kokonutz

The issue, as Jenbel and Kipper have alluded to, is that some game players do think their game adds value to the community while believing that others do not.

That being the case, you will end up with 'winners' whose games stay in counting OMNI and 'losers' whose games end up in a non-counting OMNI-GAMES.

My personal solution to this is to make OMNI-GAMES count, so that everyone 'wins'.

hhoope01

While I tend to agree with the logic, if people are truly playing those games without concern for whether they are incrementing their post count or not, then I don't think the games players are really "losing" much.

And unfortunately, it seems there are some who feel they will be "losing" a lot if those games do count. So as I mentioned, sometimes it might be better to look at which decision will cause more "emotional" hurt rather than taking the "its more logical" approach.

And don't forget the wise saying "Pick your battles". If, and to those outside of the TB, its still an 'if', the battle has been won for counting OMNI and other forums, maybe its better to give a little. And if, again its still and if, there becomes a Games forum, maybe its better to not fight the "should posts count" there battle. Maybe this is the middle ground that will help the community come together.

Cholula

The people who don't win here, IMO, are the overwhelming majority I've heard from that don't think counting "12345" as a helpful post should count.

As other have said, we've only heard from a small subset of FT members in this thread but I give their opinion a lot of credibility as they are perhaps more passionate than other FT'ers about how FT should operate.

Since there is a difference of opinion even among TB members as to whether Games posts should count I think that's a good reason to have two votes on this issue.

1. Should a Games Sub-Forum be created?

2. Should posts count in the Games Sub-Forum.

Obviously if #1 doesn't pass, #2 is a moot point.

kipper

I would hope that consistency would be implemented throughout FT and not immediately tossed out the window again.

DeaconFlyer

But you ignored the overwhelming majority when deciding to support the counting of OMNI posts.

SkiAdcock

You're referring to this specific thread?

Speaking for myself I considered the input in this thread, but I also considered the input in the previous thread about the topic when it was discussed last summer, as well as the 2 polls that were run in the Omnis last summer, as well as the discussion threads re: the topics in the summer, as well as the discussions in the Omnis back then & recently. And all of those were not 'overwhemlingly against/majority'.

Cheers.

SkiAdcock

Please note that there are now 2 separate votes going re: this topic: one to create a games forum in Omni & one to make that forum a non-counting forum. I would suggest that people post in those threads.

Create Games Forum Under Omni Category

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...-category.html

Make Games Forum a Non-Counting Posts Forum

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...mes-forum.html

Cheers.

DeaconFlyer

I was referring specifically to Cholula

BobH

Nothing I would waste any time on-- even this message !

Bob H

essxjay

<general member hat> Concur. In this or any other case I see wisdom in TB formulating a solid contingency proposal but staying the motion until its necessity becomes clear.
</gen mem hat>

<mod hat>Threads evolve, parallel discussions arise and thread titles usually reflect only the original poster's intent.

With respect to judgment calls, isn't that always the case in a forum with two or more participants?

</gen mem hat>

jackal

I've been offline for the past ten or so days buried under an intense project at work, so I haven't had the chance until now to respond, but I did want to quickly point out that the proposal we voted on and passed to allow all posts to count was worded that way primarily because it was the simplest way to get the job done. I don't recall any discussion (private or public) that the motion was worded that way out of some idealistic stance, so the arguments posed by the two posters quoted above really aren't germane to this particular motion.