Additionally, maybe the most vociferous really want to prevent TB from making a huge mistake. @:-)

Except that this conversation isn't about participation. It is about status.

Nothing advanced in the proposal changes anyone's ability to participate in any way whatsoever.

It simply removes status incentive from posting in an entire segment of the board which is, by specific charter, not devoted to the core purpose of the board.

That is not true at all. The proposal is not about having "Evangelist" come only after 10,000 non-OMNI posts. The proposal is about not counting OMNI posts at all.

Actually, if it was about status we wouldn't have much of a problem.

In your opinion. To some of us, it is about participation. Different perceptions to be sure, but equally valid. And it is arbitrary. There are plenty of posts in the "core forums" that really arent related to them or expertise. In fact, I suspect there is considerable difference of opinion on what are the core forums.

do also think there is dispute as to whether OMNI is considered a core forum amongst the general FT population?

That there are. This is just the first shot fired by the advocates of the motion. Then it will be another forum and another forum and then another. Will it get down to threads and individual posts in some systematic mode like presented by this motion? I have my doubts. Actually, why doesn't TB make a motion to move all the airline lounge forums to CommunityBuzz or OMNI? A lot of those are "games" too.

Core for what? Flying, nope. FT community, yes. But that isnt what I was referring too. If we are just talking about the core miles and points forums I would also discount anything about travel, dining, travel tech and such. Others I expect would disagree and include those as they are clearly travel related and not strictly a community function.

We have to make a decision, because a motion was made and seconded. Which, unless we abstain - which could have fortunate or unfortunate consequences - means we have to vote.

I believe Dovster has said several times why he made the motion in the first place.

The general FT population barely posts on FT, and I doubt they even visit the TB forum. Can the general FT population even access OMNI? I have my doubts that most FTers can even access OMNI; however, if they could, maybe they'd care. (Hint: Maybe TalkBoard should revisit OMNI access. ;) )The certainly have been beneficiaries of the FT community aspects too ... and OMNI is part of the FT community.

I could discuss the rationale pertaining to the Lounge™ threads, as I was directly involved with that process, but that would take too long and would be off-topic for this thread anyway.

As the creator of that thread in the OMNI forum and one of the FlyerTalk members responsible for the Lounge™ thread concept, I am hoping that my point of view lends some credence to this debate. My point of view is that I do not care whether or not whatever is posted in those threads count towards one’s “post count”. I will not feel as though those threads or the OMNI forum are “less important” or “not pertinent to FlyerTalk” should the motion by the TalkBoard be approved. My “post count” will decrease by about 5,000 or so, but that is fine with me.

I completely agree that the community aspect of FlyerTalk is as important as the miles, points and travel aspect — if not more so.

Although I agree with the motion and I understand the arguments for both sides of the issue, I personally do not see why those for either side of the motion are so passionate about this issue.

I still say that there should be a trial period of some sort. Once that trial period ceases, review the findings. Then there would be “proof” for both sides of the debate, rather than speculation on what could or may happen.

I also believe that there should be a poll to gauge the opinion of FlyerTalk members, even if it only for illustrative purposes.

Then again, what do I know?

A trial period in this matter wouldn't prove much of anything unfortunately; and if it could in some limited regards -- and I'd like to know in advance what measures would be used and have them be an integral part of any such motion, including triggering pre-specified outcomes -- I'd entertain the idea more than I'm inclined to. [A trial period is sort of a moot discussion unless this motion fails; for if it passes, we get our "trial period", one which won't prove much of anything, but will be used for anecdotal "evidence" that might well miss the plane.]

Also, while I mentioned decrementing post counts from the other threads/forums, I'm not advocating for that either; actually I have a visceral reaction against it because I have come to learn that the FT community aspect is an integral part of making FT what it is -- and that includes those "bad forums" and most of those "useless threads". (What FT "community" ought not to include is "bad posts", but this motion does nothing about that, nor is it needed for that.)

Should we infer from that you have voted against the motion? (based on what you have written above, I don't think so)

Or, is that a not-very-veiled threat that not approaching the talkboard with the attitude of a anything but humble supplicant will not be taken seriously? (insert humble reminder about "we are all members first" here)

That's not for the rest of the TB--I am specifically asking you for some clarity here--since I kicked off some of this insanity, I am a very interested vote-counter and your statement certainly clouds the water around what you wrote earlier RE: support of the motion.

My post count will drop but that doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is:

We are changing the rules to deal with 1 or 2 people out of over 100,000. There are already processes in place to deal with these folks.

The rule is inconsistent. If you want to eliminate post counts for non-travel related threads, then do it for all. That includes all of SPAM forum, TalkBoard, ORP, The Lounge Threads, Coupon Connection, Community, Many Travel Technology Threads... you get the idea.

IMO this is a half-assed idea that is solving nothing. Come up with a real solution to deal with a real problem and I will say go for it BUT when a problem doesn't exist and the proposed solution is so full of holes that it makes it a joke, I will jump in and say it is outright stupid.

(Besides I don't want to be an Evangelist anyway, I want to the a Prophet :p)

^

Does Legend + Evangelist = Prophet? You know, prophets as "legendary evangelists". :D

This motion may kill some post counts, but those post counts will be resurrected; and because of that, the advocates of this motion will not stop here.