Agree.

Actually, oftentimes it's more like a junior high school.

Punki,

Can you please respond to this question on how Kokonutz would be ineligible? I am trying to understand the guidelines as you see them.

Punki,

I would ask that you get the fact straight if you are going to attack the moderators of this forum.

There is not a double standard.... and I will allow your statement to stand.

The facts. 8 posts have been deleted so far in this thread.

One was from a Talkboard member who violated the confidentiality rules of the TB. It was reported by another TB member and the TB President agreed that it should have been deleted.

3 posts were from another TB member and Moderator who discussed moderation.

The final four posts were from a former TB member and non-moderator.

So, tell me how that is a double standard and how a different rule applies to moderators?

Just because you keep saying it does not make it true... even if people want to believe it.

As others have said, in order for someone to be ineligible to stand for TB, they must have had 4 infractions (or a major infraction that skipped warnings) AND have it upheld by Randy. How much more can you ask for? Randy is the most understanding and tolerant person I know.... and he tends to give people many chances.... as many who have posted in this thread know....

I do not see the difficulty in a community having its advisory body being a group of people who are in good standing with the community. Following the rules of the community are one way to look at it.

It appears as though these guidelines may fail due to this provision and that is sad....

FT may be a business but members do not post here in order to promote its fiscal health. We are not shareholders in the business nor are we paid employees.

We are its customers.

As its customers, our concerns will not always be the same as management's. TalkBoard, which is elected by the membership in order to represent the members to management, should not have its make up determined by anyone except members.

Any other arrangement would be a hypocritical farce in which we only pretend that TB represents the membership.

Really? Can you guarantee that?

I don't think it is. But, who can say in the future? The point is to set guidelines for the future... when Randy may/may not be running FT; when who knows who (a group of TSOs?) may be moderating FT; when there may or may not be an appeals process for suspensions. Allowing for the possibility (or even the appearance) of one relatively small group of FTers controlling or significantly influencing the outcome of TB elections seems like a really bad idea.

And you should vote for TB members accordingly. At the same time, shouldn't FTers who don't believe it is a reasonable standard be allowed to vote as they choose?

Either Randy or someone who serves at the pleasure of the owner(s) will be the host. And currently the host reserves purview of moderation to himself.

I believe that TalkBoard functions more efficiently when those who serve on TalkBoard can at least be bothered not to habitually break the rules. I will not comment on any specific personal experiences, but I have served on TalkBoard for several years. This is an advisory board that is supposed to not only represent the members' interests but also act in the best interest of FlyerTalk as a whole. Accomplishing the latter and the former need not be mutually exclusive, but accomplishing the latter is, in my opinion, easier, when those who serve on TalkBoard can at least follow a few simple rules of decorum and advise the host on items that are within the TalkBoard's purview.

That is not necessarily the case. @:-)

What a concept.

And to the members that have indeed able to follow those simple rules, ^^

I like to drive fast but I have never had my license suspended. I am circumspect about my speeding, for example by not interfering with other motorists. So circumspect, in fact, that I have not received a single traffic ticket in over 10 years. Knock on wood. It takes effort and self-discipline, but it can be done.

Your basic premise that someone who has been suspended is less likely to work productively is simply untrue, unless by "working productively" you mean preserving the status quo in most matters at all cost. With all due respect, it's quite an arrogant statement, too, as you basically try to put yourself above those who serve or served together with you, but had suspensions in the past. From what I can see, someone like kokonutz is working very productively, and the same is true for several other posters who have been on TalkBoard and had suspensions in the past.

All that said, this is a discussion among very few (and usually the same) people here. Most people on FT neither care about these guidelines and their discussion nor about the TalkBoard, so it's not really worth getting worked up about either.

And then there are those who have been permanently suspended while on TB, but TB declined to remove them, leaving the members unrepresented. Unfortunately, the old 'honour' system proved it didn't work, because it depended on those on TB being able to put their responsibilities above the personal (i.e. actually have honour) - and it's been shown conclusively that we cannot rely on that happening. Shame.

If a TB member is selfish enough to get a 30-day or permanent suspension while on TB, then they don't deserve to be on it as they have failed in what is a very simple task of being present to represent the members - and that should be their main duty while on TB.

Please tell me you are not being serious with that remark. :rolleyes:

I'm completely serious. We all have free will. I cannot make anyone do something which deserves a 30 day suspension. They have to chose to do it. If they chose to breach the TOS in an egregrious manner, or after repeatedly breaching it earlier, then they only have themselves to blame for their behaviour. This is not about mods/moderation, this is about the behaviour of TB members. If a TB member earns a suspension while serving on TB, perhaps they should have considered their responsibilities, the fact that people are relying on them to represent the members? All this hand-wringing kind of overlooks the fact that before any of the restrictions kicks in, a 30 day suspension must have occurred, and must have been upheld. That's not something taken lightly by those concerned with such matters - despite the opinions expressed on here to the contrary.

Let's see how another TB member/moderator views this:

(From an earlier TB Topics thread):