There are multiple negatives associated with this proposal:

1: The anti-moderation/transparency crowd is going to now propose truckloads of anti-moderation proposals, pointing to #4 as an instance where the TB has stuck it's nose into moderation.

2: It's only a matter of time before the TB proposes to Randy that elected TB members cannot be suspended by moderators, only by Randy himself.

3: This is yet another instance where the TB has taken it upon itself to propose changes to FT that were NOT solicited by Randy or the FT membership at-large. The current TB seems all to willing to thumb it's nose at the membership at-large (You remember us, we are the ones who ELECTED you). What's next? Since this TB appears to be pushing the envelope to see what it can get away with, is a proposal that the current TB membership be for life on the horizon?

No, there is not to be a discussion of moderation in the public TalkBoard forum.

No, TalkBoard consists of people who are members first. No one is above the TOS.

No, it is not.

CameraGuy, with all due respect, I don't see where TB being occasionally proactive rather than just reactive is a bad thing.

TB is elected to represent the members of FT. And most members of TB are veteran, long-time members of this community and we occasionally have an original thought or idea which wasn't prompted by Randy or other FT members.

As an example, I elect my congressman to represent me in Congress. But I don't sit back and armchair quarterback his every decision. Nor do I expect him to sit around Washington, DC waiting for me to tell him what to do next. I elected him because I trust his judgement and I want him to be proactive and make my community a better place to live. If I don't like what he does, I won't vote for him next time around.


Actually, I'm one of the few TB members in favor of exactly this. And I've stated this both publicly and privately on several occasions.
Forgetting that Randy owns FT, he's also the moderator of record in several forums. And, AFAIK, Randy has no axe to grind nor does he have any secret agendas. In my experience, he's been very fair and balanced in his moderation decisions.
My suggestion is that the non-mod TB members only be suspended by Randy or someone from the HOM's he designates. If a mod wants a TB member suspended, he submits the reasons why to Randy/HOM and they decide if the suspension is warranted. And I'll take a WAG here that they'll back up the moderator 99% of the time. This just prevents the other 1% of TB member suspensions that are of dubious intent.
This has absolutely nothing to do with any TB member being above the TOS and I get a bit weary of this being brought up time and time again as a reason to oppose this.
TB members have to abide by the TOS just the same as do all FT members. All this proposal does is designates who handles the suspensions, if any.

Cholula, that is the second time in this thread that you said you would like to give such protection to non-mods (the first time was in reference to non-mod TB candidates).

Why are you restricting it to non-mods? Do mods already require approval by Randy or his designate before being suspended?

Does the TB mandate include regulation of TB elections? It's not hard to see that certain regulations "passed" by TB could be seen as self-serving (for those seeking re-election, election of their buddies, etc.) or anti-moderator or pro-moderator.

FewMiles..

This thread is closed, pending review.