Proposal to new TB: pledge of ethics
 

In conjunction with offering my congratulations to the new TB members, I have a proposal:

Just as the moderators have done, I propose that TalkBoard subject itself to the same standards of behavior and discipline as the moderators have CHOSEN to do: they'll keep out of "Only Randy Petersen" forum and let RANDY speak for himself, and will immediately step down if they incur a 30 day suspension for violations of the same TOS that the members who elected them are subject to.

In light if not only the current suspension, but suspension histories of the new TB members I feel this is the right thing to do to show they are "legit" and not using TB for personal agendas. I encourage all of us who voted in the election to ask our newly elected reps to sign on to this code of standards.

Interesting idea, although to make sure I understand this are you asking each of us to agree to it as a gentlemens agreement or for this to be an actual motion? On one hand you say proposal and on the other hand pledge, so color me confused.:p

Although I agree with you there should be an ethical balance here & I personally do strive to be ethical in my decision making process, I don't agree with this proposal for one main reason: The members elected their represenatives. Generally, the FlyerTalkers who voted for a particular member did so based on his or her posts on FlyerTalk and their experience with that elected member - and not everyone here agrees with the board's management or all of the moderator actions. Based on that, the members who voted for a particular TB member should have that TB member be allowed to represent them in whatever fashion that TB member sees he or she is best serving the overall membership of FlyerTalk. If that TB member gets suspended, then that's how they have decided to serve the members that elected.

That might not make any sense once I hit the Post Reply button - but it made sense to me when I wrote it! :)

Regarding the posting in the ORP forum...I don't think that should be something that's limited to Mods or TB members, but to everyone on FlyerTalk in general. Let Randy answer his own questions - it's his forum!

I will make it clearer: will you make the motion for the portion about suspended members? Specifically, are you willing to bring the motion that a member suspended for 30 days (let's say after 1/1/2008 to give Koko a break) is automatically removed from TB? I'm not asking if you'll vote for or against it, but will you at least help bring it up for formal debate?

I asked a similar but slightly different question of the candidates in the 2006 election cycle, as the previous year had seen a number of votes with only 8 members participating. Several of both the incumbent and newly elected members ran in 2006, and gave their thoughts at the time. I would be curious to know if those members continue their positions from 2006.

as ElmhurstNick said, the semantics do not matter as Randy is the final "decider in chief", are the TB members up for going on record and pledging/signing/agreeing/motioning/whatever to the same standard of Ethics as the moderators have?

It's a pretty simple yes or no, but I'm guessing that adopting these rules would go along way to quell the growing controversy over the election results.

OK, more clear now, thanks Nick and Neil!:)

First of all, let me agree with bhatnasx in that I will do my best to meet the standards of discipline you mention. I haven't been suspended in the first 15K posts/few years, and have no intent on it happening anytime in the future.

This is one of those issues where I really see both sides.

On one hand the FT'ers elected the TalkBoard members, so why not let us (the voters) learn from our mistakes and elect "better" people in the future. For the most part the people that have spent much of their terms suspended in the past didn't just do that while they were serving on TB- they did it before as well, so voters should expect that.

On the other hand if a TalkBoard member is suspended for a lengthy period of time it's kind of hard for them to vote and do their "job." Makes me wonder what value they really have representing the members. Similarly, for the most part it's kind of hard to imagine that an TB member has the best interest of FT in mind if they can't follow the relatively simply rules FT has.

So ultimately I can see both sides of the issue and would like to hear what others think. If most are fine with being represented by people that are suspended, then so be it. If not, then I'm all for seeing debate on this issue.

Boot out the one you don't like huh? No thanks... I voted for the people I voted for because I liked their platforms. I don't give a crap whether they have been the beneficiary of a suspension or three... that doesn't change their great views.

I am strongly opposed to this proposal.

Now theres a suprise

Let's drop the one on one debates and the sarcasm.

I agree with nroscoe. I think it is a real shame that, once again, we have a new Talkboard member unable to fulfill his obligations because of being suspended. Personally, I think guidelines should be set to exclude any member who has had a 30 day suspension from even running for office. This would also include those who have been reinstated after permenant bans. If they are unable to vote on issues, their platforms become meaningless and they are not really representing those who voted forum.

But do you pledge to step down if you catch a 30-day suspension that's upheld by Randy?

There is a saying that people who stand in the middle of the street typically just end up getting hit by cars from both directions that's coming to mind here....

I hope they don't make that pledge unless the ability to suspend TB members is restricted to Randy, himself, throughout the entire term. I would not make that pledge, myself. Of course I lost, so all this is hypothetical.

Yes, you are right, it is ;)

I already live under that rule as a mod, so I think a) it is easily achievable and b) sensible and am perfectly happy to abide by them myself.

I think it's a very sad day when any TB member gets a suspension. TB members should be able to understand the TOS and respect them, and conduct themselves in a suitable manner on FT. But then I ascribe to the ideal of elected officials as servants (just don't take that too far :p) not rulers, so the idea of setting myself above the members is :( :( :(

That seems like a reasonable compromise, if Randy would be ok with that language.

You know that of the Talkboard members who have ever been suspended, the majority have been from/by Randy (or, in the case of Talkboard members with multiple suspensions, the "big one" has been by Randy)?

(That's public knowledge if you search the TB-07 forum, this forum, and community, BTW. I'm not revealing anything in confidence by saying as such--you can read it with a simple search).

So in a practical sense, historically this would not have mattered, as it's usually Randy's doing anyway.

In a principled sense, however, I'd ask you why you believe Talkboard members above the same rules that every member of FT is asked to comply with? Members are members first, and everything else second. If it's good enough for the mods, certainly it should be good enough for the Talkboard, right?

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.

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 :o 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.