body-guards needed, please apply
 

and you will then finance the body-guards needed for the person in charge to such changements of individual handles? or does Hunki volunteer for this?

One thing we should all remember is that IF this motion passes and Randy enacts it, we can see what impact it has on the perceived problem. If it does not work, the Talkboard could easily decide in the upcoming months or years to change it again.

I believe the motion has more positive aspects than negative aspects and thus support it. BUT, I also realize that no decision that is taken cannot be reversed if the experiment fails.

I personally hope it passes for no other reason than it will be an interesting experiment to see what really happens to FT as a result. I do not believe the sky will fall as many people here have theorized.

William

If it werent retroactive I think it might be the case that it would be reverseable. I dont actually see any benefits of the proposed motion. Changing rules retroactively is almost never a good thing. Plus if the issue is post padders this will only likely disperse them, and punish people who thought they were making a legitimate contribution. The sky will not fall, but I think it will raise a level of uncertainty and unfairness that will not be beneficial. It will designate a subgroup of participants, many (most) of whom also participate in points and miles forums as second class members of the community and make a popular forum second class. It will be unfair in doing that because it will not effect many forums which are equally unrelated directly to points and miles. Like I said, I dont see much good in it at all.

The proposal from the member was to not count ALL non-travel related forums. Not just OMNI. If this is NOT about limiting the number of Evangelists, why was the motion NOT made as the member proposed it?

I can assure you that the real catalyst behind this motion thinks exactly like this.

Just because a "social" experiement can be conducted, and just because (some or most) results of a given "social" experiment need not be permanent, doesn't mean that the benefits/results from conducting an experiment are material; nor does the possibility of conducting a social experiment mean that the benefits/results can even be measured in any comprehensively meaningful manner to provide insight into the long-term, true impact system-wide. [Even if this motion-as-social-experiment was seen as just an experiment it's likely some of its effects would be permanent -- that is, it has brought to the front divides, some of which will be permanent or linger on for quite some time, whether people admit it or know it.]

Plenty of "lessons" from social experiments send people barking up the wrong tree. The "lessons" of poorly designed experiments reaffirm the wrong "feelings"/hypothesis/"conclusions" because the social experiment design is poor with the chosen measures inadequate for painting a true picture of what has transpired or of what will transpire. (Capturing what will transpire may be very hard to capture especially when dealing with longer time horizons.)

Justifying this motion on the basis of social experimentation is an interesting approach to advance this motion, but the motion was not designed to conduct a social experiment. So, short of this motion being scrapped and a new well-designed motion being introduced to conduct a (better) designed social experiment, I cannot accept the idea of engaging in a "social experiment" just because it's seen as an experiment. I certainly cannot advocate on behalf of this motion on the grounds of "experimentation".

Hope you don't mind if I steal this. ;)

Anyway, I have an idea. How about if when we open Omni, we get directed to omni.flyertalk.com? It's still Flyertalk; but it's off-site so to speak. Now, as a separate site, your post count would not be included in your FT totals. @:-)

It's a win-win for both sides.

dh

I would point those that don't think this is the case to a few posts directly above this one.

Not sure how many I will lose but I am certainly not concerned about it. I have participated just a bit in some of the game threads but nothing too substantial. I suspect I might lose up to 1k but doubt it would be more than that.

I proposed something like that in Milepost 100 of this thread. It was roundly ignored.

I don't think it was ignored - I just think it wasn't commented on. In fairness to you and a number of other posters, there have been some excellent suggestions coming out of ways to manage some of the problems identified as a result of the motion. I generally haven't jumped onto say 'I think that's a really good idea' because I do like to sit back and see what develops, but it doesn't mean that I, or others haven't noticed it. But I am pretty sure that some of the ideas put forward will be picked up and discussed in the 'what comes next' discussion - and that's going to happen regardless of the result of the vote.

That was explained in subsequent posts.

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.

The OP would most definitely lose his evangelist status, and perhaps even the person who seconded (if he even has it).

With or without the counting of posts from OMNI (and whichever threads/forums rub some the wrong way), and with or without OMNI (and whatever other threads/forums rub some the wrong way) on FT, this topic is of the "....... to be continued" variety. So much for the idea of "resolving" the "problem". :eek:

Um, I think that makes it even worse. The objection many of us have is that it makes Omni not part of the community. If it is retroactive it means that someone has decided that all the previous contributions that people thought they were making werent really participating in the community at all. Sort of like if UA said, "By the way, those express flights youve been shoe-horned in on for the last 5 years, no miles for you. Oh, and since those are gone, no 1K, no 1K bonus on your other flights and since you didnt really have SWUs we are deducting miles for all of the upgrades you used the SWUs for - Thank you for Flying United!"