I didn't "close" them, I just made sure people could continue where they left off, the strain was too large on the board software when people were posting to 40 page threads 100's of times a day, all on request from the FT tech staff, as I posted in those threads.

Why people are posting less to them is beyond me, it's the same thread, the same theme and the same fun, if people ARE posting less to them then it's simply because it's not as much fun as it used to be...

Not only was ScottC exactly correct in taking these actions (which were obviously in the best interest of FlyerTalk), but his explanations on each of the threads he closed were extremely clear, complete and polite.

I am, as a matter of principle, opposed to unnecessary meddling on the part of moderators, but in this instance, the only thing I can say is, "Good job, ScottC".

I would suspect that the OMNI moderators have their hands so full with really necessary meddling, that they don't have time for the unnecessary variety. I don't read a lot of OMNI, but from what I have seen, the moderators efforts have been either seamless and invisible (which is terrific) or extremely logically and clearly explained.

Congrats!

I have no bone to pick with you personally, but
as the recipient of some of your most sarcastically insulting emails about my moderation, one of them even implying that I was too lazy/uninterested to read the thread in question, I take compete exception to this remark. I read many of the fora and I have yet to see a moderator's action that was not well thought out and often in concert with consulting with other mods. Whatever you may think of the moderation on FT, Randy has made it clear he respects the decisions of those HE appointed. My only fervent wish is that you could do the same.

I agree and I have no problem whatsoever with the new, shorter threads. ScottC explained exactly what he was doing when he did it and I can�t see where there is a problem with this action.
If folks aren�t posting as often, maybe it�s because they now have to search for the threads as they no longer take up a large portion of real estate on the OMNI forum.

We certainly agree on that (although I'm not sure this is the thread/topic for it); glad to hear that it would seem, therefore, that necessary meddling is a good thing.

Thanks to ScottC's explanation at the bottom of each of the long old threads I have learned why he closed the threads. The reason is clear and simple.

However I do wonder why there are no longer 5-7 of these newly started game and association threads on the first page of OMNI. The interest in them has faded.

Why ?

Maybe because they suck?

Thumper, ever hear of Chicken Little?

You had a similar post on Jan 25 where the mods asked you just to email them and they would handle it. Six days later, you do the same thing.

To the very best of my knowledge, squeakr, I have written to you (very factually and politely) regarding your moderation activity only twice.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/023241.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/022813.html

In both instances, I honestly felt that the closing these threads was unnecessary. They were both relevant to UA and extremely interesting to me as a UA 1k flyer.

I assure you that there was absolutely no sarcasm intented in my e-mails to you and, with your permission (of course), I would be more than happy to publicly post my original e-mails to you (both of which were cc'd to Randy at the time I sent them to you) and your corresponding responses.

It is actually precisely because of this type of public moderator reaction to my polite private input, that it is my personal preference to publicly post my opinions regarding what I consider frivolous moderator activitiy.

OBTW, flamboyant 1, the obvious answer is that the only reason those original OMNI threads originally flourished was to create "the thread with the most pages". Now that they have to start all over again, the glitz is gone.

This is ridiculous.

At what point do you accept the fact that Randy (You remember him, the OWNER of this BB) and the MAJORITY of the members are supportive of the moderation?

Your obsession with sniping at the moderators cannot be healthy. I must wonder why you are always so unhappy?

That was exactly my thought. I just did not want to be the first to post it.

flamboyant 1 writes:

Well that's certainly not a very flamboyant posture.

as you cc'd Randy (as did I in my response) I see no reason to make them public...if Randy had something to say to me about them I am very sure he would have.
As would he if he felt my moderation was off the mark.
Since you are one of only 2 posters who has ever compalined to me that I closed a thread on UAL I am going to assume i am doing something right.

I'm not going to argue specifics on this board. there's enough of that going around. Suffice it to say "I know it when I see it"

.

I take it back.

If Randy wants to see the emails in the light of day on this board I have no problem with that. Up to now all correspondance on this matter has been handled with he and Punki and I. If Randy believes there would be something gained by sharing those email exchanges on this board I will permit them to be shared.

I am well aware of the meaning of personal attacks and do not engage in them.