ozstamps

chexfan - I preferred the option that it be a SEPERATE full forum. Not a sub forum of anything.

There are lots of members seeking good hotel deals and error hotel deals to fit in with existing airline travel or hotel elite stays, that have nothing to do with airline Mileage Runs per se. Thus those folks may never visit the Mileage Run forum, not ever need to.

If we had a seperate Forum there would be no issue.

As you point out, what we now have was a motion wording that was not (IMHO) well thought out, and thus hard to correctly place on the forum index. Hence my vote against that motion.

magiciansampras

Agree 100%. The implementation of this idea was poor. If you're going to have a forum for Mattress Runs, it should have nothing to do with "Mileage Runs".

ScottC

Ever since the mileage run forum was created (back in 2000) it has been THE place to come and find good deals. These deals have always been air AND hotel related. To me it was only logical to keep them in the same place. People click on that forum to find deals, creating another forum in the main listing to me seems to only add more clutter.

Keep in mind; when we were approached by the moderators of that forum (IMHO they are the ones that know best how to handle their own forum) we simply went with their initial idea.

magiciansampras

Given what you just said I'm not sure why the new forum was created in the first place then. It certainly adds more clutter and by having it as a sub-section adds more clicks to get there. What does that accomplish?


Right, and it was the wrong idea, IMHO. Am I not allowed to disagree with how this was implemented? I posted in this thread earlier what I thought should happen - this is not new.

chexfan

Yeah. You're right.

"People click on that forum to find deals, creating another forum in the main listing to me seems to only add more clutter..."

BUT a subforum makes it even messier. One case in point.

ozstamps

Well I certainly appealed to the movers of both motions (more than once) to try and compromise and put forward one motion that covered most points of view.

Or better still for one to move a tweaked worded motion and the other to second it, so as to move forward with just one vote in front of us.

One of those movers was prepared to do that and one was not, so we had a vote on 2 essentially similar motions to vote on at the same time.

ClueByFour

But that did not stop you from seconding one of the motions. Surely if you were looking for a compromise, you would have passed on the act of the second, yes?


Which one came first? According to some information that ScottC posted in another thread, the TB was fully prepared to act on the "sub-forum idea" when (and this is ScottC's wording--read it here):

Sure sounds here like the TB motion for the sub-forum idea was floated and so forth long before doc's motion (that you offered the second up for) to create a seperate forum.

If that's the case (and the public information we have about the unfortunately closed TB forum seems to indicate that it is, as does the order in which they are posted in the townhall forum), it sure looks less like "comprosmise" than it does "politics."

Or "being on the losing side of the vote."

I need to grab the popcorn. And perhaps spin the bowl a bit ^ .

ozstamps

Or another option might be to get your facts right.

So far they are wrong.

ClueByFour

No, I think you are claiming a comprimise position, where in fact you seconded one of the competing motions. Tell me where my facts are wrong.

Are you implying that:

1. ScottC was lying when he indicated that the sub-forum proposal was floated first?

2. Doc's motion came before the sub-forum motion?

You seconded the latter, and now come out in public and try to claim that you seeked compromise? The only way my facts are wrong is if you are implying that Scott is not being truthful about the order in which the ideas were motioned in the TB. Are you?

Sure looks like you not only voted against the first motion, but seconded the second one. It's a good thing the voting records are at least in the public eye, so that those of us with a keen eye can point out the spin.

Tasty popcorn! ^

AJLondon

Wow, time to get some more popcorn! I must start keeping my Saturday evenings free for reading the Talkboard &/or ORP! Always seems to be the "happening" place.

ozstamps

I repeat. For the last time, as it does not seem to be sinking in. You are wrong.

I feel sure no No TB member will disagree here that I made several polite posts specifically to seek compromise on the two very similar proposed motions to be merged, with a little wording fine tuning into just one unified idea and motion we were largely agreed upon, before either was posted for a vote.

One day, ClueByFour if you are ever elected by the members to Talk Board you will be able to read the rather amazing 93 post thread we had on this matter. Anyone who thinks being on TB is a breeze would disagree totally if they read that.

Until then, I'll let any other TB members who cares, to summarise to you what actually was discussed, and in what order.

My guess? You'll be waiting a very long time for any Talk Board member to board your whirling Black Helicopter on this one - the rotors of which are the only thing spinning around here. IMHO.

We had discussions well before any votes, or final wording, on whether to recommend whether minimum post count/sign up time might apply, whether airline error deals should be included, etc.

ClueByFour - you might actually be surprised at how much polite discussion and time and input and ideas your volunteer TalkBoard expends on some matters you seem so keen to criticise and second guess, without personally knowing any of the pertinent facts.