|
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
The bomb throwing didn't start until people started saying no for no good reason (demand was silly - there clearly was demand). http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=472 Can you please list here all the other threads from there showing demand for such a Forum? There is indeed just ONE thread about Spirit on the front page, about whether there needs to be a forum. It has 4 posts. The last post agreeing with TalkBoard there is no demand. |
Originally Posted by ozstamps
The facts clearly are not supporting your assertion there was any demand or interest. As I have posted several times already, there are hardly any posts about Spirit in the forum that it now lives in:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=472 Can you please list here all the other threads from there showing demand for such a Forum? There is indeed just ONE thread about Spirit on the front page, about whether there needs to be a forum. It has 4 posts. The last post agreeing with TalkBoard there is no demand. I support the Spirit forum. ^ |
Spirit a victim of Flyertalk Politics??
After reading six pages of this debate, noting that the Spirit Forum motion has been tabled for SIX years, I thought I should comment.
I want to thank Spiff for his private comments on the matter. While I truly don't understand his reasoning, it is still gracious of him to get back with me in a quick manner. The question of why this motion was tabled and nothing done on it for six years remains a mystery. Why an airline has to be liked to receive a forum, also remains a mystery to me. My gut instincts tell me, that there is significantly more to this than we know. Perhaps Spirit did something to a board member? This whole thing is surreal!!! :rolleyes::eek::p |
Originally Posted by gkbiiii
(Post 17970088)
After reading six pages of this debate, noting that the Spirit Forum motion has been tabled for SIX years, I thought I should comment.
I want to thank Spiff for his private comments on the matter. While I truly don't understand his reasoning, it is still gracious of him to get back with me in a quick manner. The question of why this motion was tabled and nothing done on it for six years remains a mystery. Why an airline has to be liked to receive a forum, also remains a mystery to me. My gut instincts tell me, that there is significantly more to this than we know. Perhaps Spirit did something to a board member? This whole thing is surreal!!! :rolleyes::eek::p There are no Flyertalk politics preventing the creation of a Spirit forum. Nor is it necessary for an airline to be 'liked' in order to have a forum. However, there has to be a demonstrated need for the forum that current forums aren't serving. In the case of Spirit, there are 5-7 threads a MONTH - that is not high volume by any stretch of the imagination. Cheers. |
Originally Posted by gkbiiii
(Post 17970088)
After reading six pages of this debate...
first, you need to go to My Flyertalk (the orange on orange speech bubble on the logo above), click on 'edit options' then under Thread Display Options toggle to 40 posts per page view. A far more efficient way to read FT! ^ second, we get it, you want a Spirit forum. Speaking as someone who already said I was willing to support it, bumping old threads is not the way to get it, even though I agree (as I did back in 2006) that there is/was more here than met the eye. I can assure you 100%, however, that whatever the issue then, it no longer exists today. The ownership is different, the TB is different and FT is different. The way to get it is to make your best case in the thread you started rather than bumping old threads. Just MHO. |
Originally Posted by Dovster
(Post 5572842)
Okay, by reading some of the more recent posts in this thread, I can now understand why TB acted as it did. Apparently it was headed in one direction (towards approval) and after Randy made his views clear changed its mind.
That explains the sudden tabling motion. TB regulations prohibit changing your vote and it is very possible that the original motion had already received the six needed to pass. I'm not certain that I agree with TB on this one. On one hand, Randy has the final say and if he strongly disagrees with a TB recommendation he will simply not implement it. Therefore, TB members may have felt that a recommendation to establish a Spirit Forum several months from now would have a better chance of being accepted by Randy. On the other hand, Randy has been known to accept TB recommendations even when he disagrees with them (the Religious Travel Forum, as Randy has stated publicly, was one such example). My gut feeling is that TB does not exist to confirm Randy's opinions. Randy is an intelligent guy and know what he believes. It serves neither FT nor Randy any good to tell him that you agree with him when you don't. TB exists to give Randy additional input -- presumably from the point of view of the members. Randy is then free to accept or reject this advice but as he has demonstrated his willingness to be open minded enough to go along with TB recommendations, he should at least be presented with them. I just went back and read the private TB topics threads on this issue from 2006 and since I am bound by the TB secrecy policy, all I can say is: <if you are clever enough to highlight this section to see the hidden text, you are clever enough to know I would not violate the TB secrecy policy that I oppose yet am obliged to adhere to. But good on ya for being clever! > |
1. I brought up the old forum, so members could read and judge for themselves, the long and sorted history on this matter.
2. All I want is a free up or down vote on this matter. 3. I find how this matter has been handled over the past six years troubling. 4. My comments about what I suspect the view of Spirit and its entry toward its own forum are based on discussions with senior Flyertalk Board members. 5. I did not say that I like the airline or am passionate about it, one-way or another. It seems to me, that Spirit generates so much coverage (often bad) that having its own forum would be a benefit for the community as a whole. 6. In the future there should be a time limit for how long a motion can be tabled before the Board must vote on it. I think, six years it a bit much! |
Originally Posted by kokonutz
(Post 17970371)
Interesting theory.
I just went back and read the private TB topics threads on this issue from 2006 and since I am bound by the TB secrecy policy, all I can say is: <if you are clever enough to highlight this section to see the hidden text, you are clever enough to know I would not violate the TB secrecy policy that I oppose yet am obliged to adhere to. But good on ya for being clever! > I am bound by the same secrecy policy, but it was one heckuva interesting read. |
I've made a motion in the private TB forum to create a Spirit Forum.
There's a good chance it will fail, but I think that after having a made and seconded motion tabled 6 years ago it's probably time that the TB either approve or reject the forum for real. So those of you who think Spirit deserves a forum, I'd suggest that you look at the forum creation guidelines and tell us why the forum should be created. That may not be a barrier to entry for me and a few others, but a new forum requires 6 TB votes and that's only going to happen, IMO, if a proper case is made for a forum. |
Originally Posted by RichMSN
(Post 17970588)
I've done the same:
I am bound by the same secrecy policy, but it was one heckuva interesting read. |
Originally Posted by RichMSN
(Post 17971088)
So those of you who think Spirit deserves a forum, I'd suggest that you look at the forum creation guidelines and tell us why the forum should be created. ... but a new forum requires 6 TB votes and that's only going to happen, IMO, if a proper case is made for a forum.
Right now I'm probably a no vote because I don't think 5-7 posts/mth in an existing forum constitues a strong enough case to create a new forum, whether it be Spirit or otherwise. Cheers. |
Originally Posted by jackal
(Post 17972425)
Aha, so that's how the 48-hour rule got started. Good move, IMHO. ^
|
Originally Posted by RichMSN
(Post 17975172)
It's funny in retrospect (well, maybe not to some), but the 48-hour rule wouldn't apply here because TB initiated this conversation SIX YEARS AGO. :)
I'll be posting the motion in a moment, but as you said in the other thread Rich, the supporters will need to make a case just as other airlines who have requested forums have done. In reading the case for Spirit, it's very thin compared to the others who did make a case & were approved recently. But we'll see. Cheers. |
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
(Post 17975250)
Shrug; maybe. I didn't read the thread from six years ago or know it existed, until our Spirit enthusiast bumped it up & started 3 more threads regarding it. My guess is some of the other TB members were the same. As you know it came up more recently in the private TB forum.
I'll be posting the motion in a moment, but as you said in the other thread Rich, the supporters will need to make a case just as other airlines who have requested forums have done. In reading the case for Spirit, it's very thin compared to the others who did make a case & were approved recently. But we'll see. Cheers. I was kidding about the six year thing and the 48 hour rule -- I know there has been more recent discussion since I was part of it. |
Originally Posted by RichMSN
(Post 17975307)
Of course, everyone that posts in the Spirit forum will have to provide a credit card for the $1 fee per post.
Cheers. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:44 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.