Anything missing on either side?
Pros of term limits as proposed:
Overcomes inherent incumbent advantage, ensuring new blood and fresh ideas in each TB seat every four years at the most.
****I don't see it as an inherent incumbent advantage. There are some people whom, after being voted into office, I'm sure folks, after seeing their voting record or participation record, would never vote for again.
Motivates TB members to be active rather than passive stewards of FT as their time to serve is limited.
****How? There have been 1 termers who have been more passive than some several termers.
Prevents a permanent class of TB members from emerging/prevents posters from using long-term service on TB as a CV-builder for their travel blogs, services or other for-profit ventures.
****There was only 1 former TBer who this can be referring to - none other have done this...and FWIW, the members elected that person by a landslide every time.
Ensures that TB members spend at least one year out of five experiencing FT from the perspective of a poster rather than a TB member/poster.
****Don't think this is as necessary for TBers as it is for Moderators.
Ensures that no weirdo masochists use prolonged service on the TB to get their sick jollies.
****Okay...no argument here!