Vast majority?

Citation, please.

So if a majority of us who were elected support certain clauses in these guidelines, then that must mean that is what the majority view on FT is.

Cool. Makes things very clear ^

I think that looking at past election results might give you some hint as to what the majority thinks about people with suspensions serving on TalkBoard.

These elections are, perhaps, the only place on FlyerTalk where moderators really and truly are "first and foremost members" and are treated just like any other member.

You will find that certain people have had no problem in getting elected (and re-elected) to TalkBoard. This includes one senior moderator, several moderators, ordinary members who have had no suspensions, ordinary members who had past suspensions, ordinary members who had past lifetime suspensions, and even ordinary members who were suspended during the election.

You will also find certain people who have tried multiple times to get elected to TalkBoard but have failed each time. This includes both moderators (some who have had suspensions and others who have not) and ordinary members -- again, some with a record of suspensions and others without.

It does not appear to me that when people vote they really care whether the candidate is a moderator or not. Nor do they care if he has been suspended or not.

They vote for the candidates they know, like, and respect -- and they don't listen to anyone else, including moderators, telling them who they should know, like, and respect.

Not necessarily... I managed to get elected two years ago on a pretty wide margin doing none of those things. ;)

{snippy comment removed by moderator}

How can you possibly know that, given that suspensions are not a matter of public record?
Some FTers might know that some candidates might have been suspended in the past but most will have an extremely limited knowledge, if any, and most likely no idea of the severity or frequency of suspensions.
In my mind, that is a good thing as I would hate TB elections to turn into a display of dirty laundry (and presumably Randy must think the same, given the rules preventing discussions of moderation actions) but nothing allows you to conclude that electors willingly elect candidates in full knowledge of their suspension history.

Thanks, NickB for another very thoughtful post. I want to congratulate Kokonutz for his time and effort. I am not going to weigh in on the content of the Guidelines, as my position, as a moderator, may seem to be prejudicial. Good Luck, TalkBoard. This is a tough one and I wish you all the best in sorting this all out. Again, I appreciate all that Koko has done. Surely, beyond the call of duty.

Nick, that was not always the case. There was a time when you were, indeed, allowed to talk openly about suspensions and moderator actions. You will find a number of old threads about specific suspensions on the Only Randy Petersen Forum.

And, of course, in the case of members who were on suspension during the campaign, that fact appeared under their names -- just as it does today.

The first time I ran for TB, one of the questions which each candidate was asked was to detail our disciplinary histories.

I don't see where I commented on anything to do with that at all.

But you pretty much said that who the members elect indicates what they think on certain subjects. So, if a majority of TB agree with certain clauses, then a majority of FTers must agree with those clauses - according to your argument.

Afterall, I was elected with more than 2000 votes in the year I was elected - Spiff and Techgirl did even better :eek: That's more than 10x the number of votes some candidates received last year... It's a dangerous argument to make for you, when you start talking about elections as giving some kind of mandate, or indication of what FTers think, because the year in which we got elected completely dwarfs all other years in terms of the number of ordinary members who got involved. So, following your logic, we were elected by a huge number of FTers who agree with our positions, therefore how we think about these propositions mirrors what a huge number of FTers think. Of course, that kind of argument also makes it very easy to do what one wants without listening to any comments - there's an arrogance to that position that I'm not comfortable with. Which is probably just as well, given the large number of votes I received compared with those that you are trying to make the argument for ;)

Yes,as I recall that was the year when people who voted were given avatars and a tremendous number voted. Even some of those who lost that year did much better than those who won last year.

You are, therefore, comparing apples and oranges.

For all that, you were elected and I would be the last person to argue that your term of office should be cut short for any reason. Those who voted for you, avatar or not, have the right to expect that you will stay on TB as long as you are willing (assuming you do not get voted off in the next election).

If you do a search with the keyword "elected" and "Randy Petersen" as the user name, you will find a number of hits with the term "member-elected TalkBoard". It does not say, "member-elected and moderator-approved TalkBoard".

Yes, a tremendous number voted. So that election was more representative of the user group of FT than any other election, because proportionally, more of the user group voted. It's great we had one year in which we managed to engage a lot more members in the election, and hopefully we can get the same system in future elections!

But I digree. Nothing in that guideline would make TB members 'member-electdd and moderator approved'
a) a TB member only has to remain within the TOS - an expectation that is made of all FT members
b) if a TB member choses not to do that then Randy still has the final say about whether that person continues as a representative of the FT members - twice. By considering the appeal and then by considering the automatic request made by TB for removal. Given that Randy can remove any TB member at anytime, there really isn't a great deal of difference between the current situation (Randy can remove a TB member at any time) vs the situation if the guidelines passes (Randy can remove a TB member at any time, but there are times when TB will recommend to Randy that he removes a TB member - which advice he is free to take or not, as always cf OMNI post counts).

Can we cut with the mistruths/spin and the hyperbole please?

So, what are you trying to say? that one cannot draw hasty conclusions as to what FTers think merely on the base on election results? If so, I will agree with you, but then, you would need to apply that logic to your own post #378, especially as you are trying to draw conclusions as to what FTers think now from elections in the distant past.

You can't have it both ways, Dov, making inferences from vote results when it suits you and not inferring when it does not.

In that case, why not just leave the current situation? If, as you said, there "there really isn't a great deal of difference" between it and what is now being proposed, why change it and spread the disharmony which has become evident on this thread?

This is where I will disagree. If you cross the line, why should you continue to be part of the system which adds to those checks and balances?

Considering the number of people who are let off lightly after suspensions and even perma bans I would say that Randy is pretty good with keeping up with things contrary to the argument stated in your post.

It seems to me that we've got a pretty solid document. I feel pretty good about it and thank everyone for their input, ideas and edits!

It looks to me like we're down to a couple of very controversial issues, and we all knew they'd be controversial going in as there has already been a GREAT deal of debate about them in the private TB forum over the past few months.

So looking to the next step, a formal motion, would folks prefer to see an up-or-down vote on the guidelines that includes

• auto-removal of TB members who receive upheld 30-day suspension
• TB eligibility requires no 30-day suspension for previous 2 years

or two separate versions of the guidelines voted on: one with those two provisions and the other without.

I think some TB members might vote for one but not the other while others might vote for both while others might vote for neither.

Of course, if they both get >2/3 majority we'd have some reconciling to do.

If neither get >2/3 then we've got more work to do.

Just looking for the best way forward and I've posed the same question in the private TB forum.