Spiff

On 9 Sept 2006, the TalkBoard passed a motion:

Moved by Cholula and seconded by ScottC:

that the TalkBoard recommend the following suggestions to Randy for the upcoming 2006 TalkBoard elections:

1. No votes accepted from members who have registered after the election has been announced.

2. That all questions concerning the candidates be funneled through Randy as we did in 2005.

3. That signatures concerning the election or candidates be allowed as long as they otherwise abide by the TOS regarding size, color, etc..

4.That no candidate will have disciplinary action taken against them by any other candidate who is an active moderator.

5. That no electioneering be allowed in either the public TB forum or on any other threads or forums except for the forum Randy designates.

Voting yes: Cholula, gleff, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff

Voting no: wharvey

Abstaining: attorney28, doc

Not voting: ozstamps

kokonutz

Ok, ok: Although this decision has already been made, I 'd be interested in hearing why each of the TB members voted the way they did. You know, you wouldn't have to do this every single time if the TB forum was open read only blah blah blah.

I am especially curious about the abstentions and non-voters.

Thanks!

Spiff

I voted the way I did (in favor) because I don't want the TalkBoard elections to turn into a bickadee with a lot of negative campaigning in the public TalkBoard forum.

Moderated elections, done by House of Miles staff, seemed like a good compromise. I also think that all candidates should have to abide by the TOS and that no candidate should be above the TOS.

Cholula

We hammered out the list above after a multi-page thread discussing what recommendations we wanted to offer Randy for the upcoming elections.
#1 and #4 were a bit watered down for my liking but I agreed to them in the spirit of compromise.
I wanted to see a minimum number of posts in order to vote...something in the vicinity of 50 or so. This was not to disenfranchise new members as much as to reduce the number of dupe handles from voting.
I also wanted a more bulletproof suspension policy for anybody running for TB, i.e. in the month that the elections are conducted, no candidate can be suspended by anyone other than Randy.
This didn't sit well with some TB members so #4 is a further compromise.
Points #2, 3 and 5 are just reiterations of previous elections that we wanted to see continued.

ScottC

Like Spiff I voted based on the past years history on FT of Talkboard elections. I also added the #4 in it as some members felt that being banned by a fellow candidate would not be fair, and I happened to agree with that.

Dovster

You are right. It would be disgraceful to have a candidate banned by his opponent.

However, I tend to agree with Cholula -- that no candidate should be banned by any moderator without Randy's approval. Let's face it, it would be too easy for a non-candidate moderator to silence a candidate he does not support.

If I recall correctly, last year Randy put the "no ban without approval" rule into effect. I hope he will repeat that decision this year.

Football Fan

This is part of the reason why I abstained. I am fine with the rest of the motion, but if TalkBoard makes a recommendation that touches moderation issues I would have preferred the other wording - that no candidate should be banned by anyone other than Randy or at least a senior moderator.

However, since I respect the rules here, I have to find No. 4 - while I think that it is at least a step in the right direction - inconsistent with the "TalkBoard cannot get involved with anything that even remotely has to do with moderation" "rule", which I personally still abide to, even though I disagree that this is the best approach. That is the other part of the reason why I abstained.

On the other hand, I welcome the fact that a precedent has been set now within the TalkBoard that, depending on the circumstances (i.e., if it involves TalkBoard elections), TalkBoard can make recommendations even if the issue touches moderation. Thanks to the 5 members who voted in favor of this motion for setting this precedent.

hfly

What I find lacking is that if a candidate IS banned (with Randy's permission, fine) that the candidate should be kicked out of the election.

gleff

I voted in favor of the motion because it seemed to be the consensus proposal which supported the idea that it's important to weed out duplicate votes to ensure a fair election, and that last year's process worked reasonably well compared to some past elections.

Allow me to clarify one item and offer what I think is an important distinction, though others may find it less meaningful than I do. Regarding candidates and candidates who are moderators issuing suspensions: the TalkBoard has recommended a policy to Randy about how the election is conducted and what is considered appropriate candidate behavior. Randy has made clear many times that moderators report to him, not to the TalkBoard, and as such the Talkboard is not attempting to set moderator policy per se.

wharvey

Kokonutz,

Glad to respond as always.... sorry for the delay... but house hunting.

First and foremost, I voted against this because of #4. It has been made clear that the Talkboard is to take no decisions as it relates to moderation.. and this motion does.

At a more basic level, #4 makes no sense. For those that believe all those black helicopters theories... it would be simple for a moderator running for election to have a fellow moderator suspend another candidate.

In addition, #4 would - in essence - place candidates above the TOS in that only Randy could suspend them... meaning that he would have to review posts by all the candidates and take all decisions on suspensions during the election. None of us should be above following the same rules as everyone else just because we are running for Talkboard.

Finally, I fully supported Sandiego1K's suggestion for a minimum time of membership before being allowed to vote... and even stand for election.

William

ScottC

FWIW; In my personal opinion I didn't mind #4 being added because I did not consider it to be a decision on moderation, more of a recommendation to Randy, who asked for our input.

Usually when we vote on issues like a new forum or other change we do so expecting it to actually happen, in this case it was nothing more than some advise we are offering Randy, whether or not he does anything with it is up to him.

ClueByFour

Or for a candidate to thumb their nose in the face of the TOS, knowing they'll be bulletproof for a month.

I hope he does too--if he does, I'll happily toss my name into the ring, just so that a campaign can be run that actually touches on issues that cannot in turn be censored by anyone, including mods who might happen to be TB members.

Dovster

They would not be bulletproof. Randy would be able to discipline them.

Indeed, if you feel strongly enough about these issues, you should run. I think that it is fairly likely that Randy will follow TalkBoard's recommendation to set up a special forum (as he did last year) which would not be moderated but would be filtered through him.

I am curious, however, as to what kind of issues you feel that mods who are TB candidates would be apt to censor.

Spiff

Reminder: No electioneering in this forum, please.

Anyone who wishes to discuss their platform or possible platform is invited to do so at the appropriate time/place, which this thread is neither.

Cholula

I think it's important to add that when I proposed this "bulletproof" feature for TB candidates, I also suggested not publicizing it.

Only the mod's would know that they could not suspend a TB candidate. There would not be an announcement such as " Attention all TB candidates:Feel free to flame away for 30 days as you can't get suspended by anyone but Randy".

And by Randy I also meant the HOM's....Mikel, Tim or anybody else he'd appoint as his lieutenant.

All this adds is one extra step in our normal suspension process. And it's for only 30 days and is only applicable to a select few FT members...the TB candidates who are not also mods.

But the whole thing is a moot point as it wasn't adopted.