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!

FWIW, last night I threw together a little Excel sheet tallying all of the current TB's votes so I can assess each existing member based on all of the issues when elections come up. (Yes, I'm an Excel geek)

I'm in the same camp you are - I'm not a single issue TB voter, but there are some issues that I feel strongly about, so being a numbers guy, I'm trying to find a metric to figure out whose views are most compatible, knowing that there's no TB member I'll agree with 100% of the time.

I'll stick the raw data online somewhere in the next day or two if people want to have a quick look at who voted how without clicking through the 30+ vote result threads.

wow - 30 votes in two years? is that it? :eek: it feels like so much more :(

I couldn't agree more.

I've only got through the last TB year - the current "cast" of TB. Depending on my ability to sleep tonight (or make an appearance in the "bugger I'm drunk" thread), I'll get another year in to cover the folks whose terms are up soon.

[fwiw, this is a slightly edited repost of my own words from the private TB forum, posted yesterday]

My personal feeling is that you are presenting a false choice. You seem to me to be saying that either we vote to remove someone who by your standards deserves to be removed OR we have to make such removals automatic.

Well I'm sorry, but my standards are different from your standards and I don't appreciate your attempting to force your standards on me and the rest of the TB and all of FT. And that's why I support allowing each TB member to decide for him or herself when another TB member has gone so far as to not belong here. And requiring that 2/3 feel the same way before action is taken.

You and others have argued that this system results (or at least has resulted) in inaction against TB members who clearly, in your opinion, deserved to be removed. But enough of your colleagues clearly disagreed with that notion that no motion to remove a TB member has passed. You call that cronyism. I for one don't appreciate having my motives called into question on the matter, especially when I have gone to great lengths to explain my logic and reasoning on the matter.

But having lost that fight in the past you now want to change the rules so you will never lose it again.

You keep saying the current system is broken because you have not gotten the result you wanted regarding removing TB members who dont live up to your standards. That's like me complaining about the system because there is no Mens Travel Forum. In both of these cases the problem is not the system, the problem is that not enough TB members are convinced about the relative merits the motion for it to carry.

If you want a motion to kick off a member of the TB to pass, make the case for it just like you'd make the case for any other TB motion to pass. If it carries, it carries. But if it fails, it fails. But either way it is and will be no cause in and of itself to change the rules, any more than my inability to get a Mens Travel Forum approved is a reason to change the rules regarding the establishment of a forum.


In any case, the status quo is what it is. I am happy to live with it if need be. I'd PREFER written guidelines that clarify and codify the status quo and that's why I took on this project back before PHX. But if no written guidelines pass then we will be where we were and are. Status quo prevails.

And to me, that's better than formally abdicating my own best judgement (which I was elected to follow) to automatic provisions based on judgement calls by non-elected volunteers.


In the meantime, if at least six current TB members are willing to at least be open to it, I have offered to work up a draft that does not include the two controversial changes to the status quo.

I personally dont see why codifying the way things CURRENTLY OPERATE should be something to oppose. After all, once codified it makes it that much easier to try to change in the future. But if my offer gets traction, it gets traction. If it does not, it does not.

After all...there is always the next TB! (with apolgies to Scarlett O'Hara)

Phew! I'm reassured! :D

That would be very useful and especially if you could find the time to keep it updated in the future. I frequently find myself going through the old vote result threads to review who voted and how they voted. And that’s a bit time-consuming.

This might even be useful enough information that it be the subject of a separate thread rather than be buried in the bowels of this thread.

koko, i'll ask the question I've asked on previous occasions, and which has never been answered - or been ignored!

how many votes have there been to remove a member in breach of their TB obligations?

The opportunity to vote would show that the system is working. But I can find no evidence of any. I've asked the question and no-one has pointed out any - and I'm sure they would have done if it had occurred.

But it seems that you can miss however many votes you like and the only people who can do anything about it, the TB members, don't really give a damn. All those proud words about eligibility, and giving members the right to decide who represents them are only so much words, because once on TB, you can sit back, refuse to carry out your responsibilities.

I'd have fewer problems with the status quo if we kept voting and the motions to remove failed. At least then, the members would see what was going on. But that doesn't even happen. All they see is that a member has missed x votes and nothing gets done about it. That's not leadership - that's shirking our responsibilities. And then traditionally, that member steps down at the end of their term, so there is no opportunity to hold them responsible by the members. It's a nice cosy, little club, and any attempt to prevent this happening is met with howls of 'BLACK HELICOPTERS!!! BLACK HELICOPTERS!!!!'

And yes, your statement about the next TB is very telling. We are on a bit of a go slow aren't we? Never mind, perhaps the long-cherised hope of getting some 'new blood' on TB will be born out... which is a tad ironic, since I'm much newer blood on TB than some of the people expressing those hopes in oh so many ways ;)

Personally, I would not agree that there have been any members in breach of their TB obligations. You are eligible for being removed if you miss 3 consecutive votes without prior notification. Of course, if you are suspended TB has notification that barring any action from Randy you will miss votes.

Okay, that is my take. You may well have your own take on this. If you do, have you ever made a motion to have a TB member removed?

As a TB member, you always have the opportunity to vote -- assuming that at least one other member agrees with you and is willing to second the motion.

Of course Dov, following that logic means we have no way of ever removing a member who is permanently suspended from TB under the status quo rules.

You tell me - good or bad? Someone can be on TB for 2 years after they've been thrown off FT, but TB cannot remove them from office if we take your logic that if you are suspended TB has notification that you are removed...

Still, better that than having the members possibly being held accountable for their behaviour, isn't it?

I said quite a long time ago that I would only vote to remove a member if he received a lifetime suspension which was upheld by Randy.

My reasoning was that such a suspension would make it impossible for him to do his job, not just for a short period (like a month) but permanently.

Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. It is the second time I have asked it of you. Have you made any motions to have a TB member removed? (Not just in the current case, but at any time since joining TB.)

How would you know that a lifetime suspension was upheld? TB is not privy to that information. Then only way you'd know that a lifetime suspension wasn't upheld was by the return of the member - which can only happen once it happens. So you are creating a condition which sounds reasonable, but in practice wouldn't and couldn't work and means you'd never have to remove someone from TB - much like the current rules then!

And perhaps I should leave you to answer that question - you are always so quick to say what did or didn't happen when you were on TB, and even when you aren't on TB! Let's see what you can deduce!

This has been quite an informative thread and should make my voting decisions much easier next time. Thanks to the Talkboard members whose posts in this thread made it easy. :)

[I am very busy with meetings today so this is again a slightly edited re-post of something I previously posted in the private TB forum on the same topic]

If someone is perma-banned it seems to me they'd meet the
- Is no longer an active, registered member of the FT Community
- Demonstrates by his/her actions that he/she is not able to actively participate in the TB duties

grounds well before they met the 3 missed votes dealio.

Frankly I don't have a big problem with TB members missing votes unexpectedly. Stuff happens. That's life. If it seems to be a permanent thing, that's a problem. But if it is clearly temporary, well it's not like we cannot conduct business with 8 TB members when necessary. We're all busy people with plenty of obligations and situations that might unexpectedly take us away from our computer for a length of time. Sure, it changes the math slightly when others fail to vote, but it also make MY vote that much more powerful! :cool:^

I actually don't REALLY support the new censure/removal provisions in the guidelines (that existed in the draft BEFORE the controversial auto removal provision was put in the version that went for a vote) for the same reason, but accept them because I see them as a compromise between my views and the auto-removal system others support. They give the TB flexibility when a TB member disappoints 2/3 of us. Let's look at those again:

i. Any voting TB member may make a motion for the censure or removal of another TB member or officer. Censure or removal of an elected TB member is a grave matter and should only be employed in severe circumstances. It should never be employed based on a disagreement of policy, personality or style.
ii. A motion to censure or remove shall include the valid grounds for censure or removal as allowed by these guidelines.
iii. Should such a motion receive a second the President shall initiate a sticky poll to allow TB members to vote on the matter, which shall take place by secret ballot.
iv. A 2/3 majority shall be required for approval of such a motion.
v. In the event of the passage of a motion to censure or remove, the TB Vice President/Secretary shall post the motion along with the results of the censure or removal vote in the Town Hall forum along with a statement by the TB member should he or she desire to include one and then ask the TB forums moderator to lock that thread 'per TB guidelines.' Should the motion fail there is to be no public notice of the motion whatsoever.
vi. In the event of the passage of a motion to remove, the President shall submit a request for removal and replacement of said member to the FlyerTalk Host for consideration.
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
vii. In all cases the FlyerTalk Host makes the final determination whether to remove a TB member.

That looks like a pretty good compromise: you could go ahead and make a motion to censure or remove a TB member under those guidelines for missing the votes or for e. or f. or whatever and we'd get on with life.

And just because I might or might not support such a motion on a case-by-case basis does NOT automatically mean that automatic removals are called for or that the status quo is broken.

I understand why you are so frustrated because, believe it or not, I do understand your point of view: you think people who don't vote or who get a 30-day don't belong on TB. Period. I get it. I just have a different viewpoint from you with regard to the entire matter of suspensions and missing votes is all.

I prefer to allow each TB member to vote his or her best judgement on a case-by-case basis just as we do for any other matter before the TB and let the chips fall where they may.

Each of us is elected to use our own best judgement. And that includes our judgment regarding whether to remove another TB member or not. If the posters disagree with that judgement they can vote us out at election time.

I'll create a new thread once I've got the 12/06-11/07 data included and try to keep it updated periodically. Thanks for the positive feedback.

We’ve got volunteers working in many, many areas who help make FlyerTalk the valuable resource and community that it has become.

And now we have an admitted Excel geek who actually likes developing spreadsheets and is willing to lend that expertise to help inform his fellow FT’ers. :cool:

Doesn’t get much better than that IMO.

Thanks in advance.

More positive feedback from me!

GREAT idea, and the initiative is appreciated!!! ^^

This is a very intriguing statement. Could you expand more?

We, then, will engage in the time-honored practice of canceling each other out, as I will never vote for those who voted YES. Feel better?

I just don't see how this result is so horrible.

Dovster, if you don't mind, I'll jump in here. For what I believe to be the right reasons, there will always be a private forum for discussions of ideas, concepts and even measures and motions. What only matters, is what comes before the Board for a vote. Motions that get no where, ideas that can't find base support are not for you nor others including me to worry about. This life of FlyerTalk is about what is being posted here, not the what ifs and the left outs. This type of questioning about things that may or may not be part of any private forum discussion does not serve the interest of this forum. Measure the public performance of our Talkboard members, just as we measure the public performance on FlyerTalk of all our members, not their performance elsewhere.

Thanks for understanding.

Agreed. Of course, there are a few TB members wo have not posted a word - either way - about these guidelines. I would like to hear from some of them.

This would be very nice to see.

I don't feel better at all. The actions, or lack thereof from a vocal minority of TB members over the last 4 years has left me very dissatisfied with FT. I rarely post here anymore.

This outcome is horrible because once again a very vocal minority of TB members has decided that poor and belligerent behaviour is acceptable for TB members.

Randy, in general I agree with you. Indeed, I did not ask for any specifics. I don't want to know the name of the member nor if it happened this week or last year.

I was interested in whether Jenbel had ever made such a motion for one reason only -- she complained that TalkBoard members have never had the opportunity to vote on expelling another member.

She, of course, could have given them that opportunity (assuming that one other member seconded it).

Personally, of course, I hope that there never is such a vote on any TalkBoard member -- but I am no longer a member, never will run for TB again, and thus have very little opportunity to influence that.

Ok, challenge accepted. I will endeavor to create a guidelines draft for reconsideration with plenty of time for the current TB to act on them, if that be the will of 2/3 of the current TB!

I wasnt doing anything tonight anyway. :(

Let me start by saying that I have no doubts as to Randy's motivations and how positive they have been and continue to be. But at the end of the day, we are all customers, not partners.

And if you think we're not customers, think again. There is a lot of money on the table. I have zero idea about FT's finances, but if a single guy like John Chow or Darren Rouse can make US$350k+/year online from a mix of fixed price monthly, CPM, and click-through advertising on a blog with only 250-350 posts per year... well then either Internet Brands is doing really well, or they are making a mess of things.

A volunteer effort was appropriate at one point in time. Today, a volunteer effort is leading to a lot of customer vs. customer fighting. And I'll admit that I'm in the fray, because of my views about the TB and suspensions.

But customer vs. customer fighting is not good for anybody. Think about it, would most people continue to shop at Costco if customers could get into fights with each other in the aisles? Specifically for FT:

• It is not good for the blood pressure of the combatants,
• It is not good for newbies who miss the wisdom of people who have given up and left, or are about to do so and
• It is not good for IB's bottom line.

In short, I think this business has reached the point where, now that the system upgrades are in place, IB has to consider investing more resources in the people side of management. To me, that means slowly investing in quality control of the user experience, which means an incremental evolution (as in over a year) away from a volunteer-based management of the moderators and the TalkBoard, to management by IB employees who are evaluated based on their ability to maintain a consistent high quality experience for IB's customers - us.

I know that I am in the minority of people who read this particular little part of FT on this topic. I do not have the emotional attachment of however many moderators there are, and probably 25 people who are, were, or want to be TB members.

Customers fighting with customers has to stop. And no matter what any of us might think about ourselves and our capabilities, no customer can really make it stop.