kokonutz

No you do not. Because to present such evidence would be a TOS violation of talking about moderation and would be deleted from this thread.

Nifty trick, coming up with a provision that limits who can serve on the TB that can neither be defended nor attacked in this forum because it is about moderation.

Spiff

No, it isn't.

ClueByFour

Actually, it's not. It's really about 3, maybe 4 people's negative experiences therewith, at least one (and probably more like 3) of whom essentially ran for Talkboard thinking they could change it.

If the "Randy must uphold a 30-day" to remove a TB member is in there, any discussion of moderation, per se, becomes moot (which is why, frankly, I'm glad to see it--it disarms the rantings of the usual suspects about the mods being able to influence the TB's makeup).. The next step (as has happened in this thread) is to question Randy's call(s). That seems relatively pointless to me (as nsx alludes to), since the TB is ultimately an advisory board to Randy.

Ask Randy (either in the TB forum or via PM) about how many 30 days are issued and how many he has overturned, both in raw numbers and in the relative context of the number of FT members (registered or "active"). If he shares them, those numbers will absolutely boggle your mind (in terms of tiny, tiny number of people who would ever be impacted in one way or another). I wish he'd even consider making them public (because it would validate the transparent and self-serving nature of various people's views on moderation).

nsx

koko, I believe that someone as bright as you can easily respond to my quoted post without discussing specific moderation actions that have occurred in the past. But I'll make it even easier: Do you accept the proposition that TB should treat any decision by Randy as definitive and not a proper subject for debate unless he asks TB to debate it?

Punki

I'll answer your question, nsx. Yes.

That is the way it used to work, and IMHO should work.

Under the proposed guidelines, however, and this is what I think is absolutely wrong, it is actions by moderators, not by Randy, that would prevent a member from running for TalkBoard, and subsequent non-action by Randy.

The problem is that Randy often does not act within 30 days, even when he is extremely apologetic to the suspendee, and completely overturns moderator decisions.

wharvey

If the concern is that Randy would not take action, just change the proposal to say that Randy MUST uphold the decision without a timeframe. Heck, even say that the specific TB member stays on the TB until Randy responds positively. Many ways to get around this concern. I personally believe he would respond timely knowing that it would have impact on the Talkboard itself... but if others do not, just change the wording to say he must uphold it. I know I have been able to get his attention on matters that required immediate attention.

Of course, sometimes, his not taking action is meant to be seen as an action....

cblaisd

Would that some others could figure that out too.

nsx

Thanks for the direct answer, Punki. I now believe there is a way out of this thicket. Just focus the wording on Randy's decision rather than on what leads up to that decision. No action until Randy decides. Maybe we can get unanimous agreement after all!

Punki

With regard to the removal of a sitting TalkBoard member, I am cool with nothing happening until Randy specifically takes action, as has always been his right.

My concern is with people who have received a 30-day suspension in the past two years not being able to run for TalkBoard. If we could word the clause that so that the effect would be that Randy would have to specifically withdraw the privilege of standing for TalkBoard from any member who has recieved a 30-day suspension in the past two years (as has also always been his right), I would be open to that.

What I don't want to see happen is to place the power of removing a FlyerTalker from the running for TalkBoard based on the decision of a moderator.

wharvey writes:

Yes, sometimes that may be meant to seen as an action, but other times, according to him, it is simply an oversight due to his busy schedule.

tom911

Why have a TalkBoard at all? We can just refer everything to Randy. You don't get to the 30 day mark without some prior sanctions.

Doesn't Randy already hear appeals on 30 day suspensions? Now you want him to look at those appeals a second time to see if he approves of the previously suspended member running for TalkBoard? You might as well just turn over all TalkBoard responsibilities to him and close shop. Don't you think he has enough on his plate already?

ClueByFour

What I want to know is when we can expect some action on the proposal as written?

techgirl

We wanted to have ten days of public comment on the proposal as currently written.

(Now whether that is ten continuous days, "at least" ten days, or ten days of "thread open to comments" is up for debate. )

Personally I'm comfortable with the proposal as currently written and while I do appreciate the input we've received here, nothing has convinced me that there are flaws in the current proposal. I would vote "yes" for it as it stands.

nsx

The gap is now sufficiently small that the TB really ought to be able reach unanimity. Achieving unanimity, or at least consensus, is why you have an extended discussion first. It's not just to check the discussion box before you ram an unchanged proposal through.

IMHO, the TB would be shirking its job if it just votes up or down on the initial proposal without fine tuning it for consensus or unanimity. The latter effort will pay dividends in increased collegiality as well. I'll volunteer to mediate if you like, but all you really need at this point is some patience and goodwill. I realize that those are in short supply, but hey, nobody promised you a rose garden.

Dovster

No, the concern is more that Randy will have no reason to take action.

Moderator2 wrote: "There is always going to be disagreements on what activities justify a suspension. As the longest term moderator here on Flyertalk, it's fair to say that even co-moderators on the same board don't always agree. That is healthy, and minimizes subjectivity. Consequently in order for this sub-discussion to continue positively, the posters and the TB are just going to have to stipulate that the moderators will initiate suspensions."

I agree completely with that statement.

I also agree with Cholula's statement, quoted earlier, that moderators tend not to give suspensions to fellow moderators.

So let's say that Non-Mod makes a post, which is a minor TOS violation, and is given a suspension. Randy would review it, agree that it is a violation, and the suspension would stand.

Then Mod makes a post which is an equal, if not greater, TOS violation and does not get a suspension. Randy has nothing to review.

That is the reason why this provision puts TB members who are not moderators at a much greater risk of being removed from TalkBoard.

nsx

Members are not eligible to be moderators if they have drawn a 30-day suspension. Anyone who believes that a moderator has conducted himself so poorly as to warrant a 30-day suspension should contact Randy privately. That's not a rhetorical suggestion; it's a real one. Randy can replace any moderator at any time. That's about all I can say about that.