|
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 14321679)
I am not sure that you have really thought this through. Imagine the situation where a TB member cannot participate in a particular vote for good reasons. Then comes another vote in which the same TB member abstains. The motion is defeated but comes back immediately after with a slightly different wording. As far as that TB member is concerned, that motion is essentially the same and (s)he abstains again. You therefore have three votes in which the TB member has not voted. This is hardly an outlandish example and it certainly does not show a clear case of dereliction of duty.
Missing 3 votes does not mean automatic removal. It means that the member may be removed. I doubt in the example you've provided that such a removal would be acted upon. I realize that there are many wild conspiracy theories afloat where TalkBoard members conspire to remove other TalkBoard members they don't like. In practice, they're fiction and I can't see any reasonable TalkBoard acting in such a manner. Other FlyerTalkers may feel differently, but I'm not going to accept wild conspiracy theories as a valid reason to change the way we tabulate votes. |
Originally Posted by tcook052
(Post 14320329)
Can you explain why you think the 2008 guidelines are unclear.
Originally Posted by jackal
(Post 14304033)
I've been reluctant to comment on this issue since I'm (obviously) new to TB procedural matters, and of course I haven't read the entire history of TB since 2001 to familiarize myself with developments. Plus, it's a touch OT from this thread.
However, I will say that last week when Randy invited me to participate on TalkBoard, I read through the TalkBoard guidelines as currently implemented. As I read the guidelines, I distinctly remember reading the section of the guidelines in question and understanding them to mean that an abstension would NOT count as an active vote and that therefore the threshold would be lowered. Obviously, it's not my place to interpret the TB guidelines (it's my understanding that's one of the president's duties), but I do want to point out that the current guidelines can be ambiguous and understood both ways. I would support a vote to clarify this issue, and at this point, I would lean towards agreeing with the view my fellow TB member B747-437B has expressed.
Originally Posted by jackal
(Post 14310224)
I don't disagree, but I still think there is a need to clarify the guidelines. As described in the analysis of RRO above, some organizations require a certain percentage of the body to vote (regardless of who shows up for the vote), while other organizations require a certain percentage of people present to vote or people participating in the vote. Without explicit clarity, I fear we're going to have the same debate next time about the word "present."
In any case, given the ambiguity with the words "present," "participating," and the like, I do think defining these words is something we should look at. |
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 14321804)
I have thought this through.
Other FlyerTalkers may feel differently, but I'm not going to accept wild conspiracy theories as a valid reason to change the way we tabulate votes. In any event, this is all by the by: it is rather more fruitful to address the substantive issues rather than trying to second-guess intentions. |
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 14321972)
In any event, this is all by the by: it is rather more fruitful to address the substantive issues rather than trying to second-guess intentions.
However, when it is suggested (and it often is in this forum) that some TB members "might try to oust" (paraphrased) a TB member and try to use a method like semi-forced missed votes, I tend to read that as being way too far-fetched to use as a valid reason for policy making. |
Originally Posted by jackal
(Post 14321836)
Without explicit clarity, I fear we're going to have the same debate next time about the word "present."
In any case, given the ambiguity with the words "present," "participating," and the like, I do think defining these words is something we should look at. I agree that it's simply a game of word substitution to replace abstain with present without better definitions. I felt the guidelines were clear enough in saying that casting an abstention met the threshold of participation and that as such a majority of two-thirds of all participating TB members was required to pass a motion. However, if more detailed TB guidelines with crystal clear definitions would satisfy all then working toward a consensus seems to make sense. And with that I'll abstain from future linguistic hair splitting for at least 48 hours. ;) |
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 14321679)
Perhaps there might be a case for a supermajority for changes to rules of procedures of TB, so what I would suggest would be:
1) simple majority of members (i.e 5) for ordinary votes 2) super majority of 2/3 of TB members (i.e. 6) for 'constitutional' amendments to TB's rules of procedure. |
Originally Posted by Dovster
(Post 14322493)
A simple majority might be sufficient for minor things like the US declaring war or passing its annual budget but it would never suffice for crucial matters like whether or not Malev should have its own forum.
|
Given the non-real-time nature of a bulletin board (necessitating lengthy voting periods--especially on a BB full of traveling people) and the fact that TalkBoard members are volunteers (and there WILL be, as there has even recently been, periods where members may not have the time to research and understand the full causes and ramifications of a motion), I still think there is some value to a way to register that you are not comfortable participating in a vote.
That said, Spiff did say that a member who does not wish to vote can contact the TB President to allow the vote to close earlier than it otherwise would, and so I am not entirely opposed to simply eliminating the third option (whether it be "abstain," "present," or whatever.), although I still believe there may be value to having that third option as I described above. I definitely do agree that abstentions should be rare events, and I myself do not currently plan on abstaining from any TB votes unless it represents a direct conflict of interest for me.
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 14321995)
However, when it is suggested (and it often is in this forum) that some TB members "might try to oust" (paraphrased) a TB member and try to use a method like semi-forced missed votes
And here I thought I was being so original! :D |
According to Robert's Rules of Order, an abstention is a non-vote. It does not count for any purpose. A vote of 1-0 with 99 abstentions, in a room of 100 people will pass a motion by majority vote or 2/3 vote. Abstainers count for a quorum if that matters (it doesn't here), but their votes do not count on either side.
The following, from the official Robert's FAQ site here, gives their position. (A Web search will turn up many more sources. The eight I checked all said the same thing in this regard.)
Originally Posted by Robert's Rules
The phrase "abstention votes" is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an "abstention vote."
In the usual situation, where either a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required, abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast. On the other hand, if the vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a "no" vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote. |
Originally Posted by Efrem
(Post 14336843)
According to Robert's Rules of Order, an abstention is a non-vote.
It does not count for any purpose. A vote of 1-0 with 99 abstentions, in a room of 100 people will pass a motion by majority vote or 2/3 vote. ...its rules are there because they have been shown over many years to work. Absent a good reason to be different, which I submit we don't have, we ought to follow them. |
Originally Posted by Efrem
(Post 14336843)
Abstainers count for a quorum if that matters (it doesn't here), but their votes do not count on either side.
|
Originally Posted by tcook052
(Post 14337429)
No, not for a quorum on FT but it does indicate the TB member participating in a decision even if it's to show nothing more than acknowledgement of the motion without casting a ballot for or against.
|
Originally Posted by Dovster
(Post 14337453)
Anybody who posts on this thread is participating in a decision to at least the same degree as a TB member who abstains but that does not mean we are voting -- and we certainly should not be counted as if we were.
If you favor a rewording of that section why not ask two TBers to propose an ammendment and debate the verbiage further? Should that happen perhaps other sections of the TB Guidelines should be subjected to as much scrutiny for similarly suspect script. |
Originally Posted by tcook052
(Post 14337904)
Should that happen perhaps other sections of the TB Guidelines should be subjected to as much scrutiny for similarly suspect script.
|
Originally Posted by B747-437B
(Post 14321662)
My head hurts.
Cheers. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:14 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.