|
To help the remaining undecided TB members, I have tallied all the comments from everyone who has contributed to this thread and the "Talk Board is considering Term Limits" thread. (Forgive me if my count is slightly off.)
Total: For 44, Against 13 Breaking that down: TB Members: For 5, Against 2 Moderators: For 3, Against 5 Regular Members (non-mods): For 36, Against 6 Two TB members who are also mods participated in this discussion. Those votes are included in the TB tally and not the moderator tally. |
Originally Posted by Smaug
(Post 17685575)
To help the remaining undecided TB members, I have tallied all the comments from everyone who has contributed to this thread and the "Talk Board is considering Term Limits" thread. (Forgive me if my count is slightly off.)
Total: For 43, Against 14 Breaking that down: TB Members: For 4, Against 2 Moderators: For 3, Against 6 Regular Members (non-mods): For 36, Against 6 One TB member who is also a mod participated in this discussion. That vote is included in the TB tally and not the moderator tally. Need I say more:confused: |
Originally Posted by Smaug
(Post 17685575)
To help the remaining undecided TB members, I have tallied all the comments from everyone who has contributed to this thread and the "Talk Board is considering Term Limits" thread. (Forgive me if my count is slightly off.)
Total: For 43, Against 14 Breaking that down: TB Members: For 4, Against 2 Moderators: For 3, Against 6 Regular Members (non-mods): For 36, Against 6 One TB member who is also a mod participated in this discussion. That vote is included in the TB tally and not the moderator tally. I also don't think you have characterised the mods posting correctly, including myself. Many of us are not clear black and white on this issue. I like the proposal as made for example, but from some of the comments on this thread fear it is being done for the wrong reasons. So there are ScottC, Markie and nsx clearly in favour, then you have others like myself, wharvey, squeakr and Prospero who have expressed neither a clear preference, or have expressed some ambivalence about this proposal - but we've all been shoved into the outright 'No'. Is there a reason why you've mischaracterised my views so badly? :confused: |
Originally Posted by Smaug
(Post 17685575)
To help the remaining undecided TB members, I have tallied all the comments from everyone who has contributed to this thread and the "Talk Board is considering Term Limits" thread. (Forgive me if my count is slightly off.)
Total: For 43, Against 14 Breaking that down: TB Members: For 4, Against 2 Moderators: For 3, Against 6 Regular Members (non-mods): For 36, Against 6 One TB member who is also a mod participated in this discussion. That vote is included in the TB tally and not the moderator tally. |
Perhaps the Talk Board can consider activating the polling feature in the future to get a better sense of what the membership thinks about particular issues.
|
Originally Posted by Jenbel
(Post 17685886)
I think this is not that accurate. I see two TB/Mod members posting in this thread, not one.
I also don't think you have characterised the mods posting correctly, including myself. Many of us are not clear black and white on this issue. I like the proposal as made for example, but from some of the comments on this thread fear it is being done for the wrong reasons. If a member did not offer a strong opinion in either direction, I did not tally a vote from that person. So there are ScottC, Markie and nsx clearly in favour, then you have others like myself, wharvey, squeakr and Prospero who have expressed neither a clear preference, or have expressed some ambivalence about this proposal - but we've all been shoved into the outright 'No'. wharvey in post #33 says I am not a fan of term limits, I do trust that people vote for who they want to represent them... be it moderators or non-moderators or ambassadors. Prospero stated in post #87: Might I add, where is there any evidence of cronyism setting in on TB? Each year, the membership has elected in fresh representatives as well as re-elected experienced TB members. Does anyone seriously believe this mix is unhealthy? Is there a reason why you've mischaracterised my views so badly? :confused: |
Originally Posted by Jenbel
(Post 17685886)
Is there a reason why you've mischaracterised my views so badly? :confused:
Jenbel you make a very valid point that the support is actually stronger for the proposal than what it looks like. |
Originally Posted by tom911
(Post 17686107)
Perhaps the Talk Board can consider activating the polling feature in the future to get a better sense of what the membership thinks about particular issues.
|
I've already voted & voted against this. But, FWIW, I did a similar tally about a week ago & posted the following in the TB forum:
Originally Posted by bhatnasx in the TB forum
Here's what the numbers from the vote thread show:
A total of 24 non-TalkBoard members expressed specific thoughts. 19 of them supported the motion 5 of them do not support the motion Not that it should matter, but out of those people, 6 had been on FlyerTalk less than 18 months and the other 18 had been around much longer. Verdict? Of the members that see the announcements (and as of this writing, SanDiego1k's announcement has been viewed 2,258 times), only 1% of the members bothered to add their opinion (and for what it's worth, 11 out of the 24 people who posted, post regularly in the TalkBoard forum anyways - so really, the only "new traffic" was 13 members, IMHO). Out of those that bothered to post, the majority do want term limits. But given the fact that the majority who viewed the thread & are aware of our pending vote, didn't bother posting one way or another, my assumption is that they really don't give a crap. I've voted against this because I really do believe that the members are smart enough to make their own decisions and we should let them. And for what it's worth, I do not plan on running for TalkBoard again after my current term is up so this has absolutely no impact on me, personally. If this passes, neither nsx, nor Spiff will be able to be part of this board again when their terms are up...jackal, I believe you came on in July 2010, when Radioman was removed from the board - the way this is written, since you'll have served from July 2010 to theoretically November 2013, you too will not be able to run for another term since you'll have completed 3 out of 4 years of consecutive service. |
A referendum being suggested?
The boards I've seen usually has an attitude, "we're voted by the electorate.. if they don't like how we vote, then the members can always vote us out at the next AGM." I'm a bit surprised by how things go on a board.. just baffles me to the type of thinking adopted sometimes. I think consensus needs to built and achieved to the extent of changes if any, will be implemented by the board.. the proposal here seems static take it or leave it.. develop the idea to consensus to something that can be adopted for the long terms, instead of trying to revisit on a regular basis.. I hope the TalkBoard can have some discussions and dialogue on this.. |
Originally Posted by Smaug
(Post 17686121)
I also see that nsx has posted as well, but I did not see where that member has posted which direction that he/she (forgive me, I do not know) will vote. Also, nsx did not give a position during the recent campaign, which I also checked.
|
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 17688467)
Good research, except for one thing: I introduced this proposal. It would be unreasonable for me to oppose my own proposal! I have already voted for it.
|
Originally Posted by bhatnasx
(Post 17687463)
Of the members that see the announcements (and as of this writing, SanDiego1k's announcement has been viewed 2,258 times), only 1% of the members bothered to add their opinion...
2258 views are not 2258 members! Most or at least many members posting are subscribing and everytime they come back its a new view. Likely even a new view when you click on page 2 etc. I roughly estimate unique viewers to be 10% (others may have better figures for the ratio), which will give 10% bothering to post. With numbers at this size, also ratios tend to be quite accurate. At least I would say you would have the burden of proof choosing to neglect it. |
Originally Posted by travelkid
(Post 17689328)
Statistics are the most sophisticated lies:D
2258 views are not 2258 members! Most or at least many members posting are subscribing and everytime they come back its a new view. Likely even a new view when you click on page 2 etc. I roughly estimate unique viewers to be 10% (others may have better figures for the ratio), which will give 10% bothering to post. With numbers at this size, also ratios tend to be quite accurate. At least I would say you would have the burden of proof choosing to neglect it. I was not referring to this thread. I was referring to SanDiego1k's announcement - which at the time, announced this vote (and not the Texas forum vote). I realize it's views, not individual members, but I doubt too many members were re-reading the same announcement, once announced... As previously noted, my assumption is that most members don't really give a crap on this particular motion...at the end of the day, we're elected to represent the voters and what we believe to be in the best interest of FlyerTalk. I don't believe that limiting terms to 2 terms is necessarily in the best interest of FT. I'm not planning on running again either way - but if Spiff, nsx, or jackal - all who are very passionate TalkBoard member want to run again, I would have no issues with that - this motion prevents that. I don't always agree with them, but out of the 6 years that I've served on TalkBoard - I would say that the three of them (and probably Markie, kokonutz and Jenbel) are the most passionated TalkBoard members I've had the pleasure of serving with. I would hate to see FlyerTalk lose their passion even for 1 year if they wanted to contribute. And it's not to say that new members can't bring anything to the table, such as fresh ideas, but we've seen some members of recent TalkBoards be fairly useless and non-participating members, IMHO. |
Originally Posted by Ancien Maestro
(Post 17688352)
A referendum being suggested?
The boards I've seen usually has an attitude, "we're voted by the electorate.. if they don't like how we vote, then the members can always vote us out at the next AGM." I'm a bit surprised by how things go on a board.. just baffles me to the type of thinking adopted sometimes. I think consensus needs to built and achieved to the extent of changes if any, will be implemented by the board.. the proposal here seems static take it or leave it.. develop the idea to consensus to something that can be adopted for the long terms, instead of trying to revisit on a regular basis.. I hope the TalkBoard can have some discussions and dialogue on this.. As souvlaki stated, "I like this proposal as striking a reasonable balance between strict term limits and none at all. Strict term limits (2 and you are out) are a great way to handcuff an organization... why would you freeze out your best people for life when your membership wants to elect them? At the other end of the spectrum, no term limits can lead to stagnation due to the generally stubborn incumbency advantage. This proposal requires regular refreshing, allowing new people to prove (or disprove) themselves while providing a minimal level of frustration of voter preference since the disqualification period is very brief." I'm also pleased to see that we've had a # of new (to the forum, and no disrespect to the regulars) FTers weigh in on the term limits issue. When looking at normal FTers views (neither mod nor TB), they are indeed supportive of TB term limits. Cheers. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:35 am. |
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.