In the event of a conflict between an older vote's motion which passed and a newer vote's motion which has passed, doesn't the passed newer motion override the older one's items in conflict? If so, then why would the scenario you are talking about have to play out at all? Or are we now going to need a Talkboard Supreme Court too?

Yes, the newer motion would override the older one. However, this second motion (which is not in conflict with the first) would make it close to impossible to have a later motion.

Take this scenario, for example, -- although it would also hold true if Motion # 1 were to fail:

1. Motion # 1 passes. Post counts are removed.

2. Motion # 2 passes. Further discussion on the subject is tabled.

3. Next year, some TB members want to re-instate post counts. They can not discuss their reasons because Motion # 2 is in effect. They would first have to have a vote overturning Motion # 2 but they can't have such a vote because they can not explain why they want to do so -- it would be, in itself, a violation of Motion # 2.

That sounds like a perpetual TalkBoard filibuster.

As I posted in the TB Private forum, I can see no valuable reason to EVER table to not have a discussion... times change... as do circumstances.

If you do not want something to pass, just vote against it... no need to put a muzzle on future discussions.

William

In my motion, it would not appear in the profile.... so that would be for ALL members...

However, I have no problem if the tech folks decide to allow a member to see their own post count... however, I would not want to see people start posting their own post counts... and we know it will happen.

William

I think that if post counts are removed, many people will post 'useless or filler' info. Some of us may be aware (or care) about a high post count; and, will reconsider posting something that may not be relevant. ie check one of the Benjamin Do threads in Community for example.

I like seeing how many post someone has. Many times it will help me to decide on the validity of what's been posted. Arguments against of course.

I know that some old timers here have a low post count. If I recognize the name, I can factor it into my thoughts on the issue at hand. Again, I can you can make arguments against this.

The post count sends a subliminal message to some. I know Omni posters have higher posts counts; and that's the way it is.

I say 'don't count' Omni numbers in the post count.

Dan

Thanks Wharvey for the clarification. I was hoping that we'd at least be able to see our own post count.

Cheers

I predict a huge outcry if post counts are removed from every FT member.

For me, well I suppose I'm in the "little dick" category so I don't really care but I know there are a whole lot of FT members who do.
/
If passed, would this be the first BB to ever do so?

Note: I'm still waiting for evidence that post counts cause a problem.

I'm not convinced there is anything wrong here. What exactly are we trying to fix?

I agree. I use both the "Post Count" and "Join Date" equally when validating information being provided, and hold both with the same regard.

Post count doesn't cause a problem, let's fogetaboutit, leave things as they are, and move on. I urge TB to vote No on #1 and Yes on #2.

I would still think that if you aren't going to count OMNI posts why also count lounge thread posts? If you aren't going to count one don't count the other as both the lounge threads and Omni have little to do with the points /mile mantra.......IMO.

Motion #2 would be conflicted out the moment the topic came up again and so there would be no muzzle in place unless TB has some kind of rule that current motions be in compliance with previous passed motions. And if it does/did, a retroactive review could -- hypothetically-speaking -- end up invalidating more recent motions that have been passed.

Motion #2 only applies specifically to motion #1 - something that has 3 parts. So if motion #2 passes (and I am not saying it has or will) it would have the effect of shelving future discussion of the specific matters, in toto, encompassed within motion #1. Nothing else.

I tend to agree.