A Modest Proposal - TB Requirements
 

Should Talk Board Members be required to make a statement of how many nights per year they actually are gone from home on travel? Maybe for future elections this could be a requisite?

Does the "general member" have anyway of knowing that the TB members really travel?

Should there be a minimum requirement? 100 nights per year or so?

When I was a member of Talk Board, we always posted if we'd be 'out of the office'. The debate would still continue, less the missing member.

Are you suggesting that it be a requirement that a member of TB be a road warrior? If so, how many miles per year or hotel nights would make you a candidate?

Many FT'ers have increased their miles and points balances in many ways. Some by credit cards. Some by maximizing bonus'. I know of one person that earns a sizeable amount of miles and points each year, and she doesn't fly. :o I guess that makes her smarter than the rest of us.

I don't think we need to qualify TB requirements, other than what's already in place. I'm sure someone will post a link to those requirements.

Two months ago, I would have said no, it isn't important.

Seeing the refined direction of FT by the purists, now I would say absolutely.

How can we possibly have a board about travel "lead" by people who don't travel? What is the cred level if we do not know they travel?

In addition to post count, it will make the new users feel so much better knowing that the leaders travel lots.

I think it's far more important that TB members have no history of suspensions. Imagine if there ends up being a swing vote on the current motion about post counts, and imagine if that member was serving a 30-day suspension right now.... :eek:

While I suspect OP is being sarcastically humourous, since he's brought up the topic of TB qualificaitons, I would hope the board would consider following the lead of the moderator team and quickly and unanimously vote that completion of a 30-day suspension would be cause for immediate expulsion from TB.

I think this is a fantastic idea.

Also, since so much information about knowledge is conveyed by status and such, I'd be for giving TB members a test on travel information. We need to be sure TB is knowledgeable before they get the "TB Member" status.

Great minds and all that. TB members should have to show at LEAST a couple of elite cards just to run for office!!!

Nick: Actually, I am serious. Since the movement is to be a pure travel board, the TB ought to travel some.

As for your suggestion, maybe minimum period for redemption. I would hate to disqualify some folks because a moderator had it out for them. (Not that that's ever happened before)

Isn't the highlighted language a bit of an overstatement? The proposal is not to count OMNI posts in post totals, not to eliminate OMNI or any other forum.
In what sense is that proposal a "movement . . . to be a pure travel board[?]" Unless post counts DO matter very much to those who disclaim that possibility, I really can't see how this proposal changes FT one bit.

We have been asked not to engage in one to one dialogs, I will respond by PM.

I don't know - I travel on a lot of freebies and other awards that I don't get credit for but I have a lot of advice to offer.

My slogan: Sometimes wrong but never in doubt ! :cool:

Im sorry, I disagree. It is sending a message that Omni isnt part of FT. I dont see any other way to perceive it.

This is what I do not understand.... I do not believe the motion says anything of the sort. OMNI is not being closed down nor removed from Flyertalk.

If the motion passes, will I stop viewing or contributing to OMNI? NO.... I now enjoy OMNI and will regardless of whether or not post counts are tallied. If, however, this motion can stop some members from the 500 posts a day or whatever insane number it is... then I am all for the motion.

If not counting posts in OMNI will cause people to not contribute, then just how committed to this community were they to begin with?

William

I would reverse the question. If posts dont count, how committed is the community to the forum?

Again, this is especially since it is just Omni. We would be having a very different discussion, it one at all, if it was all things not related to points and miles. Singleing Omni out is sending a message that it is not a part of the community, it doesnt count. That is the real message, if it werent, the easy solution would be to close down the counting threads and other blatant post padding.

As much as it pains me to say so, I agree with the OP. ;) But I would go further: not only should TB members be required to prove travel, they should also be required to pass tests on the arcana of rules regarding travel & frequent flyer programs. Can you tell us when it's allowed to transit Asia twice on an xONEx fare? If not, you shouldn't be on TalkBoard! :rolleyes:

Guys, can we please stay on topic?

The OMNI thread was shut sown and I don't want a serious proposal getting lost in the other discussion.

Thanks.

"Should Talk Board Members be required to make a statement of how many nights per year they actually are gone from home on travel? Maybe for future elections this could be a requisite?"

No and no.

"Does the 'general member' have anyway of knowing that the TB members really travel?"

No.

"Should there be a minimum requirement? 100 nights per year or so?"

No and no.

Here it's enough for me that the members of FT who've voted have voted for a TB member. If the FT membership base wanted to screen out certain candidates, these very same general members of FT can exercise their judgment and choose not to vote for those who don't meet their criteria.

Wow, I am shocked. Here are a few things to consider:

1. How would someone prove how much they travel, and what if they run for TB and the year they serve their term they travel zero? Would they be kicked out of office?

2. Can't we just let the FT community vote who is the best without trying to make all these requirememnts?

3. What about people that travel 200K+ miles a year but usually on short trips and don't even break 50 nights a year away from home?

4. What does being in hotels 100+ nights a year prove? I am willing to bet that most general members on FT know more about the programs they like than the highest tier elites.

I really don't get this...

I disagree with this idea.

TB members are voted in to their position. People can vote for members for whatever reasons they want.

How many nights someone was away from home in the last year only tells me how many nights someone was away from home in the last year. It doesn't tell me they are reasonable. It doesn't tell me what they believe in. It doesn't tell me how they look at certain issues. It doesn't tell me anything that is important to me with respect to who is representing me on TB.

Nights from home was just an example.

Number of trips.

Number and level of loyalty programs.

75,000 Air Miles

etc etc

The point is that if it is being "refocused" to a strict miles and points IBB, I have strong feelings that the TB out to be traveling more than three times a year to go see grandma. With the focus we should expect to see travelers.

Thinking about this, maybe just asking this as the "debate" questions would suffice. But there should be a minimum. We certainly have no way of verifying, other than honesty. 25% Travel would be fifteen trips and or 50 nights per year. Something along those lines.

I don' think that mandating a minimum level of yearly "travel" would be practical (i.e. who decides what the levels are?).

If yearly travel experience is important to someone, then there is already a mechanism to ask for that information. Do it during the TB Election Q&A period. If someone doesn't answer or doesn't have your personal minimum level of experience, then don't vote for them. If this topic is really important to enough members, then the votes will show it.

My 2cents worth.

I think that the OP as written is a bad idea, simply because it seems to take away FT voting member choices due to an arbitrary standard.

I do think that having this as one of the debate questions is a fantastic idea. It's so obvious I can't believe no one thought to ask it before.

I like the idea of asking it as a question, but I am still confused why it was brought up. Has there been an issue in the past in regards to how much travels and their performance as a Talkboard member?

Me too. Nope -- this Forum has become the new OMNI for April it seems is the simple answer.

I do not for one second believe it was a serious question, and I most certainly can confirm the matter has never been an issue of any kind on my 18 months on TB .. and indeed on the years of threads I have read before my term there.

My guess is that the 9 TB members travel as much as, or more, than the average FT'er, which would be pretty self evident if anyone made the slightest effort to check it out. Several of us are highest level airline elites which one imagines involves a little bit of travel. @:-)

Bottom line - when Randy calls for TB nominations there is no requirement re amount of travel - nor should there be in my view.

Unless the OP wants to tackle Randy privately on that for the next election, this thread seems to be just another post padding effort some may say. ;)

When TalkBoard elections come around, members are usually given an opportunity to pose questions to the candidates. Any member can pose the question, "How much do you travel, and what programs have you achieved status in?" And those members who wish to base their votes on the answers to such a question may do so.

On that note, shouldn't people who are banned from certain forums be forbidden from serving on the TB?

I don't know, i guess so - maybe the current TB would like to vote on that as a baby step towards a stricter policy.

Merely devalued.

This isn't the place to debate that proposal. I do appreciate the one that's under consideration in this thread. If, in fact, the TB believes that the FT community values flying and travel discussion over other kinds of discussions, then TB qualifications with respect to flying and travel are clearly relevant.

As an example, I moderate a subforum on legal issues for videographers over at dvinfo.net. I was invited to do it because I'm (1) a lawyer who, (2) is heavily into video, i.e. I'm qualified. Shouldn't those who serve in an advisory position to a website in which discussion of flying and travel is valued over other kinds of discussion have the appropriate credentials?

I don't think mere membership in FF programs is enough. I have a slew of FF cards from foreign airlines I flew once, but that doesn't mean I have much knowledge or experience of them. I also don't think miles earned is a good criterion, since so many people get them through non-flying activities. Similarly, elite status can be gifted, bought or assigned by an employer.

I think we need to go by BIS miles, and should probably require that they be earned on a minimum number of different carriers -- after all, someone who flies exclusively on WN isn't going to have much to say about UA's program, and vice versa. Also, international travel is a whole different ballgame than domestic and, of course, we have FTers from many different countries. I'd think we'd have to require, at minimum, travel in every continent plus Australia (though excluding Antarctica -- I don't think there's a commercial airport there).

Yes, I like this proposal. I'd suggest a minimum of 75,000 BIS miles, earned on no fewer than three different carriers (with at least 5 segments on each of the three), touching all continents (except Antartica) and Australia at least once within a 12 month period. FF statements and/or boarding passes should suffice. Then, let's add to that 50 hotel nights in at least 5 different hotels (2 of which must be part of different international chains) in every continent (except Antarctica -- no public accommodation there, as far as I know) but, of course, including Australia.

Hey, this is fun! :)

I certainly think so.

Then there should be nothing to worry about. This measure won't change anything if what you say is true.

I promise I'm not trying to pad my post count by saying:

^

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.