Well all we do is make recommendations to Randy. An 'automatic' recommendation is really no recommendation at all....it just says 'do as you wish.'

IMHO, Id' prefer to make a pro-active decision on a matter as grave as removing a duly elected TB member even if it's over something as obvious as a perma-ban.

I can bet they will all be under 100. ;)

As I posted, whilst we all realise this vote is still underway on the new TB Guidelines being adopted (I believe that is what this thread is about?) it was always doomed to fail, if a compromise on a small section of the wording was not reached.

There were 100s of posts re the draft wording, and many members urged the TB to consider amending the wording.

The Guidelines were very wise to have all consolidated in one place, and other than some members adding the contentious banned member clauses, contained nothing whatever major in them outside SOP for TB for many years, as far as I could determine.

It was not duly amended, was clearly rushed to a vote when discussion of it had not yet ran its course ( see earlier post #4 on that here from a TB member on that aspect - who largely drafted it all, I gather) and whether 8 or 9 TB members finally voted on it, my firm belief always was it would fail if voted on as is.

Time will tell.
.

If the problem is the "automatic" referral to Randy, then why not have an "automatic TB motion" as well. Should a TB member receive a 30-day suspension, there could be an automatic motion for recommendation to Randy. Have the normal procedure be a recommendation for removal with an automatic motion to remove or change that recommendation. This way, if no one votes or does anything, then the TB will by default recommend to Randy that the TB member in question be removed. Same as proposed now. If there are extenuating circumstances, then the TB can vote to change the recommendation. This helps address some of the suspension issues and would require the existing TB members to actively vote to keep a suspended member.

Basically, this does two things. First, it keeps the currently suggested default action of removal. Secondly, it provides the TB membership a means to modify that action should there be a strong enough reason.

I appreciate the thoughtful input but the way things are now the default is that 2/3 of the TB has to decide that another TB member has done something that is so bad the will of the voters must be overturned and the TB member removed.

The idea that we turn that notion around and that the default is that a TB member who is suspended is removed is a solution in search of a problem.

As I said above, but it bears repeating: 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 harm, no foul, certainly no need to go overturning the will of the voters who took the time and effort to read and consider candidates' platforms and then vote for their preferred candidates.

I disagree.

There's no need to search for a problem: the problem is the member who chose to violate the TOS and earn a 30-day suspension.

The solution to this problem, in my opinion is automatic removal from TalkBoard.

Koko,

As I stated earlier, past TB's have shown that they will NOT police their own. An automatic provision MUST be included.

Are you talking about a specific person here? That's kind of how it sounds.

On topic: what problem does a TB member suspended for 30-days present? Maybe they miss a couple votes. C'est la vie. TB members also miss votes when they take long trips with limited or no Internet access. We are a community of travelers, after all. What makes those missed votes less 'disruptive' than votes missed while suspended? Or should those folks be removed as well?

You say 'the problem is the member...' Are you saying that as a class of people posters who have been suspended are automatically less 'worthy' than posters who have not been suspended? That the scarlet letter itself is reason enough to dismiss an entire class of poster? What empirical evidence do you have to back that claim up?

I am serving on a TB with at least 2 people who have had 30-day suspensions and as I keep saying, by any metric you care to use this has been a very productive TB.

Where is the problem!?!?!?

There is an opportunity to police TB members each and every November if you don't like what they have done or what they have not done.

They get suspended in office? Don't vote for them.

They don't vote to kick off a TB member you want to see kicked off? Don't vote for them.

That's the beauty of elected representatives! @:-)

The problem is that suspended members are popular enough to get elected. Eliminate them and, well, follow the dots...

So you are willing to possibly take the TB complete out of the equation (as will happen if the current version passes)? The problem with taking rigid stances is that being more rigid increases the chance of breaking. Being flexible reduces that.


I understand your position very well and don't necessarily disagree with it. But I also see the issue that others have brought up about how past TBs haven't lived up to keeping watch over fellow TB members.

So do you agree that there is potentially an issue there or do you disagree that past TBs have been on top of policing themselves? Some think this is an issue, therefore real or imagined it is an issue and I do believe actual voting records have been mentioned in this very thread to show as evidence. If you agree that TB members could be more proactive in tracking lax members, then why not address how your solution helps that issue or better yet, be willing to modify your position to help address this issue? If you feel that the others are completely off-base and are misinterpreting past events, then so be it, but it still won't hurt, much, to try and work with those that do think it is an issue.

BTW, I don't mean to pile on just you. The other side has the same onus as well. We have heard their side of things as well. I understand that there are some that don't feel this is a moderation issue. Fine, I don't necessarily disagree, but the issue is that some do. So taking that into consideration, how does this proposed solution address those real or imagined issues. (Note that even if the issue is an imagined one, that doesn't invalidate the concerns.) While I have seen lots of "its not a moderation" issue, I don't remember seeing any "OK, we hear you and here is how this solution addresses that".

We can keep going the way things have been and yes, there will be a "winner" based on the voting for this issue. But guess what, that also means there will be a "loser". So instead of each side trying to have a complete "win", why don't we try and give a little? Lets acknowledge that both sides do have some valid points and try to come up with a solution that addresses both. If you don't like my solution, fine, think up something else. But hopefully we can get past the same old arguements about how mine is better than yours.

Nope.

It is my opinion that people who cannot be bothered to follow the rules to the point that they are on their fourth or more strike tend not to work and play well with others. A volunteer advisory board should not have to suffer the antics of such individuals.

I find it interesting that a convicted felon or an incarcerated prison inmate can run for and be elected to the US Congress or even the US Presidency. The US Constitution sets no minimum standards for current or past behavior in determining who may or may not run for office. Or who US citizens may vote for.

Yet, in our own little version of the Constitution, i.e.,our TB Guidelines, we want to hold FT'ers running for TB to a higher standard than those running for Congress or President.

Now, granted, the TalkBoard probably has higher approval ratings than the Congress or the President but you get my drift. ;)

However the convicted felon & prison inmate can't vote if I understand the law correctly. ;)

I'm still having a hard time coming to terms w/ the folk who think that it's ok for TB members to violate the TOS in such a manner that they get 30-day suspensions. I don't think it's too much to ask of TB members to not violate TOS for the length of their terms.

Cheers.

I find the status quo (where anyone who wants to run for TB can run and it takes a 2/3 vote of the TB to remove a TB member) to be superior to the two identified provisions in this draft. That's exactly why I voted against it in the private TB forum. My preference would be to enshrine that status quo in the set of guidelines we approve.


Again, I appreciate your effort to seek a win-win solution to this question, I really do. But there is a fundamental disagreement here among people of good faith. And that's perfectly ok in a situation like this.

If the guidelines are approved with these two provisions it is my hope that more folks will be elected to the TB who would be willing to allow ANY FTer to run for TB and would let the VOTERS rather than the guidelines decide who gets to represent them. That's the beauty of having elected representatives; if you don't like how things go you can seek to change them every November. That's as good a 'check and balance' as one ever gets!

If the guidelines are not approved as drafted I will go back to the drawing board and see if we can't either codify the status quo and then look at changes to the status quo on a case-by-case basis or otherwise seek to come up a draft that can be approved 9-0.

Other than those two issues, we seem to have a total consensus on the document so I have a strong faith that we can get to 9-0 one way or the other should this draft not be approved! ^

Because suspensions are judgment calls. And are clearly NOT indicative of one being a 'poor' TB member.

It's an utterly arbitrary and unfair standard that accomplishes nothing but disallowing otherwise potentially good TB members from running and/or serving.

In so far as suspension history is not a matter of public record, these arguments, even if one accepted their underlying premise, are non-starters. There is no way in which I can take an informed decision taking into account the suspension history of a candidate since I am not in a position to know what that history is.

As to the idea that the mere fact of being able to vote is the be-all and end-all and that any qualification criteria are an affront to democracy, well... I can see how this is how you would describe democracy to an 8-year old. But, frankly, I think that we can be a little bit more sophisticated in our approaches and avoid such demagogy.


I know that this will come as a great shock to some but, there actually is a world outside the United States and the US Constitution is not the ultimate point of reference for all governance processes for everybody. :)
FWIW, the UK, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Canada, just to cite a few among many, many others (and, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of democracies) all have eligibility criteria based on current or past behaviour to run for elected office.
It is interesting, though, that criminal convictions won't disqualify you from becoming a US president, but may disqualify you from electing one...