CMK10

The private forum can be a good thing for helping craft the exact wording that goes into a vote, discussion issues affecting TB in the public forum and for handling internal business. As the others have said, this doesn't mean I have anything to hide, I just find it to be an effective tool for TB business.

That said, I have no issues with the discussion of whom didn't vote on what spilling out here. The FT community should know about obstinacy so they can make up their mind how to vote in the next go around.

bdschobel

For sure.

Bruce

SkiAdcock

Your username was not posted by bdschobel until after you posted. He said she (and there are 2 women serving on TB , so it could have been the other one). He probably should have made it generic, such as we're waiting on "a" TB member, but that's water under the bridge at this point. Moving forward I'm sure TB members will be more generic.

Give me a break on the stalking. Find more posts can be very helpful. I've seen FTers post good info on forums & am interested in where else they might post, so sometimes I'll click on find more posts. I don't think it can be disabled & isn't really something I'd ask IB to devote time to, as there are other more important things I'd like to see them implement.

I think where it might be a problem for FTers/TB members is if someone says they've got limited internet access & don't have time to post, but then posts frequently in multiple forums. That's a bit embarrassing because it shows the comment about limited or no access isn't really accurate



Cheers.

MSPeconomist

Then the "public" should also know who were the TB members who vote as soon as a vote is posted, including before the 48 hour rule was passed.

I'm avoiding giving details on who and how many TB members voted by July 2 when the vote was posted on July 1 on the Smoking Section forum because my understanding of TB rules is that this information should be treated as confidential.

SkiAdcock

Agree.

Cheers.

bdschobel

Aren't you sweet!

I was the second person to vote YES on the smoking forum motion. I guess that was July 2, but I'm not really sure. Maybe MSP kept records.

I am not even slightly embarrassed by disclosing that I voted immediately. The need for the new forum was obvious. And the final vote supports that position.

Bruce

dchristiva

I've written the same and advocated that the "private" board become public, but was admonished by others who felt that could violate their privacy in different ways. *shrug*

SkiAdcock

To answer wharvey's original question, no the TB guidelines haven't changed. Also just because there is a private forum doesn't mean that TB members have anything to hide or are not being transparent. It's a tool for TB members, just like the mods have a private forum/is a tool for them (realizing that last part is like throwing chum to sharks/folk who don't like mods).

The back/forth at this point isn't really benefiting Flyertalk, unless it's for the popcorn value for regular FTers. Hey, maybe FTers/TB members can go back to discussing whether South African should get it's own forum or other ideas that might benefit FT overall. Just sayin...

Cheers.

dchristiva

Well, I won't go quite that far. Obviously the definition of "personal attack" may differ from person to person, but, in my brief tenure, I've seen some unflattering comments thrown about.

Nevertheless, none of that would keep me from voting "yes" to making the "private" board "public".

bdschobel

I suppose we should distinguish "criticizing" from "attacking." We are all subject to legitimate criticism.

Bruce

dchristiva

I agree with this differentiation. There's certainly been some "criticizing". Maybe not always quite "constructive", but not a "personal attack" either.

Anyhow, I really think this is helpful dialogue for the FT membership because I think it's far more telling about TB members (and future candidates) than the electronic "debate" that is held before each election. I am happy to know who votes when and why on real issues, rather than how candidates respond to hypothetical questions in the debate. I know this only gives insight to TB members, but it provides far more than "popcorn value" in my mind.

bdschobel

I agree.

Bruce

SkiAdcock

I don't think the main issue/frustration is a vote going to the end of the voting period per se.

There have been times when votes have gone to the end, either because it was a contentious issue that deserved proper consideration & valid arguments or new information was being provided up to the end that could tip the final vote (Mileage Run being restricted/log in only comes to mind; it failed btw & I was the last person to vote & on the last day) or a TB member was traveling.

I think where some TB members have gotten frustrated & it's spilled over in this & other recent motion threads is if a motion has gotten 8 votes, the main arguments of pro/con have been made/laid out clearly & there really aren't going to be any surprise arguments in either direction to sway the last vote a particular way, and the last TB member is posting in other forums but doesn't take the time to cast the final vote until the very end when she or he didn't need to wait/there was no reason to do so. That is understandably frustrating for both TB members as well as FTers.

We had that happen with another FTer a few years ago re: waiting until the very end, which is why the rule about the public announcement of whether a motion will pass/fail once it's known if it's gotten enough votes (or didn't) was implemented, even if final tally/who voted each way had to wait until the end. That FTer, whom some will figure out or already know but shall remain nameless, stretched his votes out & ceased participating due to a principle. It wasn't under some vague I need more time when the major arguments had already been made or I haven't been on line. While I disagreed w/ him on the principle & thought it was a bit of teddy/pram, it at least was better than some reasons that don't necessarily pass the sniff test.

I do think if frustrations re: votes are going to be expressed in the public forum, they should be kept generic vs. outing TB members, whether that be if someone voted 5 seconds after the vote opened or waited until the very end. If someone waits until the very end each time, those who follow the public forum will not have a hard time figuring out whom the TB member is that does so, especially if other TB members post that they voted or how they voted. It should be noted that TB members are not required to post when/how they voted in the public forum (although the last part becomes obvious at the announcement stage).

Cheers.

kokonutz

As everyone here likely knows, I have been a passionate (to the point of obnoxious) advocate of making the private TB Forum read-only accessible to all for, I dunno, since the inception of the TB.

I'm here to tell you, there ARE personal comments made there about posters. In fact, the first time I was elected there were personal comments in the archives there about me! Many of them perhaps deserved because of my rabble-rousing, but personal comments nonetheless.

But that effort never seems to get any traction.

On Jan 17, 2012 I posted the following in the private TB forum:

That proposal did not get much support...in fact I was told 'no way' by many of the fellow TB members.

On July 7, 2015, in response to the drawn out vote on the smoking section, I posted the following:

I'm still in favor of either of these approaches. Transparency is almost always a GOOD thing.

And it sounds like this time I might not be the only one! @:-)

BostonFlyer1624

Impeachment hearing! Off with their heads