Proposal to new TB: pledge of ethics

In conjunction with offering my congratulations to the new TB members, I have a proposal:

Just as the moderators have done, I propose that TalkBoard subject itself to the same standards of behavior and discipline as the moderators have CHOSEN to do: they'll keep out of "Only Randy Petersen" forum and let RANDY speak for himself, and will immediately step down if they incur a 30 day suspension for violations of the same TOS that the members who elected them are subject to.

In light if not only the current suspension, but suspension histories of the new TB members I feel this is the right thing to do to show they are "legit" and not using TB for personal agendas. I encourage all of us who voted in the election to ask our newly elected reps to sign on to this code of standards.

Interesting idea, although to make sure I understand this are you asking each of us to agree to it as a gentlemens agreement or for this to be an actual motion? On one hand you say proposal and on the other hand pledge, so color me confused.

Although I agree with you there should be an ethical balance here & I personally do strive to be ethical in my decision making process, I don't agree with this proposal for one main reason: The members elected their represenatives. Generally, the FlyerTalkers who voted for a particular member did so based on his or her posts on FlyerTalk and their experience with that elected member - and not everyone here agrees with the board's management or all of the moderator actions. Based on that, the members who voted for a particular TB member should have that TB member be allowed to represent them in whatever fashion that TB member sees he or she is best serving the overall membership of FlyerTalk. If that TB member gets suspended, then that's how they have decided to serve the members that elected.

That might not make any sense once I hit the Post Reply button - but it made sense to me when I wrote it!

Regarding the posting in the ORP forum...I don't think that should be something that's limited to Mods or TB members, but to everyone on FlyerTalk in general. Let Randy answer his own questions - it's his forum!

I will make it clearer: will you make the motion for the portion about suspended members? Specifically, are you willing to bring the motion that a member suspended for 30 days (let's say after 1/1/2008 to give Koko a break) is automatically removed from TB? I'm not asking if you'll vote for or against it, but will you at least help bring it up for formal debate?

I asked a similar but slightly different question of the candidates in the 2006 election cycle, as the previous year had seen a number of votes with only 8 members participating. Several of both the incumbent and newly elected members ran in 2006, and gave their thoughts at the time. I would be curious to know if those members continue their positions from 2006.

as ElmhurstNick said, the semantics do not matter as Randy is the final "decider in chief", are the TB members up for going on record and pledging/signing/agreeing/motioning/whatever to the same standard of Ethics as the moderators have?

It's a pretty simple yes or no, but I'm guessing that adopting these rules would go along way to quell the growing controversy over the election results.

OK, more clear now, thanks Nick and Neil!

First of all, let me agree with bhatnasx in that I will do my best to meet the standards of discipline you mention. I haven't been suspended in the first 15K posts/few years, and have no intent on it happening anytime in the future.

This is one of those issues where I really see both sides.

On one hand the FT'ers elected the TalkBoard members, so why not let us (the voters) learn from our mistakes and elect "better" people in the future. For the most part the people that have spent much of their terms suspended in the past didn't just do that while they were serving on TB- they did it before as well, so voters should expect that.

On the other hand if a TalkBoard member is suspended for a lengthy period of time it's kind of hard for them to vote and do their "job." Makes me wonder what value they really have representing the members. Similarly, for the most part it's kind of hard to imagine that an TB member has the best interest of FT in mind if they can't follow the relatively simply rules FT has.

So ultimately I can see both sides of the issue and would like to hear what others think. If most are fine with being represented by people that are suspended, then so be it. If not, then I'm all for seeing debate on this issue.

Boot out the one you don't like huh? No thanks... I voted for the people I voted for because I liked their platforms. I don't give a crap whether they have been the beneficiary of a suspension or three... that doesn't change their great views.

I am strongly opposed to this proposal.

Now theres a suprise

Let's drop the one on one debates and the sarcasm.

I agree with nroscoe. I think it is a real shame that, once again, we have a new Talkboard member unable to fulfill his obligations because of being suspended. Personally, I think guidelines should be set to exclude any member who has had a 30 day suspension from even running for office. This would also include those who have been reinstated after permenant bans. If they are unable to vote on issues, their platforms become meaningless and they are not really representing those who voted forum.

But do you pledge to step down if you catch a 30-day suspension that's upheld by Randy?

There is a saying that people who stand in the middle of the street typically just end up getting hit by cars from both directions that's coming to mind here....

I hope they don't make that pledge unless the ability to suspend TB members is restricted to Randy, himself, throughout the entire term. I would not make that pledge, myself. Of course I lost, so all this is hypothetical.

Yes, you are right, it is

I already live under that rule as a mod, so I think a) it is easily achievable and b) sensible and am perfectly happy to abide by them myself.

I think it's a very sad day when any TB member gets a suspension. TB members should be able to understand the TOS and respect them, and conduct themselves in a suitable manner on FT. But then I ascribe to the ideal of elected officials as servants (just don't take that too far ) not rulers, so the idea of setting myself above the members is

That seems like a reasonable compromise, if Randy would be ok with that language.

You know that of the Talkboard members who have ever been suspended, the majority have been from/by Randy (or, in the case of Talkboard members with multiple suspensions, the "big one" has been by Randy)?

(That's public knowledge if you search the TB-07 forum, this forum, and community, BTW. I'm not revealing anything in confidence by saying as such--you can read it with a simple search).

So in a practical sense, historically this would not have mattered, as it's usually Randy's doing anyway.

In a principled sense, however, I'd ask you why you believe Talkboard members above the same rules that every member of FT is asked to comply with? Members are members first, and everything else second. If it's good enough for the mods, certainly it should be good enough for the Talkboard, right?