I disagree with my colleague's view of that dynamic. To explain why would be to discuss moderation.

You already discussed moderation in your previous post.

And that is EXACTLY one of the two reasons that this provision should not be in the guidelines.

We are doing the posters a major disservice if we are going to put a provision in that we cannot defend because to do so would be a TOS violation. It is oh-so-reminiscent of a McCarthyesque "I have here in my pocket a secret list of Communists" tactic.

I wish this didn't become a moderator vs. non-moderator thing. That's not healthy for FT. And I'd argue that's EXACTLY why Randy doesn't want the TB to have moderation under our purview in any way. And yet by trying to back-door moderation into the TB process this way we are violating the spirit if not the letter of Randy's wish that the TB steer clear of moderation.

Five more posts deleted from this thread, according to Moderator2.

Why?

Becasue the TB needs to, as Mod2 nearly says, "stop talking about moderation practices, actions, and dogma [in our guidelines]. If [the TB] wants to address this subject, [we should] send a PM to Randy Petersen.

Randy has made this policy clear many times."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Talk about an oldie but goodie. How far back in the annals did you have to go to fund that “gem”?

Not that I don’t still buy into most of what I said but, dude, when I said that I think I was still in high school. :p

I actually agree with my friend and colleague from Virginia, in a backhanded sort of way.

However, I think there is an (incorrect) assumption that requiring some kind of decorum and conduct from those that wish to serve the community somehow involves moderation or a discussion thereof. It does not.

The meta issue that we all have to dance around is one of conduct. Some don't like the fact that conduct (theirs) has resulted in action, and thus will drag the whole "moderation boogeyman" into the room to try to obsfucate things somewhat, which is (typically, and sad) disappointing.

One has to get caught speeding a whole bunch and have it upheld by the judge to even reach the threshold the TB is considering. Putting it in any other light, it seems to me, is a way to move the scrutiny off that individual's conduct and onto "moderation" and/or Randy, both of which miss the point.

It is unfortunate that the entire rules posted have devolved into what appears to be yet another whining session by the same half a dozen current and former TB members, spouting the same nonsense about things like "suspension review boards" and implying that they are the martyrs of FT for the pain that they have suffered.

FT is not a government. This is a for-profit business. Decorum of leadership is required, and a "behave or be gone" policy for leadership (not for consumption of services) is appropriate. The measure does not define what constitutes "behaving" but appropriately leaves that to the moderators and the FT Host, who is currently Randy. Yet the same people continue to whine foul for whatever reasons suit happen them that day.

I strongly support the idea that TB has the right to state that, if the moderators and the FT host have declared that a member has misbehaved grossly enough, that their services are no longer necessary.

Not at all.

My statement is a prediction, not necessarily an indicator of past or present performance. The requirement is an effort to improve, not maintain, the status quo by requiring that those who wish to stand for TalkBoard not have violated the rules to the point that they have received their third or more strike in the last 2 years.

I'm ok with setting a standard of decorum for TB members. My concern is with a restriction on eligibility to run for TB. I would like to see anyone able to run for TB, regardless of prior suspensions. The past is the past & can't be change. Why continue to punish them for it?

However, as others have pointed out, a TB member can (or should) be able to control their current actions/posts. If I know that political threads in OMNI (or TB Topics ;)) or "old skymiles" threads in the DL forum get my blood boiling (evidenced by prior suspensions), I should consider avoiding those areas while on TB. (Some would argue the same for any FTer.) But that's a decision I should make while considering whether or not to run and the voters should consider when deciding who to elect.

If a TB member receives a 30-day suspension while serving, I would be ok with censure/removal. If nothing else, they are "MIA" for a month & unable to represent the members who elected them. Plus, they likely have triggered other provisions in the guidelines for censure. Make it automatic if you really think that a censure motion will not ever receive a 2/3 majority. If the FT host chooses to review the suspension, s/he will also be able to overrule a vote under the censure guidelines as written.

You posted it on April 4, 2006. The subject of the thread was an identical proposal which, at the end, the TB of the time had the good sense not to adopt.

2 ½ years is a lifetime on FT.

Especially considering I can’t even remember what I had for breakfast this morning.

For all this talking, we already know how a few of the TB members will be voting. 2 votes (at least) against and at least 4 (or so) for. The rest are either silent or sit in the middle. Question to the TB - has any of this "public discussion" moved any of you one iota from your personal feelings? If not, just vote and get it over with already.

Oh, and the "Randy chooses a replacement" clause is just terrible. Why would you ever put that in there as opposed to the next highest vote-getter in the previous election automatically getting the spot? To me, this appears to be a way to sidestep the wishes of membership. Why not just let Randy appoint the entire TB and do away with the election?

That, indeed, has been a long timer goal of some people who are first and foremost members -- especially those who have tried and failed to get elected to TB.

And to think I meant it sarcastically.

If moderation is not the purview in any way of the TB (as we've been told, when convenient/expedient), then TB should set no standards or requirements whatsoever that rely on moderation or moderator decisions. Seems like common sense, to me.

That's actually a fair point. It's in there because that is the current procedure. I suppose the only issue with it could be that after several months, the circumstances of whoever was next on the voting list could have changed and they may not want to or be able to join TB so that Randy may need some wiggle room in there. But I don't think that was a consideration - it was more just a copy across of the previous procedure.

Over the long run, the breaks and bad calls even out. In sports, if a player consistently collects penalties from a variety of officials, you can be confident that he is breaking the rules. Conversely, you can be confident that a "clean" player will end the season with fewer penalties than the average player. The "30-day suspension upheld by Randy" is a very high bar indicating repeated disregard for the rules.

Punki mentioned a concern that Randy might be too busy to review a suspension, so I suggest the clarification "30-day suspension reviewed and upheld by Randy".

One other point that nobody has brought up here: A 30-day suspension puts a member one step away from permanent suspension from FT. Nobody is arguing that permanently suspended members be allowed to serve on TB. So we are really only talking about dialing the threshold down by a single step in the progression.

Note for the vast majority of FTers who have never even received a warning from a moderator: The progression set forth in the Terms of Service is Official warning, 7-day suspension, 30-day suspension, and Permanent suspension.

I don't know if this issue deserves this much attention. After all, this is only an Internet bulletin board.