Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Community > TalkBoard Topics
Reload this Page >

Motion Failed: Recommend new post thresholds and titles

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Motion Failed: Recommend new post thresholds and titles

 
Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 9, 2014, 12:18 pm
  #31  
nsx
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,621
Originally Posted by CMK10
I still don't understand how one can "force" a vote. It has to be seconded, right? If I was up to no good I'd think the President, Vice President at the very least if not some of the other members would realize what I was doing and wouldn't allow it to go forward.
A minority of 2 or more can force a vote. One person alone cannot. Again, I don't have an argument with the content of the proposal, only with setting a precedent that others might use in the future to avoid approving a consensus result.

For what it's worth, it's quite rare for a proposal not to draw a second. TB members need to be careful in drafting (and I sometimes was not sufficiently careful), because that text may turn out to mean something other than what was intended. Vetting proposal text in private or public is always a good idea.
nsx is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2014, 12:51 pm
  #32  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
This is how the situation went:

- Post 1: I suggested the vote
- Post 2: Seconded
- Post 3: Person A asks if I'm "suggesting" or formally moving
- Post 4: I say I want to formally move and explain why
- Post 5: TalkBoard President asks again if I'm formally moving and explains how the process usually goes
- Post 6: Person B makes suggestion
- Post 7: Person C makes more suggestions, and helps with the language
- Post 8: President responds to B and C
- Post 9: Person A has more questions
- Post 10: President responds to Person A
- Post 11: I make formal motion
- Post 12: Seconded
CMK10 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2014, 1:18 pm
  #33  
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,598
Originally Posted by nsx
Thanks for the background, bdschobel and kokonutz. You make a good case, and I appreciate that things can look different from outside.

I probably would vote Yes with you under these circumstances, even though I would prefer that supporters be given every possible chance to write the final version of a proposal and request a vote.

You sound as if you are giving priority to team building, laying the foundations for ongoing cooperation on TalkBoard. That's smart.
No freaking way, nsx! I am termed out soon. And I am going to burn down the camp and dump the rice in the fire on my way out!!!!

Mens travel forum, here we come!!!!!! ^^^
kokonutz is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2014, 1:38 pm
  #34  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR S (former 75K, GLD, 1K, and S+, now an elite peon)
Posts: 23,194
Originally Posted by nsx
Some of TalkBoard's most contentious times have occurred when a minority of members forced votes on proposals which they knew had insufficient support. I thought we had all learned the lesson that the minority can get more of what it wants through building consensus for a minimal version of the idea. Getting from a minority to 2/3 can be done this way. The prime example of this is term limits.
First, let me point out that I am not opposed at all to the "consensus-building" process you developed for TalkBoard. I think it led to a pretty cooperative and productive few years when we served.

But on the other hand, the TalkBoard was recently criticized pretty severely by another former TalkBoard member for showing no action on this or other issues. Apparently, back in the "good old days," stuff went to a vote whether it had broad support or not, and some of the old-timers pine for those days of yore when at least it looked like TalkBoard was doing something. (I guess one thing everyone can learn from this discussion is that you can't please everybody.)

This proposal has, as koko indicated, languished without any action to speak of for far longer than a popular (and correct, IMNSHO) proposal should. At some point, the question needs to be called. I think that in some cases, this is the best--and perhaps only--way forward when no movement is otherwise indicated.

I, for one, am glad at least something is being done. If the motion fails, let's retool our efforts to address whatever issues were brought up during this process, address them, and try again. A "no" on this isn't necessarily a permanent "no."
jackal is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2014, 2:22 pm
  #35  
nsx
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,621
Originally Posted by CMK10
This is how the situation went:

- Post 1: I suggested the vote
- Post 2: Seconded
- Post 3: Person A asks if I'm "suggesting" or formally moving
- Post 4: I say I want to formally move and explain why
- Post 5: TalkBoard President asks again if I'm formally moving and explains how the process usually goes
- Post 6: Person B makes suggestion
- Post 7: Person C makes more suggestions, and helps with the language
- Post 8: President responds to B and C
- Post 9: Person A has more questions
- Post 10: President responds to Person A
- Post 11: I make formal motion
- Post 12: Seconded
Thank you so much, CMK10. That was very helpful.

This scenario is not a precedent for anything harmful to TalkBoard, so I retract my criticism. You took the lead in getting a consensus proposal to a vote, which I consider a best practice. As long as that's done, I agree that it does not matter who makes the formal motion. Thank you for your service on TalkBoard.
nsx is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2014, 2:34 pm
  #36  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: HH Diamond, Marriott Gold, IHG Gold, Hyatt something
Posts: 33,539
Can't we be a bit more honest with the titles?

500: Beginner
1,000: Advanced beginner
2,500: Intermediate
5,000: Advanced
10,000: Should Be Committed
25,000: No Home Life
40,000: Has To Post In Every Thread

Jaimito Cartero is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2014, 3:12 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: On strike
Posts: 8,135
Originally Posted by Jaimito Cartero
Can't we be a bit more honest with the titles?
We could, but using diagnostic codes from the DSM-5 might prove controversial.
beltway is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2014, 8:03 pm
  #38  
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,598
Originally Posted by Jaimito Cartero
Can't we be a bit more honest with the titles?

500: Beginner
1,000: Advanced beginner
2,500: Intermediate
5,000: Advanced
10,000: Should Be Committed
25,000: No Home Life
40,000: Has To Post In Every Thread

Lol. I prefer those over what we are voting on! ^

But I prefer what we are voting on over the status quo. @:-)
kokonutz is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2014, 9:14 pm
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: UA Million Miler (lite). NY Metro area.
Posts: 15,075
Talk Board members... this is as good a time as any for you to read this >>> http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...alk-board.html
dhammer53 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2014, 9:33 pm
  #40  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
And the most important lesson that I learned last week: you can't please everybody.
CMK10 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2014, 9:50 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Home
Programs: AA, Delta, UA & thanks to FTers for my PC Gold!
Posts: 7,676
Originally Posted by beltway
Originally Posted by Jaimito Cartero
Can't we be a bit more honest with the titles?
We could, but using diagnostic codes from the DSM-5 might prove controversial.
Well, to be perfectly honest, the only way to run any uncontroversial diagnostics on FT titles, we'll have to use DSM-VI.

ps. FYI. It took 19 years before DSM-V, the latest version, was published. DSM-IV came out in 1994.

Originally Posted by CMK10
And the most important lesson that I learned last week: you can't please everybody.
Isn't that the life lesson for anyone, FTer or not?
lin821 is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2014, 2:52 am
  #42  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: HH Diamond, Marriott Gold, IHG Gold, Hyatt something
Posts: 33,539
Originally Posted by CMK10
And the most important lesson that I learned last week: you can't please everybody.
I learned that in third grade, I think.
Jaimito Cartero is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2014, 7:19 am
  #43  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
Originally Posted by Jaimito Cartero
I learned that in third grade, I think.
You were a precocious child, that year I learned that fat people like me didn't do well at sports

Last edited by CMK10; Jun 10, 2014 at 7:32 am
CMK10 is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2014, 3:06 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,385
The titles are awful.
yerffej201 is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2014, 5:07 pm
  #45  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Either at the shooting range or anywhere good beer can be found...
Posts: 51,045
Originally Posted by yerffej201
The titles are awful.
Which ones? The current ones or the suggested ones?
kipper is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.