I have thought this through.

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.

The fact that I misread it at first and that people here are arguing over its meaning--NickB's excellent post discusses that--forces me to believe it's not clear.

Well, your post suggested that 3 missed/abstained votes was a clear sign of an "elected representative who really cannot or will not do his/her job". I am glad you clarified that you did not mean what your post implied.

What conspiracy theory? I have a deep aversion to conspiracy theories, which means that I have an equal aversion to second level conspiracy theories (i.e. conspiracy theories about the existence of a conspiracy theory).

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.

I concur.

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.

Thanks for sharing the quotes.

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.

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.

You're definitely not convincing me by using the US Congress as a poster boy for good voting or decision-making!

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.

You mean I wasn't the first to say that?!

And here I thought I was being so original!

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.)

I am not suggesting that FT or anyone else should follow Robert's just because it's Robert's, but 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.

Thank you. That's why it's called abstaining

Actually, in that situation you can legitimately claim that the vote in favor was unanimous.

Well said.

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.

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.

Yes, abstaining does not equal voting. Yes, according to the TB Guidelines abstaining does constitute participation. Yes, according to TB Guidelines a motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote �yes.' Not two-thirds of those voting either for or against the motion, two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote.

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.

Any section of the Guidelines which is not absolutely clear should be reviewed and reworded -- I completely agree with you on that.

Ditto! I've been away from the thread for a week. Just got caught up & now my head hurts. Is it too early for a drink? She looks at clock - it's after 12pm, so nope I'll look forward to how this all turns out. Hopefully everyone will agree on abstain & is at some point.

Cheers.