TalkBoard Topics - Proposal--talkboard standards of conduct and filling vacancies

Given that there exist standards on FT, and given the fact that almost half of the current talkboard has run afoul of them at one point or another, it's probably time for a policy. I propose the following:

1. In the event that a talkboard member is granted a 30 day suspension that is "upheld" by Randy, he/she is removed from the TB, and the next highest vote tally candidate takes the seat for the remainder of the term.

2. After a policy is passed, any existing TB members shall be grandfathered in (thus allowing the current TB members who have had 30 day or "lifetime" vacations to keep their seats), unless an existing TB member racks up two suspensions that are upheld by Randy after enacting such a policy. The grandfather period shall only exist as long as a currently sitting member is re-elected to consecutive terms.

3. Any member who has received a 30-day or "lifetime" suspension is ineligible to run for the Talkboard (again, excluding sitting members when the policy is passed, unless such a member shall rack up two subsequent suspensions). Again, the grandfather period shall only exist as long as a currently sitting member is re-elected to consecutive terms.

As Randy has pointed out, every member of FT (regardless of anything else) is a member first. As such, we should hold our elected Talkboard to a higher standard. The 30-day threshold as applied above would indicate a second suspension on the part of a member. The "if upheld by Randy" is designed to appease those who will invariably scream about a moderator conspiracy to remove TB members. The exemptions for sitting TB members are specifically there to take reasons away from members on the current TB who have had >30 days of suspension to not support this motion.

It's time for this. It's time to start considering how we might stop disenfranchising people who voted for TB by providing for the removal of those who cannot or will not play by the proverbial rules, instead of finding ways to carve out exemptions such that they might serve out a TB term.

I'd like to hear from TB members on this, specifically those who would not support such a motion. (the over/under on deafening silence is 4).

ClueByFour, your entire post revolves around the question of suspensions.

Obviously, this issue is impossible to discuss without getting into the question of moderation and moderation policies -- as they determine suspensions.

There is currently a question on ORP waiting for Randy's reply as to whether moderation policies can be discussed on TalkBoard Topics. Until and unless Randy gives an affirmative answer to that question, I don't see how the issue you raised can be discussed.

I'd support the first two points, but I wouldn't support the 3rd point in its current form. If point 3 had a statute of limitations...say 2 years... I could support that as well. I'd hate to see a valuable member be penalized forever over what might have been a rocky start, or an isolated rough patch.

ClueByFour, your entire post revolves around the question of suspensions.

Obviously, this issue is impossible to discuss without getting into the question of moderation and moderation policies -- as they determine suspensions.

There is currently a question on ORP waiting for Randy's reply as to whether moderation policies can be discussed on TalkBoard Topics. Until and unless Randy gives an affirmative answer to that question, I don't see how the issue you raised can be discussed.

Nope. It has nothing to do with moderation policy, especially in light of the "if upheld by Randy" proviso. The theory being that a suspension "upheld by Randy" is deemed by the ultimate authority on such things to be justified. In fact, the proposed idea includes that idea specifically to address concerns about any possible moderation policy.

It's (and this is a stretch) discussing the outcome of moderation policy as it pertains to TB members. It has a carve-out to address any concern about moderation policy (eg, upheld-by-RP). Please don't attempt to cloud this issue.

I'd support the first two points, but I wouldn't support the 3rd point in its current form. If point 3 had a statute of limitations...say 2 years... I could support that as well. I'd hate to see a valuable member be penalized forever over what might have been a rocky start, or an isolated rough patch.

Truth be told, the first two are probably much more important than the third, and I'd love to see the TB pass anything that includes the first two points and either my idea for the third or something akin to what you are proposing.

Either is a vast improvement over the current situation.

Nope. It has nothing to do with moderation policy, especially in light of the "if upheld by Randy" proviso.

It has quite a bit to do with moderation policy. If there is no suspension handed out by a moderator, there is nothing for Randy to uphold.

At current, 6 members of TB are moderators. Three are not. If I am permitted to discuss moderation policy, I will demonstrate exactly why only the latter three could ever be in a position to be wonder if Randy will uphold their suspensions.

It has quite a bit to do with moderation policy. If there is no suspension handed out by a moderator, there is nothing for Randy to uphold.

At current, 6 members of TB are moderators. Three are not. If I am permitted to discuss moderation policy, I will demonstrate exactly why only the latter three could ever be in a position to be wonder if Randy will uphold their suspensions.

Fully agreed.

Obviously, the proposed policy creates an even further imbalance by further intimidating the non-moderator members from speaking their mind.

How do you want to discuss this without pointing out evidence that moderator TB members have done equal things to what non-moderator members have done - one gets suspended, the other one doesn't. However, one cannot point out even theoretical examples of this without getting into the "you cannot talk about moderation or you will be suspended" territory.

It's a joke.

The only reason for a TB member to be against such a policy would be arrogance! NO elected body exists without a code of conduct, with the exception of the TB. To stand against such a policy is flipping the FT membership the bird.

I've said it before and I will say it again: If a TB member is arrogant enough to EARN a suspension of posting PRIVLEDGES, then they should be subject to sanctions!

It has quite a bit to do with moderation policy. If there is no suspension handed out by a moderator, there is nothing for Randy to uphold.

Only because you want to make it, and everything else about moderation. As it is worded, moderation doesn't have a thing to do with it. There doesn't need to be a discussion as to why the suspension occured, only that it did.

I think it is a very good idea. Missy's suggestion, as well.

I could only agree with the proposal if moderators were not allowed to also be on the Talk Board.

I could only agree with the proposal if moderators were not allowed to also be on the Talk Board.

With Randy as the ultimate authority on any suspension of a TB member, this shouldn't matter. Or do you not believe Randy to be fair enough to make such decision?

No where in my post did I mention anything about Randy or his authority. It's his playground and his rules. I spoke about the proposal only and how I feel it should include the exclusion of moderators.

To further my point, it should exclude moderators to prevent the appearance of impropriety. Everyone knows the internet is full of conspiracy theories :D :D :D :D

No where in my post did I mention anything about Randy or his authority. It's his playground and his rules. I spoke about the proposal only and how I feel it should include the exclusion of moderators.

To further my point, it should exclude moderators to prevent the appearance of impropriety. Everyone knows the internet is full of conspiracy theories :D :D :D :D

This proposal isn't about moderation. It is about suspensions that would be finally approved by Randy. You can have all the conspiracy theories you want and it would still come down to Randy being the sole-decision maker on whether the TB member deserves the suspension or not. You could consider him the only moderator in this case.

1. In the event that a talkboard member is granted a 30 day suspension that is "upheld" by Randy, he/she is removed from the TB, and the next highest vote tally candidate takes the seat for the remainder of the term.

2. After a policy is passed, any existing TB members shall be grandfathered in (thus allowing the current TB members who have had 30 day or "lifetime" vacations to keep their seats), unless an existing TB member racks up two suspensions that are upheld by Randy after enacting such a policy. The grandfather period shall only exist as long as a currently sitting member is re-elected to consecutive terms.

3. Any member who has received a 30-day or "lifetime" suspension is ineligible to run for the Talkboard (again, excluding sitting members when the policy is passed, unless such a member shall rack up two subsequent suspensions). Again, the grandfather period shall only exist as long as a currently sitting member is re-elected to consecutive terms.




In general, I have no problem with Point 1 but only for the TalkBoard members, whoever they might be, holding office after the next election in 2007. That would remove even the slightest suggestion that this proposal might be aimed at any existing TB members.
Point 2 then becomes moot as this new proposal would only take effect after the new election.
And I'm not in agreement with Point 3. If the FT membership wants to elect a "bad boy"....or girl....to TB knowing that another suspension will knock that person off TB, then they can have at it IMO. A persons past suspensions(s) are no indication, again IMO, as to how that person will conduct themselves on TB.
The only part of this whole thing that I'm uncomfortable with deals with moderators. Unless policy changes, there will always be moderators on TB. And moderators hand out the suspensions around here. And, for whatever reason, very few moderators have ever been suspended.
I'd like to think that's because of the character of the moderators here on FT. But there's also the fact that moderators.....like police.....tend to band together and don't often censure each other.
Yeah I know there are some existing mod's who have been banned at some time in the past and I also know that mod's are held to the same standard as other FT members but the fact remains that few mod's are ever suspended....whatever the reason for that.
So I see this proposal as a definite disadvantage for the non-moderator portion of TB. The chance that a non-moderator TB member will be suspended is considerably higher than for the moderator TB member.
The people who are elected to TB, moderators or not, are usually those most visible on FT and who have been around a few years and have racked up quite a few posts. And most anybody in this category carries some baggage. So again the chances that one of these non-moderator TB members would be suspended for something is proportionately higher than for the moderator TB members.
In summary, I'm in favor of a proposal as in Point 1 above, perhaps worded slightly different, but only after the next election.

This proposal isn't about moderation.
I know it's not. My post says I could support the proposal if it added the no-moderators on talk board clause.

No more, no less.

I know it's not. My post says I could support the proposal if it added the no-moderators on talk board clause.

No more, no less.

Which is the equivalent to what happens to bills in congress when some politician says he will vote for a bill only if we can add this little side thing he wants to get through, too.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Tazi, what's your skin in this game? Am I not entitled to an opinion without being questioned. I see Cholula is saying almost the same thing, however you're only questioning me. Why? I'm not a mod nor on talk board. Just a regular member with an opinion.

If you want to take this offline, please PM me. I don't want to continue this in a thread where others may want to post an opinion.

Tazi, what's your skin in this game? Am I not entitled to an opinion without being questioned. I see Cholula is saying almost the same thing, however you're only questioning me. Why? I'm not a mod nor on talk board. Just a regular member with an opinion.

If you want to take this offline, please PM me. I don't want to continue this in a thread where others may want to post an opinion.

I actually didn't see Cholua's post and I have no 'skin' in this game. Just like you, I am entitled to my opinion as well. And my opinion is that your added clause is a separate issue and should be treated as such. If you don't like hearing others' opinions then avoid topics where debate is sure to follow.

I've said it before and I will say it again: If a TB member is arrogant enough to EARN a suspension of posting PRIVLEDGES, then they should be subject to sanctions!

I know we shouldn't be nitpicking about each other's spelling here, but just because you keep posting the same thing in bold letters and spell it incorrectly every single time:

No entry found for privledge. Did you mean privilege? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=privledge)

And moderators hand out the suspensions around here. And, for whatever reason, very few moderators have ever been suspended.
I'd like to think that's because of the character of the moderators here on FT. But there's also the fact that moderators.....like police.....tend to band together and don't often censure each other.

Bingo! Without going into policy (which I admit I would have), Cholula -- a moderator -- has summed up the problem.

This is not a question of Randy's fairness. It is a question of what he would be asked to rule upon.

If TB Member Non-Mod is suspended for including my name in a thread subject (technically a TOS violation anywhere except on Community Buzz), it would not be unfair of Randy to uphold the suspension.

At the same time, if TB Member Mod does the exact same thing, the odds are that no moderator will suspend him for it and hence Randy will not have any suspension to uphold.

This would put the three members of TB who are not mods at a major disadvantage vis-a-vis the six who are.

This proposal isn't about moderation. It is about suspensions that would be finally approved by Randy. You can have all the conspiracy theories you want and it would still come down to Randy being the sole-decision maker on whether the TB member deserves the suspension or not. You could consider him the only moderator in this case.

If Randy were the only person who were to hand out suspensions to TB members, things would be different - but that is not the case.

Thanks for your suggestion, ClueByFour.

We're not going to be discussing moderation here, however