Question 9: 30-day Suspension

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 3, 2008, 7:39 pm

#16

BillScann

Join Date: Jul 2004

Location: ANC

Programs: AS MVPG 75K, UA 2P

Posts: 1,453

Way too much inside baseball.

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.

Nov 4, 2008, 3:23 am

#17

skywalkerLAX

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Jul 2005

Location: Seat 2A

Programs: AA EXP LT GLD 1MM, BA GLD, NH/UA*G, Hyatt Dia, Marr Tit LT PLT, IHG Spire,HH Dia, MGM NOIR,Hertz PC

Posts: 10,571

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

Nov 4, 2008, 11:14 am

#18

bhatnasx

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: Greener Pastures

Posts: 10,515

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.

Nov 4, 2008, 12:02 pm

#19

LessO2

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Oct 2004

Posts: 10,037

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhatnasx

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.

Nov 4, 2008, 1:10 pm

#20

RichMSN

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Dec 1999

Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium

Posts: 15,352

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhatnasx

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?

Nov 4, 2008, 2:07 pm

#21

bhatnasx

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: Greener Pastures

Posts: 10,515

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

Nov 4, 2008, 2:42 pm

#22

RichMSN

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Dec 1999

Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium

Posts: 15,352

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhatnasx

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

Nov 4, 2008, 3:28 pm

#23

B747-437B

Join Date: Aug 2000

Location: Exile

Posts: 15,656

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhatnasx

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.

Nov 4, 2008, 3:54 pm

#24

nsx

Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One

Join Date: Sep 1999

Location: California

Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member

Posts: 21,624

Quote:

Originally Posted by B747-437B

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.

Nov 4, 2008, 4:23 pm

#25

bhatnasx

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: Greener Pastures

Posts: 10,515

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

Nov 4, 2008, 4:38 pm

#26

bhatnasx

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: Greener Pastures

Posts: 10,515

Quote:

Originally Posted by B747-437B

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!

Nov 4, 2008, 5:32 pm

#27

B747-437B

Join Date: Aug 2000

Location: Exile

Posts: 15,656

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhatnasx

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

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.

Nov 4, 2008, 6:00 pm

#28

nsx

Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One

Join Date: Sep 1999

Location: California

Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member

Posts: 21,624

Quote:

Originally Posted by B747-437B

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.