Thanks Dov. I appreciate your response. You mentioned the effect that the title "Evangelist" has on people and that it could be gained w/o showing a knowledge on the subject.

Why not simply get rid of that title?
A. No false sense of credibility would be garnered
B. People wouldn't be artificially inflating their post counts to get to a perceived level of knowledge

I don't think it would solve the problem at all -- at least not if we kept the post counts.

I also believe that most FTers want to keep the post counts.

^

I don't see what is solved or resolved as a result of this motion.

I think OMNI is as much a part of FT as any other forum. I regard FT as a community that I visit, rather than solely as a resource for information about flying. As post counts don't mean anything other than as an indication of how often someone visits the FT community, I don't see any reason to exclude posts to OMNI from the total.

You know, I just went back and re-read this post. To be honest, I must be dense b/c I still don't know what the problem is that this motion is trying to solve. :confused:

Simply put: It solves the question of whether Omni posts should or should not be counted.

But what IS the problem if OMNI posts are counted or not?

Many people feel it is a major problem. Others don't see it as a problem at all.

You are welcome to read what posters on both sides have said about it.

As I said, I consider the issue to be unimportant but in view of the continued posts concerning it, TB should address the issue.

Many members suffered a decrease in post count during either the last OMNI closure or the temporary disappearance of one of the game threads. Should this motion pass, will we then see these posters lose those posts AGAIN?

(Which, interestingly enough, might give some of them a negative post count... ;))

Yes, they would -- although for the life of me I can't figure out how the negative post count comes about.

Am I getting this right? There is an issue that people have a problem with. So because there is an issue, a "problem", and an issue with a problem there should be a voting motion? Even though those voting don't know what the problem is?

A motion was brought forth b/c some people claimed to have a problem, but you can't explain what that problem is?

Whoa. Me thinks there is an even bigger issue or problem now. :confused:

Um . . .yeah . . . what he said! ;)

If you look, there's a thread started by ClueByFour in this forum posing the question with the explanation that it would make post counts a more meaningful metric.

I don't think anyone ever said there was a problem.

I think that people on both sides of the issue have explained very clearly how they feel. I have certainly understood what they posted.