kokonutz

I agree, Oz.

To sum up, my problems with barring those who receive suspensions from running for TB are that:

1) it bases TB eligibility on moderation history and moderation is supposed to be beyond our purview, and

2) Since spammers and 'bad guys' are not going to win a TB election in the first place, the only effect this restriction will have is to bar populist 'reformers' whose desire for change has at times put them at odds with the power structure but in favor with enough like-minded posters to get elected to the TB from running for TB. It is, imho, an effort by the sitting TB to lock reformers and radicals who might otherwise defeat a sitting TB member out of the TB process. Whether you think this provision locks out 'troublemakers' or 'radical demagogs' or 'truth speakers' or 'heroic reformers' depends on where you sit. But that ought to be a point of electoral competition, not an edict handed down by those currently in charge. Entrenching the status quo by barring those individuals from participating in the TB process is just wrong.

Despite all of the months of hard work that I have personally put into drafting these guidelines, if it contains a provision that limits eligibility to run for TB based on moderation history I am unlikely to vote for ratification.

ozstamps

Wise move kokonutz.

RichMSN

Hoo. Ray.

If TB were simply to act as a rubber stamp for the host, why have one in the first place?

Punki

koko writes:

AMEN!

kokonutz

True, there is a grandfather clause in there.

But the thing is, one day even a current-day bomb-throwing rabble-rouser like me may be seen, relative to the majority of TB voters, as an entrenched conservative. When that day comes, it will be necessary to allow the new crop of authority-challengers and change-agents to have a shot at the helm.

This provision would prevent some of them from doing so for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.

Ask yourself: what problem does this new provision seek to fix? I challenge anyone to tell me how this makes the TB election process better.

Have people with suspension histories created chaos on the TB? Are cats and dogs sleeping together? No.

The process as it exists today allows any FTer to stand for TB and allows the voters to choose the candidate that best reflects their own personal views and priorities based on what is posted in the election forum. That process is NOT broken and DOES NOT need this fix.

Football Fan

Excellent post, ozstamps. I agree with everything in there.

nsx

It's presumably supposed to promote a good working relationship between TB and the FT Host and moderators. I think we'd all agree that relations could use some improvement.

The current system fosters contention, which is good for governments but not good for FT, as I argued persuasively above. Your post about reformers and radicals makes it clear to everyone that the question is whether TB is to have an adversarial role or whether it is to be a committee doing businesslike work for FT. Different people want different things from TB, so we disagree on this.

I contend that because FT is a business and not a government, TB must be a smoothly functioning committee doing businesslike work, not a student government. The problem is that the small minority of FTers who vote may prefer the latter, and that is not in the interest of FT or its membership as a whole. Just my opinion.

ozstamps' proposal is an interesting rewrite. It's worth looking at as the basis for a compromise. However if what you seek is an adversarial body, I doubt that Randy or the owners of FT will be interested in indulging you.

RichardInSF

I've come late to the party so apologies if this is already in the thread, but what is different about this from the present TB rules, can the differences be listed succinctly?

Or just give me a reference to where they are listed.

Thanks.

scoow

Koko posted most of the changes in post 43.

Jenbel

An older version of the guidelines is available at:
http://gallery.flyertalk.com/townhall/tb_guidelines.php

but these were not exhaustive. One of the things that koko had to do was amalgamate what was in these, together with motions and things which we did but which had been decided years back and not documented (e.g. the 2 week voting period).

Given that some members were elected onto the TB with the intention of identifying and outlining what would happen to FT post Randy, I'd be surprised if ozstamp's suggestion flew. I'm not willing to accept it. One of my concerns with the behaviour of TB is that it is perfectly possible for a TB member to lie about what has occurred on the private forum, and we cannot correct them or we risk being accused of breaching the confidentiality of the forum (I cannot of course confirm whether this has happened or not). In fact, there is a rather startling example of that behaviour on this very thread - but I cannot tell you what it is or I risk breaching confidentiality! It's a ridiculous situation, which some TB members have used to their advantage. In the future, if such games are played, then they can be censured for such behaviour, which would at least tell the members who cannot deal honestly and fairly in their elected position. Since I have observed such behaviour throughout my term on TB, it seems that the Randy option doesn't give us incentive to ensure that TB members are honest in their representations on the public board. Sad, but true

Punki

The biggest issue for me is that the way the proposal is written, no one who in the future receives a 30-day suspension will be eligible to run for TalkBoard for a period of two years thereafter. This makes it far too easy for the moderators to control who can and cannot run for TalkBoard.

I agree with all of the folks who have previously posted that they feel instituting this practice is just plain wrong.

Jenbel

Only if they break the TOS, since the suspension has to be upheld. Don't break the TOS, and you are golden.

In six years, I haven't even had a warning. It's not rocket science.

Spiff

It's not about control. And it's not going to be.

Those who manage to get themselves onto their fourth or more strike have demonstrated that they are not willing to follow the rules and are less likely to productively work and play well with others on a volunteer advisory board on a private internet bulletin board.

In my opinion, it's a reasonable standard in order to have a functioning, productive TalkBoard. We may not always agree with each other. However, when serving on the TalkBoard, the discussion will be much more productive and the effect on FlyerTalk as a whole will be more positive if those who wish to serve can follow a few simple rules of decorum.

Punki

Somehow, that does not surprise me, Jenbel.

Just in reading this thread, it would appear that there are two standards, one for moderators, and one for non-moderators. Moderators can talk about moderation and their posts stand. When non-moderators talk about moderation, their posts are likely to be removed.

Now I could be wrong, but since open discussions are taboo, hard informaton is difficult to come by, but it appears as though there is a double standard at work.

Have you read all of the posts in this thread? Isn't it odd. On one hand, many people (all of them non-moderators) think that the suspension rule is a really pretty scarey. On the other hand, there are some folks (all of them moderators or past moderators) who think it is a great rule.

The bottom line is that FlyerTalk is populated by lots of different types of folks coming from all different walks of life and points of view. Some are law and order types (they often become moderators) and some are really free spirits (they don't become moderators).

We just can't eliminate people who think and feel differently than we. We need to let the membership decide what type of people they want to represent them. If we go further down the uber-control path, even more free-spirited, creative types will leave and, in the end, that is not in the best interest of FlyerTalk.

Spiff

Your premise is faulty, at best.

There is no uber-control and there is no evidence that "free-spirited creative types" have left because of it, any more than there is evidence that said types or any other types have left because they are tired of people raising the same invalid arguments over and over again...