tcoo052 writes:

I think this is a terrific idea and will bring it up in the private forum.

I applaud my friend from the Commonwealth of Virginia for his hard work. Three questions:

1. Why are section 3, section f, a,b,c not automatic grounds for removal of a TB member? I don't see any compelling reason to carry dead weight, or give the TB the chance to "do nothing." There have been at least three instances (two of which were debated in this forum) of prior TB members missing the requisite number of votes. Nothing happened.

2. Why bother grandfathering candidates? By that, I mean that while I suppose there is an argument to be made that a sitting candidate ought not be booted off the TB for having exceeded the "upheld 30-day suspension" requirement, I see no reason why potential candidates should get a crack at the apple merely because the TB waited until now to come up with the requirement. IOW, if you got a lifetime that was upheld last year, why should you be allowed to run this year?

3. Why not go ahead and automatically remove any TB member who leaks information from the private forum?

Other than those minor nits, I am pleasantly surprised. I also think that if the TB as a whole passes these than I owe my friend from Virginia a pint of his choosing.

With regard to your first and second questions, Clue, until there is an established, independent, suspension review board, there is no system of checks and balances. This is what will keep me from approving proposed these guidelines.

With regard to your third question, the only small leaks that I have seen since I were on TalkBoard were clearly insignificant and unintentional and constituted no grounds for removal.

All those topics got discussed during our sausage-making process... what you see here is what actually won majority votes in our straw polls.

Some of us, like some of you, wanted to see more stringent language and requirements in place. ;)

And, some of us, like some of you, wanted to see less stringent language and requirements in place. ;)

And some of us (ordinary members) want to have the freedom to vote for any member who decides to run, no matter what his record. If we don't like what we see we will vote against him.

We also don't want to see our elected representives removed without our approval.

Speaking only for myself:
Becasue there can be extenuating circumstances where more than 1/3 of the TB believe that those grounds are not, in and of themselves, adequate grounds to remove a member. Eg, someone goes on a 3-week boondock on the Da Nang river delta and during that time 3 issues are simultaneously considered. Further, some on the TB (myself included) feel, that the notion of somone being 'automatically' punished are, like mandatory sentencing guidelines, anathema to the concept of fairness and liberty.

To be clear, we are talking about this provision:I dont support this requirement at all.

First of all, the existing Talkboard should NOT be telling posters which candidates are 'worthy' of their trust or vote. Limiting the candidate pool this way reeks of self-selection and 'raising the ladder.' Posters should get to decide for themselves what candidates are worthy of their vote.

Further, I don't think we should be setting standards of behavior and 'punishments for TOS violations' for non-TB members. We have been told time and again that it is not the TB's place to presume to tell the host how to handle discipline, he has told us that poster discipline is beyond our purview. And yet with this provision we are telling the host how to handle discipline: a 30-day suspension means no TB candidacy for 2 years. That's the very definition of telling the host how to handle discipline. So I guess what we are saying he REALLY means is: it is not our place to presume to tell the host how to handle discipline unless it is something that we personally think is a good idea. :confused:

Because by tying eligibility of posters for TB service to moderation history we are involving ourselves in the 'punishment' phase of the moderation process.

I can see from reading the proceedings of past TBs (and I do wish all posters could see this too) absolutely no correlation between members elected after serving a 30-day suspension and effective/constructive TB service. To the contrary; some of the most active and constructive TB members are those who I happen to know have served suspensions. So it's NOT about effectiveness as a TB members. So what other reason is there for this provision, other than a punitive disincentive for 30-day suspensions for regular posters?

The ONLY pre-existing condition that bars one from being able to stand for TB, the definition of 'in good standing,' is all about a moderation issue: having been issued a 30-day suspension.

Everything else deals with how one conducts oneself as either a declared candidate or as a TB member.

From my perspective, this provision is completely inconsistent with the notion that moderation is outside our purview because with it the TB is inserting ourselves into moderation of posters who are not TB members (or even candidates yet!).


Ok, so I think the entire provision is wrong. But as for your SPECIFIC question on grandfathering, well, if we are going to set moderation rules, then they ought to at least be FAIR moderation rules. And fairness means no ex-post-facto rules. We can't justly create and apply a moderation punishment as part of the moderation process AFTER the person has committed the suspension-worthy offense.

Ex-post-facto rules are even worse than mandatory minimums!!!!


As you can probably tell, this provision was the subject of intense debate and a straw poll in the private TB forum! :)

Again, I am against mandatory sentencing guidelines. The world exists in greys, not in black and whites.

Nits or not, I'll take you up on that pint anytime! :D

Wow. Color me impressed. This shows real dedication. ^^^

*shrug*. I happen to think that Randy is a heck of a lot more lenient than any board would be. If that's why you vote against them, it's nice to know why, so that it can be brought up when the seat comes due for re-election.

Both incorrect. koko, I am conflicted on this issue and you have good points aside from these two. And you argue your points well, something I greatly appreciate. That said:

1. The proposed provision sets a standard future for TB members and candidates. The standard is one that 99+% of FT members have no problem meeting. It's really a very low bar, IMHO.

2. TB is not "involving itself in the punishment phase" by establishing eligibility criteria for future TB members. TB is merely adding "plays well with others" as a requirement.

If there is a decisive argument to made against the provision (and remember I'm not particularly enthusiastic about it in the first place), the argument would have to be that moderators might have the ability to unfairly exclude a candidate from the TB. But the "upheld by Randy" provision eliminates that argument.

This leaves the question of whether FT members should be free to elect a candidate whose (future) record demonstrates significant inability to play well with others. Such people can be the life of the party, and one could make good arguments either way on excluding them from TB. This is precisely why I am conflicted on the proposal.

I completely agree with your last point, nsx. In point of fact, if this provision were in place from the beginning of time then several very effective TB members would have been ineligible to serve. Dare I say that these guidelines would not necessarily even be under consideration right now because I would have been unable to serve. Ironic but true.

Let me respond to your first point, though:

Whether you call them standards, rules or guidelines of conduct is a distinction without a difference.

When you base that standard on moderation, the standard is about moderation.

Let's say you have a law that says you can't buy a car if you have ever taken a drink of beer. Is that a 'standard for buying a car' or is that 'creating a punishment for drinking beer'?

It is very clearly both creating a car buying standard and a punishment for drinking beer, whether the INTENTION is just the former or not. Just as this provision is both a standard for TB service as well as a punishment for a 30-day suspension, whether the INTENTION is just setting a standard for service or not.

Look at it this way: our 'rule/standard/whatever you care to call that rose' is CLOSE ENOUGH to a moderation policy that the TB topics mods in this forum are having to delete posts because they are 'going down the moderation discussion road'...heck, they are probably reading this post and thinking...jeez that's a LOT of talk about moderation in a forum where we are not allowed to talk about moderation.

Why? Because this provision is about moderation. @:-) :td:

I would guess a lot of time and energy has been put into this. Thanks.

Is there any reason why votes (other than those required by Randy to be secret) cannot be required to be publicised in the public forum before voting commences? A recurring theme in this forum is disgruntlement at voting being already well underway before there is any chance of public comment or input. IIRC more than one TB member on more than one occasion has said there vote would have been different if they'd gotten the feedback before they voted.

Bravo!

Great points!

Absolutely true, as evidenced, among other examples, by your outstanding effort and work put in in helping to create these guidelines.

Kiwi Flyer, the vote is not underway. In fact, the question has not yet been called. We posted the proposal to get your input to allow us to make changes before we presented the final draft for a vote.

We have been working on this for several months and I would prefer to leave the proposal on the table for as long as general membership would like to have it there to review and give input. Unfortunately, I was over ruled and a ten-day window was provided for your input. If, however, we are still receiving meaningful input after ten days, I see no logical reason that we should rush to a vote.

I also think that tcook052's suggestion to make a link to this thread a sticky on all fora is a great one. Do you think that would be a good idea?

Imagine a state transportation department commission on rules of the road. Should it include people who have had their driving licenses suspended? IMHO, a reformed offender might be an excellent choice to help the commission improve the clarity of the rules of the road. He might even be able to devise signage that improves compliance.

OTOH, a recent offender is a demonstrated adversary of the rules of the road. He might be helpful to the commission, or he might actually disrupt the commission's work. The only certainty is that he has not demonstrated a commitment to comply with the rules, old or new. It's a risk to include him on the commission.

Arguments by analogy are inherently shaky, but they can serve to disprove assertions that an issue is all black or all white rather than arguable either way.