Originally Posted by
kokonutz
Well I suppose I just don't see my role as being a lobbyist for this great idea.
Either you think that there is merit to FlyerTalk trying to stay on the leading edge of the points and miles space or you think TalkBoard should only make recommendations and react after the herd has moved through.
It seems to me that the TalkBoard has been incredibly neglectful at staying on top of/in front of points and miles trends. Heck, it has gotten so bad that Carol barely even consulted us before creating the Manufactured Spending forum. And I don't blame her...if she waited for us to do what I consider to be our job as TalkBoard members she'd never get anything innovative done.
And to be clear, I just don't view my role as TB member as that of being King Solomon, sitting on high waiting for folks to bring me folios filled with stats and math filled out in triplicate about creating a new forum. I view it more as eyes and ears to help spot and take advantage of trends so that FlyerTalk stays not just relevant but cutting edge.
So if you want to say, nah, my gut says this is not a move that has any chance of keeping FlyerTalk as the leader in the points and miles discussion space, then ok, I totally respect that. And frankly there is nothing more i can say to change your gut feeling about that that hasn't already been said.
But if you are telling me that I have not dotted the right i's or crossed the right t's or done the right math to demonstrate realized benefits as well as opportunity loss, well, you are talking apples and I am talking oranges. Because this great idea is about the FUTURE of FlyerTalk, not the present nor the past.
Will I be sad if this motion fails? Sure. But not for myself. For the opportunity loss for FlyerTalk.
Like
nsx, I'm not penalizing you for not having "dotted the right i's or crossed the right t's or done the right math." If I become convinced that this move is the right move for FlyerTalk, then I will vote yes. If I remain convinced that this move is not productive for FlyerTalk, then I will vote no. It just so happens that your best chance of convincing me that it will be productive is to address the questions that I and many others have posed that you (and other proponents of the idea) seem to be completely ignoring. But if something comes up that suddenly makes me think it will be a positive idea, then I will not let the lack of any forms or questionnaires or mathematically-sound answers or whatever stand in the way of a "yes" vote.
I simply am not yet convinced that this is a net-positive move for FlyerTalk.
But I remain open-minded! I am actively soliciting for you (or anyone) to change my mind! I am having a difficult time understanding why that request is going unanswered.
Your original idea was to in effect use FlyerTalk as a replacement for the comments section on most frequent traveler blogs. Your concern was two-fold: one, that comments on those blogs are censored, and two, that commenters have a better chance of being engaged and knowledgeable here on FlyerTalk rather than on the blogs, where most of the people who read (and comment?) are less knowledgeable than our fellow FlyerTalkers.
As to the first point, it is something I've never personally witnessed, although I am not a frequent commenter and only ever check--rarely--a couple of blogs. As to the second point, I would not necessarily dispute that. However, I expressed skepticism that the format of your original proposal--to basically replace the comments section on the blogs with a comments section here--was workable--what would make someone, even an FTer heavily invested in the community, who wants to comment on a blog post to spend the time to go seek out a place to do so on FlyerTalk rather than using the handy-dandy comment submission form right on the blog itself? I doubt I would. Thus, I didn't think it would succeed.
It seems like it wasn't until the motion was brought forward to a vote that all this discussion about needing a place to talk about blogs and bloggers and who's a trustworthy source of information and who has a hidden ulterior motive and all of that was put together with this proposal. Thus, while those are important points to consider, it seems to me that the current proposal may not be the best way to address all of that.
In any case, I've waited until close to the end of the voting period to allow the maximum amount of time for discussion in hopes that someone would address the questions I raised earlier or otherwise post something that convinces me to support the motion. So far, that has not happened. I remain quite confused why you seem like you only want to post meaningless platitudes rather than concrete reasons on why this is indeed the best way to meet this need.
If you want me to support it, then you need to help me understand in concrete terms--I know that's hard for you MBTI N types--why you think this proposal is a great idea and will succeed, not tell me I should assume it will.