Recommendations for TB Election
 

I would suggest to TB (due to the timing, likely the new TB) to have a look into the "rules" for election.

I did read the headlines for all TB votes for the last years to find the current rules. This is the last vote I found;
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-...-election.html

Before I propose improvements, is this the current version? I saw a link yesterday on this forum but either Im blind or its redacted?

I would like to see an interactive election forum where the members could ask follow up questions of the candidates. I would have enjoyed the chance to ask some candidates follow-up questions in the election forum, and I do see some interaction among candidates there, but members do not have the opportunity to ask candidates to expand on their answers.

I would also like to see a rule that those candidates that don't participate in the public election forum be removed from the ballot prior to voting.

I think the first would improve the election process.

While I understand the thought of removing those who don't participate from the ballot, I don't know that I'm comfortable with that, in part because there may be unusual circumstances that render a candidate unable to participate in the debate, but able to serve if elected.

The rules are not hard to find. There's a sticky thread entitled "What is the TalkBoard" and the guidelines are posted there, near the top of the thread.

I'm happy to hear proposed improvements, but as far as I'm concerned, the TB is in limbo until the new members are seated. Anything else would be unfair and unwieldy at this point.

Heartily disagree. One of best TB members ever had these thoughtful and apt remarks about his not participating in the debate.

I completely agree with you.

Is there a full moon!?! :D

As far as I know, there's nothing stopping anyone from posting a question or follow-up question in this forum with a request that it be answered in a specific thread in the candidates-only subforum by any candidates who wish to do so. @:-)

In other words, TalkBoard Topics can advance further discussion by non-candidates as needed, even during the campaign. Especially if the candidates reply in the candidates-only subforum rather than here.

This is just my opinion since I don't moderate this forum and since I'm not running for re-election this year (or next year either due to the term limits I managed to corral 6 votes for a year ago).

I agree 100% on the first part but as to the second part, I would say that it is, for whatever reason, up to the candidate to post or not (and if they choose not to post [as noted by example by cblaisd], give a reason for not participating) and then it's up to the members to decide if they want to vote for that candiate

Couldn't tell you as it's raining in San Francisco ;)

Many times I wanted to do the same while reading the questions forum, then reminded myself that there's only one opportunity to make a good first impression. A candidate being unable to fully address a question in the space provided usually resulted in my crossing him/her off my list of possible voting choices.

What I'd actually like to see is the tolerance level for what appear to be joke candidates lowered significantly. It simply wastes time for those who are seriously looking for information upon which to base their votes.

Perhaps but determining a sufficient level of seriousness would overcomplicate the TB election process with more rules I don't feel are necessary given the rare number of these candidates.

TB can be a mite serious at times and I'll only add a little levity couldn't hurt on occasion, at least IMHO.

Couldn't agree more.

I disagree, since to me this can be an indication of how they will interact after being elected. Also, "participation" would have to be defined. Would one word or brief answers in the election forum qualify? This happened in the past.


Sorry, I don't need an arbiter to act on my behalf to decide if someone is to be taken seriously.

Sounds like the Ignore feature in the MyFlyerTalk area would be of excellent use here. ;)

Meaning a nomination process:D I do understand what you mean though.

I think better scroll past any "trolls", and let those wanting have a laugh.

Hard to control or censor. Problem is the opposite, too little involvment and postings.

However, if this becomes a big problem, like a group of members just want to make fun of the election, and totally blast the debate forum, we will need some cooperation from mods and CD. Even though mods have limited moderations powers on the debate forum, we are still bound by TOS, so off-topic posts/comments could be deleted.

Not a bad idea (if it works on the limited forum as well, as I suppose it does).

Most of the debates doesnt have more than 20-30 posts this year so it cant be that big of a problem, but as soon as you identify posters you dont want to support starting at question 1, you could put them on ignore list.

Some might not have candidates left at the end though:D

Side effect is of course that you ignore them in all other forums as well.