Dovster

The specific thread to which I referred occured in 2005 -- 6 years ago.

I could cite other, later, threads in which the pettiness of some moderators was evident.

In one case, at least two mods came onto the thread to express their disgust at what others had posted. I know that both you and Randy were familiar with this particular thread as you both posted on it.

To be absolutely clear neither one of you was involved in the gossiping and sniping in this thread and, in fact, Randy stopped it.

Still, the very fact that it existed, and the moderators who were the most offensive remained moderators for years afterwards, shows that personal attacks, which were made where 80+ mods could read them, did not result in any action being taken against the mods involved.

That thread, like the one I mentioned earlier, and others which I could cite, demonstrate to me why I believe that even the best moderators would not like to have the warts revealed.

That being said, I do believe that the change to only allowing moderators of a specific forum to see threads involving that forum was a major step towards cleaning up the private forum.

tcook052

Was there any discussion given to shorter voting period in version II of the TB Guidelines adopted in '08? And if sowhy was two weeks the consensus?

I'd be curious to learn how many times in the calendar year the balloting went the full two weeks as stat.'s like that would help confirm of refute claims of inefficiency.

Ironically it was after all your motion that adopted the current set of TB Guidelines so one could wonder why you're concerned about inefficiencies you helped create.

kipper

Why not try? If you try, you might be surprised how it turns out with a new TalkBoard. You might be correct, but it also tells the members who voted for or against it. If enough people feel strongly that TalkBoard should change to a simple majority, then perhaps those who voted against it will find themselves no longer on TalkBoard after the next election cycle.

The general attitude that motions should be hammered out before being proposed for voting and that there should be consensus on motions is really rather, well, disappointing to some extent. I would rather see votes on issues, even if it will not pass, because then, when elections roll around again, I know, as a voter, who supported the issues I support and who did not, and have a better idea of who deserves my vote.

nsx

You did not notice that I did exactly this on the current term limits proposal? I'm the loudest advocate for consensus before voting, but some big questions deserve a vote if there is a decent chance to pass or, as you say, if it's important to know where the TB members stand. For small issues, it's not worth damaging the team atmosphere to force votes. JMO.

RichMSN

I'd give it some time. I suspect there will be a vote on this and many other things once the holidays are behind us.

kipper

As a voter, I would like to know where my representatives stand on all issues, and not have them determine what the big or small issues are for me. I'd rather leave that up to each voter to determine what the big issues are to them.
I figured that with the holidays and such, things would take a bit. I'm not complaining about the speed of things just yet.

kokonutz

Guilt. Guilt over how inefficient those guidelines turned out to be drives me to fix them.

IIRC, the 2 weeks was a long-standing tradition that was simply codified by the guidelines.

Recall that in 2008 (when the guidelines were written) and before, BlackBerrys were fairly common but not nearly as ubiquitous as iPhones, iPads and Androids are today, meaning there was a certain quaint notion that one had to be in front of a computer to engage in TB business. That is obviously no longer the case.

Jenbel

Actually, it gets ridiculous when not enough time is given to getting the wording correct, voting starts, and then someone points out a problem with the wording. I'd rather TB spent time getting it right first than spend time chucking things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Some of us care about FT, and don't want change for change sakes' - we want change which will improve the experience, not inadvertently make it worse as the implications for a motion were not thought through first.

We've had situations where something has been voted and then had to be reworded because it was cocked up - it isn't pretty.

Jenbel

In 2008, we had a member who frequently voted at the very last minute because that was their right and entitlement, even when they knew they were holding up the process..... I doubt we'd have got consensus to make the limit less than 2 weeks.

And also connectivity has come on leaps and bounds since then.

tcook052

Granted though am still curious as to how many TB votes went the full two weeks this year.

kipper

I don't believe I said I didn't want time being given to getting the wording correct, I said that the thought of, "Must build consensus before voting begins," was disappointing.

Thanks for saying I don't care about FT.

SkiAdcock

Can only speak for when I've been on board, but we haven't really had anyone try to stretch things out for 2 weeks just to stretch things out. Knowing the current board, I don't see them doing the stretching just to stretch either.

Sometimes votes will go quickly; sometimes they don't, because TB members want to garner the most input before casting their vote. It's the name of the game, and varies with each vote/topic.

"Hot button" issues have a tendency to go longer in the voting process than somewhat more mundane ones - and that's fine.

I have no problem w/ the 2 week timeframe. For one thing, it gives us time to listen to our constituents - FTers - their pros/cons/ideas. Sometimes the input is repetitive (which actually can help in either direction), but sometimes people post additional info that really provides good input that we might not get if we shut it down sooner.

And yes, the 2 week timeframe DOES take into consideration the fact that TB members have 'real lives' & sometimes FT/TB isn't #1 on their agenda for the day or a few days, or they don't have internet access.

Recently I was off FT for a few days due to work; I know we have another TB member who is off for a few. And even if I have email/internet access, doesn't mean I can spend limited available time on FT. Reading all the threads for input and/or responding can take up quite a bit of time. And yes, there are times when TB members are w/o i-net, whether it be because they're on vacation (and not checking work or FT), or they're somewhere where i-net is not available (such as where I'll be next week & where a dif TB member was this summer).

I'm an active TB member, both in the public & private forums. I try to participate as much as possible. But I'm never going to apologize for not being available 24/7/365.

Having 2 weeks available allows for input by FTers and also allows for real-life stuff. I don't see a need to shorten the timeframe just because some are ADD

Cheers.

Jenbel

Oh I'm sorry, I must have read your statement:
wrongly. Did you not mean to say that time should not be spent hammering out motions? Perhaps an edit to make your meaning clearer could be beneficial?

Jenbel

But then TB has been similarly bad at times, hasn't it Dovster? There was certainly that motion you wanted to make, and indeed which I offered to second, which, had it seen the light of day (and that is why I said I'd second it) would have caused much consternation when the members saw what or indeed who was the subject of conversation on the private forum and how it/they were being discussed.

Since you are busy revealing what you have seen - illicitly - on old threads from TT, perhaps it's also a good idea to delve into the mirkier side of TB, the stuff that some of the TB members wouldn't want revealed to the public? Incidents like that I am talking around above... or the times TB members lied on the public forum about what they had said/done on the private forum and if we tried to enlighten the membership, they used the 'confidentiality' clause to silence us?

I'm very sorry to drag up such ancient history... I consider it in the past and TB has thankfully moved on since then - but I do think that it's only fair to bring this up if you are castigating mods for their behaviour in the past, just to show that neither side has been without sin.

Dovster

Let's be clear about exactly what that motion was. It was not gossip -- it involved a member (to be exact, a person who was a moderator at the time) who repeatedly made posts in TB Topics threads which resulted in those threads being shut down.

After this happened quite a few times, and the TB Topics moderators at the time did not take disciplinary action against him, but continued to lock otherwise valid threads, I felt that TB should take action in order to keep TB Topics from being basically shut down by this one member.

I suggested that we pass a motion blocking him from participating in TB Topics. As there were enough moderators on TB to stop any such action ("it is not in our purview") it would clearly be impossible to get the motion passed, so it was not made.