Motion Passed: "Amend TalkBoard Guidelines: Requirements for Motions to Pass"
Jul 27, 2011, 11:45 am
#16
Moderator, Marriott Bonvoy & FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: McKinney, TX, USA
Programs: United Silver; AA Plat/2MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Hilton Gold
Posts: 11,727
Given that the current interpretation was enabled due to a "mistake" in the wording and that an earlier TB actually voted to put something very similar to this wording in plase, it makes sense.
Jul 28, 2011, 8:30 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DCA
Programs: AMC MovieWatcher, Giant BonusCard, Petco PALS Card, Silver Diner Blue Plate Club
Posts: 22,297
The current wording was intentional, not a mistake. Trust me, I was there. 
Jul 28, 2011, 8:38 am
#18
Moderator Hilton Honors, Travel News, West, The Suggestion Box, Smoking Lounge & DiningBuzz
Join Date: Jun 2000
Programs: Honors Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, National Exec Elite
Posts: 36,018
This treatment departs from Robert's Rules of Order:
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."
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."
And devoid of meaning, since "to abstain" means "to not vote." You can't vote and not vote at the same time.
I have no problems with putting it that way. Opting to abstain from voting in no way is logically inconsistent with participating in a meeting (physically or online) in which a vote is held.
But calling an abstention [from voting] a kind of vote is just not logically or grammatically possible.
If the options were yes/no/present then there would be no question about the meaning (or lack thereof) of the term or whether someone "participated."
I have no problems with putting it that way. Opting to abstain from voting in no way is logically inconsistent with participating in a meeting (physically or online) in which a vote is held.
But calling an abstention [from voting] a kind of vote is just not logically or grammatically possible.
If the options were yes/no/present then there would be no question about the meaning (or lack thereof) of the term or whether someone "participated."
I love a good oxymoron as much as the rest of you, but the TB Guidelines ought to at least use the English language in a way that doesn't torture it's plain meaning. You cannot vote and not vote (which is what abstain [from voting]) means!) at the same time.
There are less embarrasingly mangled ways to indicate that a member has "participated" in the opportunity to vote.
Indeed. And more, it's not just "confusing," it's illogical, self-contradictory, and devoid of any meaning.
If you have a beer with dinner you cannot simultaneously claim to have not had a drink with dinner.
There are less embarrasingly mangled ways to indicate that a member has "participated" in the opportunity to vote.
Indeed. And more, it's not just "confusing," it's illogical, self-contradictory, and devoid of any meaning.
If you have a beer with dinner you cannot simultaneously claim to have not had a drink with dinner.
Let's try some logic.
You assert that is not the case that "not voting and abstaining is the same thing."
If that were true, then logically it follows that it will be possible to speak a meaningful sentence that asserts both predicates (or the negation of either predicate) of a given subject without a) contradiction or b) being tautalogous
Let's try:
"X didn't vote, but X abstained from voting" Tautology.
"X voted, but X abstained from voting" Contradiction
"X voted, but X didn't abstain from voting" Tautology
"X didn't vote, but X did not abstain from voting" Contradiction.
You have made an unargued stipulative definition that to "abstain" from voting means something like "to choose not to vote yes or no when present for the occasion of such a vote." You contrast this with not voting because one is not present for a meeting or occasion to vote. Both cases turn on a more nuanced understanding of volition than you are offering.
I believe that this whole problem is in part due to the the way the TB procedures are worded. If they cohered with Roberts Rules they would be much less open to problematic interpretations due to such logically silly neologisms like "abstention ballots."
While such slams are perhaps rhetorically effective, with all respect that is due, clarification of what our language means is the issue -- because if we don't have clarity then everything that follows -- as seems obvious here -- is equally opaque.
It would be helpful if TB, imo, tightened up the language of its procedures.
You assert that is not the case that "not voting and abstaining is the same thing."
If that were true, then logically it follows that it will be possible to speak a meaningful sentence that asserts both predicates (or the negation of either predicate) of a given subject without a) contradiction or b) being tautalogous
Let's try:
"X didn't vote, but X abstained from voting" Tautology.
"X voted, but X abstained from voting" Contradiction
"X voted, but X didn't abstain from voting" Tautology
"X didn't vote, but X did not abstain from voting" Contradiction.
You have made an unargued stipulative definition that to "abstain" from voting means something like "to choose not to vote yes or no when present for the occasion of such a vote." You contrast this with not voting because one is not present for a meeting or occasion to vote. Both cases turn on a more nuanced understanding of volition than you are offering.
I believe that this whole problem is in part due to the the way the TB procedures are worded. If they cohered with Roberts Rules they would be much less open to problematic interpretations due to such logically silly neologisms like "abstention ballots."
While such slams are perhaps rhetorically effective, with all respect that is due, clarification of what our language means is the issue -- because if we don't have clarity then everything that follows -- as seems obvious here -- is equally opaque.
It would be helpful if TB, imo, tightened up the language of its procedures.
No, not really. The notion of a "vote to abstain" is simply fundamentally incoherent, self-contradictory, and oxymoronic. That's not a slur or value judgment, it's just the way the language and logic works here.
I think the intent of the rule is to give those who have in fact participated in the meeting regarding the issue that leads to a vote a way to show that they have done so even if they don't wish to register an affirmative or negative vote.
So, changing the word "abstain" to "present" would solve a lot of the problem that this inadvertent, no doubt, misuse of language has created.
I think the intent of the rule is to give those who have in fact participated in the meeting regarding the issue that leads to a vote a way to show that they have done so even if they don't wish to register an affirmative or negative vote.
So, changing the word "abstain" to "present" would solve a lot of the problem that this inadvertent, no doubt, misuse of language has created.
I'm confused.
To "abstain" is to abstain from voting. I.e., to not vote. If you don't vote, then you haven't "participated" in a vote -- you've simply failed to vote. An "abstention" is not some third kind of vote; it's not to vote at all.
Some of the confusion, istm, comes from somehow thinking that an "abstention" is in fact a vote of some sort -- but that would be an oxymoron: a vote which is not a vote.
To "abstain" is to abstain from voting. I.e., to not vote. If you don't vote, then you haven't "participated" in a vote -- you've simply failed to vote. An "abstention" is not some third kind of vote; it's not to vote at all.
Some of the confusion, istm, comes from somehow thinking that an "abstention" is in fact a vote of some sort -- but that would be an oxymoron: a vote which is not a vote.
Yes, but it just seems ripe for confusion to use a word that means "not-to-vote" to indicate a vote.
And this is hardly a "fine print" thing, but fundamental to the very concept of knowing what it means to do business.
Voting to not vote (which IS what the language says) is either unnecessarily confusing, an oxymoron, or a distinction without a difference.
What the word "abstain" here is clearly meant to imply is that one was present for the discussion.
But misusing the notion of "voting" to indicate that may be indicative of part of the problem the TB is having in terms of, uh, clarity issues.
And this is hardly a "fine print" thing, but fundamental to the very concept of knowing what it means to do business.
Voting to not vote (which IS what the language says) is either unnecessarily confusing, an oxymoron, or a distinction without a difference.
What the word "abstain" here is clearly meant to imply is that one was present for the discussion.
But misusing the notion of "voting" to indicate that may be indicative of part of the problem the TB is having in terms of, uh, clarity issues.
Jul 28, 2011, 9:05 am
#19
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,585
Jul 28, 2011, 9:55 am
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DCA
Programs: AMC MovieWatcher, Giant BonusCard, Petco PALS Card, Silver Diner Blue Plate Club
Posts: 22,297
The purpose of the rule as it was written is to say than any change adopted by the TalkBoard must have the actual support of 2/3rds of its members. The very idea is to create a high bar to change.
The idea, then, is not to allow changes that effect the community to sneak through, but instead to encourage TalkBoard members to work hard at creating consensus, developing proposaks that are in the clear and overwhelming interest of the community, and not passing narrow agendas.
It's no longer my fight, but I did want to explain that contrary to some impressions it wasn't just a 'mistake', and while you may feel it's stupid it's not obvious to everyone that the idea is a stupid one.
I haven't re-thought the issue in a long time, so don't even want to express an opinion here, just wanted to offer the historical context on the thinking behind the outcome.
Best to all!
The idea, then, is not to allow changes that effect the community to sneak through, but instead to encourage TalkBoard members to work hard at creating consensus, developing proposaks that are in the clear and overwhelming interest of the community, and not passing narrow agendas.
It's no longer my fight, but I did want to explain that contrary to some impressions it wasn't just a 'mistake', and while you may feel it's stupid it's not obvious to everyone that the idea is a stupid one.
I haven't re-thought the issue in a long time, so don't even want to express an opinion here, just wanted to offer the historical context on the thinking behind the outcome.
Best to all!
Jul 28, 2011, 10:01 am
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,919
You, as a TalkBoard member, undertook the task of codifying the Guidelines. At that time, an abstention did not count as a "no" by specific vote of TalkBoard.
When you wrote the new Guidelines, was it your intention to make this a "cowards no"? Did you purposely put into the Guidelines what you call an "illogical stupidity"?
Or did you not realize that what you wrote would later be interpreted to make an abstention a "no"?
Jul 28, 2011, 12:27 pm
#22
Moderator, Marriott Bonvoy & FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: McKinney, TX, USA
Programs: United Silver; AA Plat/2MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Hilton Gold
Posts: 11,727
Jul 28, 2011, 8:36 pm
#23
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,585
I am confused.
You, as a TalkBoard member, undertook the task of codifying the Guidelines. At that time, an abstention did not count as a "no" by specific vote of TalkBoard.
When you wrote the new Guidelines, was it your intention to make this a "cowards no"? Did you purposely put into the Guidelines what you call an "illogical stupidity"?
Or did you not realize that what you wrote would later be interpreted to make an abstention a "no"?
You, as a TalkBoard member, undertook the task of codifying the Guidelines. At that time, an abstention did not count as a "no" by specific vote of TalkBoard.
When you wrote the new Guidelines, was it your intention to make this a "cowards no"? Did you purposely put into the Guidelines what you call an "illogical stupidity"?
Or did you not realize that what you wrote would later be interpreted to make an abstention a "no"?
Or maybe I made a drafting error?
Or maybe I made a drafting ambiguity and gleff and his co-thinkers simply took advantage of that by their interpretation of the words in the guidelines?
Someone currently on the TB could easily look at the record from the drafting debates and figure that out (one more reason why, imho, the private TB forum should be open on a read-only basis to all posters!!).
In any case, counting an abstention as a vote, however it ended up in the guidelines, is stupid, illogical and a coward's no, however I was involved in it getting codified! @:-)
Jul 29, 2011, 12:26 am
#24
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,618
1. The 2/3 requirement began in 2001. Apparently there was no Abstain option prior to adoption of the 2/3 requirement. It was just yes or no.
2. The Abstain option was added as an afterthought, also in 2001.
3. Apparently the Abstain choice was being counted as a vote, which made it the functional equivalent of No. I found one post contradicting this, saying that from 2001 to 2008 abstentions were not included in the denominator when evaluating the 2/3 threshold. However I believe that post is incorrect based on my next item.
4. In 2005 there was a proposal to exclude Abstain from the denominator. It failed. There was an attempt to remove the abstain option which also failed.
5. When you drafted the guidelines, you were influenced by our use of the Poll feature just as everyone before you had been. That format makes it appear that Abstain is a vote, but it is only an action. It's a non-vote according to Robert's but the current guidelines call it a vote. That is the error.
Note that because the Abstain choice is functionally equivalent to a No vote, a member who has a conflict of interest and needs to abstain cannot in good conscience choose Abstain. That choice would influence the vote, having the same effect as voting No. Instead, members with conflicts must refrain from making any choice, including Abstain.
To truly abstain, you cannot select Abstain. This absurd situation shows the need for this proposal.
Last edited by nsx; Jul 29, 2011 at 1:02 am
Jul 29, 2011, 1:05 am
#25
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,919
The TalkBoard has passed, 7-2 a motion that for purposes of TalkBoard votes, only "Yes" and "No" votes will be considered when calculating whether a vote passes or fails. Abstentions and non-voting will be noted but will not be considered in the vote total.
Voting yes: attorney28, Dovster, kempis, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Voting no: gleff, Starwood Lurker
Voting yes: attorney28, Dovster, kempis, missydarlin, ScottC, Spiff, wharvey
Voting no: gleff, Starwood Lurker
Jul 29, 2011, 1:15 am
#26
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,618
My guess: The huge Guidelines task overtaxed the TalkBoard. It's our job now to fix it.
Jul 29, 2011, 1:42 am
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR S (former 75K, GLD, 1K, and S+, now an elite peon)
Posts: 23,194
Thanks, nsx, for doing the legwork to put this proposal forward and research the historical progression of this idea.
For the reasons you've clearly outlined in this proposal, it makes absolute sense to me to pass this proposal, and I'm disheartened to see several TalkBoard members opposing it with no logical backing.
For those (like Markie) who wish to see the abstain option go away entirely, how about supporting this proposal to "fix" the meaning of the word "abstain" (as well as adding in the useful language to require a majority of TalkBoard to support any proposal) and then proposing a separate motion to delete the "abstain" option? Then we can be sure to at least have something that makes sense, regardless of how that later vote goes.
For the reasons you've clearly outlined in this proposal, it makes absolute sense to me to pass this proposal, and I'm disheartened to see several TalkBoard members opposing it with no logical backing.
For those (like Markie) who wish to see the abstain option go away entirely, how about supporting this proposal to "fix" the meaning of the word "abstain" (as well as adding in the useful language to require a majority of TalkBoard to support any proposal) and then proposing a separate motion to delete the "abstain" option? Then we can be sure to at least have something that makes sense, regardless of how that later vote goes.
Jul 29, 2011, 4:42 am
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DCA
Programs: AMC MovieWatcher, Giant BonusCard, Petco PALS Card, Silver Diner Blue Plate Club
Posts: 22,297
The reason it the change was adopted was because it was a key element of obtaining support from TalkBoard members for the overall package of guidelines. The guidelines project wasn't just codifying existing procedures, it was laying out in some cases new procedures where existing practice was silent, and also adopting procedures that the group as a whole was comfortable with going forward.
At the time one of my key issues for the new guidelines was precisely that there would be a high hurdle for the TalkBoard to meet to make changes. That's what this was about.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding to say 'an abstention counts as a no vote'. In the current voting scheme all that matters are yes votes. The only question is, can a proposal garner support from 2/3rds of the members of the TalkBoard?
Not 2/3rds of those casting a vote. But rather, 6 elected members of the community. The idea behind it is any proposal which couldn't garner 6 votes needed to go back to the drawing board until it could.
That was very intentional, it wasn't a drafting mistake, it wasn't something everyone liked but it was a compromise that folks like koko who didn't really like it at the time were willing to live with.
And as for opening up the TalkBoard forum, wouldn't help in this instance, since a lot of the discussions were held in the Hohokam Board Room at the Arizona Biltmore.
Now, perhaps the community and the current TalkBoard wants to lower the bar for making changes. That's the decision y'all would be making in changing the procedures. And that's this group's perogative. I just thought it would be useful to come by and explain some of the history, that the narrative that the current procedure was some sort of mistake, a drafting error, an historical anomaly isn't really correct. (Koko may think the high bar to change embedded in the procedure is 'stupid,' but it's certainly not 'illogical' and there were/are real arguments for it.) It was a specific procedure to meet a specific goal, and this new proposed procedure shifts to a different goal.
And for more historical context, 'President for Life' was a moniker once used in jest by cigarman who preceded missydarlin as TalkBoard President, who of course preceded me. A few folks who didn't like that the TalkBoard re-elected me several times used cigarman's comment about himself as a pejoraitve about me. Love you too, koko! :P
At the time one of my key issues for the new guidelines was precisely that there would be a high hurdle for the TalkBoard to meet to make changes. That's what this was about.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding to say 'an abstention counts as a no vote'. In the current voting scheme all that matters are yes votes. The only question is, can a proposal garner support from 2/3rds of the members of the TalkBoard?
Not 2/3rds of those casting a vote. But rather, 6 elected members of the community. The idea behind it is any proposal which couldn't garner 6 votes needed to go back to the drawing board until it could.
That was very intentional, it wasn't a drafting mistake, it wasn't something everyone liked but it was a compromise that folks like koko who didn't really like it at the time were willing to live with.
And as for opening up the TalkBoard forum, wouldn't help in this instance, since a lot of the discussions were held in the Hohokam Board Room at the Arizona Biltmore.
Now, perhaps the community and the current TalkBoard wants to lower the bar for making changes. That's the decision y'all would be making in changing the procedures. And that's this group's perogative. I just thought it would be useful to come by and explain some of the history, that the narrative that the current procedure was some sort of mistake, a drafting error, an historical anomaly isn't really correct. (Koko may think the high bar to change embedded in the procedure is 'stupid,' but it's certainly not 'illogical' and there were/are real arguments for it.) It was a specific procedure to meet a specific goal, and this new proposed procedure shifts to a different goal.
And for more historical context, 'President for Life' was a moniker once used in jest by cigarman who preceded missydarlin as TalkBoard President, who of course preceded me. A few folks who didn't like that the TalkBoard re-elected me several times used cigarman's comment about himself as a pejoraitve about me. Love you too, koko! :P
Last edited by gleff; Jul 29, 2011 at 5:38 am Reason: grammar
Jul 29, 2011, 5:25 am
#29
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
Having sat on the TB during those deliberations about the guidelines, I do think this got lost a little bit in more contentitious issues. I don't recall much discussion on it, but I have been informed I was in favour of the current interpretation at that time.
I actually think that if I was, then I was wrong. I think we've seen too many examples of the cowards no to allow people to continue to block motions by abstaining and I think the changes described still set a high bar to change, but one which is not insurmountable.
If you are against a motion, vote against it. It still won't pass, but you might have to explain your vote to us.
I actually think that if I was, then I was wrong. I think we've seen too many examples of the cowards no to allow people to continue to block motions by abstaining and I think the changes described still set a high bar to change, but one which is not insurmountable.
If you are against a motion, vote against it. It still won't pass, but you might have to explain your vote to us.
Jul 29, 2011, 9:55 am
#30
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,585
I agree with Jenbel: whatever the history of it, we left it a mess.
Thanks for trying to fix it! ^
gleff, you're still my TB's President! And to your specific point, to me what is stupid is not about where the bar is set...it's about having two ways of voting no. That's what is stupid. That said, I'm also in favor of notching the threshold to get things fixed/changed down a half-peg or whatever the math on this ends up being. ^
Thanks for trying to fix it! ^
gleff, you're still my TB's President!
And to your specific point, to me what is stupid is not about where the bar is set...it's about having two ways of voting no. That's what is stupid. That said, I'm also in favor of notching the threshold to get things fixed/changed down a half-peg or whatever the math on this ends up being. ^
