Question 12: Proceedures
Author:
mike
01 6th, 2009 in
xn--9ou.com
edit
My understanding is that member suspensions are given for 7 days, 30 days, then an undetermined period. If a TalkBoard member is suspended for a period of 30 days or more, what do you believe should be the the appropriate measures to ensure that the TalkBoard functions with nine active members. And how would your measures differ if the unscheduled absence was due to other unforseen issues such as illness or a work situation?
If a TalkBoard member is unable to participate for disciplinary reasons, he/she may be removed by a 2/3 majority vote by the TalkBoard or by the owner of the board. The next highest vote recipient in the most recent election would then serve out the term of the removed member. In the event that a member is unable to serve on a temporary basis, the TalkBoard, like most advisory boards, can function well enough temporarily with 8 members. There should be no temporary TalkBoard replacements.
The same is true if a member is unable to serve for personal reasons. If she/he does not step down voluntarily or ceases participation, the above process should also be applied.
I certainly agree with this point. Openness is good.
But somthin' tells me Randy ain't budging on this one...
After bhatnasx posted that another moderator sent me a PM saying that what I had posted was incorrect -- that moderators do, indeed, have the power to suspend other moderators.
To be completely fair, I want to review the background.
If you will review this thread, (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6363599) you will see that in Post # 15 Cholula (who is a moderator) said that he wanted to have Randy be the only ones to be able to suspend non-mod candidates.
His exact words were: "And it's for only 30 days and is only applicable to a select few FT members...the TB candidates who are not also mods."
In Post # 18, Cholula discussed members of TalkBoard and said, "My suggestion is that the non-mod TB members only be suspended by Randy or someone from the HOM's he designates."
In Post # 19, I asked him, "Why are you restricting it to non-mods? Do mods already require approval by Randy or his designate before being suspended?"
The thread was locked 11 minutes after I asked that question.
I did, however, receive a PM from another moderator at that time saying that the process of allowing moderators to be suspended by others moderators, with the technical assistance of senior moderators had been ended.
Even senior moderators, I was told, could no longer suspend moderators -- it could be done only by HOM.
As I don't believe that this moderator was lying to me, nor do I believe that either bhatnasx or the moderator who sent me a PM today is lying to me, I can only come to one of two conclusions:
1. There is a misunderstanding on the policy among the moderators, leading Cholula and the mod who sent me the first PM to believe one thing, while bhatnasx and the second moderator the opposite.
2. The policy I cited was true on Sept 11, when Cholula posted, but has since been changed back to what it was after the First Mod Do.
I realize that all of this is peripheral to the question at hand here, but I did feel that for the sake of fairness and accuracy I should give all the information I have at hand -- including the confirmation that another moderator sent me about bhatnasx's statement.
As I've said, other than spammers and wack-jobs, WE ALL LOSE when someone is suspended.
If elected to TB (ah, who the heck am I kidding, I'll agitate whether I am elected or not) I'd advocate that we put the jackboots away and focus not on punishment but on rehabilitation. Not on exclusion but on inclusion.
People are respectful when they have a pride of ownership.
I fear that the current path of moderation is creating a sense of us vs. them on the part of both some moderators and some posters. This whole moderators as schoolmarms thing is, as I said, not only annoying but disruptive and destructive to our communities.
So the answer to the question is: I find 30-day suspensions ridiculous whether one is a TB member, a poster OR a moderator.
As for being sick or away, I am always sick or away. But here I am!!! ^
He should also make the decision if a member becomes ill and will be missing for several votes. A suggestion would be to have an alternate, perhaps the #6 vote getter, who is able to step in and vote instead of the missing member.
I don't think this would be an undue burden on Randy. We're not talking about a whole lot of people getting into a whole lot of trouble.
If elected to TB, and I were suspended, I would immediately check myself into a clinic for alcohol rehab. Then I would go into seclusion, for 30 days.
But under most circumstances, I would think that person would be kicked off TB, or resign. There seems to be quite a number of qualified people ready to serve.
And if that suspension is for more than seven days, the TB member should be replaced with the next highest vote getter.
Thanks for another interesting question
Well I am not sure how TalkBoard run on a hung vote. If there is an even number of folk but if it is run like any other board/business/committee/society etc, it still has to function and usually if someone is off for some reason and a vote is hung i.e. 3 in favour 3 against then the casting vote would go to the chairperson or in his/her absents the vice chairperson.
I don’t see why such a thing would not happen in TalkBoard as it’s a very successful thing in other organisations.
Regards
And there, I believe, is the key to the entire difference of viewpoint that you and I have.
I might suggest you get the facts correct before making such a statement. Moderators are members first and in fact, have been suspended by other moderators in the recent past.
I believe we are all members first and are not above the rules we expect every other member to follow. In fact, if on the Talkboard or a moderator, I personally believe I have a higher standard to uphold.
If a Talkboard member (including myself) were to earn a 30 day suspension or more (and upheld by Randy) I believe the person should be removed and replaced by the next highest member.
The "one moderator should not overturn the decision of 100 members" does not hold water to me.
William
your fantasies as truth or as fact.
.
Hi
If I started to go into my fantasies I might scare away any chance of people voting for me, but then again this is FlyerTalk, maybe I might get more votes for sharing them :D :p
Bringing
Techgirl, I agree with you on this.
When I first received the (happily incorrect) medical report which led to my resignation, I suggested to TalkBoard that a member who knows he will not be available for a month or longer be allowed to take a leave of absence and be replaced, during that time, by the next person in line.
As I feel it is always better policy to make such decisions before personalities become involved, I did not tell them that I thought I might soon be in that position.
It never came to a vote because there was absolutely no support for this suggestion.
When I believed that I would have one month with minimal participation due to travel followed by a second month no participation because of hospitalization, I resigned and Doc took my place.
I still think it would be a better policy to have a temporary replacement for long absences.
Then I presume that are against the situation which currently exists: Moderators are an "untouchable class of posters on FT, who only Randy can suspend."
Some history is required here. For years, moderators did not moderate each other. It was not an official decision -- more of an unspoken agreement.
At the first Mod Do, a little over a year ago, the moderators decided to change this. They would, they decided, start to moderate each other. There was a question of the software allowing this but that was solved by having senior moderators do the actual suspensions.
At least two moderators that I know of were suspended. After that, it stopped. Moderators today -- even senior moderators -- can no longer suspend moderators. Only Randy can.
I have to believe that this is because moderators realize that the system is not perfect. It can't be when you have 70 people, each with his own opinions and views on moderation, involved. What will get a suspension from one moderator will earn a "LOL" from another.
My answer, as I said elsewhere, is not to return to having moderators being suspended by each other, but to afford all FlyerTalkers the same protection --suspensions (with the exception of very new members) being given only by one person, preferably someone at HOM. Moderators would make the recommendation but it would require the approval of this person before going into effect.
This would have the additional advantage of reaffirming what Randy has always said, "Moderators are first and foremost members" and should be treated like all other members.
2. The policy I cited was true on Sept 11, when Cholula posted, but has since been changed back to what it was after the First Mod Do.
I realize that all of this is peripheral to the question at hand here, but I did feel that for the sake of fairness and accuracy I should give all the information I have at hand -- including the confirmation that another moderator sent me about bhatnasx's statement.
Thanks, Dov!
I think #1 is correct - and I would recommend that you let that moderator that sent you that information to review the Moderator Good Practices document, which, as a moderator, he or she would have access to. If he or she need assistance finding it, please have them contact either myself or one of our Senior Moderators who may be able to assist.
Point #2 is incorrect.
Thanks!
Yes, I would guess so.
I believe that ALL members are subject to the TOS and if they cannot abide then they have to accept the consequences.
I do not believe anyone is immune and should not expect protection. If members followed the TOS then they have nothing at all to worry about. In the rare instance that a moderator makes an incorrect judgment, then Randy can step in... but I would say the fact that he has only done that in a few rare instances is indication that he believes the proper decisions have been taken.
William
There are a serious number of misstatements and non-truths within this post.
We advise every candidate to avoid stating your theories or your fantasies as truth or as fact.
We will presume as well that this candidate has a set of reading glasses they can put on to re-read the question before further discussion. Nowhere in the question is there any mention of an "untouchable class..."
Thank you.
Then I presume that are against the situation which currently exists: Moderators are an "untouchable class of posters on FT, who only Randy can suspend."
Some history is required here. For years, moderators did not moderate each other. It was not an official decision -- more of an unspoken agreement.
At the first Mod Do, a little over a year ago, the moderators decided to change this. They would, they decided, start to moderate each other. There was a question of the software allowing this but that was solved by having senior moderators do the actual suspensions.
At least two moderators that I know of were suspended. After that, it stopped. Moderators today -- even senior moderators -- can no longer suspend moderators. Only Randy can.
I have to believe that this is because moderators realize that the system is not perfect. It can't be when you have 70 people, each with his own opinions and views on moderation, involved. What will get a suspension from one moderator will earn a "LOL" from another.
My answer, as I said elsewhere, is not to return to having moderators being suspended by each other, but to afford all FlyerTalkers the same protection --suspensions (with the exception of very new members) being given only by one person, preferably someone at HOM. Moderators would make the recommendation but it would require the approval of this person before going into effect.
This would have the additional advantage of reaffirming what Randy has always said, "Moderators are first and foremost members" and should be treated like all other members.
In a recent TalkBoard Topics thread, Cholula twice stated that he wanted to create a situation where non-mods would be subject to discipline only by Randy. In one case, he referred to non-mod candidates running for TalkBoard. In the other, he referred to non-mod members of TalkBoard.
After the second such reference, I asked why he was restricting this kind of protection only to non-mods. I wondered if moderators already enjoyed it.
The thread was locked before he had an opportunity to answer but another moderator sent me a PM saying that the short-lived policy of allowing senior moderators to suspend moderators had been cancelled and that it now requires HOM approval.
Of course, this explained why Cholula saw no need to give this protection to the mods in those circumstances.
I am familiar with the situation in which you suspended a moderator -- in fact, it was one of the two to which I referred -- but it was explained to me that this was during that short period between the First Mod Do and the now-current policy.
(Whether the information I received is right or wrong, I still believe that all suspensions should be approved by HOM, be they for moderators, TalkBoard members, or ordinary members. It is the only way to ensure uniform application of the TOS.)
I also agree with techgirl. ^
That said, I think 30 days may be an excessive amount of time for a TalkBoard member to be unable to contribute. Given the number of resignations and temporary suspensions that have occured since the inception of TalkBoard and the replacement standard that exists, I believe that the next highest vote-getter should serve as an alternate on TalkBoard who can participate in and read discussions (so they are up to date on issues) but does not go out and solicit feedback from Community members or vote. If an absence of longer than 7 days is to occur, that member would step in as a temporary member until such time as the other member can return. That member would only be allowed to vote if the absent member will not return before voting closes on an issue.
I think this would allow for a majority to remain and would create some type of succession plan for when resignations DO occur - that member would already be up to speed and would not have to spend time catching up on issues or procedures.
Moderators do have the ability to suspend another moderator. A senior moderator is the one that actually has to do the suspension - but any moderator can suspend another moderator & just ask the senior moderator to do it. That said, any moderator who receives a suspension above 30 days loses his or her moderator status.
Randy does not have to approve a moderator suspension - nor has he ever asked to do this. Though I'm not going to discuss the particular indicident out of privacy's sake and respect for a fellow FlyerTalker & moderator, I have suspended a moderator before just as I suspended other members due to the moderator, who was acting as a member, posting things that were inappropriate. Several members were suspended too. This suspension, like many others, were done in consultation with my fellow forum mods.
Please correct your post above as there are statements that are simply just not true.
I'm offline for the majority of the rest of the day (travel day today) - but I may get back online at the MLL in YYZ this afternoon if I have time.
Unless that TB member is removed by Randy personally, I think that any TB member should be allowed to continue to be active on the TB private forum, and to vote there, even if he is unable to access any other forum.
Indeed, I know of at least one instance where Randy enabled just that. I would like to see it become an automatic procedure.
Look at the submissions of many FTers here. Most of us claim part of our worth as TB candidates are our FT contributions and our work in this community. If one of us chooses to break the basic TOS, we cannot be properly discharging our duty on TB either. TB is part of FT and as such is bound by the same rules and TOS too. If anything, ensuring TB members must face the same suspension policy should be an added incentive for them to follow the TOS and show appropriate respect for the rules - those that really care about their TB role will be even more careful not to fall foul of TOS violations elsewhere - personally, I've found it relatively easy never to be suspended (I know, I'm tempting fate now ;)).
From what I have read, there is a procedure in place for removing people who miss a certain number of votes. The procedure should be followed. If TB cannot at least attempt to follow its own rules, then how could those proposing to amend the TOS to control moderators, expect any respect from the mods? As children, I'm sure we all hated it when our parents came out with "Don't do what I do, do as I say" :(
If illness or work were to intervene, rather than suspension, then the TB member would probably have a little bit more control over the situation, and it would be down to their conscience whether they could remain on TB or not. It may be useful to look at creating a leave of absence system, for when people have very short term problems. But really, if it becomes a medium to long term problem, then it would not be appropriate for them to continue, and I hope they would themself realise that.
Personally, I don't believe that someone who is capable of getting themselves suspended for 30-days is someone I would vote for for TalkBoard. But that's my thought.
Now, should a TB member get suspended for 30-days - or be sick or unavailable for a period of time where we know they are coming back? I think the rest of the TB should be able to vote on the issues without the missing TB member. Of course, I think that if a TB member doesn't show up for an extended period of time regardless of reason (maybe 60 days or something), the TB should have the right to do an "impeachment" vote and replace the TB member with the next member that got the next closed number of votes.
As detailed in post # 24, I showed specifically where I had gotten both the information which I had posted earlier as well as information contrary to my initial post.
Therefore, I do not appreciate the implication that I am lying.
Whatever misinformation may be contained in my original post (and I would greatly appreciate it if you would clarify just what it is) could have been avoided by a more open policy of how Moderation is handled.
This is not the first time I have mentioned this. I quoted, above, what had been posted in TalkBoard Topics and my question at that time.
In addition, on September 25 in this post on the Only Randy Petersen Forum (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=605429) I told you that I had been informed that moderators could only be suspended by HOM and suggested the same treatment be given to all members.
You did not reply to that post, much less say that the information I had been given was inaccurate.
The only way that inaccurate information will be kept from being spread is to have accurate information made available.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
