Private property vs. public property.

I see nothing wrong with private property holding participants to a higher standard.

Word. ^

Well, duhhhh. :p

I was citing, as an American citizen, what I am most familiar with.

But trust me that I an vaguely aware that there is a world outside the US and also aware of a couple FT'ers who live outside our borders.


Spiff, I truly respect you for sticking hard and fast to this part of the guidelines. And I've been equally adamant about hanging in there with the opposite viewpoint.

But what we're debating here is a set of TB members who are attempting to prevent other FT'ers and TB members from serving based on their past suspension history.

And I don't believe the ownership status of FT has ever entered our discussions or even our consciousness at any time in the past. And I don't see it's importance in the scheme of things here. Public, private or otherwise, we are building a set of hurdles greater than required most anywhere else I'm aware of.

The people this guideline is attempting to prevent from serving are well known to one and all. I could name the half-dozen or so of them and so could 80% of the folks who are reading this thread.

So while we are discussing so-called hypotheticals, in truth we are simply trying to rid TB of the known bad boys and girls so that everything flows smoothly and we can all sing Kumbayay as the sun sets.

And I honestly don't want to be part of that and thus cannot support the guidelines as they are presently written.

Interesting. Not that this is overly relevant to the discussion, but do you care to cite your source for this? What statute are you referring to? Thanks in advance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this only applies once the guidelines take place, therefore doesn't impact those who have received 30-day suspensions in the past. What's wrong w/ asking TB members to keep their noses clean moving forward & not violate TOS during their terms?

Cheers.

You're right.

It only affects those who wish to run in the future.

But we're talking about a couple different things here.

The guidelines I voted against both prevent anybody with a 30 day suspension in their history from running for TB. Do you want a few TB folks decided who you can vote for in the future??

Maybe you do. I personally do not.

It also mandates that a TB member who receives a 30 day suspension step down from TB.

Oh, I know, it's couched in terms like "the member is automatically recommended to the host for removal from TB" or some such verbiage.

But the truth is that this proposal eliminates an elected TB member for a 30 day suspension no matter the cause.

And a 30 day suspension sounds dastardly, doesn't it?? I mean, what dirt bag would get suspended for 30 days if they didn't do something horrendous to deserve it??

The way things work is that a 30 day suspension follows a 7 day suspension and a 30 day does not indicate that the person has done anything more grievous than they did for the 7 day. It just means that they tripped up, rightly or wrongly, a couple times.

Now if this were a perfect world and all FT suspensions were issued for deserved reasons, then I would have no problem with the guidelines.

But this is not a perfect world and I have seen enough shenanigans around here that I look at automatic removal of anybody for anything with an exceptionally jaundiced eye.

But that's just me. :)

I would like to point out, again, that missing 3 votes -- or even missing 30 votes -- is not viewed by TB as being problematic.

It is only grounds for removal if the TB member has not notified TB that he will not be participating for a particular period of time.

A member could, theoretically, announce that he is spending the next three months in a monastery in Tibet contemplating his navel and he would not be removed from TB no matter how many votes he misses.

I disagree. Members of the TalkBoard might indeed view missing that many votes as problematic. What if all TalkBoard members had such a selfish attitude?

Spiff, there are no grounds provided for removing a TB member who misses that many votes assuming he announces that he will not be participating for a certain period of time.

As to how TB might view that, I can only refer to my own experience. I am certain you will remember it as you were on TB at the time.

I mentioned this earlier, so please excuse my repetition. Old men have a way of being guilty of that.

In 2005 I was told by my doctor that there was a slight chance that I might be spending a long time (up to a month) in a hospital. I also knew that I would be on a month-long trip. Between the two of them, I expected to be gone from TB for two months.

I suggested to TB that a member who knows he is going to be absent for an extended period be allowed to take a leave of absence and that during that time he be replaced by the first runner up in the previous election.

There was no vote on my suggestion because the reaction from TB was overwhelmingly negative. I don't recall a single member who agreed. In fact, I was told that TB could function very well with only 8 members.

When the doctor told me it was almost a certainty that I would have that hospital stay, I resigned my TB membership -- although I was free to remain on it and miss vote after vote after vote.

The proposed guidelines address such a situation:

vii. Grounds for censure or removal of a TB member:
a. Fails to participate in three consecutive discussions on pending motions without prior notice
b. Misses three consecutive calls to vote without prior notice
c. Is no longer an active, registered member of the FT Community
d. Demonstrates by his/her actions that he/she is not able to actively participate in the TB duties
e. Acts in wilful and gross serious, repeated violation of the FT member Terms of Service (TOS)
f. Acts in wilful and gross serious, repeated violation of these guidelines
g. Abuses the censure and removal process

Someone who says "I am taking the summer off to perform QA and loss prevention on my TV" could be viewed as having met the conditions for vii. d).

A Miss America clause, you mean? Or more like football substitutes? Surely TB is built to withstand such absences by one member.

Spiff, the keywords in what you posted are "without prior notice". Having given that, the member is protected against removal.

tcook052, you agree with what most of TB felt -- that "is built to withstand such absences by one member". Hence, the absence of one member for 30 days (which would be half the time I expected to be gone) should produce no problem at all.

That is precisely how I remember the current rule.

Glen

If I understand correctly, the proposal is a future 30 day suspension prevents someone from standing for TB for 2 years from the date of suspension, or pushes Randy on whether someone already on TB with a future suspension should be allowed to remain on TB.

If my understanding is right, the only ones potentially impacted are those that think they will in future get a 30 day suspension either while they are on TB or in a 2 year period before they intend running (in future) for TB.

Is that right?

I don't see b) superseding d). The "without prior notice" only means that b) will not be applied for removal but any of the other standards could still be applied.

Someone who fulfils b)Misses three consecutive calls to vote without prior notice but gives prior notice while f)Act(ing) in wilful and gross serious, repeated violation of these guidelines would still be subject to removal. The same is true for d).