Canarsie

I wonder if anyone associated with the counting threads would be averse to voluntarily adding a rule or two, such as this rule from the Who Will Be The Next FlyerTalk Member To Post? An OMNI Game thread:I first implemented this rule when the game first began in 2003, long before I became a moderator.

Would a similar rule such as not being permitted to post consecutively being voluntarily implemented to the counting threads offer a resolution to this issue? Would this be a fair compromise?

Mary2e

That definitely would be, but I don't know if the software could handle it Don't you manually tally up the winners? Or maybe run it through some software?

Perhaps that will keep counting games from annoying the rest of FT by always appearing on top of new posts.

Canarsie

I did manually tally up the points at one time, but wijomas thankfully created a software script that does it for me.

Ingenuity is a trait not foreign to FlyerTalk members.

dchristiva

You keep explaining it, but there's no logic. Either count everything or count nothing. That's how I see it.

Mary2e

I know... and you've posted that dozens of times

Dovster

There is logic to saying,"Don't count when the counting causes a problem."

If the games are to be kept in Omni, and will be counted, they will cause a problem. Anytime you go to the main page to see what new posts have been made in Omni you will see one of the game threads.

As it is apparently impossible to keep them in Omni and not count the posts, then it becomes necessary to move them to a Games Forum -- where I really don't care at all if they are counted or not.

dchristiva

What's the harm in waiting and seeing if this is true or not?

RichMSN

Because (and I know I've said this before) the OMNI posts counting would've never passed without this compromise. Better the glass half full than completely empty.

dchristiva

I don't recall that being an explicit part of the motion, or that the motion was conditional upon waiting to see whether Games were going to be segregated.

Or perhaps I misread the motion.

Dovster

We've already seen it happen.

nsx

Did you really not understand my posts on this, or are you just pretending not to understand what happened? I voted for "count everything" based on RichMSN's promise to support the rest of the package. I took the (IMHO negligible) risk that the rest of the package would not pass.

You may be pointing out that by voting on the compromise in two parts, the TalkBoard created an opportunity for half of the compromise to take effect without the other half. IMHO that situation would not have represented the consensus of the TalkBoard.

If you are disappointed that this unintended result did not occur, consider that these conditions are equally likely to cut either way on a given issue. Therefore it's better for everyone if we implement a consensus solution in good faith, no matter how it was constructed.

As another example, suppose that a proposal approved by the TalkBoard turns out to have been misworded in a way that does not reflect the intent of the Yes voters. Should the opponents of the proposal exploit this error to frustrate the intent of the Yes voters? Would you like that to be done to a proposal you supported? I say no. People who want to play tricks like that belong in politics, not on the TalkBoard.

nsx

And I'm getting the impression that some people were itching for a chance to make it happen again.

This reminds me of the recurring argument over Southwest's policy to charge the full walk-up fare if you want to standby for an earlier flight. Posters say "That seat will otherwise go empty, so it doesn't cost the airline anything." I reply "Apply game theory here. If standby is free, people will buy the cheapest flight of the day and fly at a peak hour. Southwest will not be able to maintain its value-based price differential for peak hours. Off-peak fares will have to increase." Sometimes the poster will admit "That's what I wanted to do: buy the cheap ticket and fly at a peak hour. I didn't buy the expensive ticket because I didn't want to pay the higher price." And yet the poster will insist that free standby "doesn't cost the airline anything."

These arguments, whatever rationale is cited, are usually motivated by a desire to game the system. Additionally, some of these people can't believe that preventing such gaming could possibly be a crucial factor in setting policy. In other words, they need to study game theory.

DeaconFlyer

So you don't care about your title, but you do care about other posters earning theirs through counting?

Mary2e

I give up.

Apparently there are a few of you that simplly want to argue this point until the cows come home.

I've been very clear in numerous threads as to my reasons. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

I'm beginning to think these threads are a post padders dream

kokonutz

That's the only reason I post here! ^^

It's also why I ran for TB again...you should SEE the post padding that goes on in there...not to mention the cross-posts to this forum!