I think not said:
Then the next day Cosmo makes another announcement that members previously banned (even for 24 hours) are not elligible to be nominated, this struck me as odd because it kind of throws a fresh new start out the window, by prohibiting members previously being banned in many cases under favoritism for a particular member.
Disqualifying banned members had been decided prior to the announcement. It is entirely my fault it was not included ... I simply forgot to add it in when I updated the eligibility. I take full responsibility for that omission.
As for a "fresh start", ITN, it didn't seem prudent to any of us to make that fresh start by placing people who had been banned in a decision making position. That was not a Board decision, but an administration one, btw, so it's not one that will be changed in future. The caveat on having banned members on the Board of Directors stands, although your objection is noted.
You, personally, were not banned for "favouritism", so it is a moot point in your case. In the case of some of the others, I agree that Blair was given lattitude he should not have been. That was part of the reason for forming a Board of Directors ... the moderators could not agree among ourselves about that very issue. Despite that single problem, the fact is that people
did engage in behaviour that was against the TOS, goaded or not. People are responsible for their own actions and always have had the XReport as a recourse. The banned members chose not to use it and decided to jump into the fray instead. And yes, Blair had been banned for his behaviour too. If that rule had been instated prior to the first election, I think we may have avoided some problems. Hindsight is 20/20 as we all know.
I think not said:
Tonight at midnight was supposed to be the deadline for nominations and to my surprise we get a newly "elected" Board of Directors, two more in addition to what was originally requested and 3 members of which don't meet the criteria of time required. Now I personally have no problem with any of these new posters, I think they make a great addition to the board, but I really have a dumb question here.
Why do you encourage active participation from board members while simultaneously breaking your own rules, not adhering to your own deadlines and not even having the courtesy of showing us who was nominated and the reasons why "they didn't qualify".
Is this the "active" participation you want from your members? Why not just make your own appointments and tell us its none of our business? And don't think for a moment my personal feelings were hurt in cyberspace, the admins know my position on the Board of Directors from another post at another forum.
Why the charade?
It was not a charade at all. Expedience was called for. I handled the nominations and we did not receive sufficient nominations to fill the positions. There was little participation on the part of forum members and there are some things that need tending to promptly. When we saw the election was not working, we took steps to provide the forum with a democratic service in the best way we could come up with.
Publishing a list of nominees and why they were disqualified is a bad idea. It's unfair to air that in public since nominations were made in confidentiality. If I were nominated and disqualified, I would not want that discussed in open forum. Would you?
Anyone nominated who did not get the chance to be on the Board is welcome to PM Board2006. They will receive a personal reply explaining why they were not selected.
To call it a charade is unfair. Lots of us spend hour upon hour working ... for free ... to keep the forum up and running. The people who agreed to fill the vacant positions were chosen for their willingness to get involved and their availability to do the job. For all of us, this forum is a hobby. It is an imposition to sit on the Board and requires a lot of work and commitment. I think we need to applaud the people who stepped up and were willing to put out the time and effort. Without the Board, the forum members have limited recourse to make changes or to question moderator decisions.
As Juan said ... we can be proud that we have people willing to do the work that needs done to keep Canadian Content flourishing.
I'm sorry you feel upset about this. You have shown yourself to be a valuable member and I, personally, am glad the ban list was cleared and you returned. That you did make an error in judgement a while ago is unfortunate. There is a three month window after which the limits of being banned are lifted. It's not a life sentence, but giving people the opportunity to prove their good behaviour is necessary.
