Motion Failed: New TalkBoard Guidelines
 

On 9 Oct 2008, the TalkBoard failed to pass 5-4:

Moved by techgirl and seconded by bhatnasx to adopt the following TalkBoard Guidelines: (follow link)


Voting Yes: bhatnasx, gleff, Jenbel, Spiff, techgirl

Voting No: Cholula, kokonutz, lucky9876coins, Punki

Please note that TalkBoard votes require a 2/3 majority to pass.

Thanks, as always, for posting the results Spiff.

As there appears to be no response to this thread, perhaps the moderators should close it. :p

I am responding with joy about the failure of this motion.

Thanks to the following:
bhatnasx, gleff, Jenbel, Spiff, techgirl

(Last login before the wine tastings...)

Thanks to ALL TBers for being there to vote this one down.
I hope a better version gets a fair hearing.

As always, I wish you success in improving FT for all members.

As elected representatives, I expect that you will uphold the FT TOS while in this important advisory office. ^

Seems pretty clear where everyone stands. Should make for a most interesting election.

The question now is whether some people would, after all the work that kokonutz and a few others have put into drafting this, reject a verson without the problematic clauses (out of spite).

So are you arguing that the guidelines were voted down out of spite in the first place?

If not, then it seems you are indulging in some unfair character assassination.

I have no doubt that the people who voted down the guidelines did so because they thought it was the right thing to do. That I profoundly disagree with their attitudes towards the responsibilities that a TB member has does not affect the fact that I know they didn’t vote the guidelines down out of spite.

Just as if the guidelines come up for a vote with no change from the status quo, I will vote against them, and I have made that quite clear. I have asked for those who voted no to find a compromise position. I have identified yet another compromise position. I identified a compromise position on the eligibility clause which was accepted into the voted on version. If I’m honest, I’m compromised out – someone else can do the work to find one now. I’ve tried. I'm fed up dealing with moving goal posts. But unless and until those who voted ‘no’ to the guidelines can come up with one, I won’t be in a position to vote for the guidelines, so long as the clauses on removal use the status quo position.

The status quo is not an acceptable outcome for me. It doesn’t work. It has failed repeatedly. It’s failing now. No TB member has ever been removed for failing to live upto their responsibilities, despite some truly shameful episodes – thus, TB members can do anything they want, neglect their responsibilities, the members lose out, and TB members are not held accountable.

That to me is simply not acceptable. Part of this job is the acceptance of the responsibility of being a TB member and what that entails – that we are the elected representatives of the members and we should represent them. If TB members are not willing to live up to their responsibilities, then they should be removed. Simple as that. But unfortunately, that has not happened, will not happen and is likely never to happen under the current system. Of course, those members that consider rules and regs not that important are quite happy with that. Unfortunately, I’m not one of them, and I’m not willing to condone a system which I know has failed, is failing and will fail. It’s never worked. Why should we be satisfied with something which is so clearly bad?

If you consider it acceptable to vote down the guidelines on the clause about removal of members, then you consider it acceptable to vote down the guidelines on the clause about the removal of members. It doesn’t actually matter what the clause says – either it’s important enough to warrant a no vote to everything in the guidelines, or it isn’t. Making petty accusations of spite is just a very clear attempt to denigrate – no matter which side of the fence we sit on. That it is partisan, is all the more sad.

It was not an accusation. It was a question. Just wondering if that could theoretically happen.

Thank you for answering the question.

No, the question was whether anyone would reject the guidelines without the problematic clauses. Of course, the guidelines have already been rejected with all the work that koko and others have put in - so that section's a bit of a non sequiteur, but suggests that to do it now would somehow be bad. Well, if it is bad now, it was bad before too. And then we have the 'out of spite' tacked on after the question has been asked (by the use of the brackets).

And surely, as a lawyer, you know full well that a question can be accusatory. 'Did you murder that person?' is both a question and an accusation...

Not really. Let's not get too excited here. We're not quite dealing with murder. Sorry for the off-topic explanation but since you brought it up - if someone says "are you still beating your wife?", that's a question that contains an implied accusation - so if I had said "would they vote out of spite again?" that would have been a question with an accusation. But I didn't :).

Well I know who I will be voting for and who I will be voting against in future TB elections.

Five TB members voted for the common good, four TB members voted selfishly.

Mind you once you match that against the Mission to the World supporters and those people not standing, I think I'm left with no choices this year!

I was about to suggest that it implies that you should consider running yourself, but the last month here reaffirms my position that nobody should be working for free for Internet Brands - not the TB, not the moderators, nobody.

This is no longer just a little discussion site. This is a moderately big business, owned by a holding company. Let them staff the place.

DING, DING, DING, DING, DING

We have a winner!