No, not cool in my opinion.

I feel that someone who gets a 30-day or permanent suspension should be immediately removed from the TalkBoard.

No, you are incorrect, it did happen during your term, but I'll concede that you may not remember it.

And no, I cannot, since that would be disclosing information from the private board, which is also nothing at all to do with this thread topic.

In your opinion. OFTATBMMFD. @:-)

I agree, not cool at all.

For better or for worse, not all 'bad behavior' leading to a less-productive TalkBoard results in a suspension. That's why I supported the new provisions requiring a 2/3 majority of the TB for a motion to censure and/or remove a sitting TB member. A TB member can be disruptive to the TB process without violating the TOS. And at the same time a TOS violation by a TB member does not necessarily disrupt the TB process. A TB member being an impediment to productivity is a totally subjective notion and needs to be treated as such whether moderation is involved or not. The new censure/remove provision allow for that subjective decsision to be made with due diligence.

I submit that this TB has been very productive. Some would say TOO productive! ;)

And we've had TB members who have served 30-day suspensions.

No big whoop.

Fortunately, that is never how Talkboard has worked.

And hopefully that will not change if this seriously flawed motion fails, as it hopefully will.

It would be far too 'convenient' for sitting TB members to be removed, (or indeed precluded from even contesting the next election) if that were the present rule .... and they could even removed potentially by some other sitting TB members .. wouldn't you agree that is entirely possible?

If the members at large vote that person in .. well so be it. TB needs to live with that.

It is how the democratic TB process has worked for years, and ensures a wide range of Candidates get elected, regardless of their background on FT.

TB right now has, and has had for many years full and clear powers to remove any of their members by a 66% vote if they miss 3 consecutive votes. All the controversial verbiage in the current motion is clearly there for one reason only - IMHO.

Whether some very small cliques agree with those member elected choices - or not, too bad. @:-)

It is democracy at work, and prevents any attempt to set up Talkboard as some form of cozy little closed club, the entry to which could readily be manipulated by other members or their friends.

IMHO, FT'ers are savvy enough to see through that, and I believe do NOT want to see that change take place. The votes in the past 4 elections have conclusively proven that seems to be their will.

Glen

Glen, how often have members missed 3 votes been removed, vs how often have they missed 3 votes and not been removed?

In other words, has there been any occasion previously when that clause you refer to has actually been activated? I can't think of any, despite the fact that members have missed lots of votes - not just the required 3.

And if it hasn't previously been activated, why should the FT membership have any trust at all in the ability of future TBs to act in the interests of the wider membership, given past failures? Afterall, we've just had a pretty poor example where a vote was missed by a TB member that could have greatly impacted the outcome of a motion.

Do tell?

Do other TB members advise YOU how they will definitely vote .. before a motion is even made?

Unless you are privvy to that info (and you are precluded from sharing it here even if you were ;) ) how do you know it would have "greatly impacted" anything?

And why do you refer to this matter as a "pretty poor example"???
.

If previous TB's had dealt properly with members who consistently missed votes, then this would not be an issue.

Previous TB's have proven that a "Censure" clause, such as the one that Koko describes will not work.

FTers tend to be pretty smart and insightful folks.

So I'm pretty comfortable letting the voters decide whether a TB member is doing an adequate job of representing them or not and letting them express that opinion at voting time so I'm unlikely to vote to eject a TB member for missing a few votes.

OTOH, I'd have no problem voting to eject a TB member who was served with a permanent ban.

That's why the rules should (and do) call for and allow subjective decision-making on these matters.

If you will PM me and tell me when, during my term on TB, we were allowed to violate the TOS, I will confirm publicly that it did happen. I will do this without revealing the details.

I certainly do not remember it ever happening but as I am getting along in years I am willing to concede that my memory might be failing me.

I didn't say it would.

Note the use of the conditional 'could' in my sentence structure. In other words, it might have done. We don't know for sure one way or the other. Of course, if she had voted, we'd know - and we might have an entirely different result of the vote. Or we might not. But she didn't vote, so we don't know if the vote would have turned out differently. Therein lies the problem.

If you are going to jump on me for what I have said, at least take the time and trouble to check I've said what you think I've said please.

Jenbel unless TB has changed dramatically since my days, members on it often have no idea which way all other members will vote, until that vote is posted on the voting portal.

I fail to see how the member you refer to, could have "dramatically affected" anything here as you claimed, as in this case it was CRYSTAL clear how that member would vote, as that member posted as much here.

I have stated since day #1 of the DRAFT being posted, that the motion was IMHO - doomed to fail - as all motions fail that contain totally un-necessary verbiage in them, that creates a sticking point for some members unless removed.

Had that member voted, I feel sure a motion that I said would always have failed, would simply have failed even more dismally. Simple math I'd say.

I note you did not respond as to why you referred to this matter as a "pretty poor example"??? What were you referring to??
.

Why vote? Shouldn't the guidelines at a minimum require the automatic removal from TB of anyone served with a permanent ban?

Oz, you do know that this vote hasn't finished yet don't you? I'm not referring to this vote at all, since it has not finished and the result is nowhere near being posted.

It seems like you are referring to an event which hasn't happened yet... Perhaps you could predict the lottery numbers this weekend too?

The vote I refer to is of course the MR access condition vote. Not the guidelines...