Originally Posted by
Dovster
On the other hand, if the guidelines had been in effect at this time last year, kokonutz would have been removed from TalkBoard the moment he was elected. (This is no secret, his suspension was announced in TB Topics by Randy).
I would like to point out a mathematical situation. I can not say why this is the case without violating the TOS but someone reading this thread can easily see it for himself.
Until very recently, for this motion to pass it required 6 "Yes" votes. If a member abstained, that would have had the same practical effect as a "No". This is because a motion needs the approval of two thirds of those voting and abstaining does not count as voting. 5 out of 9 votes = 55.5% ; 5 out of 8 votes = 62.5% (still not enough to pass).
However, with the very recent change in the situation, there will be a maximum of 8, not 9, votes. If one person abstains, and 5 vote in favor, the result will be 5 out of 7 -- which is 71.4%, enough for the motion to pass.
In short, an abstention has changed from a "No" to a "Yes" for all practical purposes.
I, personally, would find it impossible to ever support any candidate for TalkBoard who had either voted "Yes" or abstained on this vote. I hope that many other FTers will feel the same way. In the end, this vote is not about allowing members who got suspensions to serve on TB -- it is about FT members being allowed to vote for the members they want on TB.
I want the complete freedom to vote for any FTer who puts himself or herself forward as a candidate and I do not want to let any other member step in and have that successfully-elected representative removed.
If you don't like my choice of a candidate, you have the right to cast your ballots for those running who you prefer. I won't attempt to deny your rights to you, please don't attempt to do so to me.
I agree on
dovster's math on how TB actually works, and I agree my email inbox has also been surprisingly busy from FT'ers lately. @:-)
As I often say FT'ers at large are far more savvy than some folks give them credit for being. Many do not post here for very obvious reasons, but the post views speak volumes.
FT'ers have proven
most clearly in the past by their votes, that they want to be able to vote for whom
THEY want to represent them. And will do so in large numbers for some candidates that would
not be able to run if this flawed motion passes.
And full disclosure - I served 2 years on TB and have no intentions whatever of running again, but I do hope that
any registered Flyertalker can always run - if THEY choose. TB is the ONLY area of FT Admin that members vote in, and they seem to appreciate that discretion.
IMHO - FT'ers will not go along with being asked to simply tick names off a short-list, able to be influenced by other members - who could include other sitting TB members, or indeed potential Candidates. Can you spell
ZIMBABWE?
For that to change, means there cannot be a future TalkBoard truly Representative of whom the general membership wants to serve it.
Randy is as savvy, or savvier, as the general membership, and I cannot see him allowing that undemocratic process to exist on his Flyertalk - thank goodness.
Glen
.