that, then start your own gosh darn threads.
If anything, I thought it really interesting to watch the evolution of FT via the votes & issues & hope you will as well!
I still have not decided which way I'm voting on the abstention issue, although I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point. But - I put a lot of PMs out there to some of the regular FT members & want to include their input (I gave them a timeline to get back to me) in my consideration. I will, however, vote by tomorrow evening - because I really haven't figured out when the vote ends on 1/1/11 & it would be totally embarrassing to have a not voted as my first vote!
To make it easier for you all, I'm going to do subsequent posts in this thread year by year.
Housekeeping: I included the Prez & VP votes, but those are anonymous votes so no handles listed. All other actual motions are listed by handle & how they voted. The votes are accurate. Some might say for/against or yes/no; any formatting issues are mine & mine alone. I figured most FTers could figure out for = yes, etc.
Also I considered doing a spreadsheet or quick glance at how everyone voted over each year, but 6 hours is my limit on putting time into this. Do your own math or spreadsheet or summary per year per TB member if you want to see how they voted in a 'quick snapshot'. I'd appreciate it since I don't have the time. Feel free to post it in this thread, but if you post one person's snapshot for a year I think it only fair to post all of the TB's snapshots for the year. All for one & one for all, etc.
The other thing I have to say is that I totally respect all past & current TB members who gave/are giving of their time, thought, consideration, to help make FT a better BB.
12/31/10: Motion passed: Brazil Forum
Voting yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, gleff, jackal, lucky9876coins, Markie, SkiAdcock, Spiff
Abstaining: B747-437B
12/4/10: gleff re-elected TalkBoard President for 2010-2011
gleff was re-elected TalkBoard President by a 6-2-1 margin over jackal and Markie, respectively.
12/4/10: Spiff elected TalkBoard Vice-President/Secretary for 2010-2011
Spiff was elected TalkBoard Vice-President/Secretary by a 5-4 margin over lucky9876coins
Note: Per the TalkBoard Guidelines, a motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’
11/27/10: Vote Passed: Rename Flying Blue Forum (Vote #2)
Yes: bhatnasx, jackal, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Spiff
Abstain: B747-437B, gleff
Not Voting: skywalkerLAX
11/15/10: Vote Failed: Amend name of Flying Blue Forum
Yes: jackal, Markie, nsx, skywalkerLAX
No: B747-437B
Abstain: bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Spiff
7/12/10: Vote Failed: Access Restriction for Mileage Run Discussion forum
Yes: Markie, nsx, skywalkerLAX, Spiff
No: bhatnasx, gleff, jackal, lucky9876coins
Abstain: B747-437B
7/1/10: Vote Passed: Removal of Radioman from TalkBoard
Yes: 8 TB members
Did not vote: 1 TB member
6/29/10: Motion Passed: TalkBoard Statement on Criteria for Forum Changes
Yes: bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Radioman, Spiff
Abstain: B747-437B
Not Voting: Radioman
6/25/10: Motion Passed: Mileage Run Access for Logged-in Members as Only Restriction
Yes: B747-437B, bhatnasx, Markie, nsx, skywalkerLAX, Spiff
No: gleff, lucky9876coins
Not Voting: Radioman
6/7/10: Motion Passed: Sense of TalkBoard on Mileage Run forum content access restrictions
Yes: bhatnasx, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Radioman, Spiff
No: B747-437B, gleff
Not voting: skywalkerLAX
6/3/10: Motion Passed: Ambassador Program Test - Flame-free thread
Yes: B747-437B, bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Radioman, skywalkerLAX, Spiff
1/19/10: Motion Passed: Support for Haitian Relief
Yes: B747-437B, bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Radioman, skywalkerLAX, Spiff
SkiAdcock
Dec 30, 10, 7:55 pm
12/19/09: lucky9876coins elected TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary
lucky9876coins was elected TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary in the runoff election by a 5-4 margin over Spiff
12/19/09: gleff re-elected TalkBoard President
gleff was re-elected TalkBoard President by an 8-0-1 margin
9/15/09: Motion Failed: Create a LAN forum
Yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, kokonutz, skywalkerLAX
No: gleff, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Spiff
5/15/09: Motion Adopted: Should a Fairmont Presidents Club Forum Be Created?
Yes: berlinflyer, bhatnasx, Cholula, kokonutz, lucky9876coins, nsx, skywalkerLAX, Spiff
No: gleff
3/9/09: Motion Adopted: to allow embedded images in many forums
Yes: Cholula, kokonutz, lucky9876coins, nsx, skywalkerLAX, Spiff
No: berlinflyer, bhatnasx, gleff
2/11/09: Motion failed: allow static images in all FT forums except OMNIs
Yes: berlinflyer, Cholula, nsx, skywalkerLAX
No: bhatnasx, gleff, kokonutz, lucky9876coins, Spiff
2/11/09: Motion Adopted: to close the Senior Travel forum
Yes: berlinflyer, bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, nsx, skywalkerLAX, Spiff
No: Cholula, kokonutz
1/8/09: Motion Adopted: to recommend the creation of a European Rail forum
Yes: berlinflyer, bhatnasx, Cholula, gleff, kokonutz, lucky9876coins, nsx, skywalkerLAX, Spiff
SkiAdcock
Dec 30, 10, 8:03 pm
12/17/08: kokonutz elected TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary kokonutz was elected TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary by a 6-3 margin over Spiff
12/06/08: gleff re-elected TalkBoard President
gleff was re-elected TalkBoard President by a 6-3 margin over nsx
10/06/08: Motion Failed: Travel Health & Fitness forum
Voting yes: bhatnasx, gleff, kokonutz, Spiff, techgirl
Voting no: Cholula, Jenbel, lucky9876coins
Did not vote: Punki
09/29/08: Motion Failed: Restrict access to Mileage Run Deals to logged-in members
Voting yes: Cholula, Jenbel, kokonutz, lucky9876coins, techgirl
Voting no: bhatnasx, gleff, Spiff
Did not vote: Punki
Please note that a simple majority is required for FlyerTalk Cares motions to pass
08/27/08: Motion failed: Eliminate FlyertalkCares: Our Member Efforts
Voting no: bhatnasx, Cholula, gleff, Jenbel, Spiff, techgirl
Abstaining: kokonutz
Did not vote: lucky9876coins, Punki
08/27/08: Motion failed: Rescind all previous FT Cares approvals
Voting no: bhatnasx, Cholula, gleff, Jenbel, Spiff, techgirl
Abstaining: kokonutz
Did not vote: lucky9876coins, Punki
08/26/08: Motion Passed: Rescind Mission to the World Charity Approval
Voting yes: bhatnasx, gleff, Jenbel, lucky9876coins, Spiff
Abstaining: Cholula, kokonutz, Punki, techgirl
08/08/08: Motion Passed: Charity request - Mission to the World
Voting yes: Cholula, gleff, Jenbel, kokonutz, lucky9876coins, Punki, Spiff, techgirl
Voting no: bhatnasx
05/31/08: Motion Passed: Permit Test of Photos in 4 Forums
Yes: kokonutz, Punki, bhatnasx, Cholula, gleff, Jenbel, lucky9876coins, Spiff, techgirl
05/18/08: Motion Failed: Close Religious Travelers Forum
Voting no: bhatnasx, Cholula, gleff, lucky9876coins, Punki, Spiff, techgirl
Did not vote: kokonutz, Jenbel
12/27/07: Spiff Re-elected TalkBoard Vice President
the TalkBoard reelected Spiff as TalkBoard Vice President for the 2007-2008 term over lucky9876coins by a 5-4 margin
12/18/07: gleff re-elected TalkBoard President 2007-2008
TalkBoard reelected gleff as TalkBoard President for the 2007-2008 term over Punki by a 6-2 margin.
12/03/07: Motion Failed: Virgin America Forum
Voting yes: Cholula, Jenbel, ScottC, techgirl
Voting no: bhatnasx, gleff, ozstamps, Spiff
Did not vote: Dovster
6/18/07: Motion Passed: Change name of Paris forum to include all of France
Voting yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, Dovster, Jenbel, ScottC, Spiff, techgirl, gleff, ozstamps
1/28/07: Motion Failed: Motions to be posted for TB member debate in TB Topics Forum
Voting for: Dovster, Jenbel, Spiff, techgirl
Voting against: bhatnasx, Cholula, gleff, ScottC
Abstaining: ozstamps
1/06/07: Motion Passed: New Sticky for TalkBoard Issues Forum
Voting yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, Dovster, Jenbel, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff, techgirl
Did not vote: gleff
1/06/07: Motion Failed:Unique Interests Forum to Replace Religious and Disability Travel Forum
Voting for: Cholula, Dovster, ozstamps
Voting against: bhatnasx, gleff, Jenbel, ScottC, Spiff, techgirl
SkiAdcock
Dec 30, 10, 8:14 pm
12/23/06: Motion passed - Spiff re-elected TalkBoard Vice-President TalkBoard reelected Spiff as Talkboard Vice-President. Vote was 7-1 in favor with 1 abstention
12/20/06: Motion Passed: FT Admin Have Discretion to Make Technical Changes in Member Handles
Voting yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, Dovster, gleff, Jenbel, ScottC, Spiff, techgirl
Abstaining: ozstamps
12/11/06: Motion Passed - gleff Reelected TalkBoard President TalkBoard unanimously reelected gleff Talkboard president
10/17/06: Motion Passed: create a separate Korean Air forum
Voting yes: attorney28, Cholula, doc, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Voting no: gleff
10/17/06: Motion Passed: creation of an Argentina sub-forum
Voting yes: attorney28, Cholula, doc, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey, gleff
10/03/06: Motion Failed: Creation of a Mens Travel Forum
Voting yes: attorney28, Cholula, doc, ozstamps, wharvey
Voting no: gleff, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff
9/29/06: Motion Passed: No Members Registering after Sept. 9th Eligible to Vote in TB Election
Voting for: attorney28, Cholula, ozstamps
Voting against: wharvey
Abstaining: gleff, missydarlin, ScottC
Did not vote: Spiff, doc
8/06/06: Motion Passed: reorder (and edit some names in) Travel & Dining: the World forums
Voting yes: Cholula, gleff, ScottC, Spiff
Voting no: attorney28, wharvey
Abstaining: doc, missydarlin, ozstamps
On 7 August 2006, the TalkBoard passed the following motion by a 4-2-3 vote. Please note that only yea or nay votes are counted in the vote tally when considering the 2/3 majority required for a vote to pass
7/18/06: Motion Passed: Create an Asiana Forum
Voting yes: attorney28, Cholula, missydarlin, ozstamps
Voting no: gleff
Did not vote: doc, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
6/28/06: Motion passed: Create a China Forum
Yes: attorney28, Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Not voting: doc
6/26/06: Motion passed: Combine USAirways and America West forums
Yes: attorney28, Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Not voting: doc
5/30/06: Motion failed: Don't Count OMNI Posts towards Post Count Going Forward
Yes: ozstamps, ScottC
No: attorney28, Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, Spiff, wharvey
Not voting: doc
5/30/06: Motion failed: table discussion on post counts
Yes: attorney28, Cholula, gleff, Spiff
No: missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, wharvey
Not voting: doc
5/30/06: Motion failed: remove post counts
Yes: wharvey
No: attorney28, Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff
Not voting: doc
5/24/06: Motion failed: Create an Alitalia forum
Yes: attorney28, Cholula, ozstamps
No: gleff, missydarlin, Spiff, wharvey
Abstain: ScottC
Not voting: doc
5/06/06: Vote Passed: Discontinue Phone Programs/Partners forum
Voting yes: attorney28, Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Did not vote: doc
5/06/06: Vote passed: Create an El Al forum
Voting yes: attorney28, Cholula, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Abstaining: gleff
Did not vote: doc
4/03/06: Vote passed: Table the motion to create a Spirit Air forum
Voting yes: attorney28, Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff
Voting no: wharvey
Did not vote: doc
3/09/06: New TalkBoard Vice President
attorney28 submitted his resignation as TalkBoard Vice President citing increased professional responsibilities keeping him from devoting as much time as he'd like. The TalkBoard has unanimously named Spiff as its new Vice President
3/08/06: Motion passed: change name of Hawaii airlines forum
Yes: attorney28, Cholula, doc, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
2/23/06: Motion rejected: Open Private Talkboard Forum for All Members in Read-Only Format
Yes: attorney28, doc, ozstamps
No: Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
2/21/06: Motion passed: Change Grace Period for Editing Posts from 2 Minutes to 5 Minutes
Yes: attorney28, Cholula, doc, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps
No: ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
One additional note for the record: attorney28 reported the final vote on this issue above. It was the second vote.
The original motion -- moved by ozstamps and seconded by missydarlin -- failed.
5 voted in favor: doc, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff
3 were opposed: Cholula, gleff, wharvey
1 did not vote: attorney28
While a majority of TB members supported the motion, it did not garner the required 2/3rds support for a motion to pass.
1/30/06: Motion passed: Approve Updated Flyertalk Guidelines and Rules as Presented
Votes for: Cholula, Dovster, gleff, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Abstention: attorney28
Did not vote: ozstamps
1/30/06: Motion passed: Forbid TalkBoard members from changing their votes once cast
Votes in favor: attorney28, Cholula, Dovster, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps,ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
1/20/06: Motion passed: Recommend against a singles forum
Voting yes: Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, ScottC, wharvey
Voting no: Spiff, attorney28
Abstention: ozstamps
Not voting: doc
1/20/06: Motion passed: Move FlyI iClub forum to Discontinued Programs
Votes in favor: Cholula, doc, gleff, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Not voting: attorney28, ozstamps
1/19/06: Motion rejected: Create a separate Mattress Run forum
Voting for: doc, ozstamps
Voting against: Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Not voting: attorney28
1/19/06: Motion passed: Hotel Deals Subforum
Votes in favor: Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Votes against: ozstamps
Not voting: attorney28, doc
1/19/06: Motion passed: Reorganize Featured Destinations and Rename Tokyo to Japan
Votes in favor: Cholula, doc, gleff, missydarlin, ScottC, wharvey
Not voting: ozstamps, attorney28, Spiff
1/19/06: Motion passed: Create Washington DC travel forum
Votes in favor: Cholula, doc, gleff, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Votes against: None
Abstain: ozstamps
Not voting: attorney28
1/19/06: Motion passed: Name conflicts
Votes in favor: attorney28, Cholula, doc, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps, Spiff, wharvey
Not voting: ScottC
SkiAdcock
Dec 30, 10, 9:18 pm
BTW - apologies. I probably should have done the motions underlined rather than bold cuz they jump out at you in bold, but there's too many of them for me to go back & change them. At least tonight anyway. I'm too tired.
Cheers. Sharon
obscure2k
Dec 30, 10, 9:37 pm
As folk who frequent this forum know, there is a TB vote ongoing right now re: Abstentions Don't Count Against Passage Motions - aka, Abstentions don't count as a No vote.
The topic, both in the pubic & private TB forums, has garnered a lot of debate & agreement, as well as disagreement. Let's just say it's not a slam dunk in either direction in terms of arguments being made, at least in my opinion.
Because of that, and because I'm the newbie member to TB, and Gawd help me I'm trying to take my responsibilities seriously and vote what I think is right, after viewing the pro/con arguments & taking into consideration my own thoughts, others, and others also includes 'regular' FT members who may or may not post in TB, and because there's concern about what the effect will have on voting (ie, doomsday or a walk in the park - pick your side) - and because I'm not good at Stats & hate math & I've had to re-read all the threads about a gazillion times (I really do have a headache from it all), I thought I'd do a bit of research on past votes to see if it would make a difference. Yes I do realize that was one long disjointed sentence, and I apologize!!
From what I can tell, I don't think the doomsday that some are thinking would occur if the vote passed would actually occur. Nor, given how many votes in total there have been, do I think too many things went off the rails in the past. No black helicopters here IMO.
So - for your viewing - and I hope quantifiable - pleasure, here are the votes from 2010 (to date - not including this one under debate or Brazil) back until the beginning of 2006. Yes there are votes going back much farther (much further!), but I derived the information I'm posting from the Town Hall - Talkboard Official Voting Decisions which is at the top of this forum & to which everyone has access, and that goes back to the beginning of '06. After that you have to scroll through all the threads in this forum. The TB decisions stickey is publicly available; all votes get posted. But you'd have to do what I did to get a feeling for stuff, so I'm trying to save you the trouble (feel free to buy me a drink or give me Excedrin later; a lot of both quite frankly!).
Early 2006 on to today final votes were listed by handle from what I can tell. Prior to that one would have to sift through a # of the threads to figure it out, although some were listed. Folks, I spent HOURS just putting this together. I had no idea when I started that literally 6 hours later I'd still be at it. So forgive me if I don't go back further. But truly I think you'll get a handle or appreciation on the issue at hand from the 2010-2006 posts. Or I hope you do. If you don't, trust me after 6 hours I'm not in the mood to hear any quibbles & I'm tired, so any arrows at me will not be appreciated by moi.
I've been told by both 'regular' FT members as well as TB folk that I'm taking this too seriously, and maybe I am, but you know us newbies. We do try to take our positions seriously & do our research & do the best we can on our votes (or at least I do). I will state right now sometimes I'll get it right & sometimes I'll get it wrong in the next 2 years, but I will always give it my best shot. And FWIW - even some of the 'regular' FT folk said they got headaches reading the threads & trying to figure it all out, so I figure I'm not alone & I'm in good company LOL.
Now a couple of things. This thread is to show votes & for folk to try & figure out if the new proposal/motion would really impact stuff based on votes to date.
It is NOT, I repeat NOT, put out there for you to bash particular TB members, whether past or present, nor is it there for you to say, why did they vote that way; it should be different, and start a debate on stuff already voted on. If you want to do that, then start your own gosh darn threads.
If anything, I thought it really interesting to watch the evolution of FT via the votes & issues & hope you will as well!
I still have not decided which way I'm voting on the abstention issue, although I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point. But - I put a lot of PMs out there to some of the regular FT members & want to include their input (I gave them a timeline to get back to me) in my consideration. I will, however, vote by tomorrow evening - because I really haven't figured out when the vote ends on 1/1/11 & it would be totally embarrassing to have a not voted as my first vote!
To make it easier for you all, I'm going to do subsequent posts in this thread year by year.
Housekeeping: I included the Prez & VP votes, but those are anonymous votes so no handles listed. All other actual motions are listed by handle & how they voted. The votes are accurate. Some might say for/against or yes/no; any formatting issues are mine & mine alone. I figured most FTers could figure out for = yes, etc.
Also I considered doing a spreadsheet or quick glance at how everyone voted over each year, but 6 hours is my limit on putting time into this. Do your own math or spreadsheet or summary per year per TB member if you want to see how they voted in a 'quick snapshot'. I'd appreciate it since I don't have the time. Feel free to post it in this thread, but if you post one person's snapshot for a year I think it only fair to post all of the TB's snapshots for the year. All for one & one for all, etc.
The other thing I have to say is that I totally respect all past & current TB members who gave/are giving of their time, thought, consideration, to help make FT a better BB.
Cheers. Sharon
Thanks, Sharon.
I most enlightening thread and I appreciate your time and effort.
Dovster
Dec 31, 10, 12:10 am
Sharon, you obviously put a lot of effort into this matter but IMHO the effort was wasted because the motion is a meaningless one.
Keep in mind that it will only impact motions where 5 vote "yes", and two or less vote "no".
In the three years that you listed this only happened twice and one of these was for one of the silliest motions ever made ("Motion passed: Recommend against a singles forum".) Never before or after was there a motion to recommend against a forum. If TB doesn't want a forum it simply doesn't vote to establish it.
On the other hand, when a 2/3rds majority of those who voted "yes" or "no" was in effect, three motions did pass that would not either today or under the proposed measure.
The Asiana Forum was established by a 4-1 margin (with 4 abstaining).
Travel and Dining was re-ordered by a 4-2 margin (with 3 abstaining).
A cut off date of Sept 9 for registration of new members who could vote in the TalkBoard elections passed 3-1 with 3 abstaining and 2 not voting.
The motion that TalkBoard should be passing is one returning the situation where a motion is approved if 2/3rds of those voting "yes" or "no" vote in favor.
We had this for several years. It resulted in the passing of the three motions I mentioned above. The foundations of FlyerTalk did not crumble, it had no impact on global warming, nor, as far as I can tell, did any wars break out because of it.
Why (other than "I just don't like to see forums established") would anyone oppose this?
livious
Dec 31, 10, 1:33 am
Sharon, you obviously but a lot of effort into this matter but IMHO the effort was wasted because the motion is a meaningless one.
I disagree as the effort can serve other purposes. In fact, it was most helpful in seeing which TB members are progressing FT and which are in favor of keeping the status quo. Would have been nice to have before the elections to decide if the incumbents were worth voting for;).
Maybe it does not help for this motion, but I find it nice to have all the results in one place for future reference. I give a tip of the hat to Sharon^!
Jenbel
Dec 31, 10, 5:13 am
but IMHO the effort was wasted because the motion is a meaningless one. I think the fact you immediately start using the data Sharon collated to show that the motion is meaningless shows that the effort was not at all wasted. If she hadn't spent her time doing that - and massive kudos to her for doing so! - then you couldn't be quoting exact numbers at her. That's not a wasted effort on her part - you are taking her data to show why you think the motion is meaningless.
What she has shown is that there are only a very small handful of occasions where votes will be impacted.. set against the ability for people to abstain and not have to nail their colours to the mast to stop a vote. The risk associated with the proposal is slight, and the benefits - to the membership - much greater. This really is a no-brainer for me.
techgirl
Dec 31, 10, 6:03 am
Sharon, thNks for your work in compiling this. It goes to show that, in my perspective, at least, a couple of votes can color my overall perspective of an issue.
I do question the accuracy of some of the vote records though - I'm shown as abstaining in a couple places where I know I merely missed a vote. The only issue I remember specifically abstaining on was Mission to the World and that was due to two factors - my personal religious beliefs and the fact that I received several threats from members of the FT community if I didn't vote a specific way. I've never been quite as comfortable on FT after some of the hateful emails I received after that issue. :(
ozstamps
Dec 31, 10, 7:10 am
Lot of work - thanks Sharon. :cool:
This one shows what can occur on a 5/2 vote - something I put forward failed on a 5/2 vote. And needed to be done again. Where it sailed through. So it is not "hypothetical" only as some as claiming.
==============
2/10/06: Motion passed: Name Changes Voting yes: attorney28, Cholula, doc, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff
Voting no: wharvey
One additional note for the record: attorney28 reported the final vote on this issue above. It was the second vote. The original motion -- moved by ozstamps and seconded by missydarlin -- failed.
5 voted in favor: doc, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff
3 were opposed: Cholula, gleff, wharvey
1 did not vote: attorney28
While a majority of TB members supported the motion, it did not garner the required 2/3rds support for a motion to pass.
Dovster
Dec 31, 10, 8:03 am
Lot of work - thanks Sharon. :cool:
This one shows what can occur on a 5/2 vote - something I put forward failed on a 5/2 vote. And needed to be done again. Where it sailed through. So it is not "hypothetical" only as some as claiming.
==============
2/10/06: Motion passed: Name Changes Voting yes: attorney28, Cholula, doc, gleff, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff
Voting no: wharvey
One additional note for the record: attorney28 reported the final vote on this issue above. It was the second vote. The original motion -- moved by ozstamps and seconded by missydarlin -- failed.
5 voted in favor: doc, missydarlin, ozstamps, ScottC, Spiff
3 were opposed: Cholula, gleff, wharvey
1 did not vote: attorney28
While a majority of TB members supported the motion, it did not garner the required 2/3rds support for a motion to pass.
Sorry, Oz, but the motion you cited failed the first time on a 5-3 vote, with one not voting, and nothing in the proposed measure would change that.
SkiAdcock
Dec 31, 10, 9:24 am
From what I can tell, I don't think the doomsday that some are thinking would occur if the vote passed would actually occur. Nor, given how many votes in total there have been, do I think too many things went off the rails in the past. No black helicopters here IMO.
So - for your viewing - and I hope quantifiable - pleasure, here are the votes from 2010 (to date - not including this one under debate or Brazil) back until the beginning of 2006. The TB decisions stickey is publicly available; all votes get posted. But you'd have to do what I did to get a feeling for stuff, so I'm trying to save you the trouble (feel free to buy me a drink or give me Excedrin later; a lot of both quite frankly!).
Now a couple of things. This thread is to show votes & for folk to try & figure out if the new proposal/motion would really impact stuff based on votes to date.
If anything, I thought it really interesting to watch the evolution of FT via the votes & issues & hope you will as well!
Housekeeping: I included the Prez & VP votes, but those are anonymous votes so no handles listed. All other actual motions are listed by handle & how they voted. The votes are accurate. Some might say for/against or yes/no; any formatting issues are mine & mine alone. I figured most FTers could figure out for = yes, etc.
The other thing I have to say is that I totally respect all past & current TB members who gave/are giving of their time, thought, consideration, to help make FT a better BB.
Cheers. Sharon
* Just repeating or agreeing w/ myself on the points above :)
I disagree as the effort can serve other purposes....I find it nice to have all the results in one place for future reference. I give a tip of the hat to Sharon^!
* I do think it's easier when they're all in one spot. I do want to re-iterate though that all the decisions are accessible by anyone in the decisions thread. This is not meant to usurp that.
What she has shown is that there are only a very small handful of occasions where votes will be impacted.. set against the ability for people to abstain and not have to nail their colours to the mast to stop a vote. The risk associated with the proposal is slight, and the benefits - to the membership - much greater.
* I agree that there will be few times when votes will be impacted if the motion passes. I would like to say again though that I think abstaining is valid if there's a conflict of interest or if someone hasn't had time to do their due diligence due to travel or real world work & thus can't make an informed decision. I do not think it is valid when one uses it as a way to vote no without actually voting no.
Sharon, thNks for your work in compiling this.
I do question the accuracy of some of the vote records though - I'm shown as abstaining in a couple places where I know I merely missed a vote. The only issue I remember specifically abstaining on was Mission to the World and that was due to two factors - my personal religious beliefs and the fact that I received several threats from members of the FT community if I didn't vote a specific way. I've never been quite as comfortable on FT after some of the hateful emails I received after that issue. :(
* I rechecked the threads where it shows you abstaining & it is listed in the way it was reported on those threads. I'm stunned & saddened that you would receive threats. :( There is no call for that in general, but even less on a bulletin board. Come to the London Do; we'll make you feel comfortable there :)
Cheers. Sharon
tcook052
Dec 31, 10, 7:55 pm
Interesting info and I appreciate the effort Sharon. Curious to see, for example, how many abstentions there have been this year alone by one TBer. Ah well, anothet opic for another thead. ;)
ozstamps
Dec 31, 10, 10:23 pm
Sorry, Oz, but the motion you cited failed the first time on a 5-3 vote, with one not voting, and nothing in the proposed measure would change that.
Not voting and abstaining were 2 VERY different animals back then as I recall?
Dovster
Dec 31, 10, 10:36 pm
Not voting and abstaining were 2 VERY different animals back then as I recall?
Not for the purposes of deciding if a vote passed. Not voting meant that you did not bother doing anything at all. Abstaining meant that you said you would not cast a ballot.
In either case, in order for a motion to pass, it required approval from 2/3rds of those who voted either "yes" or "no".
SkiAdcock
Jan 2, 11, 6:21 pm
Updated the 2010 vote tally w/ the last votes of the year.
Cheers. Sharon
kokonutz
Jan 4, 11, 10:19 am
Neat! Thanks for doing this, Sharon!!!! Fascinating how it confirms many of my thoughts about voting trends.
Maybe the TB should task the VP/Secretary with providing an updated version of this list around October of every year so that posters can be informed as to how incumbents have voted in their TB careers just prior to the TB elections. @:-) ^
Dovster
Jan 4, 11, 11:01 am
Neat! Thanks for doing this, Sharon!!!! Fascinating how it confirms many of my thoughts about voting trends.
Maybe the TB should task the VP/Secretary with providing an updated version of this list around October of every year so that posters can be informed as to how incumbents have voted in their TB careers just prior to the TB elections. @:-) ^
Unfortunately, sheer numbers do not tell the entire story. For example, if you just look at the votes on establishing forums, you will find that Gleff voted "yes" 6 times in those three years and "no" 8 times.
That tends to put him slightly, but only slightly, on the "no" side -- right?
But a closer look shows that Gleff only made the motion on three of those forums -- Qatar, Turkish, and Virgin America.
He explained his vote on Turkish Airlines as follows:
My take is that I've frequently been involved in questions over where threads about the Turkish program belong. The geographic confusion issue wharvey cites. People argue over whether it's Europe, Asia, Middle East. I have my own take on the issue (Europe) but threads wind up in all places.
So even if it isn't the most heavily trafficked forum, creating a dedicated place for threads about this airline will make finding discussions much easier.
Yet, oddly enough, Turkey itself was not given its own forum. Apparently people know where Turkey is but don't know where Turkish Airlines is headquartered.
And there is something odd about Virgin America. Gleff voted against giving it its own forum in Dec 07 but four months later he made the motion to establish the forum.
Call me a bit of a skeptic if you want, but the one thing that all three forums had in common is that Randy had asked TalkBoard to establish them.
So when voting on forums that members had asked for, Gleff voted in favor only 3 times out of 11 -- yet when Randy asked for them, Gleff not only voted in favor all three times but made the motions to establish them.
Sometimes, what is behind the votes is more interesting (and amusing) than the votes themselves.
bdjohns1
Jan 4, 11, 11:04 am
Thanks for starting this, Sharon. I'd done a couple of years worth of work into an Excel sheet a while back (I think I had 07-08?), but I hadn't touched it in a while. That spreadsheet should still be around and online (look for a thread I started in here), so if someone else wants to take the ball and run with it, you've got my permission to use that sheet freely.
SkiAdcock
Jan 4, 11, 12:48 pm
As folk who frequent this forum know, there is a TB vote ongoing right now re: Abstentions Don't Count Against Passage Motions - aka, Abstentions don't count as a No vote.
I thought I'd do a bit of research on past votes to see if it would make a difference.
From what I can tell, I don't think the doomsday that some are thinking would occur if the vote passed would actually occur. Nor, given how many votes in total there have been, do I think too many things went off the rails in the past. No black helicopters here IMO.
So - for your viewing - and I hope quantifiable - pleasure, here are the votes from 2010 back until the beginning of 2006.
Now a couple of things. This thread is to show votes & for folk to try & figure out if the new proposal/motion would really impact stuff based on votes to date.
It is NOT, I repeat NOT, put out there for you to bash particular TB members, whether past or present, nor is it there for you to say, why did they vote that way; it should be different, and start a debate on stuff already voted on. If you want to do that, then start your own gosh darn threads.
If anything, I thought it really interesting to watch the evolution of FT via the votes & issues & hope you will as well!
The other thing I have to say is that I totally respect all past & current TB members who gave/are giving of their time, thought, consideration, to help make FT a better BB.
Cheers. Sharon
* Still agree w/ the above & again, the reason for the creation of the thread was to do some research re: the motion before voting myself.
Neat! Thanks for doing this, Sharon!!!!
Maybe the TB should task the VP/Secretary with providing an updated version of this list around October of every year so that posters can be informed as to how incumbents have voted in their TB careers just prior to the TB elections. @:-) ^
* Something to consider by the TB to incorporate the VP/Secretary into the guidelines if it's to be an annual or permanent request. For this year & next I can certainly do the update since I'm the creator of this particular thread. Or if does get incorporated into the guidelines, the VP/Secretary can just cut/paste what's in this thread & create a new one.
Thanks for starting this, Sharon. I'd done a couple of years worth of work into an Excel sheet a while back (I think I had 07-08?), but I hadn't touched it in a while. That spreadsheet should still be around and online (look for a thread I started in here), so if someone else wants to take the ball and run with it, you've got my permission to use that sheet freely.
* Heck, I could barely sort out the cut/paste in word. I'll let someone else tackle the spreadsheet :D
Cheers.
kokonutz
Jan 4, 11, 1:03 pm
Unfortunately, sheer numbers do not tell the entire story. For example, if you just look at the votes on establishing forums, you will find that Gleff voted "yes" 6 times in those three years and "no" 8 times.
That tends to put him slightly, but only slightly, on the "no" side -- right?
But a closer look shows that Gleff only made the motion on three of those forums -- Qatar, Turkish, and Virgin America.
He explained his vote on Turkish Airlines as follows:
Yet, oddly enough, Turkey itself was not given its own forum. Apparently people know where Turkey is but don't know where Turkish Airlines is headquartered.
And there is something odd about Virgin America. Gleff voted against giving it its own forum in Dec 07 but four months later he made the motion to establish the forum.
Call me a bit of a skeptic if you want, but the one thing that all three forums had in common is that Randy had asked TalkBoard to establish them.
So when voting on forums that members had asked for, Gleff voted in favor only 3 times out of 11 -- yet when Randy asked for them, Gleff not only voted in favor all three times but made the motions to establish them.
Sometimes, what is behind the votes is more interesting (and amusing) than the votes themselves.
Completely agree, and can even confirm that some of the TB members who voted for the Virgin America and Turkish forums had, until Randy asked for them in response to being contacted by the airlines themselves, argued vehemently against them in the private TB forum.
But while the raw numbers are clearly an imcoplete story they are better than no story at all. For example they do make it clear that some TB members are among the least likely to vote for 'change.' So if you as a voter subscribe to their 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' view of FT you know who your candidates are. But if you see big, and growing, problems, you know who your candidates aren't.
Again, Sharon has done the hard work of putting together the historical data. Tasking the VP/Secretary with publishing the record toward the end of each TB session seems rather helpful and simple enough to accomplish. I'd even suggest that the TB host include a link to same in the election process area. @:-)
gleff
Jan 4, 11, 1:21 pm
Black helicopters out in force, Dovster @:-)
I have changed my mind on some issues over the course of my involvement in Flyertalk, either because I was prsented with new argumetns and evidence or because circumstances changed (ie more activity in a forum, such as with a new program, I may have deemed it too early to create a forum right away but as the forum matured it made more sense).
And I've explained my positions when I voted against something, and when I supported it, either way.
In fact, Dovster quotes my explanation for how I voted, and why, and then uses that as a jumping off point to suggest I must have voted the way I did for completely different reasons. Really???
Seems a real non-sequitor, create a Turkish Airlines forum but not a Turkey forum. One factor in creation of the Turkish forum was member confusion over where to post. And why was this an issue warranting a forum? Because it was happening often enough with enough traffic for it to make a difference and generate real confusion. We can tlak about all sorts of counterfactuals and hypotheticals of other fora, but it comes down to what's best for the members as I best perceive it and that's how I cast my votes. Not always just the vocal minority posting or posting loudest, bu the membership as a whole.
I guess I could go back and re-create my thinking at the time about Qatar if I really need to...
And I admit, I was initially a Virgin America skeptic. Especially about creating a forum before they had even launched their frequent flyer program.
A good argument was made that turned my opinion at the time in favor of the forum. An argument that ultimately turned out to be wrong in my opinion, in hindsight. But the forum was created and it turned out a reasonable one, unsurprisingly as the carrier has grown.
On the whole I think I'm a pretty straight shooter, no black helicopters here, I vote what I think at the time and I recognize I could be wrong and I'm open to revisiting.
PTravel
Jan 4, 11, 1:28 pm
Very interesting and useful. Thanks, Sharon.
Could the voting reports be made a sticky? I don't think the discussion below it needs to be "stickied," but I find the information contained in the reports to be very helpful.
Dovster
Jan 4, 11, 1:43 pm
On the whole I think I'm a pretty straight shooter, no black helicopters here, I vote what I think at the time and I recognize I could be wrong and I'm open to revisiting.
Gleff, I never accused you of not being a straight shooter. However, the fact remains that you have long been a strong advocate of the "let's not establish any forums unless they are absolutely necessary" position.
It does seem to me odd, therefore, that within a period of about 2 weeks you made motions to establish three separate forums and, just by coincidence, these three forums were requested by Randy.
I don't recall you ever making a motion for a new forum other than in these three instances. (I know you did not during the three years which Sharon listed.)
And, quite honestly, I can not understand the logic of establishing a Turkish Airlines forum because people don't know where Turkey is but, at the same time, not establishing a Turkey forum.
This is not a matter of "black helicopters". It does appear, however, to be a matter of you wanting to give Randy whatever he wanted. As a senior moderator and as a blogger featured by Randy, you should have agreed to his wishes while working in those two capacities.
As a TalkBoard member, however, you were not selected by Randy but by the membership at large and in that capacity your first consideration should be to represent the membership, not Randy (or now, Carol). Randy's (or Carol's) opinions should not impact TalkBoard decisions more than those of any ordinary member.
SkiAdcock
Jan 4, 11, 2:59 pm
Two things:
* All TB voting results are listed in the TownHall Talkboard Voting decisions portion of this forum & are stickied. However, I did the 'view at a glance' when doing some research re: whether abstentions should be an automatic no & thought the information would be helpful to others, as it's easier to see 'at a glance' than scrolling through a lot of threads.
* I mentioned in the original post that I wasn't creating it so people could get into a heck, why did that get approved & why did that person vote that way & get into discussions on past issues. If people want to do that, they can either pull up the threads relating to the issues/that particular vote & post in that or start new thread.
Folk, please, let's not muddy up this thread which is just to show historical voting. Yes it could be a good 'at a glance' venue come election time (re: of one's affiliation of status quo or mixing it up - or even doing both), as some folk might want to see how their TB reps did vote on motions & it's easier to see it all laid out in one post. And let's remember - each FTer has their own issues of importance so how one voted on one item might or might not be as important on a different item.
FWIW - the only black helicopter I want to see is one landing on my front lawn to get me out of this snow :p :D
Cheers. Sharon
gleff
Jan 4, 11, 6:08 pm
Dovster, I've explained the how's and why's on my votes. I've always represented what I've believed is in the best interests of Flyertalk. It's never because one person wants something or doesn't want something, or one group of people. I've frequently disagreed with Randy. As I've frequently disagreed with you.
And there's really nothing underlying or sinister at all, my explanations are what they are and really do explain my votes.
Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar. ;)
Q Shoe Guy
Jan 4, 11, 7:03 pm
Thanks for posting this Sharon......^
DeaconFlyer
Jan 5, 11, 5:07 pm
* I mentioned in the original post that I wasn't creating it so people could get into a heck, why did that get approved & why did that person vote that way & get into discussions on past issues. If people want to do that, they can either pull up the threads relating to the issues/that particular vote & post in that or start new thread.
Folk, please, let's not muddy up this thread which is just to show historical voting. Yes it could be a good 'at a glance' venue come election time (re: of one's affiliation of status quo or mixing it up - or even doing both), as some folk might want to see how their TB reps did vote on motions & it's easier to see it all laid out in one post. And let's remember - each FTer has their own issues of importance so how one voted on one item might or might not be as important on a different item.
There's no reason there shouldn't be discussion on voting patterns in this thread. If people want to look just at the data, they can stop reading after the first post. If they are interested in more discussion, they can read on.
SkiAdcock
Jan 5, 11, 6:55 pm
And my concern is folk are going to get into a pissing war about past decisions & why did this get voted yes, & why did they get voted no, and why did someone vote yes on one item & no on another - which is NOT, I repeat, NOT, the purpose of THIS thread - which I made quite plain up front (see post #1!) when I posted it.
If folk want to rehash old threads & get into the why (after the fact) did you vote this way on this one or that one, then folk - bump up the threads & post on THOSE threads.
This thread was created to help me figure out if abstentions voting as no would matter if the motion went through & to provide a 'vote at a glance' for other folk to figure it out. It was NEVER intended as a rehash of old votes.
I am concerned that folk who are coming to TB for the first time will look at this thread interested in seeing voting results/patterns & quite frankly get turned off by all the subsequent turf wars, when the thread was intended to show (oh yeah, lest we forget) 'votes at a glance'.
Here's a solution for everyone! If you do want to discuss past votes or voting patterns, then just start a separate thread in this forum. Problem solved!! Everyone's a happy camper! And folk who just want to see 'votes at a glance' (again, the primary purpose of this thread) can see them clean w/o all the discussion, and yet go to the other thread for discussion on who cast votes or didn't or abstained and/or why. Problem solved.
Cheers. Sharon
Cholula
Jan 5, 11, 7:59 pm
Here's a solution for everyone! If you do want to discuss past votes or voting patterns, then just start a separate thread in this forum. Problem solved!! Everyone's a happy camper! And folk who just want to see 'votes at a glance' (again, the primary purpose of this thread) can see them clean w/o all the discussion, and yet go to the other thread for discussion on who cast votes or didn't or abstained and/or why. Problem solved.
Here's another idea.
Why don't you ask someone to delete every post after number six and lock this thread to further comment?
The thread will eventually float to the back pages but it'll always be searchable for historical purposes.
Thanks once again for your work here.
Q Shoe Guy
Jan 5, 11, 11:09 pm
Here's another idea.
Why don't you ask someone to delete every post after number six and lock this thread to further comment?
The thread will eventually float to the back pages but it'll always be searchable for historical purposes.
Thanks once again for your work here. Or even better one could delete all the banter.....lock and STICKY this important thread at the top of the forum!^
Cholula
Jan 5, 11, 11:19 pm
Or even better one could delete all the banter.....lock and STICKY this important thread at the top of the forum!^
This forum is a nightmare to navigate and read what with all the archive threads, sticky threads, announcements and other miscellaneous stuff.
As it is, you have to scroll halfway down the page to see the active threads.
Just my opinion but I don't think we need yet another sticky thread here. This thread is simply a record of historical votes. It's interesting for research purposes but I don't see the need for it taking up permanent residence on the front page.
Jenbel
Jan 6, 11, 2:59 am
If the thread gets locked, then it becomes non-editable as well.
Cholula
Jan 6, 11, 7:36 am
It's not "non-editable" if locked. It just adds a step or two more for the OP to edit the thread.
And leave it unlocked for that matter but someone is going to have to cruise through it every so often and remove the unwanted commentary.
So it's a maintenance issue either way.
kokonutz
Jan 6, 11, 7:58 am
What's so bad about discussing TB members' voting patterns?
Dovster
Jan 6, 11, 8:08 am
What's so bad about discussing TB members' voting patterns?
Indeed, if we just want a bare facts of who voted which way on a particular issue that is already available on http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions-605/
Knowing the voting patterns of TB members helps us decide whether to support them in future elections -- and discussions about these patterns allows an exchange of ideas which might change some voters' minds.
SkiAdcock
Jan 6, 11, 10:36 am
Ok, it's morning & I'm not as tired as last night (yes I am, but I digress - let's just say I'm not as cranky as last night ;)).
I don't think this needs to be made a stickey because voting results already are a stickey. This just shows them at a glance & people can see results as well as trends. Don't think it needs to be locked either. It can be bumped up before '11 elections w/ '11 results, if TB doesn't decide to amend the guidelines before then to have the VP post a 'votes at a glance'.
While I agree that discussion of voting patterns might provide additional info, in addition to votes at a glance, I'm not sure dragging up votes from a few years ago or projecting motives which may or may not be accurate is overall helpful.
My larger concern for is that I'm hopeful in the future we'll get more FTers frequenting this forum, especially around election time, and I don't want them to get bogged down into a mega-thread :p when they might want a 'snapshot'.
Obviously this is FT & folk will do what they want, but if there are discussions on why someone voted the way they did, I'd say pull up the appropriate motion thread & discuss there, or if someone really wants to, they can create a discuss votes thread as elections get closer.
Cheers. Sharon
B747-437B
Jan 9, 11, 4:13 am
What's so bad about discussing TB members' voting patterns?
+1 ^
Why am I not surprised to see the Moderators advocating censorship?
tcook052
Jan 9, 11, 8:31 am
What's so bad about discussing TB members' voting patterns?
+2
Why shouldn't members be able to discuss, for example, just how many times in a calendar year one member has chosen to abstain from voting on a motion?
Kiwi Flyer
Jan 19, 11, 12:24 am
Thanks for taking the effort to compile this skiadcock
I'm amazed that of the 2010 talkboard only Jackal (who served half a term) and nsx voted positively (yes or no) in every vote. Collectively TB had 10 abstentions and 6 failures to vote. :(
bhatnasx
Jan 21, 11, 1:05 pm
Thanks for taking the effort to compile this skiadcock
I'm amazed that of the 2010 talkboard only Jackal (who served half a term) and nsx voted positively (yes or no) in every vote. Collectively TB had 10 abstentions and 6 failures to vote. :(
For what it's worth, as a data point the votes below were both on the exact same topic & even posted and running at the exact same time. Some of the TB membes who decided to abstain in the first vote (bottom one) decided to vote in the second one.
Unfortunately, this is what can happen when you have "trigger-happy" people who make proposals without necessarily thinking them all the way through...it happens, unfortunately. So, just because 2 members voted yes or no in every vote, doesn't make them "better" TB members - which is what I believe is implied by the statement above.
11/27/10: Vote Passed: Rename Flying Blue Forum (Vote #2) Yes: bhatnasx, jackal, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Spiff
Abstain: B747-437B, gleff
Not Voting: skywalkerLAX
11/15/10: Vote Failed: Amend name of Flying Blue Forum
Yes: jackal, Markie, nsx, skywalkerLAX
No: B747-437B
Abstain: bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Spiff
kokonutz
Jan 21, 11, 1:42 pm
For what it's worth, as a data point the votes below were both on the exact same topic & even posted and running at the exact same time. Some of the TB membes who decided to abstain in the first vote (bottom one) decided to vote in the second one.
Unfortunately, this is what can happen when you have "trigger-happy" people who make proposals without necessarily thinking them all the way through...it happens, unfortunately. So, just because 2 members voted yes or no in every vote, doesn't make them "better" TB members - which is what I believe is implied by the statement above.
11/27/10: Vote Passed: Rename Flying Blue Forum (Vote #2) Yes: bhatnasx, jackal, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, Spiff
Abstain: B747-437B, gleff
Not Voting: skywalkerLAX
11/15/10: Vote Failed: Amend name of Flying Blue Forum
Yes: jackal, Markie, nsx, skywalkerLAX
No: B747-437B
Abstain: bhatnasx, gleff, lucky9876coins, Spiff
If you didn't like the wording why on Earth wouldn't you just vote NO?
Frankly in just about any deliberative body EXECPT the TB the 11/15 vote would have passed with a 3/4 majority. That's why the current system is so screwed up: four of you voted to abstain because you KNEW it was the same as voting no, without actually voting no. It's koo-koo.
Jenbel
Jan 21, 11, 2:01 pm
That is actually a very good example. "Cowards no" in action. You didn't want the first vote to pass, so you voted to abstain.
Hmm - is there a correlation between those who voted to abstain on that one and those who voted against the motion to change? ;)
bhatnasx
Jan 21, 11, 3:34 pm
If you didn't like the wording why on Earth wouldn't you just vote NO?
Frankly in just about any deliberative body EXECPT the TB the 11/15 vote would have passed with a 3/4 majority. That's why the current system is so screwed up: four of you voted to abstain because you KNEW it was the same as voting no, without actually voting no. It's koo-koo.
Yes - it did equal a No vote. But I wasn't voting agains the philosophy of change - there were just 2 different votes open at the same time on the exact same thing. I voted "abstain" in the first vote only after having voted "yes" in the second vote. So, yes, I intended it to count as a No.
That is actually a very good example. "Cowards no" in action. You didn't want the first vote to pass, so you voted to abstain.
Hmm - is there a correlation between those who voted to abstain on that one and those who voted against the motion to change? ;)
Call it what you will...sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me! :p ;)
kokonutz
Jan 21, 11, 9:23 pm
Wow. Honesty in politics! Congrats, bhatnasx.
Way to admit to the coward's no!
bhatnasx
Jan 22, 11, 6:46 am
Wow. Honesty in politics! Congrats, bhatnasx.
Way to admit to the coward's no!
1) It is what it is.
2) This isn't politics. It's an advisory board for FlyerTalk where the Community Director (previously the FT Host) makes a final decision - we, as you know, just make recommendations.
see also (http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=kokonutz) ;)
kokonutz
Jan 22, 11, 8:33 am
see also (http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=kokonutz) ;)