A quick search thru this forum will indicate that in the past, various (not all) TB members have absolutely not had any respect for public input prior to pulling the trigger on a motion or vote.

Great explanation. My point is that TB members have certainly learned not to make formal proposals without sufficient input. If we can trust all TB members to act accordingly, the process does not need to burden ALL proposals with a lengthy process designed to accommodate failure of TB members to complete their homework prior to making a complex or controversial proposal.

There may be another solution: default to the complex process unless the proposal is seconded by at least 50% of the TB, in which case no amendments are allowed. Note that seconding a proposal does not require the TB member to vote for it.

I'm not convinced that such trust can merely be implied. I think that it needs to be spelled out in writing and that's where we are with the current provisions in this document.

Thanks kokunutz - I missed that section. However, it still only says public notification can be made. That is no different from now, in substance.

Can anyone enlighten me as to the reason for this? I thought vote reversals were typically allowed in voting bodies, provided that the vote has not been closed. Here the vote closes on submission of the last member's vote or expiration of the time limit. Changing a vote on the basis of new information is an important advantage, e.g. allowing people to go on record early in case connectivity is shaky. What's the counterargument?

I personally would like the ability to change a vote however given the long period of votes being open, my understanding is that we cannot change votes because the vBulletin software does not allow it. Another thought I've always had is that it also is to prevent people from trying to manipulate a vote by trying to pressure other members into changing a vote.

Of course, right now the two week vote period combined with the rigid "no changing votes" policy causes all sorts of issues. In one case, I voted via my BlackBerry and clicked the wrong box (since they aren't really aligned correctly in that mobile format) and ended up voting the opposite way of how I intended and not realizing it until the vote closed (luckily my vote wasn't the swing vote!). In my time on TB, I've seen a vote that was very evident early on whether something would pass or fail but an individual holds out for a week or more in casting their final vote to (seemingly) purposefully delay the posting of the obvious results. (In my opinion, we have at least one member who seems to employ this tactic often enough to not be coincidence.) And I've seen an individual who is the swing voter on a controversial issue quickly rush to vote to avoid dragging out the debate period on a proposal. So you have both sides of the coin.

With regard to changing votes, as in all things, common sense should prevail. I once clicked the wrong button, advised the president immediately, and my vote was reported as intended. Common sense in that instance did prevail. Beyond accidents like that, a vote cast should, IMHO, stand.

Personally, I always try to wait to the end to vote to make certain that I have an opportunity to hear and consider all input. (I may not necessarily agree with it, but I certainly want to hear and consider it.) One time that plan backfired on me. I had it on my calendar to vote on two issue in the early afternoon. As it happened, I got caught up in a very long, unanticipated, meeting and did not get back to my computer until just after the votes had closed. Stuff happens. Again, common sense should prevail.

nroscoe writes:

Most of the proposal is formalizing existing practices and will really not make an appreciable difference in our day-to-day operation. The two major areas which deviate, and IMHO, are dangerous, are the following:

"c. Campaigning is restricted to the current year's TalkBoard Election forum and members' signature lines. In order to respect the privacy of all members, campaigning by the TalkBoard candidates may not be done via the FlyerTalk Private Message system or via mass-mailed FlyerTalk email campaigns. Any TalkBoard candidate found to be mass-emailing via the FlyerTalk email system or abusing the FlyerTalk Private Message system for the purpose of campaigning will be removed from the ballot by the FlyerTalk host and will not be eligible to run in that year's TalkBoard elections."

On one hand, we are an internet community, but we are also a very unique real world community, with members who travel together, work together, eat together, party together, and in some cases even sleep together, and form lifetime friendships and partnerships. We should, therefore, stick as closely as possible to the rules of the real world. In the real world, if something bothers you, election time is the time to speak up and work for change.

Sure there are times when campaigning is annoying, but it is also the way that we gain valid information on the issues. Any member who has a position should have a right to speak their piece. Any member who doesn't want to hear their position should have a right to ignore them.


"d. TalkBoard members represent the community and are therefore expected to act accordingly and within the guidelines of the FlyerTalk Terms of Service. In order to be eligible to run for TalkBoard, members must be in good standing in the FlyerTalk community. The term “in good standing” is defined here as being a member with full posting privileges throughout the official campaigning and voting timeframe as well as having not received an upheld 30-day suspension after these new TalkBoard guidelines go into effect, INSERT DATE HERE OF RATIFICATION HERE, eg. AUGUST 15, 2008. Should a candidate be suspended during that timeframe and the suspension is upheld by the FT host, the candidate is deemed ineligible to run for a position on the TalkBoard until two years after that 30-day suspension ends. Any suspension of a candidate may be reviewed & overturned by the FT host, at which point, the candidate will be eligible to run for office."

This is the real deal breaker for me. We are all smarter-than-average adults, and, as Dovster previously posted, we should all have the right to make our own decisions about who we think is worthy or not worthy to serve on TalkBoad. Does cross-posting really disqualify someone from serving on TalkBoard, any more than getting a parking ticket would disqualify someone from running for Congress?

Unfortunately, at this point, there is no established, functional, independent, suspension review board to deal with suspensions in a timely manner, and Randy is a very busy guy who frequently does not have time to react quickly to review request. Moreover, as much as I like and respect him, Randy simply cannot be objective or independent. He himself is a member of the moderator team.

Before I was elected to TalkBoard, I felt very strongly that there should be a clear separation of power on FlylerTalk, i.e.:

A. One body to make the rules;
B. Another body to enforce the rules; and
C. A third body to review the enforcement.

Just like in the real world. ;)

Having served as a TalkBoard member these past nine months, I am even more convinced of that belief, and, as a TalkBoard member I honestly think that affirming the above clause is a major step backward.

Personally, I just don't like the idea of moderators to have the power to exclude people from the running for TalkBoard for a two-year period, without an established, independent, review process in place.

Ironically, here is a situation that could result from passing this rule. Our highly esteemed kokonutz who is IMHO the most productive current member of TalkBoard, and who was independently responsible for drafting these guidelines, would be ineligible for running for TalkBoard next year, if for some crazy reason he were willing to do so. :D

Note to moderators: It has previously been established that, since koko's suspension was published by Randy, it can be publicly discussed without any repercussions.

I don't particularly want to start getting "vote for me" PMs, so I agree with that part of the rule. However, with the new vBulletin software, has the TB considered allowing candidates to post/campaign/respond to questions in the "visitor messages" on their profile pages? I haven't thought through this, so don't know if it would be a good or bad thing. Just wondering if it was or should be considered when putting together these guidelines.

It doesn't seem like allowing it would be annoying or an invasion of a member's privacy - it isn't being pushed on me. I wouldn't even see it or know it was going on unless I chose to visit that candidate's profile page. Probably less bothersome than a signature, but I'm probably missing something.

Maybe the candidates would prefer to keep it off their Profile pages? They might not want FTers posting a bunch of questions for them on the Visitor Messages? Randy usually moderates the questions that appear in the Election forum and all candidates are asked the same question. Allowing questions on the individual candidates' Profile pages may cause problems, though the TOS should still apply.

I'm just "thinking outloud". Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?

Unless I am reading the proposal incorrectly, this is an incorrect statement. Please tell me how Kokonutz would be ineligible to stand for election?

Apparently (or Randy's always has said, and I guess the TB can "formalize" that), our host disagrees with you. I (nor, I suspect, the vast majority of FT members) don't want PM/E-mail/etc spam from candidates.

A forum (which, I might add, is moderated far more lightly than any other, full stop) is provided. Why do you want to spam people?


You don't get a 30 day suspension for just crossposting. It has to be in conjunction with a series of TOS violations. Stop bending the truth.

Sour grapes. It's _his front yard_. Or, it's IBs and he's going to be running it for an awfully long time.

I would love to hear why (absent your personal circumstances) why you don't find Randy reasonable?


That's a rather blatant untruth. Only a suspension that is upheld by Randy results in disqualification.

Actually, if it's passed as it reads, Koko would not have a problem.

You really, really don't want to open that can of worms.

Not only can it be annoying, but it is also a way that a lot of invalid information is disseminated on the issues, some of which have nothing to do with TalkBoard.


No one should have to suffer spam of any kind on a private internet bulletin board. Deleting PMs and emails that I didn't want to read is a waste of my time and resources. It's not possible to ignore such garbage - it takes up space in my inbox and doesn't go away on its own.

I'm not going to respond to most of the rest of your post as it confuses private property with public property and is outside the scope of the TalkBoard's purview.

Randy is one of the kindest, most generous people I have ever met. He's more likely to give people a break than any committee would be.

Except that FlyerTalk is a business that needs to attract and retain members, not a government that has a monopoly on power over its citizens. Government requires internal checks on its power precisely because it is a monopoly. Those checks consist of setting up a system that encourages the branches to fight against each other. No successful business uses such a fractious system.

Does this mean that there is no separation of powers in business? Hardly. The customers hold most of the power, because they can leave any time they want. FlyerTalk needs to use whatever structure provides the best overall experience for its members. That probably means placing authority and responsibility with a person who stands to make or lose a lot of money depending on how well FT satisfies its members. It certainly does not mean dividing power so that nobody is accountable financially or personally. In business, the buck needs to stop on someone's desk.

Well written in the main I agree. :D

FT members have always voted for whom they want to represent them. No strings attached.

In the past about a DOZEN TB members, from President down, have received suspensions - indeed sometimes from other TB members, or candidates for TB. Many of them were suspended whilst serving, or during an election campaign.

That is how the present system works, and stating that with no names involved on either side is a well known fact, and is clearly germaine to discussion of this new wording, and only this.

Unless the new guidelines preclude any Moderators from running or serving on TB (and no-one is suggestion that occur) there is an obvious conflict of interest possible here to selectively remove any candidate, or potential candidate.

Having that system expanded to this vote, assumes the members of FT are stupid and cannot think for themselves, and vote they TB members they want in.

That entire section needs to be removed IMHO, as it might be the sticking point that ensure the entire TB guidelines are not voted for by the 66% majority needed to pass it.

I propose that that entire swathe of suspended member verbiage and dot points be replaced with:

The FlyerTalk host may at his absolute discretion, remove any TB member who incurs a suspension of 30 days or more whilst a sitting TB member.

The members elect the TB, and they will and they always have, vote for whom they want to serve them. The voting history clearly shows suspensions do not deter them form voting in who they want to represent them.

IF an elected member behaves so badly the FT host chooses to remove them - so be it. The proposed amendments make it clear the FT host is the end decider anyway, and all the proposed rules do is allow the dangerous perception to exist that some members might be precluded from running. MOST unhealthy in any democratic process.

TB has always had the ability to remove members by a vote, and in the past I was part of discussions as to whether two serving members should be removed.

If Barack Obama had any influence on whomever his Republican opponent would be for the election, the world would fall about laughing about the lack of justice and transparency.

I urge TB to further discuss this, and consider removing that swathe of verbiage, and replacing it with the simple paragraph above, and then the rules can hopefully receive wide support when it comes to a vote. @:-)

That's what this thread is for - to seek member input on the wording before a vote is taken - correct?

Glen

How many times have I said that we’re more than just a bunch of pretty faces?? :p


Whoops. :o

You’ve got a PM.

Correct and you make some valid points IMO.

I agree with Dovster.

(Oh my god -- I better go lie down ;) )