TalkBoard Topics - Another way to resolve the "Abstain" conundrum

Over the past year or more the TalkBoard has attempted to find consensus on the issue of "Abstain" votes. Currently they function exactly the same as "No" votes, but some members like the fact that they make a "Soft No" statement rather than a "Strong No".

After thinking about this, I realized that the solution may be to more fully accommodate this preference for two versions of No, and to make it symmetric by having two versions of Yes. For example, we could allow the following options:


Support, meaning Strong Yes
Do Not Oppose, meaning Soft Yes
Do Not Support, meaning Soft No, precisely equivalent to the current Abstain
Oppose, meaning Strong No


The Soft Yes option is the mirror image of Abstain. Both Strong and Soft Yes would count as Yes, and both Strong and Soft No would count as No. The only difference from current rules would be terminology and the split of the current Yes into two options.

If No voters can have two ways to say it, then Yes voters should have the same freedom!

If the current TB opposes this and wants to have more ways to say No than to say Yes, then perhaps they would instead consider adopting the following voting menu:


Yes
Can't make up my mind, so No
No
Hell No
NFW
Not until Hell Freezes Over


:D:D:D

But at the end of the day, the results are still the same & the calculations are still the same...Do Not Support is a publicly stated NO, whereas an Abstain isn't a committed No.

FWIW, I don't view it as a conundrum.

But at the end of the day, the results are still the same & the calculations are still the same...Do Not Support is a publicly stated NO, whereas an Abstain isn't a committed No.

What terms would you prefer to indicate "No for now, but I am on the fence" and "Yes for now, but I am on the fence"? Abstain has the effect of the former without the necessary (IMHO) linguistic clarity. That lack of clarity is the crux of the issue.

We should be able to find a suitable set of words unless the TB truly wants to obfuscate soft opposition.

What terms would you prefer to indicate "No for now, but I am on the fence" and "Yes for now, but I am on the fence"?

How about: Get off the fence, do your homework on the issue, form a position, and vote 'yes' or 'no' -- which I'm betting is what most voters had in mind when they elected you.

This really shouldn't be this hard.

Totally agree with this assessment.... with at least two weeks for a vote (not including the time trying to get concensus before hand) there is plenty of time to form an opinion.

I almost want to suggest that you only allow a yes or no vote, no abstain... if you cannot have an opinion.. you don't vote... and if you do that too many times, you are voted off the island. :D

How about: Get off the fence, do your homework on the issue, form a position, and vote 'yes' or 'no' -- which I'm betting is what most voters had in mind when they elected you.

This really shouldn't be this hard.

How about: Get off the fence, do your homework on the issue, form a position, and vote 'yes' or 'no' -- which I'm betting is what most voters had in mind when they elected you.

This really shouldn't be this hard.

:D ^

Cheers.

How about: Get off the fence, do your homework on the issue, form a position, and vote 'yes' or 'no' -- which I'm betting is what most voters had in mind when they elected you.

This really shouldn't be this hard.

Very wise words! ^

How about: Get off the fence, do your homework on the issue, form a position, and vote 'yes' or 'no' -- which I'm betting is what most voters had in mind when they elected you.

This really shouldn't be this hard.

Wholly agree, and as this TalkBoard doesn't seem interested in a reform on this issue I am afraid.it's dead for now.

How about: Get off the fence, do your homework on the issue, form a position, and vote 'yes' or 'no' -- which I'm betting is what most voters had in mind when they elected you.

This really shouldn't be this hard.

Completely and totally agree. ^ One TBer abstained FIVE times in 2010 which is IMHO too many times.

How about: Get off the fence, do your homework on the issue, form a position, and vote 'yes' or 'no' -- which I'm betting is what most voters had in mind when they elected you.

This really shouldn't be this hard.

+1^

Add me to the voices struggling to see why you'd need two different ways to say yes or no.

As a TB member, I abstained once that I recall, and I also accidentally missed one vote. And having been someone who abstained, I can actually see the sense of wharvey's suggestion:

I almost want to suggest that you only allow a yes or no vote, no abstain... if you cannot have an opinion.. you don't vote... and if you do that too many times, you are voted off the island.

Abstention should be a rare occurrence. If you are using it so frequently that you'd risk triggering the 'miss three votes and you are voted off by TB' exclusion, then you aren't really doing your job as a TB member.

But hey, I'm sure most of TB will continue to ignore the members they are supposed to represent on this matter :rolleyes:

I almost want to suggest that you only allow a yes or no vote, no abstain... if you cannot have an opinion.. you don't vote... and if you do that too many times, you are voted off the island. :D

I would be in support of this. Abstain really should mean "abstain".

FWIW, when I was on the TB I offered to vote for either deleting the Abstain option or not counting it as a No. Neither of those options gained sufficient support.

FWIW, I don't view it as a conundrum.

Neither do I.

Most on TalkBoard seldom abstain and most are also willing to discuss their reasons for any given vote, including the rare abstain and not voting.

Perhaps you both might have a different view if you were on the outside, looking in, and not on the inside looking out? I see scant evidence of TB members listening to the members on this issue - just several closed minds, already made up.

Perhaps you both might have a different view if you were on the outside, looking in, and not on the inside looking out? I see scant evidence of TB members listening to the members on this issue - just several closed minds, already made up.

Agree. Sad but true. A great argument for term limits, imho.

I say simply eliminate the abstain. It is currently just a coward's no. Make people vote yes or no with no 'out' via abstain.

If a TB member can't make his or her mind up, skip the vote. If a TB member is traveling so much and/or can't make his or her mind up so much that he or she misses enough votes to be booted, then the community is better served by someone more available and decisive anyway.

Neither do I.

Most on TalkBoard seldom abstain and most are also willing to discuss their reasons for any given vote, including the rare abstain and not voting.

Thanks to skiadcock's work collating TB vote results (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1165954-tb-votes-glance-2010-2006-a-2.html), only 2 of the 2010 TB failed to abstain/not vote during the year, and one of those 2 was only on TB for part of the year.

How is this considered rare?

Thanks to skiadcock's work collating TB vote results (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1165954-tb-votes-glance-2010-2006-a-2.html), only 2 of the 2010 TB failed to abstain/not vote during the year, and one of those 2 was only on TB for part of the year.

How is this considered rare?

I don't see abstain being used frequently by a majority of the TalkBoard members and I do see a willingness from most TalkBoard members to explain the reason(s) for their votes. We can whack up the statistics as to what constitutes "rare", but I don't see it being abused.

I don't see abstain being used frequently by a majority of the TalkBoard members and I do see a willingness from most TalkBoard members to explain the reason(s) for their votes. We can whack up the statistics as to what constitutes "rare", but I don't see it being abused.

So now its a point of not being used frequently by a majority of TalkBoard Members?

I don't see abstain being used frequently by a majority of the TalkBoard members and I do see a willingness from most TalkBoard members to explain the reason(s) for their votes. We can whack up the statistics as to what constitutes "rare", but I don't see it being abused.

Lol, so, just checking to confirm: you support NO CHANGE. Is that correct? You see no problem, you hear no problem, NO CHANGES.

So now its a point of not being used frequently by a majority of TalkBoard Members?

One could argue that the only former TalkBoard member(s) who seemed to abuse the process were removed.

If there are solid examples of a TalkBoard member frequently abstaining/not voting who refused to explain the reason for voting as such and was not removed, please let me know.

so, just checking to confirm: you support no change. Is that correct?

I do not support change to the current voting procedure. I'm surprised you had to ask.

"Ooh, your powers of deduction are exceptional. I can't allow you to waste them here when there are so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment. Go, go, for the good of the city!" -Comic Book Guy

If there are solid examples of a TalkBoard member frequently abstaining/not voting who refused to explain the reason for voting as such and was not removed, please let me know. I'm sorry we seem to have moved the goal posts, from 'when is it acceptable to abstain and how should that be counted' to 'are there methods for removing non-performing TB members from TB'. Well we know, because we went through the hoops that there have been non-performing members of TB who have refused to explain their inability to vote or only to vote abstain. kokonutz will likely disagree with that.

And that's exactly why the provisions for removal of sitting TB members was improved, precisely because they had failed consistently in the past. So I can name previous TB members who failed to explain their lack of activity to the members and who stayed on TB.

But, that's not the argument here. It's about the use of abstain a) as a TB member and how it can be abused, firstly by TB members refusing to do their job and secondly as a cowards no.

I almost want to suggest that you only allow a yes or no vote, no abstain... if you cannot have an opinion.. you don't vote... and if you do that too many times, you are voted off the island. :D
and if you do that too many times, you are voted thrown off the island.

I do not support change...


"Oh there's a big surprise! That's an incredible - I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die of not surprise!" - Iago the parrot

Perhaps you both might have a different view if you were on the outside, looking in, and not on the inside looking out? I see scant evidence of TB members listening to the members on this issue - just several closed minds, already made up.

:confused: You have two that don't support change & you have two that do support change.

How is this scant evidence of TB members listening to the members on this issue? Very few members have given an opinion on this issue in this particular thread.

Because the TB voted for no change on this issue, despite the membership who commented being virtually unanimously for change? The only folks who were speaking out against changing the rules were the TB members who voted against it, and ozstamps, who seemed to be confused about what was the system in place when he was on TB.

Because the TB voted for no change on this issue, despite the membership who commented being virtually unanimously for change? The only folks who were speaking out against changing the rules were the TB members who voted against it, and ozstamps, who seemed to be confused about what was the system in place when he was on TB.

That's not entirely true...Dovster commented that the matter was trivial! ;)

Just curious if this was a big deal, why you & Kokonutz, the ones pushing the hardest for this change, didn't have this belief when you were on TB & helping write/vote for the guidelines. Just trying to understand what brought about the change of view point.

The reason why I'm against it, as I've stated before, is that it should take a lot to make changes to FlyerTalk. We've seen that in some pretty poorly worded motions in the past year or so...

Just my 2 cents...

I can't remember if this came up during the guidelines, and if it did, what I said or thought about it then. Unlike you, I don't have access to the records of what was said in the private forum during the debates.

But during the guideline discussions, there were a lot of different areas, some of which I considered to be very important, some of which took a backseat while we hammered out the compromises on some of those issues. That meant that it was not always possible to sit and think about issues like this - or if you did, you saw them as a combination of other factors being considered within the guidelines.

Looking at this issue in isolation, without everything else that was going on during the guidelines discussions, but also with the perspective of having been off TB for 2-3 years now (which does, despite the protestations of the long term members such as yourself, change your perspective quite a bit - you should step down for a year to see it for yourself!), then for me, it is a no-brainer. If I opposed it during the guidelines, then I was stupid and short sighted and caught up in other things. I'm frankly disappointed in the inability of those who oppose it, despite virtually unanimous approval from the membership, to look beyond their 'we must keep FT frozen in time and not do anything'. That narrow-minded focus of trying to prevent change is the single factor IMHO which will render TB completely superfluous over time. This issue is entirely symptomatic of how wrong TB is going. And while some of the sitting TB members may snipe at others for <gasp> actually trying to do things, I actually take heart that some TB members have listened to the criticism from the members (where we have been able to express it, and not been shut down or shut out :td: ) and reacted to it.

...but also with the perspective of having been off TB for 2-3 years now (which does, despite the protestations of the long term members such as yourself, change your perspective quite a bit - you should step down for a year to see it for yourself!)

Wow! That's exactly how I feel about moderators. Having been off the moderator team for a few years now, does change perspective...I'd be happy to put term limits on if it's to change perspectives - but only if moderators would have "term limits" as well or forced sabbaticals every 2 years or so.

I actually take heart that some TB members have listened to the criticism from the members (where we have been able to express it, and not been shut down or shut out :td: ) and reacted to it.

Can you give me an example of when you've (or other members) have been shut down or shut out of being able to express an opinion? If anything, this is probably one of the more open & opinionated forums. If you can provide specific examples, I'll be happy to bring them to the attention of our Community Director.

I'd be happy to put term limits on if it's to change perspectives - but only if moderators would have "term limits" as well or forced sabbaticals every 2 years or so.

Careful.

If TalkBoard suggests that about moderators, its considered "discussion of moderation" and gets deleted with warnings.

If Moderators suggest that about TalkBoard, its considered to be users expressing their heartfelt interests and concerns about concentration of power.

While I do agree with the term limits concept, I also think the hypocrisy here is quite incredible! :rolleyes:

Wow! That's exactly how I feel about moderators. Having been off the moderator team for a few years now, does change perspective...I'd be happy to put term limits on if it's to change perspectives - but only if moderators would have "term limits" as well or forced sabbaticals every 2 years or so.
OMG, I SO agree with you! There are people whose only perspective of FT has been that of a TB member and/or moderator for nearly a decade. I consider those people hopelessly out of touch with the poster-only experience. So hopelessly that they don't even know that they are out of touch and protest ever so loudly when their out-of-touchness is pointed out.

Can you give me an example of when you've (or other members) have been shut down or shut out of being able to express an opinion? If anything, this is probably one of the more open & opinionated forums. If you can provide specific examples, I'll be happy to bring them to the attention of our Community Director.Through its inaction the TB has ceded authority over the TOS, management of merging forums of merging airlines and, of course, Reggie Bush.

If I were a conspiracy nutter I'd say that the pattern of the TB ceding authority to the mods through inaction appears to have an intelligent design. But I am not a nutter. Or am I? No, I'm not. Or AM I?

content deleted as wrong

Well there is an appointed group of Mods going through the TOS at the moment - maybe a Terms Limit motion by TB would encourage them to include this?

Not sure I understand what you're saying...are you suggesting that a Terms Limit motion (for TB or Mods - TB has no influence on Mods, so I'm assuming you're talking about TB) would encourge the appointed Mods going through the TOS right now to include a note about Term Limits for Mods?

1) Somehow I really doubt that will ever happen unless the Mods as a whole agree that they need a perspective change, which I doubt will ever happen.

2) This comment seems to be an example of how being a Moderator on TB can impact one's TB role (and I'm not saying that the most TB/Mods dual roled folks are letting their dual role impact their decision making). Maybe I missed it, but when & where was the information about there being an appointed group of Mods going through the TOS made publically available and how & why would TB try to influence them into Term Limits if TB has no infuence over the Mod group? :confused:

Not sure I understand what you're saying...are you suggesting that a Terms Limit motion (for TB or Mods - TB has no influence on Mods, so I'm assuming you're talking about TB) would encourge the appointed Mods going through the TOS right now to include a note about Term Limits for Mods?

1) Somehow I really doubt that will ever happen unless the Mods as a whole agree that they need a perspective change, which I doubt will ever happen.

2) This comment seems to be an example of how being a Moderator on TB can impact one's TB role (and I'm not saying that the most TB/Mods dual roled folks are letting their dual role impact their decision making). Maybe I missed it, but when & where was the information about there being an appointed group of Mods going through the TOS made publically available and how & why would TB try to influence them into Term Limits if TB has no infuence over the Mod group? :confused:

Meh, the TB ceded authority over the TOS through inaction.

Of COURSE the mods have stepped in and now TOS changes will be made in secret without any poster input rather than in public via the posters' elected representatives.

FT: by, for and of the Moderator corps.

It appears that I was confused about what the group were re-writing. It appears their remit is not the TOS.
Apologies for setting this particular hare running!

It appears that I was confused about what the group were re-writing. It appears their remit is not the TOS.
Apologies for setting this particular hare running!

So what are they writing?

So what are they writing?

Lol, I don't think he's allowed to say. ;)

Lol, I don't think he's allowed to say. ;)

Apparently not - especially as it appears that some of the posts on this thread been removed altogether.

Ah well...such is life on FlyerTalk! :D

Apparently not - especially as it appears that some of the posts on this thread been removed altogether.

Ah well...such is life on FlyerTalk! :D

Now you're just begging him to complain about the black helicopters... ;)

Wow! That's exactly how I feel about moderators. Having been off the moderator team for a few years now, does change perspective...I'd be happy to put term limits on if it's to change perspectives - but only if moderators would have "term limits" as well or forced sabbaticals every 2 years or so. Why? If you agree it's a good thing to do, why do you then want to make it conditional on something you don't have control over? :confused: It would seem you would refuse to do something you admit can be valuable in an attempt to force a change on a group over which you have no control. It's always great to see TB putting the needs of FT before their own agendas!

Can you give me an example of when you've (or other members) have been shut down or shut out of being able to express an opinion? If anything, this is probably one of the more open & opinionated forums. If you can provide specific examples, I'll be happy to bring them to the attention of our Community Director. Absolutely. This thread, in which some dissatisfaction was expressed about TB, and it was shut down, but Randy said he'd reopen it if the TB expressed a desire to have it reopened. The fact it wasn't speaks volumes about TB's willingness to listen to criticism of themselves:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1158869-off-topic-talkboard.html

Why? If you agree it's a good thing to do, why do you then want to make it conditional on something you don't have control over? :confused: It would seem you would refuse to do something you admit can be valuable in an attempt to force a change on a group over which you have no control. It's always great to see TB putting the needs of FT before their own agendas!

Because I think that the Moderators are a larger & more influential (whether rightly so or not) group than the member-elected TalkBoard. Moderators not elected members - and they hold "stronger" power than TalkBoard as they have the ability to suspend, discipline, and edit member posts.


Absolutely. This thread, in which some dissatisfaction was expressed about TB, and it was shut down, but Randy said he'd reopen it if the TB expressed a desire to have it reopened. The fact it wasn't speaks volumes about TB's willingness to listen to criticism of themselves:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1158869-off-topic-talkboard.html

FWIW, that one thread wasn't shut down by the TalkBoard - it was shut down by Randy. Sure, it does say that he'll turn it over to TalkBoard & give it to us to decide what to do with it. However, there doesn't seem to be, IMHO, too much of a point to the original post. There was no real question to act upon, nor any recommendations made. Personally, the way I viewed it (and other TB members may feel differently) is that you were complaining about lack of TB/member engagement. I just figured it was a regular complaint of yours (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/975275-tb-members-still-alive.html) (which, that thread was also closed by Randy, oddly enough). I, personally, did not comment about this thread & it would not surprise me, give other comments on the public forum, that some TalkBoard members would not want to get involved in the moderator decisions or commentary.

With that said, I just looked at the dates & that thread took place over a weekend where I was on a mileage run to requalify for 1k - so as it was opened & closed over a weekend where I wasn't online enough to post to it, I'll be honest in saying that I probably didn't look too much into it as a big deal and to my recollection, no one else did either. Had it been something important to you, I would have imagined that you would have requested it be opened back up & made that request to Randy or appealed to a TB member - I know I've gotten PMs from folks who've questioned moderator decisions & closed threads that I've posted in in the past & have brought those to the moderator's attention and in some cases, the thread was reopened - twice because it was accidentally closed. YMMV.

Does the fact that I have complained about your lack of engagement previously somehow make the fact I am having to complain again less valid? You seem to be somewhat dismissive of that. Aren't we allowed to complain about the acts of those supposed to represent us (particularly given the awful engagement with the public that the figures I quoted in the thread you reference represent!)? At the point I posted, someone had not posted at all in six months, and someone else in four months. Yet there's an undercurrent in your response that somehow, these are complaints that can just be brushed off :confused: Is behaviour like that acceptable?

You are elected by us. To brush off complaints as something you don't look into as a big deal, and to admit to ignoring concerns raised by the membership about your behaviour really really shows how complacent you have gotten in your position, and why I chose not to vote for you this time around.

And the reason I didn't raise it again? I knew there'd be no point. And I was correct - you pretty much have said you didn't care, and that's the general feeling I get from too many on TB about member feedback. If you don't like it, it gets dismissed as some malcontents who don't represent the general feelings of the membership.

Does the fact that I have complained about your lack of engagement previously somehow make the fact I am having to complain again less valid? You seem to be somewhat dismissive of that. Aren't we allowed to complain about the acts of those supposed to represent us (particularly given the awful engagement with the public that the figures I quoted in the thread you reference represent!)? At the point I posted, someone had not posted at all in six months, and someone else in four months. Yet there's an undercurrent in your response that somehow, these are complaints that can just be brushed off :confused: Is behaviour like that acceptable?

You are elected by us. To brush off complaints as something you don't look into as a big deal, and to admit to ignoring concerns raised by the membership about your behaviour really really shows how complacent you have gotten in your position, and why I chose not to vote for you this time around.

And the reason I didn't raise it again? I knew there'd be no point. And I was correct - you pretty much have said you didn't care, and that's the general feeling I get from too many on TB about member feedback. If you don't like it, it gets dismissed as some malcontents who don't represent the general feelings of the membership. (bolding mine)

You're welcome to complain as much as you'd like - no one's stopping you from doing so! :)

You're having to complain, OTOH, is a little different, IMHO.

In the new session of the 2011 TalkBoard, the first thread started was the election results thread - started on November 26. The next thread was the one announcing gleff as President (December 4th). The next one after that was the one announce Spiff as Vice President (December 4th). The next one was the one with you essentially complaining (which, FWIW, you titled, bolding mine, "Off-Topic: TalkBoard" - so, even though some TB members did read it, considering that you yourself deemed it to be an off-topic (and therefore often times, irrelevant to the matter at hand, thread - which was closed within 30 hours of it being opened), it's quite possible that many FTers just sorta skipped over it, right?

As to whether or not my behaviour is acceptable & in ignoring the rest of that thread & brushing off your commentary - certain topics by certain posters just get ignored sometimes (you don't see Kokonutz bringing up the Men's Travel Forum anymore, do ya? ;)) - but others don't (hence my responding to this commentary - I view most feedback & consider myself to be one of the more engaged TalkBoard members - however, I don't always respond to everything - especially if it's in a locked thread). There are plenty of posts that I've made in the past that just sort of fade away or get ignored...it's life...not every single person is obligated to respond to your commentary (especially negative commentary). You yourself said it, you didn't vote for me (and theoretically, I guess that means I don't really represent you! (j/k) :D - but I'll still do my best to represent you and the FlyerTalk membership as a whole! :))

Now, as for the 2 TalkBoard members who didn't post in 4 months or in 6 months - well, the 6 month guy, BerlinFlyer, resigned from TalkBoard (and now we have Markie in his place!). And the 4 month guy? Lucky, well, he was active on FlyerTalk & posting in other forums - but as it's been noted in the past, just because someone isn't actively posting, doesn't mean they aren't actively reading. That said, I don't make any excuses for my colleagues and cannot speculate as to why they did or did not post.

That said, as for the 6 months prior to your posts, there were a total of 24 threads. Within those 24 threads, 16 had less than 20 posts and 9 of those had less than 10 posts. Sometimes folks want to see where a thread or an idea goes before contributing to it - and if it doesn't reach their definition of critical mass to warrant a response (and for every individual, yourself include, I presume, has standards as to which threads they'll choose to post on? A quick (unscientific method used) glance of threads between 11/28/06 & 11/28/08 when you were on TB shows that about 270 (give or take - that weren't moved from the forum) threads were started in the TalkBoard Topics forum and you posted in about 125 of them (give or take - I used the search function for that math & we know that there's a margin of error! :D) - so, while on TB, you seemingly (based on my poor math skills & our search function) posted on less than 50% (give or take ;)) of the active threads while you were at TB member. And I'm not faulting you for that - I'm just saying...but what my point in this paragraph is (and I promise I had one!) is that if there's not a whole lot going on, there's not a whole lot to respond too - and if the members aren't actively seeking change, I don't believe it's the job of the TB or anyone to create change for change's sake.

In regards to your final comment about me saying that I pretty much don't care - there, my friend, you are reading into things a little too much. It's not that I don't care (and I do care - if I didn't I wouldn't be here, nor would I be taking the time to respond to your posts). :td: I don't dismiss it as malconents - however, when the sound is one of constant criticism vs. constructive criticism, it tends to get ignored. Starting a first post in your aforementioned thread with a negative statement & ending it with :rolleyes: doesn't inspire a response...

Anyways...gotta go...I'm sure this conversation will continue later...but I think we should probably get back to the regularly scheduled programming of how to resolve the percieved "conundrum".

you don't see Kokonutz bringing up the Men's Travel Forum anymore, do ya? ;)

You mean since he got engaged (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/communitybuzz/1119125-i-proposed-another-flyertalker-airplane-shockingly-she-said-yes.html)? @:-)

Now, as for the 2 TalkBoard members who didn't post in 4 months or in 6 months - well, the 6 month guy, BerlinFlyer, resigned from TalkBoard (and now we have Markie in his place!).

Since then I have been elected in my own right to TB. To somehow suggest that I am here only because someone resigned is disingenuous in my view.

Since then I have been elected in my own right to TB. To somehow suggest that I am here only because someone resigned is disingenuous in my view.

Apologies that it came across as such - I only meant that when BerlinFlyer realized he could not commit to participating he stepped down & you took his place (and you have been a TB member who can definitely be considered as actively participating).

which, FWIW, you titled, bolding mine, "Off-Topic: TalkBoard" - so, even though some TB members did read it, considering that you yourself deemed it to be an off-topic (and therefore often times, irrelevant to the matter at hand, thread - which was closed within 30 hours of it being opened), Hmmm. Perhaps if you had read that particular thread you would have seen this statement by Randy:

These are posts from a thread I started regarding the recent TalkBoard elections and I think you can see that the thread was taken off-topic, which in itself is not that big a deal, however it is considered 'off-topic' from the thread in which they were first posted and realised that the title of the thread was not at my instigation? He split out those posts from another thread and created the thread title himself.

Nothing to do with what I deemed. Very disappointed you should characterise it as such, when it's stated in that actual thread that it wasn't.

Hmmm. Perhaps if you had read that particular thread you would have seen this statement by Randy:

and realised that the title of the thread was not at my instigation? He split out those posts from another thread and created the thread title himself.

Nothing to do with what I deemed. Very disappointed you should characterise it as such, when it's stated in that actual thread that it wasn't.

Either way - because of the title change, it still may not have been on people's radars...other points remain valid...

You mean since he got engaged (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/communitybuzz/1119125-i-proposed-another-flyertalker-airplane-shockingly-she-said-yes.html)? @:-)

I will NOT be baited into...oh yes I will. :)

How about: Get off the fence, do your homework on the issue, form a position, and vote 'yes' or 'no' -- which I'm betting is what most voters had in mind when they elected you.

This really shouldn't be this hard.

* Agree.

Totally agree with this assessment.... with at least two weeks for a vote (not including the time trying to get concensus before hand) there is plenty of time to form an opinion.

I almost want to suggest that you only allow a yes or no vote, no abstain... if you cannot have an opinion.. you don't vote... and if you do that too many times, you are voted off the island. :D

* Agree.

I say simply eliminate the abstain. Make people vote yes or no with no 'out' via abstain.

If a TB member can't make his or her mind up, skip the vote. If a TB member is traveling so much and/or can't make his or her mind up so much that he or she misses enough votes to be booted, then the community is better served by someone more available and decisive anyway.

* Agree.

Cheers.

Now you're just begging him to complain about the black helicopters... ;)

Well, the black helicopters are no longer - the missing have returned! :D

Can some of the TB members here who favor the status quo address the point in my OP? Namely: If you favor having two ways to have your vote counted as a No, why wouldn't you agree to having two ways to have your vote counted as a Yes, if that's what it takes to get 2/3 of the TalkBoard to agree?

Can some of the TB members here who favor the status quo address the point in my OP? Namely: If you favor having two ways to have your vote counted as a No, why wouldn't you agree to having two ways to have your vote counted as a Yes, if that's what it takes to get 2/3 of the TalkBoard to agree?

I don't believe that changing FlyerTalk should be easily implemented. I'd feel more comfortable with Yes/No and no Abstain than having 2 ways of having a vote count as yes.

I think 2 ways of counting a yes doesn't work, just as I think 2 ways of counting a no doesn't work. I'm for dropping abstain quite frankly.

Cheers.

Ah, so glad I stumbled across this while I'm in the process of catching up on FlyerTalk! :p

Unexpected IRROPS on a mid-January mileage run basically took me away from FlyerTalk for two weeks, and then it's taken me another two weeks to catch back up at work to the point that I have time to catch up on FlyerTalk. Alas, here I am.

Can some of the TB members here who favor the status quo address the point in my OP? Namely: If you favor having two ways to have your vote counted as a No, why wouldn't you agree to having two ways to have your vote counted as a Yes, if that's what it takes to get 2/3 of the TalkBoard to agree?

Although I do not favor the status quo, I'd like to use your proposal as a jumping-off point.

"Abstain" does not mean I am "on the fence," and nor should it be used that way. It is not a mark of indecision. And while I appreciate the idea you've come forth with and that you're using it to illustrate the absurdity of the current interpretation, the proposal you have made seems to frame abstentions as marks of indecision.

However, abstain means "I am unable to make a conscientious vote on this issue," whether that is because you have a conflict of interest or because you have been away from the discussion arena and cannot in good conscience make an educated vote on the issue.

In a non-real-time environment like FlyerTalk, this serves two purposes: to speed the closing of the vote so it is not forced to remain open for two weeks and to mark that you are not removing yourself from the vote out of neglect but are rather willfully standing back.

And if one is recusing himself or herself in this manner, then one's vote should not be held against the matter under consideration.

That is how "abstain" should be used and, therefore, how the rules should be written to support it.

It seems odd to me that no one else here seems to find it odd that virtually every other organization using some form of Robert's Rules of Order interprets the rule as I have laid it out, while we do not. I do not mind bucking convention if there is a good reason, but I have yet to see an argument to convince me we are deserving of a radically different interpretation than the vast majority of thousands upon thousands of organizations have used for the previous hundred-plus years.

Let's pause for a bit and take a look at that.

To clear up any ambiguity, Robert's (Fourth Edition) says this (emphasis mine):

While it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on the question to express it by his vote, yet he cannot be compelled to do so. He may prefer to abstain from voting, though he knows the effect is the same as if he voted on the prevailing side.

There is also an interesting and very detailed treatment of the issue on this CSU Fresno professor's page on parliamentary procedure that I strongly recommend reading: http://www.csufresno.edu/comm/ppqa5.htm

For me, it comes down to this: in all cases, I favor clarity. The rules as written are not clear. I have my preferred interpretation, but I would be ultimately satisfied with something that is clear and cannot be interpreted varying ways by different TalkBoard presidents. I could clearly understand rules written in any of the following ways (bolding not intended to be in the final proposal):

ii. TalkBoard members may register their vote of yes or no while the voting period is open.
vii. A motion shall pass if two thirds of TalkBoard members present vote ‘yes.’

This would be equivalent to current practice. Under standard Robert's interpretations, this would mean that two thirds of members "in the room" during the vote would need to support the motion. While an abstention is not a "vote," per se, it in effect marks the person as being present during the debate and thus counting them in the two-thirds figure.

ii. TalkBoard members may register their vote of yes or no while the voting period is open.
vii. A motion shall pass if two thirds of TalkBoard members voting vote ‘yes.’

Under the standard definition used by Robert's, this would not count any members voting anything other than "yes" or "no." A member marking "abstain" would not be counting, because an abstention is not considered a vote.

This is, however, the closest actual verbiage to what is currently written (though I have simplified the verbiage by removing redundant words). The current discrepancy before us is because we have verbiage written as in sample #2 but it is being interpreted as in sample #1. There is a clear disconnect there.

ii. TalkBoard members may register their vote of yes or no while the voting period is open.
vii. A motion shall pass if two thirds of TalkBoard members vote ‘yes.’

For the heck of it, I've thrown this one in here for illustration purposes (I don't think anyone would actually support this). This would be the ultimate strict challenge: two thirds of TalkBoard members, whether voting, abstaining, or even suspended from the forum, must support the measure in order for it to pass. In other words, there must be at least six "yes" votes for a motion to pass regardless.

The above words ("voting" [also sometimes seen as "present and voting"], "present," or "of members") are standard terms used in Robert's and come with very specific meanings. When our interpretations are contrary to these standard conventions, I see a problem and a potential for confusion--which we have seen over the last few months.

So, after looking at this, to me it seems to come down to a two-step process. First, we really need to decide which interpretation we fall under. Do we want to be an organization that requires two thirds of people voting to vote yes? Or do we want to be one of the very, very few organizations that require two thirds of people present to vote yes?

Once that is determined, we can then decide how to handle the technical method of abstentions. If we opt for the former (far more common in the world of parliamentary procedure), then we can decide whether to allow a ballot to be marked "abstain," but it will have no bearing on the outcome of the vote. Going back to my reasons illustrated above, I am in favor of having an "abstain" option, since it reduces the potential abuse of the multiple missed votes clause.

If we opt for the latter interpretation, then due to the non-real-time nature of our voting, we would require the option to abstain. This would (for clarity's sake) require addition of verbiage that specifies that voters will be given the choice to mark their ballots as "abstain," since that will be the determining factor between identifying them as "present" (counted in the vote) versus "absent" (not counted in the vote).

Either way, the simplest way to do this is to revise the verbiage of the first point in the voting section (bolding not intended to be in final proposal):

i. Once a motion has been made and seconded the President shall post a sticky poll thread in the TalkBoard forum calling the question and announcing the vote. The thread shall be titled "Vote: [summary of motion]". The poll will allow for two choices: "Yes" or "No." In the first post on the sticky poll thread the President shall post the maker and seconder of the motion as well as the voting deadline and then restate the motion that has been made and seconded.

i. Once a motion has been made and seconded the President shall post a sticky poll thread in the TalkBoard forum calling the question and announcing the vote. The thread shall be titled "Vote: [summary of motion]". The poll will allow for three choices: "Yes," "No," or "Abstain." In the first post on the sticky poll thread the President shall post the maker and seconder of the motion as well as the voting deadline and then restate the motion that has been made and seconded.

Now, my preference would be to support option #2 in the first phase (since it seems the most reasonable and is by far the majority convention in parliamentary procedure) and option #2 in the second phase (for reasons I've outlined above). At this point, though, I may be amenable to just about any interpretation, so long as it is clear and unambiguous.