That's ridiculous. Moderators can suspend other moderators (and such has happened before) but you don't see the mods demanding that only Randy himself be allowed to dole out a 30-day suspension to moderators.

Then they shouldn't lose their spot on the TB for getting suspended... although I don't think they should anyway. It seems like a great way for a couple of the mods (or Randy) to get together and remove the "undesirables" from TB. Then there's no reason to call it a "member-elected" board, you may as well just have Randy appoint people.

Personally I think it's hilarious that it's only after a couple of candidates who seek to change the status quo get elected that suddenly there are these "problems" with TB and the elections that need "changing"...

As Sir Winston Churchill pointed out, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Really?

That's not my experience at all. Or maybe the quick and dirty analysis I did on the voting patterns of a random set of votes from last year to investigate whether there were any nefarious trends was a complete and utter figment of my imagination? :rolleyes:

One question, and then I'm done beating this already-decomposing horse:

Are you honestly saying that all moderators would just as quickly dole out a suspension to a moderator (even a 30-day one which would, essentially, fire them as a moderator) as any other member of FlyerTalk?

Randy can boot anyone from the Talkboard at any time. It's his show. He can also boot anyone (presumably with the exception of Internet Brands employees) from Flyertalk. Randy booted a TB member-elect the day of the election results. As a practical matter, Randy is free to reject the Talkboard's suggestions on anything, and clearly will if it wades into moderation.

So, in that sense, Randy can already do whatever he wants.

You would also have to convince Randy even if mods were the ones doing the suspending, since I'm assuming a Talkboard member would immediately appeal any suspension, much less a 30-day suspension.

I think revisionist history is even funnier. Some of us (as members and candidates) have been at this longer than you have been a registered FT member.

If you search this forum, I've personally been calling for accountability of Talkboard members for years. Years.

Here in April of this year, a recall function was discussed.

Also in April of this year, "TB member requirements" were batted around.

In April of 2006, I personally suggested a system of Talkboard standards of conduct and suggestions on filling vacancies. That's what, 1/2 your FT tenure (give or take)?

A fellow candidate this year, skofarrel, broached the issue in September of 2005.

Another member asked a similar question about banned members running for and/or holding office in October 2004. This, I believe, was before you were a registered FT member.

I'm laughing too, but it's due to the ease in which the one-liners of the antimod crowd are debunked.

Absolutely. Will happen, has happened.

Total and utter garbage. I said at the start that this whole election was a shame and I stand by that now. The whole thing STINKS and you know it.

Yes. If a post is over the line to the point that it calls for suspension, then the name of the poster in the box to the left of the post doesn't change that. In fact, I'd venture that a moderator who has to deal with such cases would be even more disappointed to find that it is another moderator.

To put the whole thing another way, moderators are on their best behaviour because they know that earning a 30-day suspension means they are out for good.

These incessant conspiracy theories about moderators getting together behind closed doors to plot and scheme to "get rid of the undesireables" are just plain stupid. All suspensions are subject to review by Randy and all moderators know that misuse of moderator privileges would result in Randy asking the offending moderators for their resignations.

And suggestions that Randy is unfair? If that is the case, we might as well all just pack it in and find some other board.

It is unfortunate that TB discussions and elections keep going around in circles about the topic of moderation, something that Randy has made clear is not in the purview of TB. Those who bleat most loudly about problems with moderation as the foundation of their campaigns are campaigning on false premises, and it only serves to detract from the effectiveness of TB.

I have no problem with a set of minimum qualifications for serving as a TalkBoard member. One of those could be 'has never served a 30-day suspension.' There could be a process in place where, if a TB member receives a 30 day suspension, Randy has to review that suspension before the person is removed from the TalkBoard. (Currently, the TalkBoard has the option to remove that person with a 2/3rds vote .. but it isn't automatic.)

An election is a sacred thing, and once elected a TB member should only be removed for high crimes and misdemeanors via a process that is transparent with pre-established procedures.

You might be able to persuade me otherwise, but I don't see a direct analogy between mods and TB members. Mods should be exemplary members in order to have maximum moral authority to enforce the rules. Last I heard, TB members are not enforcing anything and do not need moral authority.

On the other hand, this proposal is not particularly extreme. A 30-day suspension is only one step away from permanent suspension, which would automatically remove someone from TB. A 30-day suspension issued by Randy is arguably even closer to a permanent suspension than a typical 30-day suspension.

These are the strongest arguments on each side, as nearly as I can tell.

Bless you!! I'm sick & tired of folk trying to turn TB into a mod thing. As Randy has stated on numerous occasions, PM him if you have a problem. And spare the rest of us from reading the same-old, same-old harangue that doesn't relate to TB's mandate. Geesh already.

Cheers.