nsx

Moved by nsx and seconded by jackal:
This vote will close on May 10, 2011 at 2:52 PM Pacific Time or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:
The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback about this specific motion in this thread.

A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’

cblaisd

Excellent idea.

N830MH

Me, too. I think it will have better way to keep out of coupon connection. I won't post it very often.

Markie

I won't be supporting this increase in access.

My reasons:

- I think it is an excessive increase in the restriction and is being billed as a simple admin change.
- For members close to the 90/90 rule this will yank away the chance to obtain access
- Careful Moderation of that forum has removed many of its historic problems
- It creates the impression that FT is run by a small elite for a small elite and that new members are not welcomed
- Which member knows whether just before they obtain access to OMNI or CC the TB won't randomly change the access again - not an encouragement to post in my book.

Cholula

I'm 101% in favor of this motion and have voted for it.

I would have favored a 580/580 rule if it had been floated but I'm fine with this in the interim.

FT is about miles and points and sharing tips, tricks and knowledge about same.

Coupon Connection, as well as OMNI, is a bonus for those who have committed and contributed to FT.

Show us the commitment and we'll show you the "secret" forums.

cblaisd

Plus 1 on all counts. Well said.

And in re "those who have committed and contributed to FT" now that OMNI has been restricted, one will actually have to show an interest in and commitment to the core mission of FT - which is travel.

njx9

FWIW, from someone who's read for a while but hasn't posted much, this is exactly the message I'm being given lately. "I" (or any other member with a small number of posts or a recent join date) try to post in a thread and am shouted down for not doing a search, or for asking a question that might've been asked in 1999. Then I'm repeatedly told that the members of the site don't value anything I say anyways, as post counts are increased for the 'hidden' boards.

*shrug* It's a heckuva message the TB is sending to anyone in the same boat.

Then why not make it 15,000 posts? Or 25,000? Because, it seems clear, you don't care what I have to say. You have created a secret club, and now that some people are likely posting more (in an effort to get access to something that was taken away from them), you want to push the markers even further out, to ensure that they still can't join the club.

If this is how little Flyertalk values newer posters, why should any of them care to contribute anything? It will clearly never be good enough.

goalie

Agreed ^

kipper

I don't know which forums you are frequenting, and I'm not going to do a search for posts you've made. However, I would like to apologize if you feel you are being yelled at in forums. Yes, sometimes, it is frustrating for those of us who have seen a question asked and answered multiple times see the same question again. However, that does not mean we should be rude in dealing with it. Rather, we should be doing the search for when it was asked and answered before, and posting that link to the current thread, with a nice comment explaining that it's been discussed in detail at the linked thread. We should also be asking moderators to merge those threads, etc.

My suggestion, if you feel you are being yelled at in a forum is to check out some of the other forums. Look at the Travel & Dining: Destination forums, and share your knowledge of your local area, and your knowledge of the areas to which you travel.

Another option--read some of the other forums--Travel Health & Fitness, SPAM, Women Travelers, and the list goes on and on. Even if you aren't female, you can still read Women Travelers. Some great advice there has been from men.

While there are a LOT of great people on FT, there have also been some people who have been burned by those not-so-great people on FT in CC. As such, I think having some sort of "contribution/membership" level is a good idea, in part because it encourages new members to focus first on travel and FT as a community, before saying, "What can I get out of it that has a tangible benefit?"

To me, it makes sense to have OMNI and CC requirements match. There's less confusion that way, and there's more of a focus on helping to build a better, more knowledgeable community before venturing into CC and OMNI. Is there a magic post count number that once you hit that level means everyone trusts you and you're a great community member? No. But certain levels demonstrate some level of commitment.

No one is saying new members aren't valued. However, should a new member, with 1 post be valued as much as someone with 20,000 posts who has been a member for 10 years? Have they made the same contributions?

Fitting into a community, finding your place, and having others know your commitment to that community takes time. I wouldn't move into a new community and immediately expect everyone to figure that I'm a great person and my expertise is XYZ. I'd expect to have to demonstrate that through conversations, helping others, and sharing knowledge.

Until I could demonstrate that to others in the community, I would expect that people would be more guarded with me, less trusting of me, and less likely to share with me, or, in the case of a neighborhood, be less likely to say, "Sure, I'll pick up your $100 grocery order today, and wait for you to pick up my $100 grocery order next week." Apply that same principle to FT, and hence why there are restrictions on CC. In some cases, you're dealing with things worth hundreds or thousands of dollars rather than a $100 grocery order, but the priciple is the same.

njx9

I should point out here that *I* haven't yet been yelled at. However, seeing on, for instance, the United boards, where questions are frequently... well, not answered nicely, it's not a conducive place to asking anything. And frankly, even after 5 years of reading this board (I started after a PremEx post came up in a google search, but didn't register for a few years), I'm still not confident enough in my own information to stand up to some of the personalities on those boards. I'd have to guess that the vast majority of my posts have come on the Travel & Dining section as a result.

And I *have* generally found the vast majority of members to be thoughtful and helpful. But, like anything else, the few tend to be the loudest or most noticeable.

I don't want to quote snipe, but the issue, for me, isn't that there are post requirements (especially for CC, where they make perfect sense). It's that, for a newer member (especially one who had no idea that OMNI had recently been opened and had been closed for years prior), the message being given is that there's an elite club on FT who's now busily erecting walls, and then trying to make those walls even higher. Especially when the reason for the yes vote includes a yet higher number for entry that would be preferred.

I get that CC requires a certain amount of trust, and that there should be some sort of barrier to entry (else the drive-by issue would probably make it a fairly difficult site to use). Another board I frequent (actually, a few of them) have similar restrictions for users posting links (although set much lower, at somewhere between 3-10 posts). However, no other board I frequent has a small set of users actively attempting to push other users out (as they are with the 90-179 post users currently there).

I'm not missing anything currently on CC (as in, I have nothing that I could offer and won't for the conceivable future), so I have no personal attachment or interest in keeping the post count requirement lower. While I believe I posted there a couple of times when it was open, I have no attachment to OMNI P/R. I do miss some of the clinic threads in regular OMNI, but again, I don't need those boards for what I generally come to FT for. What I care about is the feeling being given when users suggest that 180 posts isn't even good enough, but that requirements should go up even higher. I care about new users being told they're no longer 'good enough' to access something they previously had access to. And yes, I understand that a thread was posted prior to the access loss, but for a new user, or for someone who infrequently checks the board, the vote may have been closed before they noticed (sorry I took that two weeks to be offline), or they may have been too intimidated to post their opinion here.

I guess the point (since I think I've rambled by it enough now) is that I don't need those boards to get and give travel information on this board. I don't mind the requirements changing, and find it unlikely I'd return to OMNI even were access granted tomorrow. I do not, however, think that new users, and users with smaller post counts need to be repeatedly given the message that their posts aren't good enough for the 'club'. Whether intentional or not, repeatedly raising the requirements, and suggesting they should be even higher does exactly that.

tcook052

There will always be some posters affect by a change but IMHO that doesn't mean change should not be comtemplated or occur after proper debate.

The motion makes sense to me and should to newer users by creating a level playing field for entry into both forums.

SkiAdcock

I appreciate both njx9 & kipper's well thought out responses/insights, and appreciate them offering them & will certainly take both into consideration before voting.

Cheers.

Markie

The 'level playing field' is one where new members are excluded equally from OMNI and CC.

I would have preferred a proposal which graduated any change - so perhaps it could have gone to 100/100 on 1 June, 150/150 on 1 December, 180/180 on 1 April, allowing people to post (and the Moderators will protect us again runners) and still obtain access. (This isn't an option on the table).

tcook052

Maybe you can explain why it isn't an option on the table? We keep hearing about how TB talks overs these matters behind closed doors and how "concensus building" goes on before these motions are made public so were these issues presented at that stage?

Markie

I indicated my opposition when the proposal was made within TB. However, I cannot comment on other TB members views. However, as the proposal has been made as is, and a majority is required to pass it, you can probably extrapolate the position.