Personally, I think that no person should be allowed to serve on TalkBoard unless he has a minimum of citizenship in two different countries.

Each country has its own rules concerning travel and different nations' passports are often subject to different visa requirements. (eg: I have to pay for a visa if I want to enter Turkey on my American passport but not on my Israeli.) This gives me twice the experience in this vital area of travel as someone with only one passport.

Additionally, as TalkBoard serves members from throughout the world, we should want to have as many languages as possible spoken by its members. I suggest that anyone seeking to be on TB be able to read in a minimum of four languages and that one of these be a non-European language.

(Georgian is only acceptable if it is of the Republic of Georgia variety, not the State of Georgia. We do not want to cheapen the definition of "language.")

This is a very good point. I think that each TB member should also be able to produce a visa stamp from a country he or she is forbidden to visit by a country in which the TB member holds citizenship.

That should be "read and write," of course. Given the number of Chinese speakers, one of these languages should also be Chinese (either simplified or traditional characters are fine).

My understanding is that, in the State of Georgia, something other than English is spoken. However, I agree that it should not count as one of the four languages.

I think this is shaping up nicely!

Hey, wait a minute. Oh, I get it -- you described YOU. I'm a little slow these days. ;)

This part of your proposal is unneeded:
It's unlikely anyone might be found who is both "able to read" and knows the language they speak in that state. :D :D :D

It was absolutely a serious question. And the more I think of it the more I like it.

Your opinion may differ, I believe we do in a few other areas, that's ok. It remains my opinion and my right to express it.

Then perhaps you should start your own thread on this requirement instead of trying to make a mockery of this one. :rolleyes:

Let me ask a simple question based on the discussion (some civil, some hyperbolic) to date in this thread:

Does ANY current or past TB member believe that there should be ANY kind of limit on who should be allowed to serve as a TB member?


OP thinks you should be a traveller. I think you should be able to keep your nose clean and not get suspended multiple times. Many of us have our own personal beliefs. But what I'm most interested in is: what do the current TB members think??

Sorry, I presumed this thread was started as a mockery:

There should be only one limitation on TalkBoard members--they need to get the most votes from the general FlyerTalk membership. Let's remember, that TalkBoard exists only to represent the general FlyerTalk membership. Period, dot, end.

If the majority of FlyerTalkers want to be represented by members who have previoiusly been suspended or even banned, (and evidentally that is the the case) so be it. It is apparent that the public has spoken.

I said during the election campaign that I thought it would be a good idea if TB took a look at some of the rules the Mods had adopted about who can and cannot be a Mod and adapted some of them for their own use. I do still think that.

I don't think requirements on travel minima are required - if you think it's important to you, then it can be asked about in the election period. But I don't think someone who doesn't travel a lot won't automatically make a bad TB member. I do have a horse in that race though because I've gone from once a month long-haul business travel, to predominantly leisure travel internationally and only periodic business travel in the UK (that might be about to change though!). So take my views with a pinch of salt on that one, because I don't believe I'm a 'bad' TB member because I'm not always on the road. One other problem is that some of the suggested 'solutions' would tend to bias against those who are active in the less well known airlines - anyone want to set a quiz around NH's FFP? ;)

Not really.

Most folks who get elected to TB have been around FT for awhile and their past history is known. And, as was stated earlier, if folks want to elect someone who has been suspended in the past, so be it.

As to a travel requirement, again I don't personally believe this is a deal-breaker for being a TB member.

But if any members believe that a TB member should be an experienced traveler then, by all means, they should apply that criteria to their decision making process.

I'm not aware of the Mods having a list of membership criteria. In my experience, anyone can apply to be a moderator (there is a link to an application on FT) and then the senior moderators work with Randy to fill vacancies when there is one in a forum with candidates that might fit from applicants (and they work to recruit a volunteer where there is a need but no applicant).

It's either that you cannot become a Mod if you have a 30 day ban, or you stop being a Mod if you are one and get a lifetime ban... can't remember which (it could even be both), but it did come up during the election debates... I'll have a look, beats bubble wrapping glassware ;)

edited to say: ok, found it. If a mod gets a 30 day ban, then they are no longer a Mod - you have been warned ;)
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...0&postcount=10

Minor correction: one cannot become or continue to be a mod if one receives a 30 day suspension.

That is certainly an interesting way of looking at it. Fortunately, Randy seems a bit smarter and more pragmatic than that and I believe (among other reasons) that's why the TB is "advisory." In other words, the FT membership can elect whomever it wants, but Randy seems to be smart enough not to let the bad judgment of the electorate or the elected ruin FT. I have no doubt that the Internet Brands folks will take the same approach.

Now, the other thing that's worth noting here is there is no disclosure policy for people running for TB and absent those members that Randy has publicly suspended, it would be against the TOS for one TB candidate to point out the suspension history of another. The "public" does not actually know that it may be (and have) electing members who have multiple suspensions. Moreover, the current TB were all elected in such a way that the general populous was unable to directly debate them before the elections. If it was truly "open debate," I'm quite sure that the election results would change.

(I am of the opinion that Randy set things up that way to avoid the discussion of suspensions, if for no other reason that a nontrivial number of TB candidates have had them. I disagree with him on this but it is his sandbox).

But beyond all that, it would prove to be quite, well, entertaining to hear why the members of the TB think that they should not have to abide by the same code of conduct that the moderators have to abide by. For that reason (having to defend the position), I doubt that we will ever see a motion and vote on the subject. Which is a shame.

Personally, I don't think there should be a limit on who is allowed. I think that the members should & do make their own decisions based on the candidates abilities & contributions to FT. Members should be able to elect whomever they please. Just because someone has received a ban, doesn't mean that they don't contribute positive things to the community.

As far as the OP's travel question goes - I don't think there should be a minimum travel requirement - although I believe that someone who travels a bit has more to contribute & more to get out of FlyerTalk than someone who doesn't.

If there was criteria, I'll have about 64K EQMs on NW & 12K on UA by the end of next month & about 39 nights on the road for business & about 23 nights on the road for pleasure by the end of May (I go on vacation at least once a month & I get a lot of comp time so I never use vacation days - I love my job!). I've got 5 business trips & the start of 1 vacation planned for the month of May alone. I haven't taken a single mileage run this year & actually cancelled one the day before because I had to do a work trip.