Comments Welcome: New TalkBoard Guidelines
Sep 18, 2008 | 5:21 am
#226
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
The problem comes, phillipas, when the problems encountered on TB because we don't have a consolidated set of rules about how we operate start to interfere with doing what is actually our role as you outline above. And IMHO, we are at that position now, where we have discovered that if TB members refuse to accept that we are bound by any rules about how we conduct ourselves or how we carry out business, that makes it actually very difficult to continue functioning in any way which discharges our responsibilities. So we can either muddle on as we are, where we are not working well or effectively and as a result, IMHO not living up to our responsibilities, or we can take the time to resolve the situation. So that's what we are having to do.
Sep 18, 2008 | 5:38 am
#227
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,350
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.
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
.
Last edited by ozstamps; Sep 18, 2008 at 6:22 am
Sep 18, 2008 | 5:55 am
#228
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,350
The problem comes, phillipas, when the problems encountered on TB because we don't have a consolidated set of rules about how we operate start to interfere with doing what is actually our role as you outline above. And IMHO, we are at that position now, where we have discovered that if TB members refuse to accept that we are bound by any rules about how we conduct ourselves or how we carry out business, that makes it actually very difficult to continue functioning in any way which discharges our responsibilities. So we can either muddle on as we are, where we are not working well or effectively and as a result, IMHO not living up to our responsibilities, or we can take the time to resolve the situation. So that's what we are having to do.
The rules you claim do not exist for Talkboard activities have been in place for many years. They ARE in place. They DO work.
Show me WHAT of this motion summary is substantively "new":
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...6&postcount=10
This motion is simply putting them all in one place. It will not affect how TB "muddles on" - I might add I feel that is a highly insulting term to all previous hand-working TB volunteers over the years who have achieved much.
You appear to be blurring the rules that govern FT'ers in general, as distinct from TalkBoard procedures. Both are clear cut, and work well.
This motion is wise, to put the operating procedures for voting and elections etc in one place, despite it being SOP for many years.
There is nothing really "new" from the current procedures whatever, that you say currently stops TB: "living up to our responsibilities".
Do all the other TB members all agree they are not meeting their responsibilities - or are you just sloppily using the Royal Plural seeing you are British - and not speaking for them as a group as you appear to be? I have not noticed any posts from the other saying they cannot work with the current rules is why I ask.
The insistence of some TB members of sneaking in extra wording about who may or may not be eligible to stand for TB is new. If you or others read back on the this entire 230 post thread, it is clearly the sticking point to this motion passing if all 9 TB members have a free vote on it.
If this motion fails just because some TB members refuse to remove that contentions wording you'll just have to "muddle on" forever with the Status Quo - as no TB member will ever be bothered to raise this again. IMHO.
.
Last edited by ozstamps; Sep 18, 2008 at 6:03 am
Sep 18, 2008 | 6:12 am
#229
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium, IHG Diamond, United Silver
Posts: 16,853
Sep 18, 2008 | 6:30 am
#230
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 69,201
I have noticed a strange thing about the usage of that phrase (often posted as "IJAFIBB"). It generally, as in this case, translates to "This whole issue is not important so you should give up your argument and instead accept what I am saying."
It never, ever, translates into "This issue is not important, so I am willing to agree to what you want."
It never, ever, translates into "This issue is not important, so I am willing to agree to what you want."
Sep 18, 2008 | 6:41 am
#231
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,847
I have noticed a strange thing about the usage of that phrase (often posted as "IJAFIBB"). It generally, as in this case, translates to "This whole issue is not important so you should give up your argument and instead accept what I am saying."
It never, ever, translates into "This issue is not important, so I am willing to agree to what you want."
It never, ever, translates into "This issue is not important, so I am willing to agree to what you want."
. I note that some posters still feel very inclined to make grand, emphatic statements about "democracy", feel entitled to speak on behalf of the "FT membership", seem to be wholly unaware that low level of participation in TB elections affect the "representativity" of TB, and do not seem to realise how utterly ridiculous and misplaced it is to make comparisons with Zimbabwe.Until Zanu-FT starts to knock at TBers or FTers doors and drag them out to be shot, I will still have difficulty not concluding that this is little more than an attempt at masking the paucity of the argument with misplaced overblown comparisons.
Sep 18, 2008 | 7:06 am
#232
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 69,201
Jenbel, oddly enough, during my two terms I never saw TalkBoard in that position.
In fact, back in 2005, when I first learned that there was a possibility that I would face a long hospitalization, I suggested on the private TB channel that instead of a member taking a long absence (over a month) and leaving TB with 8 members, that the next one in line for TB be allowed to replace him for tha period.
Not one other TB member thought it was a good idea. Look through the records and you will see that I was told that TB can function very well with 8 members.
Sep 18, 2008 | 7:17 am
#233
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ATL
Programs: DL, AA
Posts: 6,033
I have noticed a strange thing about the usage of that phrase (often posted as "IJAFIBB"). It generally, as in this case, translates to "This whole issue is not important so you should give up your argument and instead accept what I am saying."
It never, ever, translates into "This issue is not important, so I am willing to agree to what you want."
It never, ever, translates into "This issue is not important, so I am willing to agree to what you want."
I think I've been clear that I disagree with several sections of the guidelines as written. However, IJAIBB. Last week, I send the following PM to a TB member:
Originally Posted by scoow
I would rather see a version of the guidelines pass w/ the "suspension" clauses than not pass. In the big picture, it will affect VERY FEW people.
Sep 18, 2008 | 7:20 am
#234
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
Jenbel, oddly enough, during my two terms I never saw TalkBoard in that position.
In fact, back in 2005, when I first learned that there was a possibility that I would face a long hospitalization, I suggested on the private TB channel that instead of a member taking a long absence (over a month) and leaving TB with 8 members, that the next one in line for TB be allowed to replace him for tha period.
Not one other TB member thought it was a good idea. Look through the records and you will see that I was told that TB can function very well with 8 members.
In fact, back in 2005, when I first learned that there was a possibility that I would face a long hospitalization, I suggested on the private TB channel that instead of a member taking a long absence (over a month) and leaving TB with 8 members, that the next one in line for TB be allowed to replace him for tha period.
Not one other TB member thought it was a good idea. Look through the records and you will see that I was told that TB can function very well with 8 members.
Sep 18, 2008 | 7:27 am
#235
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in KOH LANTA,THAILAND!
Posts: 61,777
My preference at this point is to simply codify that which is already standard operating procedure in the guidelines, then consider changes to the current SOP on a case-by-case basis.
And btw, fwiw, hyperbole is an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally but rather used to grab attention and emphasize a point. I am pleased it worked.
And btw, fwiw, hyperbole is an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally but rather used to grab attention and emphasize a point. I am pleased it worked.
Sep 18, 2008 | 7:41 am
#236
Join Date: Jul 2000
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: 9,255
In fact, the vast majority of PM and e-mails I have received go something along the lines of "it's about time" and "some code of decorum for those that would volunteer to help FT should be equal among all volunteers" and "removing the ability of the Talkboard to play politics with and within it's membership is a good thing."
But hey, your silent majority might be different than mine.
Sep 18, 2008 | 8:05 am
#237
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 69,201
In fact, the vast majority of PM and e-mails I have received go something along the lines of "it's about time" and "some code of decorum for those that would volunteer to help FT should be equal among all volunteers" and "removing the ability of the Talkboard to play politics with and within it's membership is a good thing."
As a matter of interest, do you also favor equal public scrutiny of all volunteers?
As has been mentioned repeated in this thread, moderation can not be discussed. Do you agree with that? Do you feel, perhaps, that TalkBoard (and its members) should also not be discussed?
How about the policies which guide both moderation and TalkBoard? Do you feel that they should all be discussed openly?
Sep 18, 2008 | 8:24 am
#238
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in KOH LANTA,THAILAND!
Posts: 61,777
The entire silent majority that is in my inbox thinks that if it passes by so much as one vote, it's about time.
In fact, the vast majority of PM and e-mails I have received go something along the lines of "it's about time" and "some code of decorum for those that would volunteer to help FT should be equal among all volunteers" and "removing the ability of the Talkboard to play politics with and within it's membership is a good thing."
But hey, your silent majority might be different than mine.
In fact, the vast majority of PM and e-mails I have received go something along the lines of "it's about time" and "some code of decorum for those that would volunteer to help FT should be equal among all volunteers" and "removing the ability of the Talkboard to play politics with and within it's membership is a good thing."
But hey, your silent majority might be different than mine.
JOKE! I'm kidding. I'm just teasing my friend CluebyFour. I honor and value the hard work of our all of our volunteers. Please don't taze me, bro!!!!
Last edited by kokonutz; Sep 18, 2008 at 9:18 am
Sep 18, 2008 | 8:47 am
#239
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,847
Well, if you call making the whole debate look ridiculous and made at least this member look in despair at the same old, same old debate playing itself again and again and again at nauseam with the same ridiculous, overblown arguments, yes it has worked. I would personally have preferred statements that encourage intelligent debate that has some vague hope of moving forward, but to each their own.
Sep 18, 2008 | 9:03 am
#240
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
The entire silent majority that is in my inbox thinks that if it passes by so much as one vote, it's about time.
In fact, the vast majority of PM and e-mails I have received go something along the lines of "it's about time" and "some code of decorum for those that would volunteer to help FT should be equal among all volunteers" and "removing the ability of the Talkboard to play politics with and within it's membership is a good thing."
In fact, the vast majority of PM and e-mails I have received go something along the lines of "it's about time" and "some code of decorum for those that would volunteer to help FT should be equal among all volunteers" and "removing the ability of the Talkboard to play politics with and within it's membership is a good thing."
Hey, I'm on TB and fairly well known around these parts. And, to the best of my recall, I've never received one PM or e-mail in three years on any issue facing TB.
Oh wait, I did get an e-mail recently threatening to never vote for me again if I supported this issue.
So, anyway, why doesn't this silent yet passionate majority on FT ever bother to make their feelings known to a voting TB member? Enquiring minds want to know.......
NickB, my man, you need to seriously consider a run for TB this year. Your eloquence and grasp of the issues here would be most welcome.