kokonutz

Magic Eight Ball says: As I see it, yes.

nsx

Many UK-based members of BA Executive Club felt similarly when Chase began handing out 100k boni for new credit card accounts. That single factor created a huge divide on the BA forum here. Unlike for post counts, real-world value was behind that irritation.

Ancien Maestro

Hopefully the moderators are prepared to apply consistency on the rules.. whatever that may look like.. It will be up to them to assess the 'abuse' on games..

nsx

There are two competing principles in play (pun intended):

1. Simple rules are easier to comply with and easier to enforce.

2. A simple or overly specific set of criteria on what is inevitably a judgment call is an engraved invitation to members who enjoy probing the limits, getting as close to the line as they possibly can without going over. We FTers are gamers through and through.

I expect that if any formal rules are published, that will only occur after both posters and moderators have had plenty of experience on this subject. However this is just my conjecture, since I do not expect to be directly involved.

Cholula

We're up to the task.

Thanks for your consideration.

kipper

When you choose to get offended at what someone says, you make a choice. I could go up to someone and call them fat. They could get offended, and be mad, even though there may be some truth there, or they could say, "Yes, I am. So?" It's a choice.

Just because a post has content does not mean it has meaning. Every post has content of some sort, whether numbers, a few paragraphs of something, a +1 and a quoted post, or a ^ and a quoted post. However, unless you are saying that every post, even if it's just a ^ or and a quoted post, except for those which contain only numbers has meaning, your logic is flawed.

Why should members be allowed to "cheat their way to status" by posting only in lounge threads or contest threads?

FT'ers are generally the type that collect status and points/miles. Some "game" the points/miles system in many different ways, from receiving points, miles, or EQMs for credit card spending to the PriorityClub option that allows you to purchase points at a lower rate, or their Visa promotion that was supposed to be for those staying at one of their hotels, but that resulted in many others being given the codes. Is it any different with post counts here? No, not really. As such, why call out a specific forum and insist that posts there, regardless of how much community building it may or may not do, will not count, when the same post, in a lounge thread, counts?

GUWonder

Did those threads bring FT down before? Or did they prop it up by giving FT two or more cents?

I participated a wee bit in some word game threads (including with posts that are part of a thread in an airline forum) and I also posted in the thread about who will be the next FTer to post. Doing that didn't seem to do any harm, and I say that even as I found them to be a waste of time. But "waste" is in the eyes of the beholder -- one person's waste can be another person's treasure, as I realized yet again when a possessive little relative got annoyed that the child's "diaper sausage" was being discarded along with the soiled diaper. Apparently even feces can be valuable -- and not just select deposits from birds on some island or some kind of feline who knows where.

dchristiva

They should count because folks who wanted the OMNI posts to count argued "consistency" and "a post is a post is a post". They wanted to end post segregation. Why start that again by segragating "Games" posts? Why not take a "wait and see" approach to determine empirically whether "Games" posts are even a real issue in terms of inflated posts counts. Why would someone care about another's post count anyway?

dchristiva

Why? You were just arguing that we need "consistency" when TalkBoard voted to count OMNI posts. Now you want to segregate certain posts? How is that "consistent"?

Not to mention that there ought to be a waiting period to see whether "Games" posts are even an issue with regards to inflated post counts. Even if they are, why the level of someone else's post count matter to you or anyone else?

dchristiva

Bravo! ^ ^ ^

Mary2e

I've explained it many, many times.

It was the counting games that got so out of hand that Randy just stopped counting Omni rather than deal with the abusers.

There were a few people counting all day and all night, and people from outside of Omni were complaining that when they clicked on "new posts" all they got at the top were Omni counting games.

So he shut off posts counting in Omni. Guess what? The abusers stopped counting.

My inconsistency comes from that experience - and I think I posted this before - those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

In a status conscious community, particularly with titles being granted for the number of posts one makes, allowing those types of threads to exist is just asking for it.

That is my only reason. I would much rather see the moderators of Omni simply not permit them. I wouldn't care if a few counting games that have long existed and actually say something in them besides a number, were allowed to remain. They were never a problem. But the mods have already said they will not consider counting post padding, so that's why I'm for segregating games and not have them count.

nsx

Yes you have, Mary, and I found your explanation persuasive.

koko said it best:

I am amused by posts that say, in essence, "This issue matters deeply to me even though it should not matter to any normal person."

dchristiva

OK, but how hard is it to monitor a handful of "abusers" and reign them in? Why, in one breath, should we start counting OMNI posts, and in the very next breath, start segregating again? There's no logic to that. Not to mention that we ought to wait to see if history, indeed, repeats itself.

And, really, what difference do the titles make? Are there going to be that many people who earn the cherished "Evangelist" title by participating in "Games" threads? That argument smacks of the "haves" not wanting the "have-nots" to "earn status".

dchristiva

So you're of the opinion that the only way to prevent "post-padding" is to segregate yet another forum? Don't you want to take some time to see if these fears of "post-padding" come to fruition? I would think that the Moderators could do a nice job of monitoring that situation. Why the need for a blanket decision, particularly after agreeing that OMNI posts should count?

And are the titles "earned" by post counts really that worthy of "protection" against post-padding abusers? Worrying that folks will "cheat" their way to "Evangelist" status doesn't give the FT membership much credit for being able to figure out a member's true "contribution" to the community. I, for one, am pretty good at figuring out who got his/her "status" based on real contributions towards FT's real mission/objective and those who got there by playing "Games".

Mary2e

Because the mods have said they do not consider counting post padding.
Hey, I couldn't care less if they removed my Omni posts from under my name as well as the title. The only one that means anything to me is the Ambassador title, and that's because it was something I earned by helping people.

So, I've explained this to you umpteen times across multiple threads. Just recently a few minutes ago 3 posts ago. Am I speaking in tongues and just don't see it?