|
This is what I know: One TB member, for reasons only truly known to (her or him) did not participate in SEVEN straight votes between APRIL and July 2006. Don't believe me, go look at the official TB votes in the subforum... I just did to make sure I wasn't hallucinating.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...d.php?t=555263 http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=562061 http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=563743 http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=563744 http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...d.php?t=572130 http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=574099 http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=580536 SEVEN!!. And then had the gall to abstain in the next two votes, I guess just to give the general membership the middle finger. Was that member removed? Nah, because three other members liked him, so any vote would have failed. When I repeatedly asked that member in this forum why the member decided not to vote, I was politely informed by several people that I was wasting my time. The sitting TB "functioned" with EIGHT members for nearly four months. And only the members at the time and since know how much other business and discussion did not come up to a vote. Maybe that member partcipated in those discussions and just did not feel like voting. Maybe that member was gravely ill, or consumed by work. Since I have access to neither the private TB forum nor the private Moderators forum, I know no other specifics as fact. But I do know what is posted officially by the TB, as shown above. That type of behavior is unacceptable. All the other semantic nonsense being proffered before this post aside. And those who were members at the time and who did not think that member should have been removed - ok, maybe not after 3 votes... but how about after 6? - should be ashamed of their judgment. |
Originally Posted by ElmhurstNick
(Post 10367021)
This is what I know: One TB member, for reasons only truly known to (her or him) did not participate in SEVEN straight votes between APRIL and July 2006. Don't believe me, go look at the official TB votes in the subforum... I just did to make sure I wasn't hallucinating.
(snip) Was that member removed? Nah, because three other members liked him, so any vote would have failed. When I repeatedly asked that member in this forum why the member decided not to vote, I was politely informed by several people that I was wasting my time. The sitting TB "functioned" with EIGHT members for nearly four months. Some facts: 1. It would require 4, not 3, members to block the removal of a member. 2. According to TalkBoard's rules, and this would not be changed by anything now being proposed, it is sufficient for a member to post on the private forum that he will not be participating for a certain period of time (one week, 3 months, whatever) and he is safe from being removed for it. 3. According to what you just posted (and that is the only thing I have to go by because I was not on TB during those months), that member did not vote for 3 months but did vote after that. That would indicate to me that the reason was not a 30 day suspension. Nor would it indicate that it was a permanent suspension which was upheld by Randy, therefore the proposed motion would have had no impact on that situation. |
Originally Posted by Dovster
(Post 10367062)
therefore the proposed motion would have had no impact on that situation.
A TB member that receives a permanent ban that is not overturned within 30-days The current guideline wording would have removed the member after 30 days, following no suspension overturn which would have had the positive effect of not leaving the members unrepresented for vote after vote after vote. And just to correct an arithmetical error, with only 8 members voting, 3 people would have been quite sufficient to block a removal vote - it's a 2/3rds majority of those who voted, so 5 votes in favour is not sufficient if one person on TB cannot vote. |
So do you think it was ok for a sitting member of TB to miss seven straight votes?
And let me get this straight: If I am a sitting TB member, you're telling me that I can go on and post in the private TB forum that: "I'm going to be missing votes for the rest of the year because I'm going to go write completely inflamatory garbage on the public forums until somebody gives me a permanent suspension, but that I'm betting that Randy will get around to commuting it after four or five months, so save my seat until I'm back." and that I am then actually immune from removal because I gave notice?? If that is true, Internet Brands should just blow the whole thing up. |
If you are a sitting TB member you can post on the private TB Forum "I am going to be missing all the votes for the rest of the year." There is nothing in the new or the old rules to prohibit this.
Jenbel, thank you for the clarification. It makes the change an even worse one. Randy is often a very busy person and does not get around to tasks that even he says he wanted to handle. You could well have a situation where someone is given a permanent ban, automatically kicked off of TB, and Randy overturning the ban 5 days later. BTW, you must have forgotten to answer my earlier question, so I will repost it here: Let me understand: You were a TB member when someone was given a permanent suspension, it was upheld by Randy, and you did nothing (except watch incredulous)? Why didn't you make a motion to have that member removed? |
Originally Posted by ozstamps
(Post 10365382)
Again I point out what many posting above seem to forget, or pretend to overlook - that TB has ALWAYS had AFAIK the ability to vote on the removal of ANY member who misses 3 consecutive votes for WHATEVER reason.
That system is in place, and will stay in place, with the wording deletions suggested above. Remember? Jogging the memory yet? That situation became so farcical that an FT member floated the idea of a membership recall mechanism. The Talkboard has historically shown that it will not take these kind of actions. I applaud a "tripwire" as proposed. It essentially removes any specious claims of moderator bias (by making Randy the ultimate judge of any action taken) and removes politics and the ability to protect "friends" from the equation. I'd suggest we think of it in that light as we see who objects and why. |
Originally Posted by ClueByFour
(Post 10368026)
Coming from someone who was on the Talkboard that refused to remove a member who missed seven votes, I think it should be crystal clear why the process should be automatic. The Talkboard (specifically including the iteration which you were a part of) could not be trusted to police it's own.
Remember? Jogging the memory yet? That situation became so farcical that an FT member floated the idea of a membership recall mechanism. The Talkboard has historically shown that it will not take these kind of actions. I applaud a "tripwire" as proposed. It essentially removes any specious claims of moderator bias (by making Randy the ultimate judge of any action taken) and removes politics and the ability to protect "friends" from the equation. I'd suggest we think of it in that light as we see who objects and why. |
Originally Posted by ozstamps
(Post 10365382)
I think most FT members want to continue see the FT'ers elected to TB are the ones THEY choose to vote in, not just the ones on a "short list" able to be determined by other members.
|
As some members cannot understand what we mean when warn about discussing certain subjects, this thread will now get a timeout for a bit.
This thread will be closed for AT LEAST 24 hours. |
Originally Posted by RichMSN
(Post 10368131)
Could such "action" be withheld until Randy confirmed it? Otherwise, what's to keep a very busy Randy (for one reason or another) from not getting around to reviewing it until the member is removed from TB?
OTOH, since the Talkboard is advisory to Randy, and he (or one of his staff) have to do practical things to "remove" an individual (revoke access to the private TB forum, change their user title, etc), it stands to reason that he'd review the situation before doing it. With that in mind, I'm personally of the opinion that Randy almost has to review the situation before taking action to facilitate a Talkboard member's removal. |
So, am I reading your comment to indicate that you misrepresented this portion of the proposal when you stated that Kokonutz would be ineligible to run based on the way the proposal is written?
I want to be sure I understand your view.... and whether you understand what the proposal says.... Note... I have not provided any opinion yet... I want to fully understand all the caveats... and having a member who is voting to indicated the proposal means something different that what I and others read it to mean is disconcerning. William
Originally Posted by Punki
(Post 10364456)
wharvey writes:
{Paragraph removed by moderator due to being off topic} I will say this: The general members should be able to pick whomever they choose to represent them, regardless of previous suspensions. For those of you who are anxious to have moderators and talkboard members held to the same standard of accountability, I say AMEN. I would love it if moderators were held publicly accountable for their actions, just asTalkBoard members are. That would be a major step in the right direction for FlyerTalk. {Paragraph removed by moderator due to being off topic} |
The thread has been reopened, and its mission is to discuss the TalkBoard Guidelines. It is evident that some or all of the TB want to add something about unseating (either temporarily or permanently) an elected member, if they are suspended by Randy's appointed moderators.
Personally I see no problems with this sub-discussion. What has caused numerous posts to be redacted is debating past, present, or even prospective moderator actions. If for example a poster ponders whether a suspension for cyber-stalking is an appropriate reason for removing someone from the board, go for it. What is not fair game is referring to a specific event that happened in the past. There is always going to be disagreements on what activities justify a suspension. As the longest term moderator here on Flyertalk, it's fair to say that even co-moderators on the same board don't always agree. That is healthy, and minimizes subjectivity. Consequently in order for this sub-discussion to continue positively, the posters and the TB are just going to have to stipulate that the moderators will initiate suspensions. If people have issues with specific suspensions or what behavior causes one, I encourage them to PM Randy Petersen for the best opportunity to receive a definitive answer. All posters are welcome to PM any moderator (whether WHarvey or me in reference to this forum, or in general) with questions that do not belong in a community forum. Not sure you will get a definitive answer every time as Randy makes some policy unilaterally, but at least a courtesy response should be expected.* *With some leeway as to the timing of the response, since most of us have jobs and family that probably take priority |
Originally Posted by Moderator2
(Post 10378593)
The thread has been reopened, and its mission is to discuss the TalkBoard Guidelines. It is evident that some or all of the TB want to add something about unseating (either temporarily or permanently) an elected member, if they are suspended by Randy's appointed moderators.
Personally I see no problems with this sub-discussion. What has caused numerous posts to be redacted is debating past, present, or even prospective moderator actions. If for example a poster ponders whether a suspension for cyber-stalking is an appropriate reason for removing someone from the board, go for it. What is not fair game is referring to a specific event that happened in the past. There is always going to be disagreements on what activities justify a suspension. As the longest term moderator here on Flyertalk, it's fair to say that even co-moderators on the same board don't always agree. That is healthy, and minimizes subjectivity. Consequently in order for this sub-discussion to continue positively, the posters and the TB are just going to have to stipulate that the moderators will initiate suspensions. If people have issues with specific suspensions or what behavior causes one, I encourage them to PM Randy Petersen for the best opportunity to receive a definitive answer. All posters are welcome to PM any moderator (whether WHarvey or me in reference to this forum, or in general) with questions that do not belong in a community forum. Not sure you will get a definitive answer every time as Randy makes some policy unilaterally, but at least a courtesy response should be expected.* *With some leeway as to the timing of the response, since most of us have jobs and family that probably take priority |
Originally Posted by kokonutz
(Post 10378634)
Thank you for explaining exactly why the provision in the guidelines draft requiring a relatively clean moderation history as a prerequesite for TB candidacy is a terrible idea. @:-)
If complete acquiescence to Randy's decisions is reasonable, there may be an acceptable alternate phrasing of the provision that focuses on Randy's decision rather than any moderator actions forcing a decision to occur. If the TB is not willing to agree to complete acquiescence to Randy's decisions, I don't see a bright future for the TB. JMO, but I see this as the crux of the issue. |
Originally Posted by kokonutz
(Post 10378634)
Thank you for explaining exactly why the provision in the guidelines draft requiring a relatively clean moderation history as a prerequesite for TB candidacy is a terrible idea. @:-)
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:55 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.