OMNI went and came back because it's a vital part of FT? I'm curious what the new owners' take is on this. :D

Sorry, still waiting for my Spanish Pimsleur CDs to arrive. Going to Galapagos and Chile and need to touch up.

It says that 7+ years of debate have led to a decision that Omni is an integral part of the FlyerTalk community.

Participate in Omni and you are participating in FlyerTalk.

First off, this has been a very enjoyable thread to read; thanks to all for some great discussion on this issue!

Now, if I may, I'd like to add a few things
"If it aint broke, don't fix it"...there is no problem with the status quo, so no need to change it...

I would have no problem doing away with post counts completely, but for me it has to be all or none...

Totally irrelevant at the moment, since the status quo is the opposite of your hypothetical...however, should this motion pass, then you will get your answer when the inevitable "Bring back OMNI post count" protest threads start...its my sincere hope that TB does not pass this measure, so I hope we never have to get an answer to your hypothetical...

Well said ^

Just out of curiosity, would there be any way to set up an informal poll/vote somewhere to see what the entire population of FT thinks about this measure? From what I've read here on this thread, things seem to be fairly even, but I wonder if that same ~even proportion holds up when it comes to the community as a whole...

That figure came from someone in the HOM?

Sehr gut!! :D

Still waiting for a citation of this "decision" :)

Nyet.

Imo.

That has already been suggested.

Hopefully we will see one soon.

I find it interesting and most persuasive that a number of members such as the one above who stand to lose a third of thier post counts still support this motion.

I have read this thread and see that 3 of the 4 Senior Moderators on FT support this motion.

That was enough for me. I doubt these folks would be backing a motion that did not make sense and was not in the best long term interests of FT.

Most on FT (certainly them included) would likely lose some posts if it were voted in - myself included.

However if it stops some members making 5000 posts in 3 weeks, now or in the future, which all add to their visible post count, it seems high time to address the issue. That can't be good for FT if arguably nothing whatever useful re miles and points were among those 5000 posts.

Travel and miles and points is what FT was founded on, and that is what FT does best. Anyone who wants to post 15,000 or 50,000 times to Games threads would still be able to do so.

Randy banned all OMNI posts counting a while back and guess what the games threads continued just as strongly.

It doesn't provide a "fix" to a stated problem that can't be fixed by things already available on FT.

And it doesn't solve the question of whether OMNI posts should or should not be counted -- for if this motion fails, the question will come up again; and for if the motion passes, it might well come up for reconsideration again and be overturned.

No problem solved; no question solved.

There are already items in play on FT that can address the "problem" scenario you present above.

<sigh>

Again, didn't we go over this once before, and it basically resolved nothing?

Why don't we bring reputation back while we are it ;)

Indeed. But the counting came back. Let's please try to maintain objectivity in this discussion.

No, I am not being very clear today/tonight. I am really tired today. I was saying that WWBTNFTMTP attracted people who did far more than post in that thread, as I'm sure many here will agree. However, other threads are quite obviously different.

But as you also mentioned, at least one person (yourself) kept an eye on the level/quality of posting in that thread to head off the type of extreme behaviour that appears to have happened on others. In other words, there was a degree of moderating or self-moderating that may not have been present on other threads.

Actually - not that I am aware of, or that Talkbaord has been advised of.

The Talkboard is voting on this motion as per post #1 of this thread and a majority of TB members have cast their votes.

That vote is what will decide this matter - subject to Randy's approval of course, and on my 18 months time on TB a vote has never been over-ruled.

There is no proposal whatever I am aware of for this or any overall FT issue to be decided by a member poll.

TB members are elected by popular vote to vote on their behalf

Let's not forget Avatars ;)

Yes.

My bets are that the majority of people who care to vote in such a poll will support a motion to restrict post counts .... if only because those who care about this issue are more likely to vote in a poll in support of this issue than those who are opposed to it at some level and because of the way this motion was framed.

I am very much amused by the level of political savvy presented by the sponsors of this motion -- and other backers -- in order to get their agenda advanced. If the motion fails to pass (or get implemented) -- and I doubt it will fail -- it will not be because of the campaign being waged to get this passed was conducted poorly.

Politics makes strangebedfellows. Too bad the camp that opposes this motion doesn't have Michelle Pfeiffer in the tent. :D

Then again, during those 18 months FT was owned by Randy, and there is a new sheriff in town.

OMNI might have a sufficient economic impact in FT to try to dissuade people from posting there ;)

So why wait until April 19th to reveal the decision?

I suspect that while a "majority" may have already voted, not everyone has. And even if the outcome were already decided, it would be in poor taste to announce the results before all members have voted.

My guess is that so far it's the following breakdown

In favor of current motion:

Dovster & Cholula in favor. Bhatnasx in favor. Ozstamps in favor.

Opposed to current motion: ScottC and Spiff.

Jenbel, wharvey, techgirl and gleff will split, but I'm not sure how yet. (I'm hoping that at least three of the four go into the "opposed to current motion camp", but hope and expectation are not the same thing.) [It'll be interesting to see if the moderators who are also TB members all jump in favor of this too -- for that's definitely the prevailing sentiment there.]

Did I leave anyone out?

In other words, this motion has a far greater chance for success than failure at the moment. Just like I suspected would be the case from the beginning. I hope I'm wrong. ;)

I think that Oz's reply was a bit misleading. Yes, it is true that a majority of TalkBoard members have already voted but that does not mean that the decision has been reached.

In order for a vote to pass it needs the support of 2/3rds of those TB members who voted.

I do not feel free to post here how many TB members have already voted nor to give the current standing of the vote, but let me show a few examples of how we could have a majority already voting and not know the results. Keep in mind that 5 members constitutes a majorty.

Let's say that 6 members voted and there is a 3-3 split. We would not know the results.

Let's say that 5 members voted, all in favor -- we would not know the results.

Let's say that 8 members voted, 5 in favor, 3 against -- we would not know the results.

Moreover, even if all 9 members voted and we knew the results, it is a long-standing TB policy not to announce the results until the TB President has notified Randy.

Please do not read anything into any of the examples I gave. They are purely hypothetical and in no way give any indication of how the vote is going.

Actually you are incorrect

This is deja vu all over again

There was a move by an FTer named "Vanderbilt", please see this thread

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=345442

The OP was


And you can see the same discussion happen again.

What happened with the thread, is that post counts were not being counted in OMNI, and then OMNI was shut down. Then the WWBTNFTTP thread was moved from a closed forum to community, and it lived there for a few months. Because of that setting, all the posts that had been made in the thread were deducted from the post counts, and they were never restored.

In reality I should have close to 5,000 more posts in my account, but to me it doesn't matter. One should be smart to realize than taking advice from the internet should not be based on how much posts a person has in a public forum.

Aren't we all smart enough to realize that, post counts can be manually adjusted, any admin can give me 1,000,000,000 posts if they were to choose.

Same arguments, time and time again.

Nothing good has ever come from that thread :p

If the majority had voted and it was such that the result was not alterable by those votes outstanding (and revision of existing votes/counts is not allowed), I don't think it would be in poor taste to announce the results.

If this thread has done nothing else, it has convinced me to run for TalkBoard in the next election.

^^ (.... I'm inclined to do the same were the motion to pass.)

Agree. Remember Florida? ;)

Wonderful! The more people who run for TalkBoard the wider the choice that members will have.

(I stated publicly during the last election debates that I don't like the idea of three-term members so if elected I would not run again. I still feel that way so, at a minimum, one non-incumbent will be elected.)

I'd not run if doing so helped elect a person who would not engage in unnecessary TB motion adventures. Maybe there won't be more choices, just more "alliances"? There's already more horse trading, right? :D

Part of that split might be the result of wharvey not being a TalkBoard member.

:o :D

Earlier, I was wondering how, in a 10-member TB where all 10 TB members vote, a 2/3 majority requirement would play .... since that'd have meant 7 people being required to vote in favor for this to pass. It's too bad wharvey's not a voting TB member now.

Agreed. From Post # 17 in this thread:

So moderators who've stated an opinion about this here seem to be mostly in favor of this.

If wharvey were to be a 10th member of TB and voted as suggested in that post and in mine, it would still make it more difficult for your motion to pass to put in this "fix" for a stated "problem" which can be addressed by things in play on FT already. That is, there'd be that two-thirds item, and what 2/3 vote to pass means for a 10 member board vs. what it means for a 9 member board would help those who are opposed to this "fix".

As I read through the thread, I was thinking the same thing as well...sounds like the next TalkBoard elections could be quite the happenin' event!

GUWonder, your math is very confusing.

As things currently stand, 6 members have to vote in favor (assuming there aren't at least two abstentions).

If WHarvey were to be a 10 member, and voted as indicated by his post, you would still need those 6 members to vote in favor. However, if only one abtained, WHarvey's vote would carry the motion.

Under no circumstances would WHarvey's "yes" vote hurt the chances of the motion being passed and, as shown, it could help.

I'm hoping that Jenbel, techgirl and gleff realize that this motion is advocating a "fix" for something that is either: a) not broken; or is b) broken yet already has a fix available on FT even without this motion passing.

At least 2/3 of 9 to pass equates, in practice, with 66.66666.....% approval. At least 2/3 of 10 to pass equates, in practice, with 70% approval, particularly given that fractional voting by an individual is not possible. 70% is a higher threshold than 66.66...%.

It doesn't work out that way in real life.

Let's take a look at Spiff's famed "Travel with Furniture" forum and presume it was up for a vote. Let's also say that WHarvey is on record as favoring it.

Without WHarvey on TB, 6 "aye" votes are needed for it to pass -- unless two or more members abstain.

If five vote in favor, three against, and one abstains the vote has only 62.5% in favor and fails. If five vote in favor, two against, and two abstain, it passes with 71.4% of the vote.

Now, let's put WHarvey on the board, have him case his "aye" vote and imagine that everyone else voted the same way.

You would now have 6 "aye" votes, 3 against, and one abstaining. The vote passes because 2/3rds of those voting were in favor.

66.66666...% approval is easier to obtain than 70% approval in real life. Where 2/3rd of those voting must vote in favor of a motion for it to get passed AND where all TB members are voting (i.e., what I noted in my post is where all TB members vote): with 9 members on TB AND where all TB members voted, 6 votes for this motion would be sufficient to get it passed; with 10 members on TB AND where all TB members voted, 6 votes for this motion would be insufficient to get it passed.

In real life would all TB members vote? Well, I'm not sure. Let's see if all 9 vote this time or not.

Don't worry -- even if the vote passes you will soon get your "Legend" status back quickly.

Even without having posted on Omni for the past few years you are averaging 19.12 posts a day -- and already have 62 posts on this one thread, twice my total.

TB voting is based on 2/3rds of those voting. If we take WHarvey as a "yes" vote, it is indeed easier to get the 2/3rds vote with him voting.