That's a pretty accurate estimate. :)

There just isn't time for discussions of Global Warming or "How Will the Rangers Beat the Penguins or possibly the Canadiens (if Washington gets its act together)?" or any other topic outside the TalkBoard's purview.

Right on the purview thing, wrong on the example: you should be talking about how Sid the Kid and the rest of the Penguins are doing to demolish the East enroute to the cup. :D

But Jenbel, the other half of you is a moderator who may or may not have different interpretations of those rules of FT. Whether perceived or not, you are human and actions you take as moderator are affected by your role and opinions as a TB member. @:-)

If we're going to hold TB members to a "purity test" of having never been suspended, maybe a conflict of interest test (ie: no current moderators) should be implemented too?

cblaisd writes:

Moderators serve at Randy's will and answer to Randy.

TalkBoard members serve at the will of the people and answer to the people, who obviously don't think that having served a 30 day suspension is a deterrent to service.

Of course, Randy does have the power to eliminate the TalkBoard if he no longer wishes the people to have representation of their choice.

I understand (although disagree with) your point of view.

But I didn't think we were arguing the merits of the issuehere, but that you were asking for help in identifying in a succinct way issues to be on the TalkBoard's meeting agenda.

So, I hope you'll ask Techgirl to add the issue I named to the agenda that she is putting together.

Pretty much sums it up nicely.

I don't see the TB and moderators as adversaries vying for power. They are teams working for a better FT, specializing in different subjects. Therefore IMHO there is no conflict of interest. If I may be so bold, TB members who view moderators as adversaries should question themselves as to why they feel that way.

I fully understand that some individuals may irritate each other, but that has no bearing on the question of whether moderators are natural adversaries of TB members simply because of the work they do. I don't believe that for a second.

98% or so of FT members never have any unpleasant interaction with a moderator. It seems odd to me that we cannot say the same about either the TB membership or the moderator corps. I can't easily explain this discrepancy.

I don't see how we can talk about suspensions without talking about moderation and as Spiff so eloquently put it:
So it's bit of a catch-22, innit? :p;)

For serious, though, as I said here, here and here, this issue is already being discussed by the TB and will continue to be. ^

nsx, I too have noted with some degree of sadness the friction that erupts so often between some moderators and some TB members. I have my theories as to why that occurs, but that's better fodder for a barroom than a boardroom.

Meantime, the clock is ticking on the TB agenda for next Friday, so if anyone has any last minutes brainstorms, this is the place to post 'em!

How about some kind of ombudsman to keep the TB in check? This person would have access to the private forum but no voting privileges. They would report, from time to time, on what the TB is doing.

While your sensitivity on this point is thoughtful, I simply would like the TalkBoard to:

a) Consider recommending that it disband itself. (which has been noted and responded to upstream. Thank you)

and

b) Consider having a rule that no one who has had or receives a 30 day suspension that is upheld by Randy can serve or continue serving on TalkBoard.

No discussions of individuals' disciplinary histories need occur in order to have that discussion.

I support this %100. In the past (as at least one member on the TB already well knows and at least one former member knows about), the TB has gone way off it's purview and discussed individual members in a way that is wholly inappropriate.

See, that's the thing. You don't have to talk about moderation.

It's as simple as "anyone who has had a 30-day that Randy upholds can no longer serve and/or is ineligible to run."

Discuss :).

(note that I threw in the part about "upheld by Randy," which really takes away any legitimate need to discuss moderation in any case).

And c'mon--suggesting you can't talk about a code of conduct for Talkboard members because it would involve moderation is either meant to be funny (I think) or a really weak dodge (I hope not).

Yeah, FT members do not know who has been suspended, how many times, and for what. And a member would be suspended for bringing up another's suspension (that had not already been made public by the member or Randy, of which there are a few) during the election cycle. So in many cases, "the people" don't really have that data, anyway. Tough to make an informed choice. With that in mind, I'd suggest to you that the TB adopting a code of conduct similar to the mods would result in less than 1/10 of %1 (not counting spammers) being disqualified. I fail to see the problem.

While I find your willingness to elect people who have broken FT's rules to the point of disciplinary action at least twice to be somewhat disturbing, I do think reforming of such ought to make the agenda for the Talkboard meeting, because I hope at least a few other TB members don't share that approach.

That's true. He also has the ability to ignore it's advice. Now, here is some further food for thought: do you think he's ever going to accept TB driven changes, to say, the TOS if those are driven by a TB with a number of people who have served multiple suspensions? Think "credibility factor." You may want to factor that into any discussions you might have about either topic, BTW.

First question: since TB moderation is done privately and secretly, how do I know that someone has or had a 30-day suspension? Wait, I am talking about moderator policies already...which is a TOS violation...for which I can be suspended...:o

I think you know the answer to that!

And as much fun as this logical tail-chasing is (and I DO enjoy it! ^) I fear it is overwhelming the purpose of this thread....besides, I thought I was the king of beating dead horses aroud here! :p

What's the conflict of interest? Both are ultimately serving at Randy's pleasure.

Beyond that: