I would like to propose that the TB adopt the following changes to the TB guidelines:

1: Add a recall provision to allow the membership at large the opportunity to remove TB members who have violated the TOS in such a manner as to earn a suspension of posting privledges for more than 7 days.

2: Remove the "gag order" provision so that TB members can solicit feedback from the general membership regarding issues that the TB currently is discussing. I am not proposing that this allow TB members to disclose how other TB members feel about an issue, only that single TB members can share their own viewpoints and solicit feedback.

With an election on the horizon, I would hope that the TB could act on these proposals and make the votes public. These two issues are very important and I would hope that the information would be valuable when members make their decisions at voting time.

Thank You.

CG,

As a former member of Talk Board, it was never set it up for 'recalls'.
TB has a mechanism in place to deal with any problems that may pop up. Also, as someone said on the other thread, if Randy wanted to release a member from the board, he can. He doesn't need a recall to do it.

As for the gag order...you're using the wrong term. Talkboard members discuss the issues among themselves. While not getting the general membership involved, many a hot issue manages to permeate it's way through the boards. And believe you me, members of TB are well aware of the issue(s).

Individual members can discuss the issues at hand. They are asked not to discuss publically what's being discussed privately on TB.

Back to your first issue; if you were to ask TalkBoard to consider a new rule, If TB members go on holiday, at Randy's request , that they be dismissed from the board, then this would be a valid topic for the TB to consider.

There are very few instances where a member has been suspended by Randy. Suspensions are generally given by moderators and may or may not be appealed to Randy.

If you are saying that a time out from a moderator equates to one from Randy than you would be establishing a very problematic rule.

On the other hand, if you are saying that only a time out personally issued (or approved) by Randy would result in the TalkBoard member's removal then you would be tying Randy's hands.

Right now, TalkBoard has the option of voting off a member who has violated the TOS. To date, to the best of my knowledge, it has never done so but it does have that right.

Randy has the right to remove anyone from TalkBoard for any reason at all.

Hence, if either Randy or TalkBoard want a member off, he will indeed be removed.

If a timeout issued by a moderator automatically resulted in removal fom TalkBoard than moderators would basically find themselves in the position of having to chose between not giving the member the time out he deserves or telling the plurality of F/T members that voted for him that they can have the representative they chose.

I have, admittedly, violated the TOS from time to time. I don't think there are very many members who post a lot who can say they have never made a TOS violation.

I have never received a time out.

Why? Perhaps because my TOS violations were not caught. Perhaps because they were not considered serious enough to warrant a time out. Perhaps for one of any number of other reasons. I honestly don't know.

I do know that I have seen people receive time outs for offenses which in my own personal opinion were also not very serious.

We have 60+ moderators. Each sees things according to his own lights. What one considers to be an offense deserving of a time out another may not. Randy has to allow the moderators the leeway to operate as they see best (within reason) or the whole system will fall apart. At the same time, however, he can not give each and every one of these moderators the veto power over a TalkBoard member's continued service -- and that is what this rule would do.

My proposed recall provision would not give the moderators the power to remove a TB member. It would simply give the MEMBERSHIP the option of removing a TB member who violated the TOS in a matter so severe that they received a suspension of more than 7 days.

I know. I was replying to dhammer's remarks. I did not answer your proposal only because I had already given my reply in the other thread when you raised it there.

For the sake of clarity, I will repeat here what I said then:

I oppose the idea of recall elections. In theory they are fine but we have seen how contentious TalkBoard elections are and while they are certainly both necessary and desirable once a year, I would not like to have them more often.

For the same reason, if a TalkBoard member resigns, I favor having the "first runner up" in the last election take his place as opposed to having a new election.

However, if the resigning member's term of office is not up by the next election, I would prefer having the "first runner up" serve only until that regularly scheduled election -- not for the entire remainder of the term.

I've honestly not felt particularly constrained by any oaths of silence, while I won't characterize comments made by other TalkBoard members I've managed to communicate my own thoughts on any issue where I've been asked.

This concerns me a little bit.

First, it would require suspensions to be publicly announced (they're clear now based on "Suspended" under a member's name in posts, but at least the length of a suspension would have to be made public). Public discussion of member discipline hasn't been commonly accepted here, and Randy's been generally uncomfortable with it.

Second, recall elections will tax the tech folks (if we set up secret balloting like TalkBoard elections). Alternatively a poll could be set up, but that would make everyone's vote public and results would be tracked in real-time. I worry about the politicking and bad blood that develops during elections, I can only imagine it would be heightened and worse during a recall election.

The TalkBoard does have a mechanism to remove members. Randy has a mechanism to remove members. It does seem to me that anyone could approach Randy with their concerns about a TB member, and if the person's behavior clearly makes them a poor representative of the FT community he may be inclined to act.

This all isn't set in stone, but as I say I have some concerns with a recall provision.

gleff,

The problem with the gag order is that we as members do not know what the TB is discussing at any given time. You say that you've "communicated your thoughts when asked". I applaud you for that. But, how are we as members supposed to know to ask? There are never any threads on what the TB is considering and I have never seen a TB member ask for feedback.

As for the recall, I have a huge problem with leaving the removal of TB members who flout the TOS in the hands of either Randy or the TB itself. Randy has shown very little inclination to deal with problem members, and the TB is supposed to serve the membership of FT. The reason I say "supposed" is that I have seen very little from the TB that would indicate the members feel that way.

The TB is supposed to be here for the membership. How is the membership served when a TB member is on a 30 day suspension? The membership at large should have the ability to decide if a TB member who has flaunted the TOS in a manner so severe that they earned a suspension of greater than 7 days should remain on the TB.

CameraGuy, I still see the problems I outlined earlier and the more I think about it the problematic your proposal seems to be.

As you outlined it in the other thread, the recall election would be divided into two parts:

1. A vote to recall the current member.

2. In the event that number 1 passes, a second vote to determine which of the three runners up in the previous election would replace the incumbent.

Okay, let's assume that I get the suspension and am put up for a recall election.

Let's also assume that 400 voter would prefer to have me on TalkBoard. 300 would prefer Candidate A. 200 want Candidate B. 100 want Candidate C.

In the first round, the supporters of A, B, and C would all vote against me and I would be removed from TalkBoard.

Candidate A would be elected in the second round, even though 100 more members want me on TalkBoard.

Few, if any, TalkBoard members were elected by a majority. A plurality was sufficient. You would be making this one member get a majority to remain in office.

Perhaps you consider that fair punishment for his having violated the TOS. However, let's look at this theoretical situation:

You are a TalkBoard member and posted exactly what you did above, including the words "Randy has shown very little inclination to deal with problem members."

A moderator, rightly or wrongly, sees this as a personal attack upon Randy (who is an F/T member) and gives you a suspension. Three years ago, you had another suspension for criticizing a moderator. As this is your second one, you are automatically given a 30 day suspension.

You are now put up for a recall election and while a plurality of the members voting want you to remain on TalkBoard, the supporters of all the other candidates vote against you. You are off and somebody with less support than you is on.

Does this truly make sense to you?

I just don't understand why you are against TB members being held accountable to the MEMBERSHIP for their actions. If a TB member violates the TOS in such a manner to have earned a suspension of more the 7 days, they have made a pretty serious violation.

Your above scenario is flawed for more than one reason:

1: There was no personal attack in that sentence or any other part of my post (nice try).

2: Second offences for violating the TOS do not always result in an automatic 30 day suspension.

3: Suspension of more than 7 days are very rare and have been handed out for very serious offences only.

4: Your math is flawed. In the above scenario, 600 voters would want me off the TB. That is a majority. The 400 who would like me to remain are not a plurality, but a minority.

I voted for you in the past election and like most of your posts. I would more than likely vote for you again, but I am concerned that you are forgetting that the TB is supposed to answer to the FT membership.

I completely agree. That is what made it such a very good example. It was not a personal attack or a TOS violation but it could be interpreted by a moderator as being one.

In that case, because one single person saw your post as a TOS violation you would have to face a recall.

Yes, but in that scenario you would not be eligible for the new race (according to the rules you set up on the other thread). You would have 400 supporters but Candidate A, with 300, would be the one elected.

I appreciate your support and I don't, for a minute, forget that the TB should represent the FT membership.

In fact, in a very recent thread here, I urged all F/Ters to review the voting records of TB members who are up for re-election and to ask specific, issue-related, questions of anyone (incumbent or not) seeking election.

That is the best way to guarantee that TB will serve the membership. Every F/Ter should think about what are the most important issues for him and elect people based on those.

If the recall issue is what is most important for you then you should look for candidates who agree with you -- and I am telling you that even realizing that it would cost me your vote should I decide to run again next year.

For myself, the most important issue is the question {Removed off topic portion of post not directly related to Recall Issue} - wharvey

You seem to miss the fact that in your scenario, there were 600 members who would want me removed.

As for suspensions, you appear to be attempting to use the scare tactic that death penalty opponents utilize: "What about an innocent person?"

That argument rings hollow in both accounts. As I stated above, suspensions of more than 7 days are rare and only handed out in serious matters. That is why I specifically used that criteria.

Please define what you consider a "serious matter".

You are mistaken about that. A truly serious offense can result in a lifetime suspension on the first offense but the offense does not have to be serious for the same result.

According to the TOS, you get a 7 day suspension for your first offense, a 30 day suspension for your second, and a lifetime suspension for your third.

It is not only possible, but has actually happened, that a member had three offenses, none for particularly serious issues, spread out over a year or more, and received a lifetime ban.

(To be clear, in the examples I know about Randy overturned the lifetime suspensions but even then the 30 days suspensions remained in effect.)

Continued harrassment of moderators and/or Randy himself.

The section of the TOS dealing with multiple suspensions is rarely followed. That is specifically why I stated that Randy has shown no inclination to deal with problem members.

Suspensions of more than 7 days are VERY rare and in all but a miniscule percentage were for very serious offences. On top of that, the severity of the offence is immaterial. If a TB member earns a suspension of more than 7 days, however it occured, should be held accountable to the FT membership.