I call on the TalkBoard to DO something about the post above.

At the very least there IMO needs to be an independent inquiry held, and a review of the points made.

A working sub-committee of six should be formed to carefully analyse the data, and a detailed report needs be tabled for discussion by the general membership no later than December 2004.

This sub-Committee should be comprised of at least three (3) Moderators and at least three (3) ELECTED TalkBoard Members, if there are indeed still that many remaining. Failing that, Arturo might be co-opted on a one-time basis to take up the slack.

This group shall elect from among their number a President of the sub-committee. No more than seven ballots to do this will be permitted. Short pieces of straw may be used if the balloting otherwise gets too complicated and difficult.

In the event of a tied vote, Arturo shall be deemed the new President of this sub-committee, on the proviso his subsequent report be spell-checked by a Vice-President, who also shall be elected by secret ballot. If Dan Quayle is elected as VP, his report is to be further spell-checked by a majority of the remainder. Price Waterhouse should be appointed to scrutinise both elections.

A further member vote might properly be made as to adopting or otherwise the recommendations and proposed guidelines set forward by the aforesaid sub-committee, before they go to Randy for consideration.

A 51.7% approval rate would be my suggested target figure for adoption of the new proposal, plus an appropriate adjustment made for inflation based on the prevailing T. Bond rate in effect at that time.



------------------
~ Glen ~

Come visit HERE the most ** FRIENDLY FORUM ** on FlyerTalk. No flame wars, no personal abuse, no substance abuse. Not much of anything really!

I've already posted by personal view in the Moderators Forum, but as that isn't publicly available here goes.

My view is that as a Moderator of two quiet boards (Hyatt/Starwood) I would have time to be a TalkBoard member. I usually read each new post on these two forums every day and so tend to read other forums at the same time.

Where there is a Moderator-related issue on TalkBoard I will abstain if there was a conflict of interest - this is an honourable tradition in British Politics.

I agree with 99% of what PremEx posted. The whole TalkBoard election process reminds me a lot of junior high student council elections -- a lot of noise, but little substance. "You're for recess? I'm for recess too!" This is certainly not meant as a knock on any of the candidates, most of whom are invaluable members of FlyerTalk, or the FlyerTalk forum itself, but I wonder if this whole election isn't just "much ado about nothing" (with apologies to the Bard).

That said, I always vote in local, state, and federal elections, so why not on FlyerTalk? And if many of you candiates see great promise in membership on TalkBoard, then I'll give four of you a chance to deliver on that promise with my best wishes. As for the receipients of my vote, I personally selected four individuals who have demonstrated charity, patience, and good judgment in assisting the many diverse members of this forum. I encourage others to do the same. If you have confidence in the present participation and helpfulness of one of the candidates in FlyerTalk at large, then a similar dose of faith is probably justified in that person's potential role as a TalkBoard member.

As to CameraGuy's first statement...

Guess what folks...this may be TALKBOARDS first issue.

As for having a Moderator on TB... . I believe that person will be called the President.

Dan

I'm with you friend. Just what I've been saying FT DOES NOT need any more of right now:

1) More posters that have delusions of authority and grandure
2) More opportunities to apply a one person, one vote model to a board where no steps are taken to determine if anyone is who they say they are. (use a new e-mail azddress, register, vote, use a new e-mail address again, register again, vote again, lather, rinse, repeat.)


Hey, maybe Randy will pull a 2002 Freddies out of his hat and toss out 18,000 "questionable" votes in order to legitimize the process.

This is all just loads of fun - watching everyone waste their time and spin their wheels. Perhaps, if we ask even more pointed questions of the candidates we can somehow add even more credibility to this process. At present it's right up there with Rosy Ruiz and Jim and Tammy Fae Baker on the trust and faith scale.


[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 08-05-2003).]

I don't see a problem with a FlyerTalker wearing the dual hat of moderator and TalkBoard member. If a conflict of interest emerges, we should trust the moderator/board member to recuse himself/herself from making an interested decision just as a judge would if a conflict arose in our legal system. The last thing we can afford is to lose good moderators because they are popular enough to win a TalkBoard position. Of course, if such a person feels that retaining his/her moderator duties is too onerous or problematic, then nobody should question a resignation from moderator duties either.

Is there a simple list of candidates who are also moderators?

dmfriedman
essxjay
gleff
jfe
Markie
pallensf
Radiocycle
richard
robb
squeakr

I respectfully disagree with this. I see no real or appearant conflicts of interest for someone to be a moderator and a TalkBoard member. Of course the volunteer is free to let go some duties if he/she feel it would be too demanding to assume more than one role at the same time but as far as conflict of interests is concerened, I see none.

ScottC, no offense but because you are one of the candidates, there could be a conflict of interest for you to raise this issue here by trying to influence people whether or not to vote for candidates who are also moderators since you explicitly suggest a quota for them. It could be intepreted as an election ploy. I think this topic should just let go, it serves no practical purpose.

I don't see how this can be seen as a conflict of interest. If my asking this is seen as an "election ploy" then you are the first to see it that way. Judging by all the serious responses here I'd say it was a very legitimate question.

As for letting the topic go "because it serves no practical purpose", that is your opinion, not mine.

Perhaps the same can be said about you asking the GLBT community to vote for Robb?.

Am I running, ScottC? No, so I am free to support whoever I want. Look, I don't think it's appropriate for a candidate like yourself to question the eligibility of other candidates. The others had to respond politely becausue they are candidates, but I am telling you as a voter, it doesn't look good on you. It's your call, Scott and I will not argue anymore about this.

As a reminder, each person has 4 votes so while I know where one my votes is going, I can say that the rest is pretty much up for grab and I know many others feel the same too. By supporting a candidate certainly doesn't mean I don't support others - I will let the discussions here decide that.

Thanks!!! this helps

I'll stay out of this, but to note that I've deleted this thread since I can't move threads from FT Travel to FT Miles. I appreciate Guava's support, and I hope no one will think that I've abused my mod powers!