Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Community > TalkBoard Topics
Reload this Page >

Motion Failed: Recommend new post thresholds and titles

Motion Failed: Recommend new post thresholds and titles

 
Old Jun 8, 14, 3:54 pm
  #1  
Moderator: Marriott Bonvoy & Travel with Children
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,701
Motion Failed: Recommend new post thresholds and titles

Recently, we have seen discussion of this idea here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...favorites.html

And now there is a TalkBoard vote on a specific proposal, on which your comments are welcome:

"TalkBoard recommend that the current post threshold titles of 'FlyerTalk Evangelist' at 10,000 posts and 'FlyerTalk Posting Legend' at 40,000 posts be replaced with the following thresholds and titles:

500: Active Member
1,000: Contributing Member
2,500: Involved Member
5,000: Dedicated Member
10,000: Committed Member
25,000: Distinguished Member
40,000: Legendary Member"

The vote will close on June 22, 2014, at 5:44 pm or after all TalkBoard members have voted, whichever comes first.

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:

A motion shall pass if at least two-thirds of the yes or no votes cast by TalkBoard members are ‘yes’ and a majority of the total TalkBoard membership votes 'yes.'

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 5:05 pm
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/1MM, DL PM, UA Plat, HH DIA, Hyatt Discoverist, IHG Spire/AMB, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 29,624
Believe it or not, even though it was I who suggested the motion, I voted no. I said I wanted to keep things as is and I still believe that. However, I think we have arrived at a solution where if this motion does pass, I can accept the new titles and posts and I hope everyone else can too
CMK10 is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 5:23 pm
  #3  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Air Canada Aeroplan & Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 48,704
I was okay with leaving things as they are however this is the best set of titles I've seen proposed so far and if there is change this would be the update I would favor. No odd colour title schemes or cheeky titles just straightforward acknowledgement of a member's level of FT participation.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 5:32 pm
  #4  
Moderator: Credit Card Programs & Chase Ultimate Rewards
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Anywhere a good IPA is served!!
Programs: Too many to list
Posts: 10,129
I'm voting no on titles. We already know everyone's post count. No more elitism needed.
philemer is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 5:34 pm
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/1MM, DL PM, UA Plat, HH DIA, Hyatt Discoverist, IHG Spire/AMB, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 29,624
Originally Posted by tcook052 View Post
I was okay with leaving things as they are however this is the best set of titles I've seen proposed so far and if there is change this would be the update I would favor. No odd colour title schemes or cheeky titles just straightforward acknowledgement of a member's level of FT participation.
That is why I proposed this motion. I still don't want a change, but if the change passes, it's one I can accept. Hedging my bets.
CMK10 is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 5:49 pm
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium (but still missing SPG)
Posts: 14,169
Originally Posted by philemer View Post
I'm voting no on titles. We already know everyone's post count. No more elitism needed.
Are you on TalkBoard?
RichMSN is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 5:49 pm
  #7  
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth
Programs: UA 1K/MM refugee to cheapest business class fare, SPG Lifetime Plat, CBP Global Entry, #datelife
Posts: 48,763
Originally Posted by CMK10 View Post
Believe it or not, even though it was I who suggested the motion, I voted no. I said I wanted to keep things as is and I still believe that. However, I think we have arrived at a solution where if this motion does pass, I can accept the new titles and posts and I hope everyone else can too
Point of parliamentary order!

The maker of a motion, though he can vote against it, cannot speak against his own motion.

cite: http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-07.htm




Naaw, I'm just joshin' (although that IS part of RROO, which we are supposed to follow). I knew all along that the reason you were anxious to get this issue to a vote was so you could vote against it.
kokonutz is online now  
Old Jun 8, 14, 6:22 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: AS MVP, Hhonors Gold, National Executive, Identity Gold, MLife Gold
Posts: 2,684
I believe that the current title of Evangelist is confusing.

It's hard to find a set of titles that are not confusing, and that everyone will agree with. But I think the ones selected here are excellent. They increase in "importance", yet do not convey any additional official association with FT.


Originally Posted by philemer View Post
I'm voting no on titles. We already know everyone's post count. No more elitism needed.
That's great, but the way I read it, that's not the topic up for a vote (I agree with you BTW)
OverThereTooMuch is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 6:50 pm
  #9  
Moderator, Alaska Airlines & FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR (ex-75K, GLD, 1K, and S+), Choice Diamond, HZ PC, Costco Exec, NPS Passport
Posts: 22,880
Vote yes! Please!

Originally Posted by philemer View Post
I'm voting no on titles. We already know everyone's post count. No more elitism needed.
That is not the question answered by this motion. This motion is, "Are the proposed titles better than the existing titles?"--something which I believe the answer to is a resounding "yes."

The idea of dropping titles entirely has nothing to do with this motion. Even if you abhor titles, you should support this motion, as the current titles are pretty bad and this at least makes them look cleaner and more befitting a major website of our stature.
jackal is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 7:19 pm
  #10  
nsx
Moderator: Southwest Airlines
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, United Club ex-Lifetime Member
Posts: 19,550
Originally Posted by CMK10 View Post
That is why I proposed this motion. I still don't want a change, but if the change passes, it's one I can accept. Hedging my bets.
It seems to me that an opponent of change who forces a vote on anything less than the best proposal is not playing fair. I hope you took the time in the private forum to determine that this was the most popular version of title change and that you believed that those in favor of a change were not going to call for a vote on anything. Then and only then would it be proper IMHO for an opponent of action to call for a vote to demonstrate support for the status quo. Otherwise we have a situation in which 4 of the 9 members of TalkBoard can win a contentious issue (which thankfully this is not) by manipulating the process to force votes on unpopular versions of a change.

To be clear, I regard this particular issue as relatively unimportant. I also regard this version of the proposal as quite good, possibly the most popular form of the proposal. Therefore this particular proposal does not look like a serious abuse of process to me. I mostly wanted to make the point that the current proposal does set a precedent for future abuse of the 2/3 vote threshold.

If I'm off base here, please correct me. I don't mind admitting that I'm wrong.
nsx is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 7:30 pm
  #11  
Moderator: Marriott Bonvoy & Travel with Children
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,701
Originally Posted by nsx View Post
It seems to me that an opponent of change who forces a vote on anything less than the best proposal is not playing fair. I hope you took the time in the private forum to determine that this was the most popular version of title change and that you believed that those in favor of a change were not going to call for a vote on anything....
I'm not CMK10's lawyer, but that is exactly what he did. I voted yes, by the way.

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 7:38 pm
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/1MM, DL PM, UA Plat, HH DIA, Hyatt Discoverist, IHG Spire/AMB, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 29,624
Originally Posted by nsx View Post
It seems to me that an opponent of change who forces a vote on anything less than the best proposal is not playing fair. I hope you took the time in the private forum to determine that this was the most popular version of title change and that you believed that those in favor of a change were not going to call for a vote on anything. Then and only then would it be proper IMHO for an opponent of action to call for a vote to demonstrate support for the status quo. Otherwise we have a situation in which 4 of the 9 members of TalkBoard can win a contentious issue (which thankfully this is not) by manipulating the process to force votes on unpopular versions of a change.

To be clear, I regard this particular issue as relatively unimportant. I also regard this version of the proposal as quite good, possibly the most popular form of the proposal. Therefore this particular proposal does not look like a serious abuse of process to me. I mostly wanted to make the point that the current proposal does set a precedent for future abuse of the 2/3 vote threshold.

If I'm off base here, please correct me. I don't mind admitting that I'm wrong.
Who's forcing? Someone had to second this remember. And if I was not playing fair I would have imagined that the motion would not have been seconded. There was a long discussion before I rewrote the motion and I was asked if the proposal, which was actually written by several TalkBoard members was to my liking. Furthermore, of the 300+ posts in the thread that spans back years, I felt the JDiver post was the best solution by far.

Also, I have an unofficial adviser, he's an ex-TalkBoard member himself and one of the smartest, most level headed people on this website. I asked if making the motion and choosing to vote no on it was appropriate. He indicated it was.

As a final note, I would hope you'd have given me the benefit of the doubt and I do resent your implication that I'm trying to manipulate or abuse any processes. This didn't occur in a vacuum, several members of TalkBoard including our President and Vice President discussed what I was suggesting for 17 hours before we brought this to a vote.
CMK10 is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 8:14 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Thanks for the Memories !!!
Posts: 9,625
Originally Posted by bdschobel View Post
Recently, we have seen discussion of this idea here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...favorites.html

And now there is a TalkBoard vote on a specific proposal, on which your comments are welcome:

"TalkBoard recommend that the current post threshold titles of 'FlyerTalk Evangelist' at 10,000 posts and 'FlyerTalk Posting Legend' at 40,000 posts be replaced with the following thresholds and titles:

500: Active Member
1,000: Contributing Member
2,500: Involved Member
5,000: Dedicated Member
10,000: Committed Member
25,000: Distinguished Member
40,000: Legendary Member"

The vote will close on June 22, 2014, at 5:44 pm or after all TalkBoard members have voted, whichever comes first.

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:

A motion shall pass if at least two-thirds of the yes or no votes cast by TalkBoard members are ‘yes’ and a majority of the total TalkBoard membership votes 'yes.'

Bruce
Either the above or nothing.....
Q Shoe Guy is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 9:05 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,763
I feel obliged to point out that "Committed Member" could mean a couple of different things. (Also, I can think of several members with far fewer than 10,000 posts who probably ought to be committed.)
beltway is offline  
Old Jun 8, 14, 9:14 pm
  #15  
Moderator: Marriott Bonvoy & Travel with Children
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,701
As a future "committed member," I noticed the same thing!

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread