Originally Posted by ClueByFour (Post 10358592)

I think it's pretty funny that some people are now saying that "the talkboard should not be responsible for the candidate field for it's own makeup" where, as Dovster points out above, it was perfectly willing to select who replaces a "gone" member in the past.

Originally Posted by ClueByFour (Post 10358592)

Tempest in a teacup--most of what we see here is, again, deflecting from the core issue of why the membership of FT is not served best by people who are capable of playing within it's rules. (insert cry of capricious moderation here--to save some typing)

I have yet to hear a coherent answer, save for the "black helicopters are circling" thing. On this note, I'm not particularly surprised.

(insert another cry of capricious moderation here--save more typing).

Originally Posted by ozstamps (Post 10358415)

Sorry, they clearly are NOT the same at all. The old and very well serving guidelines had not a word about member suspension in them.

Very wisely, as TB has no control whatever over member suspensions.

Missing 3 motion votes was the only criteria to discuss it internally, and consider voting on removal .. don't you agree?

Members missed that 3 vote criteria even in my time for many reasons. Health, business, and "other". What is wrong with that well proven system????

The new wording blurs those lines, and that cannot be good for FT, or the alleged Independence of the TB from moderation, which is NOT in its purview as we are constantly reminded. ;)

Agree?
.

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 10357880)

...Why not just let Randy appoint the entire TB and do away with the election?

Originally Posted by ozstamps (Post 10358199)

Otherwise change the motion that Randy appoints all TB's in future - or make a motion to dissolve TB

Originally Posted by cblaisd (Post 10192630)

One of the most respected early and long-time FT members, PremEx, always maintained that if and when Randy wanted advice on something he could and should ask for it as needed.

I favor that "PremEx Option."

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 10358163)

I wonder if the TB is the right body to restrict its own membership. Seems like a major conflict of interest to me.

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 10357880)

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.

Originally Posted by bhatnasx in the private TB forum

I've read the public commentary & whereas there are no "dealbreakers" for me in the current language of the posting, the whole 30-day thing (Section 3.A.d.) where it says:

"....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..."

doesn't really matter all that much to me.

<snipped out some of my post>

That said, this is the ONLY thing on the proposal that concerns me. And right now, after reading the discussion, on the public page, I'm more apt to be leaning towards the AGAINST it side - but like I said, it doesn't really matter to me personally either way - but it matters to me that more folks who are taking the time to post are AGAINST it, rather than FOR it.

Originally Posted by jenbel (Post 10354325)

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.

Originally Posted by cluebyfour (Post 10358592)

tempest in a teacup--most of what we see here is, again, deflecting from the core issue of why the membership of ft is not served best by people who are capable of playing within it's rules. (insert cry of capricious moderation here--to save some typing)

Originally Posted by bhatnasx (Post 10359258)

So, basically, I'm personally fine with the language the way it is written now, but since there are quite a few folks who are against it (and these are members whose opinions I do respect), I would encourage my fellow TB members to really evaluate and take a second look at this to see whether or not that particular piece of language is necessary.

Originally Posted by Dovster (Post 10359378)

Additionally, the current rule of having the candidate from the last election with the highest vote who was not elected fill a vacancy should be retained. This is especially true as it turns out that the only reason that it was worded to read that Randy would make the choice is that TB made an error and did not realize it was using an outdated policy which had been superseded.

Originally Posted by bhatnasx (Post 10359258)

So, basically, I'm personally fine with the language the way it is written now, but since there are quite a few folks who are against it (and these are members whose opinions I do respect), I would encourage my fellow TB members to really evaluate and take a second look at this to see whether or not that particular piece of language is necessary.

Originally Posted by bhatnasx (Post 10359258)

So, basically, I'm personally fine with the language the way it is written now, but since there are quite a few folks who are against it (and these are members whose opinions I do respect), I would encourage my fellow TB members to really evaluate and take a second look at this to see whether or not that particular piece of language is necessary.

Originally Posted by ClueByFour (Post 10359773)

I would hope you would not vote against it because of this. Keep in mind that of the people who want it removed, several have enjoyed at least that 30-day, if not more. How do you reconcile that, beyond seeming more than a bit self-serving on their part?

Originally Posted by ClueByFour (Post 10359773)

I would hope you would not vote against it because of this. Keep in mind that of the people who want it removed, several have enjoyed at least that 30-day, if not more. How do you reconcile that, beyond seeming more than a bit self-serving on their part?

Originally Posted by Dovster (Post 10359802)

How is that in any way self-serving? They would not be impacted by those past 30 day suspensions.

What I see as self-serving is somebody who has been rejected by the FT membership in elections doing his best to restrict their right to vote for the candidates they want.

Originally Posted by Dovster (Post 10359802)

How is that in any way self-serving? They would not be impacted by those past 30 day suspensions.

What I see as self-serving is somebody who has been rejected by the FT membership in elections doing his best to restrict their right to vote for the candidates they want.