As Senator Larry Craig demonstrated, congresspeople can be arrested, which effectively kept him from "showing up for work." Jim Traficant was prevented from coming to work--unlike our TB, the US House actually voted out one it's own in that case.

In the United States, the combination of the constitution and case law (notably WILLIAMSON v. U.S) don't allow legislative members to break the law or enjoy immunity from criminal conduct. @:-)

The government analogy does not particularly help. Nor, as has been pointed out for some time, is FT a "government."

Enough do so that it would (and will be) contentious.

Please, dismiss that assertion, too.

Is that what 2/3 of the sitting (6 of 9) members of TB want?

Craig had the benefit of due process. He received bail and was free to go to work.

You can't please all the people all the time. @:-)

I happen to agree with the supporters of a modicum of decorum for TalkBoard. Other TalkBoard members may feel differently.

Not only that, but one branch is given veto power over who may stand for positions in the other branch.

It is intriguing to me that the posters here who are so concerned that TB members "live up" to the ToS and that they don't "allow themselves to be suspended" don't seem at all concerned about moderators doing the same. If elected TB members have a history of either failing to abide by the ToS or misinterpreting them to the point of getting 30-day suspensions, then what's to say unelected moderators won't have the same failings and suspend a TB member for invalid reasons?

We're all human and all capable of making mistakes both well-intentioned and not. By not having a "meta moderation" system (e.g., like slashdot) the host is implicitly saying he is OK with letting the moderators go unpoliced. That makes a certain amount of sense as long as an errant action impacts only a single or few members for a finite period. (e.g., if I get banned, it only impacts me.) But when an errant moderator action, even if well-intended, against a TB member can undo the will of the FT membership by removing them from TB (or making a potential TB member ineligible to stand for election for 2 years, which is an eternity online), it becomes more of a concern.

You are not alone.

And I think the argument that these provisions create a perception of conflict is more persuasive than any evidence of past/present conflict, however strong that may be. When a few members have the power to silence a TB member who may disagree with them on a motion for the duration of a debate (or permanently), it's hard not to have a perception of impropriety.

I think updating/formalizing the TB guidelines is a great idea. 90% of the guidelines do not seem to be at all controversial. Why not allow a vote on those, and save the controversial stuff for an amendment?

I agree with this suggestion. But I think some people would prefer to "slip that in".

Do we get to have riots??

It gets contentious when my godson does not get to smear his fingerpaints on his bedroom wall. Nobody in his family particularly cares.

This smoldering threat of some sort of tantrum is becoming really amusing. Stop threatening and actually do something. Get Randy's attention. If you feel that the existing rules must be broken, then break them spectacularly and suffer the consequences. Or organize a march on the House of Miles, or whereever IB's corporate headquarters happen to be - if you provide enough booze, most of FT community will show up to drink.

The time for action is passing...

False. Essentially, having a 30-day suspension trigger an automatic removal from the TB or a permanent inability to run would then bring the Talkboard into line with the level of decorum that it takes to become and remain a moderator.

It would sure be nice to see that all FT members who wish to volunteer their time held to the same standard.

I know I'm tired of people getting sarcastic or ridiculous (see above) when I'm perfectly serious in making a point. I feel like I'm not being taken seriously, which is disappointing when it comes from a regular FTer.

When it's a TB Member/Mod, it's even worse.

Since there's a separate thread on this topic w/ comments welcome, voting underway, shouldn't people be posting in that one instead? Just a thought...

Cheers.

I agree, or one could have just changed the title of this one to say "voting underway".

Here is the problem with that, and this is my perception, as well. Perhaps you will now say I am the only one that feels this way.

I'm taking you very seriously, and I apologize if I have come off too sarcastic towards you. I just disagree with your tactics. If I was in your position with your beliefs, which I am certain you hold not jokingly but with a true sense of conviction, I'd be taking a very different approach.

What tactic?

I pride myself in operating within the rules. That tactic (which you mentioned, getting suspended) I find distasteful.

I know the host reads this board, and I've communicated my point. What else can I do?

I will say I'm disappointed that one TB member will not be allowed to vote on this. The usual suspects will blame that TB member, however, I wonder why the vote couldn't have waited another week. This is not THAT time-sensitive. Again, perception is that a "no" vote has been silenced. If the vote ends up 5-2-1 for this, this will be, IMO, an outcome that will need to be challenged at some point (via legitimate channels, of course).

And I do recognize that I've talked too much today, so I'm done.

(Forgive me for that. I had to put a cat to sleep today and this is helping take my mind off it.)

The difference is that TalkBoard members are chosen by the general membership. This gives the membership, who are the most important component of FT, a say in who will be on TalkBoard.

I would be thrilled if members had the same say about moderators. I'll tell you what -- if you can arrange for the general membership to be able to vote off every two years any moderator it is unhappy with, I will support these proposals.

This would mean not only holding TB members and moderators to the same standard, as you want, but having the same people decide if they are meeting those standards.