Jenbel is correct and my (rushed) post from yesterday was poorly worded.

I MEANT to say that now a super-majority will be required to recommend that Randy reconsider his decision to implement the non-count and instead count OMNI posts. NOT that by its vote alone the TB could achieve that goal. That is clearly NOT the case and I apologize if my post left that impression. Randy's still da man. The TB is still the advisory board.

I think Dovster's pretty much summed up the situation as I see it: the TB is elected to give Randy feedback. What's the point of giving feedback if the only feedback we are ever going to give is 'yes sir!'?

Every single time the TB passes a motion, the TB is saying 'Hey, Randy, here is an idea for what we, the elected representatives, think would make FT a better place.'

I think Randy was very wise for setting this process up since he's a busy guy and can't always keep his fingers on the pulse of the FT community.

Once this motion either passes or fails Randy will have the TB's advice...just as he has had our advice on the creation of the Travel Products Forum, allowing a poster to solicit funds for a Sri Lankan orphanage or the creation of a VX forum. Ultimately, whether he has asked for it or not (and in nearly all cases Randy has NOT asked for the TB's opinion on a subject, instead the TB has proactively provided its collective opinion to Randy without being asked) of COURSE Randy is free to ignore the advice of the advisory board. But at least he will have it, one way or the other.

So I think it's pretty silly to continue to debate the logic behind the motion.

Randy never asked the TB what we thought about this implementation. What's wrong with proactively telling him just like we do with every other issue we bring to his attention?

In any case, I'm more interested in hearing what posters have to say say about the actual merits of the motion one way or the other:

Does counting OMNI posts make FT a better place or does not counting OMNI posts make FT a better place?