TalkBoard Elections/08 - Question 9: 30-day Suspension

submitted by cblaisd
If there are no TalkBoard Guidelines that address this situation, would you resign from the TalkBoard if you should receive a 30 day suspension that was upheld by Randy?

Being very blunt I'd probably resign out of shame if I got a 7-say suspension - never mind a 30 day one.

But I just can't see myself getting in that situation. Avoiding getting suspended/banned from a message board (and that's all FT is) isn't a difficult thing to do. I'll be very honest and state that I've never actually read FT's TOS - to my mind it's just a case of being reasonably civil and sensible - as I suspect most FTers haven't.

In terms of my moderation history I think I'm limited to having had 1 our of my near 1,400 posts deleted - not something I'm proud of, but stuff happens. It did teach me a little bit about the TOS though!

submitted by cblaisd
If there are no TalkBoard Guidelines that address this situation, would you resign from the TalkBoard if you should receive a 30 day suspension that was upheld by Randy?

As explained in item number 8 of my Question 5 response (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10610563&postcount=12), I urged the TalkBoard to take the time and effort to come up with a consensus proposal for this issue. Punki agreed on the concept (take these suspensions to Randy, with no action until he rules on them) and I expect the TalkBoard to approve the current proposal unanimously. That would make this question moot.

If I receive a 30 day suspension that is upheld by Randy, I will have certainly lost my mind. And once I lose my mind, who knows what I would do?

Seriously, I would be very ashamed to be suspended at all. I would definitely resign from the TalkBoard if I receive a 30 day suspension that was upheld by Randy, and probably long before then.

improbable

Since I have never even been warned, I can't imagine crossing the line where I'd receive a 30-day suspension.

But let's say I did.

For me to categorically say I'd resign here as part of my campaign would not be honest. I would have to have full, 100%, no question about it confidence in the consistency and the fairness of the process in order to make that kind of pledge.

I don't have that confidence currently, sorry.

However, if I felt I deserved such a thing (and trust me, if it happened, I would know right away whether I felt I deserved it) I would resign, yes.

Before answering this question, I just wanted to point out a something...

I voted yes for the current TB Guidelines proposal (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10583599&postcount=1) (which, if/when passed, I hope that all new TB candidates recognize they will be expected to follow).

As to the question, if the suspension were to be upheld by Randy, I'd probably resign. However, if it was a suspension that I truly didn't believe was deserved & it was a suspension that I felt was out of spite, then I'd probably not resign. That said, I don't believe most moderators suspend out of spite - though, I believe some may - however unintentionally they believe it is, some mods seem to look the other way in some cases & focus on technicalities in others.

Just my two cents as a former moderator...

I've had discussions with moderators about events in a forum before. While a small sample, if the conversations I've had with the select few are indicative of global moderator behavior, then something truly egregious happened.

How many times has the public demanded resignation from a politician for breaking the law? While that might not be an apples-to-apples comparison, the principles of that thinking are similar.

Your answer is: yes.

Question 9: 30-day Suspension
Well if timed right I could combine with a trip to rehab and hope no one would notice.
I would not resign unless asked to do so and if asked would.

I supported automatic removal of anyone who received a 30-day suspension while serving on TalkBoard. Unfortunately, this version of the guidelines was narrowly defeated.

I would prefer a set of rules that applied to all TalkBoard members instead of seeking to have individual members set their own standards. I find such a practice to be rather lacking, as it does not address behavior problems at all and it makes for a less productive TalkBoard.

I'd resign if I received a 30 day suspension that is not overturned. I wish that were a requirement for all TalkBoard members.

submitted by cblaisd
If there are no TalkBoard Guidelines that address this situation, would you resign from the TalkBoard if you should receive a 30 day suspension that was upheld by Randy?

I think this question of one very similar gets asked each year. If I did something that deserved a 30 day suspension then I would certainly have to consider my future as a TB member. I would not automatically hand in my notice, it all depends on why I was suspended. Remember there are a lot of reasons.

Folk will complain about you for lots of reasons. Two years ago I received complaints against me for posting a thank you message for folk that had voted for me in a TB election. If I got suspended for something like that then I would certainly NOT resign.

Yes - I would resign if I ever got to the 30-day suspension level. However, I find this extremely unlikely since I've never even received a warning before. I'm a moderator so I do see discussions on some mod actions from time to time - and during all my years (about 6), I found less than a handful that I strongly feel that the action was too harsh.

Honestly, I can't imagine a circumstance in which I'd receive a 30-day suspension. I don't think I've ever even received a warning.

I suppose that, if I were to receive a 30-day suspension, it would be over an issue that I felt so strongly about that I'd resign from FlyerTalk, not just the TalkBoard.

I would categorically NOT resign under those circumstances.

An elected body should never be held accountable for actions taken by the unelected moderators. Having served as a moderator, I have firsthand experience and knowledge as to how arbitrary and inconsistent some of the decisions taken by the moderator corps can be.

I maintained that position when I was a moderator (gee, wasn't that a popular position to adopt!!!) and it sure isn't going to change now.

Randy knows very well that if he wants me out of any position, he can simply fire me and we can still remain friends. He's done it before and I don't doubt he would do it again! :)

When the proposal was made that Moderators who received a 30-day suspension should be sacked I was totally in favour of it.

Elected representatives should be held to at least the same standard, and should I ever get a 30-day I would immediately resign.

I believe in this so firmly that it is part of my maifesto.

In my four years on FlyerTalk i was never suspended, and made the best to abide all rules of the forums.

I think that what makes this community work are the basic guidelines we all follow.

I want to believe that a talk board member who gets suspended should not be a part of talk board. We have to set an example, and we have to follow the rules that we ourselves are part of making.

I'm running for TalkBoard because I believe my serving is the best way for me to give back to a community that has done so much good for myself and others. I am not running to become a member of some kind of Kool Kid's Klub where I get to play storm-in-a-teacup politics.

To cblaisd's question, which I believe stems from an ongoing situation whereby TalkBoard member Punky was removed from her post by Randy because she did something that caused a moderator to ban her for 30 days.

I've attempted to research what actually happened with Causa Punky and --as so many facts were either deleted; or transpired behind the curtain-- I cannot form an opinion on the subject.

That said, you'd have to either a) do something truly heinous; or b) really annoy a moderator; or c) have a moderator go rogue on you; in order to be kicked from FT to the curb for a whole month.

30-day suspension or no, if I am asked to resign from my TalkBoard position by Randy, I would or course do so.

If I would get to the point to get suspended I probably have given up on FT anyways which would explain my behaviour.

Considering that it would not reach the issue of resigning TB but more leaving FT at all.

Thankfully I cant imagine why that should ever happen :)

Now that the TB has passed the recent motion, I believe that this question is no longer truly relevant. There's now a process in place when one gets handed a 30-day suspension.

Here are the newly ratified guidelines regarding 30-day suspensions for a TalkBoard member:

G. TalkBoard Member Removal for Cause
i. The FlyerTalk Host reserves the right to publicly rebuke and/or remove any TalkBoard member for any reason whatsoever including those whom he determines have violated the TOS or these Guidelines to such a degree to warrant said action.
ii. When an elected TalkBoard member receives a 30-day or permanent suspension from any FlyerTalk moderator during their term in office:
a. That suspension shall be automatically reviewed by the FlyerTalk Host or the FlyerTalk Host's appointed representative if the Host is unavailable and ruled upon within three business days. During this review the TalkBoard member may appeal directly to the FlyerTalk Host for the immediate privilege of access to the private TalkBoard forum for the sole purpose of conducting TalkBoard business including voting on motions. The FlyerTalk Host is not required to grant this access.
b. If that suspension is upheld by the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative, then the TalkBoard member shall be immediatedly removed from the TalkBoard for cause and will regain public forum posting privileges at the end of the suspension term.
c. If, after review, the suspension is overturned or reduced to a 7-day suspension by the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative then no further action will be taken and the member will be reinstated as a TalkBoard member with full posting privileges either immediately or at the conclusion of the 7-day suspension.
d. An affirmation of the suspension by the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative is required for removal from the TalkBoard for cause. If for any reason the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative does not review and rule upon the suspension during the suspension then the TalkBoard member is not removed for cause.

Now that the TB has passed the recent motion, I believe that this question is no longer truly relevant.

I beg to differ. Perhaps the question should be worded differently now, maybe to a "do you agree..." phrasing, but to know where candidates stand still has plenty of value.

Now that the TB has passed the recent motion, I believe that this question is no longer truly relevant. There's now a process in place when one gets handed a 30-day suspension.


And what if, at some point, a TalkBoard wishes to amend or change these guidelines? Sorry, not relevant, there's a process in place?

I disagree with this. Regardless of what the TalkBoard passed, it is still appropriate to discuss how candidates feel about this motion, the original question, or whatever.

I have to say that the longer this is discussed, the more it bores me, though. Why can't each situation simply be handled case-by-case?

And what if, at some point, a TalkBoard wishes to amend or change these guidelines? <snip> Why can't each situation simply be handled case-by-case?

If the TB wishes to change it, then they can build a case, make a motion, have it seconded, and vote on it. Just like everything else...

As to each situation being handled case-by-case, technically, they are being handled case-by-case. There's an overall recommendation being made, however, it's up to Randy (or his appointed representive) to be the judge.

If the TB wishes to change it, then they can build a case, make a motion, have it seconded, and vote on it. Just like everything else...

As to each situation being handled case-by-case, technically, they are being handled case-by-case. There's an overall recommendation being made, however, it's up to Randy (or his appointed representive) to be the judge.

So, then, why is the question "not relevant?"

If the TB wishes to change it, then they can build a case, make a motion, have it seconded, and vote on it. Just like everything else...

And I would hereby pledge that my second motion, immediately following the motion to eliminate the OMNI forum, would be to reverse this ridiculous guideline.

And I would hereby pledge that my second motion, immediately following the motion to eliminate the OMNI forum, would be to reverse this ridiculous guideline.

And replace it with what?

Second question: This guideline was the product of a lengthy negotiation (in which I participated on the public side, finding the common ground in a discussion with Punki) and was approved 9-0. Do you have any reasonable expectation that your proposal can achieve 2/3 approval?

If not, then what's the point of calling for a vote on it? For example, will having the unsuccessful proposal make the TalkBoard more friendly or more receptive to future approval of your proposal?

No matter which way I look at this, I don't see anything good coming out of re-opening a dispute that ended with a compromise unanimously agreed to. If I thought the voters want a food fight I wouldn't be running.

So, then, why is the question "not relevant?"

Because the questions is:

If there are no TalkBoard Guidelines that address this situation, would you resign from the TalkBoard if you should receive a 30 day suspension that was upheld by Randy?

There are now TB Guidelines that address the situation. If the 30-day suspension is upheld by Randy, then the member would be removed from TalkBoard.

And I would hereby pledge that my second motion, immediately following the motion to eliminate the OMNI forum, would be to reverse this ridiculous guideline.

Methinks you'd be motioning for two things that just wouldn't pass...but good luck to you! :D

Methinks you'd be motioning for two things that just wouldn't pass...but good luck to you! :D

Of course not. TalkBoard is so dominated by moderators that it is nearly impossible to get anything to pass without the support of that cartel. They have no incentive (or motivation) to take any actions that reduce their power.

I have long maintained that serving Moderators should not be allowed to run for TalkBoard, but in his wisdom RP chose to act differently. The result has been a TalkBoard that does little other than increasingly become nothing more than a forum for a select clique of people to increase their power and influence over the entire community under the guise of "giving back" as volunteers.

Of course not. TalkBoard is so dominated by moderators that it is nearly impossible to get anything to pass without the support of that cartel.

All moderators do not think and act identically, or even similarly. As a former moderator, you know that. We debate and disagree all the time. But we are supposed to know how to put disagreement aside for the good of FT, and how to disagree without alienating other members.

I posted this on TalkBoard Topics in February:

Holding an extended discussion and developing a consensus before pulling the trigger on a vote would be more tactful and more likely to produce a favorable result, IMHO.

If I were on the TB I would only make a formal proposal when I was very confident it would win approval easily. Close votes on contentious issues create stress on the TB and could make future work more difficult. For example, by leading one group of members to reflexively oppose the proposals of another group of members. That sort of nonsense is harmful to the TB and FT.

I still believe this and I will operate this way on the TalkBoard. My participation in consistently urging compromise rather than the steamroller approach on the TB Guidelines demonstrates my commitment to this standard of operation.

Yes, and I'd probably resign for any disciplinary action, not just a 30.

Easy answer: Rules are rules, if suspended then I would resign.

Well this is one for which I am grateful there are rules in place. During the debates, I was not privy to the conversations held nor the various potential revisions offered for consideration. What I see is a format which allows the membership of FT to feel they have representatives that are to be held to a high standard. It also allows members like myself to know that in campaigning for election that I shall have a fair system of checks and balances to protect me from any “ganging up” or singling out” if those things were to happen. We have in the FlyerTalk Host a very impartial, with respect to us as individuals, chief moderator to look after the decisions made by his assistant moderators.

I do not discount the possibility that all of us from time to time pop off or dig our heels in on issues. In doing so we may cross specific lines. If that happens we have a now very clearly designed system to oust a really bad apple while protecting those that had a bad day and really need a hug or a nap.

So in answer to the question, I would say I would follow the rules as defined, bear them in mind in considering my words and actions, and make sure that my very strictest policeman were myself.

If I were to receive a 30 day suspension I would immediately resign from the TB. I would also ask my friends and family to make sure I hadn't been replaced by a body snatcher because getting a 30 day suspension just isn't in my realm of possibility.