So a lot of this is really second-guessing "what would Randy do"
No, it is not. It is about asking him rather than second-guessing him. IMO, that way we are more likely to know what he thinks rather than trying to second guess him .
Quote:
But to simply turn your question "why are the rules such a danger" around - if the difference (as I read from your post) is so small, then "why are you so hell-bent on changing the status quo and introducing these rules"?
Thiis is a non-argument, as it can be turned round to make the opposite case in exactly the same way
Quote:
You (and some others) are the ones who want to change the status quo - I would think that the burden of persuasion should be on the ones who want to change the status quo.
uhh, why? No, I can't see why I should agree with that. I can't see why there should be a presumption that what is now has necessarily presumed to be better than anything else. I have already answered this in relation to koko's "if it ain't broke" argument in the other thread.
Establishing a procedure in which Randy has to decide whether a persistent ToS violator is still suitable for TB rather than letting the matter go by default or waiting for a 2/3 vote of TB which will never happen in a month on Sundays short of perhaps a TBer killing another one at a Freddie's award ceremony is not a bad idea.
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutz
I get it that you and others who support these provisions sincerely believe that you know better than other voters what type of TB candidate is best for FT.
I get it that you and others who reject these provisions believe that multiple violations of the community rules should be simply be allowed to crap on the lawn.
Quote:
What truly amazes me is that you attempt to hold this view in higher regard than the will of the FT voters.
Let's debunk this myth once and for all: in the absence of full disclosure (which is not currently the case), you can be a 12 time, multiple lifetime suspension holder, run for TB, and not have to disclose it. So, essentially you think that the FT population should be able to pick whomever they want, without knowing their history. It's logically inconsistent but politically convenient.
I don't really think pointing out all those missed votes constitutes a "smear." My intention was not to make anyone uncomfortable--more to demonstrate the fact that the Talkboard, historically, is unwilling to police itself.
I understand you disagree on this, but I don't think the TalkBoard has been more or less willing than the moderators to police themselves. I think it is true, it's human nature, and I think it's understandable. It's always easier to police others than yourself.
Since you mentioned my TalkBoard stint: The one thing I regret and where I think I really dropped the ball is when I was supposed to do the spokesman duty and for reasons I ask to be understood that I do not want to go into, which came up after I agreed to take the duty, I really did not do a good job on that, missing some announcements, and yes, also, some votes during that time. It was better that Spiff took that over again. It just happened that way. Still, I think overall, I am not too ashamed of my TalkBoard stint, I think I did contribute my bit during that time. Others might see it differently.
TalkBoard Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 7 minutes from DCA
Programs: UA 1K/MM refugee to cheapest business class fare, SPG Lifetime Plat, CBP Global Entry, TSA Pre!
Posts: 27,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClueByFour
Let's debunk this myth once and for all: in the absence of full disclosure (which is not currently the case), you can be a 12 time, multiple lifetime suspension holder, run for TB, and not have to disclose it. So, essentially you think that the FT population should be able to pick whomever they want, without knowing their history. It's logically inconsistent but politically convenient.
Yes, that is precisely the 'I know better than the voters what they should want so I shall impose it on them' attitude to which I refer.
Why are you and others so unwilling to let the voters look at what a flyertalker posts in the election forum and make their own decision as to whether they want that person representing them?
Who are YOU or anyone else to tell them who is worthy to stand and who is not?
Let each flyertalker decide that for him or herself based on what they read in the election forum and let the chips fall where they may.
__________________
A fares on US for 150% of S fares on AA or UA have turned me into a pretty regular US flyer!
Yes, that is precisely the 'I know better than the voters what they should want so I shall impose it on them' attitude to which I refer.
Why are you and others so unwilling to let the voters look at what a flyertalker posts in the election forum and make their own decision as to whether they want that person representing them?
Who are YOU or anyone else to tell them who is worthy to stand and who is not?
Let each flyertalker decide that for him or herself based on what they read in the election forum and let the chips fall where they may.
Well, virtually all institutions that I know of do have eligibility and disqualification rules. Strangely enough, I do not find it an unbearable affront to democracy that, e.g., somebody recently convicted of murder should be ineligible from standing as a candidate to a national parliament, for instance. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that committing murder is in any way comparable to infringing ToS.
What I am saying, however, is that it is a travesty of the concept of democracy to argue that having eligibility and disqualification rules is undemocratic.
And you dismiss Clue's argument a little lightly, imo: even if we were to go for that demagogic notion of democracy that you put forward, you would have to accept that non-disclosure and discussion of a candidate's ToS violation history skews the capacity of the voter to make an informed judgment. And given that we cannot have full disclosure (good thing imo, but that is another debate), it is rather difficult to get all high and mighty on "what the voters want."
Anyway, it seems to me that we are going round in circles and we are not adding any new elements to what has already been said in the other thread. There is enough there for TB members to form a view as to what the arguments are. So, until somebody comes out with a new argument, I think that I will bow out of this discussion.
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutz
Why are you and others so unwilling to let the voters look at what a flyertalker posts in the election forum and make their own decision as to whether they want that person representing them?
Why are you and others unwilling to let people know the whole truth, and/or keep people who crap on the lawn repeatedly from representing Flyertalk?
Because it sure seems to me that you want to let people who have crapped on the lawn run for Talkboard (while they don't have to disclose that fact--convenient!), and then let them continue to crap on the lawn without recourse.
Why are you and others unwilling to let people know the whole truth, and/or keep people who crap on the lawn repeatedly from representing Flyertalk?
Sorry, but your whole attitude in almost all of your posts is awfully self-righteous...even your signature..."debunking spin"..."debunking myths"...like you own the truth. Frankly, it's a bit pitiful to watch.
And that simply won't happen under this motion. Randy has to uphold a suspension in order to remove a sitting TB member or remove the option of running.
False. Under the proposal as presented at the beginning of the thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by proposed guidelines
A TB member who receives a 30-day suspension that is not overturned by the end of that suspension shall be automatically recommended to the FT host for removal from the TalkBoard at the conclusion of that suspension.
all that has to happen for a TB member to be automatically recommended for removal is for Randy to take a 31-day vacation (to which he is certainly entitled) and a TB member to get suspended at the beginning of that vacation. The recommendation becomes totally passive. There's no reason to assume the recommendation won't be accepted, because if TB's recommendations are frequently rejected, the reasons for its existence fade away.
There was a proposal in the other thread about these guidelines to require the suspension to be upheld (thus requiring active steps by Randy), but it didn't make it. (although the parallel change was made to the eligibility section, which gives me the impression that in the rush to bring this motion to a vote for highly questionable reasons, the text was not entirely scrubbed.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClueByFour
We are all FT members first. We are not all Talkboard members or mods. I believe those groups should be held to a higher standard (noting the the latter already is, and the former is not), while you apparently believe it's okay to flip Randy the bird (because all this is ultimately his call) and then become a representative of FT. I don't believe that's the case.
With this aspect of the guidelines, the TB (and the host) have to decide if they want TB to be composed of quiet, non-controversial "yes-(wo)men" or to be composed of freely-elected representatives of the membership. The membership has elected TB members who have received both pre-election and post-election suspension from moderators. My understanding is that the membership has also elected TB members who have received earlier "lifetime" suspensions (i.e., perma-bans) which I assume involved the host. If the membership sees value in these folks as representatives and the host saw enough value in their membership to re-instate them, perhaps TB should be open to their opinions.
The perceived reasons for rushing this thing to a vote are really sad for the credibility of TB. I had set aside much of my paranoia regarding moderation and efforts by a few members to "control" FT once a few years passed from a certain wave of suspensions, but I now believe that was a mistake.
Programs: WN CP & A-list preferred, Interstate BBQ at MEM B17, fan of Hyatt, Priceline, and Hotwire
Posts: 14,253
If I were on TB, I would have argued for a compromise. The proposal as it stands is unnecessarily divisive, as is failure to wait until all TB members are available to vote. A proposal that focused on Randy's affirmative need to uphold a suspension would have had chance for unanimous approval. That said, I don't find the current proposal onerous. It's just not the consensus proposal that it could have been.
Here's another point that nobody has made. Some people here believe that moderators get a break on the ToS. I don't have any firsthand experience to support that belief. (Personally, I believe in giving everyone the benefit of any doubt.)
What I do know is that Randy looks very carefully at the posting history of all candidates for moderator duties. People who cannot live within the ToS are IMHO very unlikely to pass that test, and they will therefore not become moderators in the first place.
I don't see why it's surprising to anyone that people who pass Randy's screening process are subsequently not often on the receiving end of suspensions. I'd be absolutely mortified if it happened to me. That would be more embarrassing than having to delete my own thread for a ToS violation, which was my first official act as a moderator.
One other gripe: I don't impugn anyone else's motives because I don't believe that anyone here has anything other than the best interest of FT at heart. We see things differently, that's all. When you question motives, you demonstrate the vacuity of your logical argument. This weakens your case rather than strengthening it.
__________________
Follow the progress of our member-elected TalkBoard here.
I'm sorry - I'm just LOL & shaking my head. There's a comments welcome & it's the same 3-4 that were duking it out on the other thread duking it out on this one so far. . I'm wondering if we can create a motion to create a separate subforum for you all to continue the same-old, same-old conversations that have cropped up in other threads & not just this one. The mods are evil stuff gets old for us regular FTers.
And let me say as a regular FTer...
The fact that some TB members think it's ok for TB members to violate TOS to the point of a 30-day suspension boggles my mind. My understanding is you have to work your way up to 30 days. If you have, then to me you probably shouldn't be a TB member. It's not that hard to keep your nose clean for your term for crikey's sake. That also applies to mods btw.
I also find it funny in the other thread the folk who were screaming the most re: the TOS violations shouldn't count were those who have had 30-day suspensions & in some cases lifetime bans (which Randy relented on; he's much nicer than me).
FWIW - speaking to the topic, I vote yes on the guidelines.
If I were on TB, I would have argued for a compromise. The proposal as it stands is unnecessarily divisive, as is failure to wait until all TB members are available to vote.
Gee, I wonder why this was forced through then, without even giving the AUTHOR time to revise and correct, as needed?
Don't tell me, I already know.
__________________ I'm a member of TalkBoard. Please send me a PM with any suggestions.
I don't even know where to start in order to bring this discussion in focus. Instead, I'm going to leave the prior postings as is. Readers can make their own decisions whether the "black helicopters" are circling and if there is some great moderator conspiracy underway.
Since this subject has been beat to a pulp for weeks (mostly by a limited number of FT members and the TB), it's time to wind it down until the vote has been completed. I'm encouraging new voices (the "silent majority") to come out of the dark and post comments. Moderators will be very aggressive about keeping the thread on track, and deleting posts that do not enhance the debate, especially if the poster is one of the people who have been already active commenting on the topic.
Let's try and bring up new discussion points, which will allow the TB members to make their final voting decisions.
__________________ Moderator2 ("a.k.a. "Craig6z") - TalkBoard Topics Moderator
Last edited by Moderator2; Sep 25, 08 at 5:47 pm..
Programs: After years of status, back to Peon levels. Anti-Apostheid Platinum, PWP CentCom
Posts: 4,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN
Gee, I wonder why this was forced through then, without even giving the AUTHOR time to revise and correct, as needed?
to this. If there's ever an issue where TalkBoard needs to speak with one voice, this is the one. Ramrodding it through before edits are complete doesn't pass the smell test for me.
to this. If there's ever an issue where TalkBoard needs to speak with one voice, this is the one. Ramrodding it through before edits are complete doesn't pass the smell test for me.
Hear, hear.
The more contentious, argumentative point-scoring this debate has become, the less attractive TB has become as an option for me, as a regular FT user.
I appreciate the chance to participate but will refrain when debate is primarily a point-scoring debating competition.
I do not support this motion as it is not a consensus motion.
Something which approaches a consensus motion would make the TB appear to be more concerned with effective operation and less about division and point scoring.
I hope this motion is defeated and a more consensus revision of the TB Guidelines (re. the two contentious points) is proposed.
My view is separate from the merits of those points.
As it is, the current form of the motion will assist to keep the TB divided and infighting.
Most of this thread has been a huge turn-off re. TB's mission, which detracts from its overall record.
.
. I'm wondering if we can create a motion to create a separate subforum for you all to continue the same-old, same-old conversations that have cropped up in other threads & not just this one. The mods are evil stuff gets old for us regular FTers. 
I'm a member of 
to this. If there's ever an issue where TalkBoard needs to speak with one voice, this is the one. Ramrodding it through before edits are complete doesn't pass the smell test for me.
