Well, you have two new TB members whose goal is exactly that.

thank you for directly addressing my proposal! The silence from the other TalkBoard members is... well... interesting.

Sorry, nroscoe, for not responding sooner. I’m dealing with some personal issues in the Midwest this week.

I agree that the TB members should hold themselves to the same standards as do the moderators.

The not posting in ORP is kind of a gentleman’s agreement and courtesy to Randy rather than a hard and fast law or TOS violation.

But I can buy into a scenario where a TB member receives a 30 day suspension and steps down after review from Randy that the suspension is both warranted and legit.

The reason I add this “Randy Review” caveat is that there are only 9 TB members and the removal of just one can dramatically swing the balance of how votes play out.

I would want to be assured that the suspension was legit and not just a ploy to move the next person in succession onto TB.

As someone who has never had even the whisper of a warning in 5 years on FT, I feel comfortable in saying I would step down with on my TB position if I were to receive the dreaded 30 day suspension.

In closing, I also don’t want to see this discussion move into an area where we are discussing this as a retroactive measure.

What I’m agreeing to is a pledge going forward from an agreed upon date.

Gary, unfortunately having the option to bring it to a vote makes it too easy for board members to hide. We saw this two years ago, when vote after vote had only eight members participating, yet it was difficult to get people to acknowledge what was going on.

It would be preferable that a vote is automatically called for, and board members could still vote to retain the delinquent member. At least that way, the general membership would be able to see how each TB member felt about the topic as opposed to having to guess.

That is very reasonable. In my earlier post (#2), I threw out 1/1/2008. But a date 14-30 days after voting closes seems fine.

I hope that you will consider making a motion to this effect when the new board is ready to roll.

This is the exact reason why a member should be removed. While suspended they can't vote. I think if a member is removed then the person should be replaced with the person with the most number of votes in the previous election who didn't make it on the team.

We already have a set of guidelines by which a TalkBoard member may be removed by a vote of 6 of the other TalkBoard members. I think that is sufficient to remove someone who is engaging in gross misconduct vs. removal due to being unpopular. Furthermore, a TalkBoard member may be removed by Randy Petersen if the offense(s) is particularly egregious, warranting expedited removal. Randy can also overturn an "unpopularity contest" vote, though I don't see that kind of vote happening from TalkBoard.

And because that's the case, is it appropriate to look for any possible reason to remove them from TB? The utter transparency of some of these positions is what I find fascinating.

I probably won�t make a motion as it�s not something I�m passionate enough about to champion the cause. As has been said here and elsewhere, we have a pretty good process in place to remove, should we choose to do so, TB members who aren�t participating.

But I would probably support the motion if/when it is made depending on the verbiage.

I guess this is the point where I don't understand, and agree with kokonutz and his followers. What is the harm of a vote? If it fails, it fails. I don't think that making the motion has to be always correlated to "championing the cause."

In fact, I'm willing to bet an adult beverage that koko would make the motion, just to see what happens.

I would prefer to see a question on the candidates profile page asking if they have ever had an upheld suspension (s).

Let the membership decide if they want that person on the Talk Board.

Heck, I can think of 3 people running or on TB who had suspensions - and IIRC, 2 of them were lifetime.

I guess I miss the part where I am trying to have anyone removed regardless of their views on moderation. My main concern is that a new member of the TB team is suspended for 30 days and can't participate. As this has happened before, I think this proposal is a good one.

Not really sure what you mean by transparency.

If it's true that two of the new TB members are blood or "other" relatives (with a history of suspensions in the family too), all the more reason for a code of ethics.

This seems much ado about nothing. The board is elected for fairly short terms and Randy and the super majority of the board have an option to get rid of a member. Best to leave it that way rather than create yet another pledge.

If two TalkBoard members are related to one another, that is definitely news to me... please DO share with the rest of the class!

My Bro' Randy ( a de facto TB member) and I decided to finally come out of the closet.