Well, certain posters always ridiculed other posters with this "black helicopter" sentence - until the black helicopters were actually found landing on a site called tireflock. Clearly, you are unaware of what happened there. But not to dwell on the past:

This is in fact about the strength of the argument. We are not talking about a clause here that would be in a statute directed at the general public. There are only a limited group of people running for TalkBoard each year. There are even less people who have gotten suspensions or who participate in debates in a way that they run a risk of getting a suspension. The reality is that the suspensions were incurred for the participation in the debate, not for some evil wrongdoing, as some here try to imply by vilifying posters who have previously been suspended - I am not talking about whether the individual suspensions were justified or not - but they were handed out because these posters participated in debates in the first place, either here or on the ORP forum. And why do they participate in the debates? Because they care about Flyertalk.

So the reality is that this clause would only affect a tiny number of posters - those who actively engage in debates and who are out of the members first group that is statistically more affected by suspensions.

And I believe that Randy knows who these posters are and that he knows how to keep them in check when necessary. I don't think Randy needs a clause for automatic removal in TalkBoard guidelines to do that.

It seems to me that Randy hinted that he considers some of them valuable contributors and/or still in good standing, despite the suspensions. If that is the case, that is a pretty strong argument against the suggested clause.

Well, if I take your post as being directed at the argument rather than the person, your argument boils down to saying that since the rules can only affect in practice a small group and we know who is in that group, we should therefore base our decision-making on what we know and think of individuals in that small group.
Boy, I could not disagree more. What we are trying to do is to adopt rules capable of adapting to any situation and any person in similar situation in the future, not individual decisions. I won't labour on on the distinction between rules as abstract and general norms, and individual decisions (especially to you, as a lawyer ;) ), but it seems to me that designing rules by reference to anecdotal data about given individuals is absolutely not the way to proceed.
As such, I would take very strong exception to your assumption that the way to proceed is to base our decision-making regarding which rules to adopt on the current set of individuals and what we think of them.


That sort of stuff can always be argued both ways since what the clause does in effect is to seize Randy of the matter when the member acts in the manner suggesting that the mark has been overstepped. We can perhaps discuss where the mark should lie, but the assumption that there should be absolutely no mark that could be overstepped and that it is quite OK to run riot and serve as a TB member leaves me very uneasy.

A sensible approach! ^

It amuses me that you make up a statement that you attribute to me and then say "boy I could not disagree more".

This is not what I said and not what I meant.

I fully agree that the decisionmaking should not be based on the individuals who are being targeted here. However, this is what is happening here. This is why I recommend to preserve the status quo.

So you are not addressing the strength of the argument, after all. You are making assumptions as to motives that push certain individuals to take certain positions. This is not addressing the issue of the validity or otherwise of the arguments put forward. In other words, you are not addressing the issue of whether the rules themselves, irrespective of whom they might apply to, are a good set of rules or not. If so, I stand by what I said in post #405 about the need, if we want a meaningful discussion, to address the substantive issues rather than attempting to second-guess the intentions of other participants in the discussion.

Apologies for misunderstanding your post and putting words in your mouth that you would wish to disown, out of a genuine (albeit failed) attempt to understand what you meant about addressing the strength of the argument.
I was especially led in error by what you said in the tail end of your post, viz., to paraphrase: the persons likely to be affected are known; Randy thinks that these are good guys ('valuable contributors') despite the suspensions, hence why we should reject the suggested clause.

To me, this looked like rule-making based on individual cases rather than addressing the merits or otherwise of the rule per se.

I addressed that issue previously in this thread.

I am still struggling with what part of the assertion:

"TB Members who do not vote are not doing their jobs. TB Members who keep on not voting should be removed."

do people here actually disagree? We had a TB member in 2006 who missed SEVEN votes in a row over approximately three months, yet his friends on the TB thought he should stay. That is a travesty.

ElmhurstNick,

Thanks for this comment. I have refraimed from posting on this thread as I listened to the input and put my thoughts together. I fall on both sides... as a former Talkboard member and current moderator.

Bottom line for me is that I believe any "organized" group should have standards for membership and guidelines for removal of members.

I too am concerned if a member conducts him/herself in such a way as to prevent their representing their constituents.

At the end of the day, 30 day suspensions are not issued lightly. I do not have the statistics but I do know it happens rarely... and ONLY to repeated offenders.

I personally see no reason why the Talkboard should not be willing to put some level of conduct clause in their guidelines.

This should not be about the individual members involved; it should be about the "institution of Talkboard". It seems like the proposal as written tried to do that - it would not be retroactive for current members. That seems like an appropriate compromise.

Perhaps, the guidelines should be "tweaked" to say the following: "No Flyertalk member can serve on the TB if they receive a 30 day suspension. If that member chooses to appeal their suspension to Randy Petersen, it must happen within the 30 days of the suspension. If the suspension is upheld, that member cannot stand for Talkboard until two years have elapsed from the end of that suspension. If the member is a current member of the Talkboard, they will be removed from the Talkboard if their appeal is denied by Randy Petersen. To ensure that the TB member can function during that time, they will have access to the private TB forum ONLY during the period of their suspension. In addition, they will continue to serve on the TB after their suspension until AFTER Randy Petersen rules on the appeal." This way, the member stays in their position until Randy takes positive action. If it takes 3 months, they stay in their position until that time.

Regardless of the format and wording, I hope the Talkboard takes some action to put guidelines in place.

Nick you asked me a direct question that I hope I directly answered so allow me to do the same:

As I noted in my response to your direct question, I can find no problems with the current system of treating all flyertalkers the same in terms of TB eligibility: declare your intentions then make your best case in the elections forum then let the posters decide whose arguments and positions most represent their views. It has worked well for years. Imho there are no dysfunctions created by having TB members with a spotty moderation history like me stand for TB election.

It's typically considered unwise to go around trying to fix things that aren't broken.

So in your opinion, what systemic problem needs to be fixed with regard to talkboard candidacy eligibility and why?

Did you mean me or the other one? I'll take the liberty of assuming you meant me.

Koko, I'll make you a deal. I'll grant you your assertion, if you grant me mine that missing seven TB votes in a row due to getting oneself suspended is a dysfunctional travesty and should have resulted (and should result in the future) in automatic removal, and that neither assertion depends on which TB members either are friends with each other, or conversely think that their counterparts are goat-sucking weasels.

Deal?

^^

I get a feeling that this was directed to me rather than ElmhurstNick, so let me answer it.

First, I am not sure that I got a straight answer to my question. I still do not know for sure whether you consider that there is a situation where a TB candidate or member might be regarded as not being in good standing or whether the very concept is meaningless to you. Your answer suggests the latter but I am not 100% sure.

Second, I disagree with your "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" premise. Under that principle, we would never make any improvement to anything ("Who needs bicycles? What's wrong with walking?" :)). If we followed it, we would never create any new forum on Flyertalk nor would we ever consider whether changes such as new smilies, avatars or photos should be allowed. These may or may not be good ideas, but simply because Flyertalk works without these is no reason not to consider whether they should be introduced or not. Heck, Flyertalk would work without TB so, under that logic, we don't need TB either.

On the substance now:
TBers may be FTers first and foremost. It does not follow from this that there are just FTers. TBers are have certain responsibilities over and beyond those of every member, namely to make recommendations on various aspects of the functioning of FT. As I said before, there is nothing outlandish in expecting persons in position of responsibility to be especially expected to abide by basic rules. We expect in just about any institutions where individuals are in position of authority. I fail to see what is so special about FT that would explain what it should be different here.

IMO, there is something fundamentally wrong in TB regarding that its own members being in repeated and/or grave violations of the ToS is just "business as usual" with no implication whatsoever as to their sitting on TB. TB members showing disregard to the ToS makes a mockery of the ToS. How can I, as an ordinary FTer, be reasonably expected to comply with them when TBers, who, of all people, should know better, show that they could not care less about complying with them? To me, there is a fundamental incompatibility between being a member of TB and showing scant regard to the ToS.

You are perhaps going to tell me that, well, TB itself, by a qualified majority, can recommend the removal of one of its members. Some participants in this thread have pointed out that this just does not happen. Even if it did, I fear that, as any impeachment-style processes by elected bodies, partisan considerations would be likely to come to the fore. Elected bodies are just not well suited to enforcement, especially against their own.

What makes this look even worse is that it is TB itself deciding that constant violations of the ToS by TB members should have no impact on TB eligibility. A kind of self-exoneration, if you like.

I'm not sure which is worse, a true belief that it is just "business as usual" or a true belief that it is a side effect of some sort of righteous and principled disobedience on behalf of the unnamed oppressed.

I know the analogy to government is pooh-poohed by some here, but I think it's most appropriate. The system here makes it possible for one branch to effectively tell another to "not bother showing up for work." Effectively acting as judge, jury, and executioner (if only temporary). This is what is the sticking point for many of us -- at least this is my feeling.

Perception is reality.

Your perception on this matter is not necessarily reality for all. Many people do not share this so-called "sticking point". @:-)