Originally Posted by
ClueByFour
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
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.)
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.