I have long been an advocate of a TB that is responsive and responsible to the community of FT posters.

To that end I'd like to see the TB consider amending their guidelines to include a conflict of interest policy.

I think TB members should take a leave of absence from leadership roles at sites that compete with FT in the 'travel community space.' For example, MilePoint is a direct competitor to FT and there could be a conflict of interests to serve in a leadership capacity on both sites. To be clear, I am not saying there IS a conflict. I'm saying there is the perception of one and there clearly COULD be one.

Gleff seemed to acknowledge this when he resigned from the TB (and its presidency) to go work on a competing site.

I think that was the right thing to do and should it be made part of the TB Guidelines that TB members not take leadership positions on competing sites because, although it is entirely possible perfectly reasonable to love and post on both sites, I think that FT posters have a right to demand that their elected representatives be FTers first and foremost if they are going to represent us to the CD and IB.

And this would be doubly-troubling if a TB member had a financial interest in a competing site.

And MilePoint is only the current example. There have been FT clones and related sites in the past, including TireFlock, moremiles, etc.

I think our TB members should be required to focus their leadership role on our community if they want to lead us.

Good place to start the discussion. ^^

I wonder, though, if the bright line ought to be commercial vs. not-for-profit?

Being the "owner" of a Googlegroups listserv and its associated website for folks who love to travel to see the gerbils in Bangor is probably different from being a leader at TripAdvisor.

I think being a "leader" on "any" travel website is a bit too broad. Thoughts?

Who would decide what this subjective term means? Should we list all the specific titles on MP that are considered "leadership" material? For example, are milepoint guides considered "leaders" or regular members? What about other sights with different titles?

MHO is that it could serve as a deterrent to future TB members by asking them to chose between sites. Surely most TB candidates would exhibit the same common sense that gleff displayed that we shouldn't have to put it in writing.

I think the line ought to be more geared toward financial and competitive issues than a profit/nonprofit angle. And a definition of 'comeptitor' and/or 'direct competitor' would be required to resolve the listserv vs. IBB vs. whatever issue. It should be broad enough to include the Amex and specific airline communities but not things like mistake fare listservs, imho.

Here's a generic example of what it might look like


A TB member must avoid:

•Working with a business that is in direct competition with FT. [note: this does not preclude one from being a customer of a competitor, it means you should not be someone with responsibilities to a competitor]

•Accepting a gift from a competitor nor from any party that might have an expectation of quid-pro-quo vis a vis your TalkBoard responsibilities.

•Having a direct or indirect financial interest in or a financial relationship with a competitor (except for insignificant stock interests in publicly-held companies).

•Having a job or consulting relationship where your employer/client is a direct competitor.

•Using nonpublic information for your personal gain or advantage, or for the gain or advantage of a competitor.



Come to think of it, FT moderators ought to have a similar policy!!!! But of course, we don't talk about moderation or moderators here. Just a thought for the next time you guys are looking at your best practices document if you haven't already included them! @:-)

TB members have already been told that they will be sacked by the Community Director if they take leadership positions at MP. Seems like this is pretty much covered.

Indeed. TB members may serve at the election of the userbase, but at the discretion of the Community Director, Internet Brands and the Moderator corps. Any of the three have the ability to remove a TB member at any time at their sole discretion.

Waitaminute... The TB serves at the discretion of the moderator corps? The CD and IB are understandable, but the moderators being in charge of the TB smells like the police being in charge of the legislative branch... I know and understand that TB decisions are non-binding and could be overturned by the CD or IB, but am I understanding correctly that moderators could also overturn a TB recommendation? If not, I guess I'd like clarification on "serving at the discretion of the moderator corps".

I think B747 is referring to the reality that a 30 day suspension of a TB member by a moderator, could invalidate their ability to continue on the Board.

I hardly think that suspension perogative constitutes "the ability to remove a TB member at any time at their sole discretion" as the member/TBer would have to have done something to warrant a suspension which hardly makes it the capricious thing B747 tries to make it out to be.

Interesting. But gratifying. FT seems to be in very good hands. ^

I wonder if it still wouldn't make sense to make a conflict of interest policy part of the TB Guidelines.

Have you ever tried to appeal a suspension on FlyerTalk? Two years is about right before a final ruling is handed down. The moderators definitely have the ability to influence a vote via their ability to suspend members during a voting period, even if the suspension is subsequently overturned on appeal.

Moderators can (and do) abuse their powers infrequently and the TalkBoard therefore serves at the mercy of the moderator corps. I'd cite specific examples but that would just get me silenced again for daring to speak up against the untouchables.

+1000.

FWIW, it's no news that suspended TBer/s can still vote on TB motions. IIRC, 2008 was the last time it happened.

I have no idea what's behind the scene as far as appeal goes. But suspensions don't and can't stop a TBer to vote, as history has shown.

Repeating a specious theory won't make it any less specious.

soooooooooooo...how about we use this thread to talk about potentially adding a conflict of interest policy to the TB Guidelines....

Are there any TB members who support the notion?

Or are we comfortable with letting the CD and the TB members own consciences guide them in matters such as these?

FWIW...

ii. When an elected TalkBoard member receives a 30-day or permanent suspension from any FlyerTalk moderator during their term in office:

a. That suspension shall be automatically reviewed by the FlyerTalk Host or the FlyerTalk Host's appointed representative if the Host is unavailable and ruled upon within three business days. During this review the TalkBoard member may appeal directly to the FlyerTalk Host for the immediate privilege of access to the private TalkBoard forum for the sole purpose of conducting TalkBoard business including voting on motions. The FlyerTalk Host is not required to grant this access.
b. If that suspension is upheld by the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative, then the TalkBoard member shall be immediatedly removed from the TalkBoard for cause and will regain public forum posting privileges at the end of the suspension term.
c. If, after review, the suspension is overturned or reduced to a 7-day suspension by the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative then no further action will be taken and the member will be reinstated as a TalkBoard member with full posting privileges either immediately or at the conclusion of the 7-day suspension.
d. An affirmation of the suspension by the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative is required for removal from the TalkBoard for cause. If for any reason the FlyerTalk Host or the Host's appointed representative does not review and rule upon the suspension during the suspension then the TalkBoard member is not removed for cause.

***************************


Too many guidelines...personally, I believe if there is a conflict of interest, most folks would recuse themselves & if not, others would probably publically shame & embarrass them (or call for their removal). It's a self-policing system for this particular topic. And if it's not - I'm fully confident that there'd be at least one member out there who would bring it to the public's attention!