With Randy's recent post in ORP, how about we table this motion and try and come up with something that addresses many of the different underlying issues that can make FT a better more stable community for the long haul and so we hopefully don’t have to revisit this issue, every single year.

Otherwise, I can see it happening that in 8-10 months or so there will be another motion. This time to recommend that the OMNI posts count, again and the cycle will repeat again until we attempt to address the underlying issues. (During my research, I found that starting in 2005 it came up at least once a year in the TalkBoard forum for debate.)

I don’t know how as a community we will do it and I’m sure after I get some sleep I can come up with a bunch of ideas, but either way it should prove to be an interesting debate.

Let me preface what I am about to post by saying that I am one of the strongest advocates of not counting Omni posts. Indeed, I feel that no posts on the non-miles and points forums should be counted, that mods of the M&P Forums should identify threads within that forum (like the Delta Forum Lounge Thread) which should not be counted, and that all of this should be made retroactive.

I have posted all of that before and am re-posting it now only for one reason: to make it clear that what I am about to say has nothing to do with my own personal preferences on this issue.

The fact is that TalkBoard should express its opinion to what it feels is best on any issue which effects the membership and not only when Randy makes what it considers a "colossal blunder".

Nor is Randy TalkBoard's "boss". He may be the boss of the moderators who he appoints but not that of TalkBoard, which is elected by the membership.

There is a long-standing argument about how TalkBoard members should make decisions. Some FTers feel that it should reflect how a majority of posters stand on a particular issue. Others (and I am one of these) feel that TB members are elected to use their own individual judgment.

Randy has repeatedly said during TB elections that he is only one member with one vote -- and that is the way it should be. It would be a ridiculous situation to have a TalkBoard elected to advise Randy and then expect it to tell Randy only what he wants to hear. What possible good does that do for anyone (including Randy)?

TB should give Randy what it considers to be the best possible advice it can offer, even if that means telling him exactly the opposite of what he wants.

Randy, of course, is free to accept or reject that advice.

Randy created TB as his "sounding board" and, if he so chose, he could dissolve it. It's unlikely that he would, but ultimately it is his call.

That Randy permits his advisory board to be chosen by a popular vote does not alter the status of their appointment -- that they hold office at his pleasure. So, to simmer and stew over whether he's the boss of TB is fruitless. @:-)

No, TB is not a sounding board -- it is an advisory board. It does not exist to listen to what Randy is saying and then tell him how it sounds to the board members.

The membership elects TB to give Randy its point of view.

If it were to be a sounding board, then Randy should appoint all of its members, tell TB not to come up with any suggestions of its own, and only to react if and when he asks its opinion.

We have elections annually. If someone feels that TB should only tell Randy what he wants to hear, he should campaign on that:

"I will never disagree with Randy, who I consider to be my boss, and will always vote the way he wants me to."

Frankly, I doubt that anyone will get elected on such a platform but if he does at least the membership would be getting what it wanted.

That's a finely split hair.

Here are a few choice sections of the Talkboard Guidelines

So it sure looks from that like TB advises the host, provides input to the host, and is tasked with responding to requests from the host.

The host can quell any discussion that the host wants.

He can, in various ways, rig the election.

He can appoint members and extend them at will.

He can unilaterally remove a member.

He can unilaterally decide on replacements.

Now, I don't know how you define boss. When someone has the unilateral authority to hire, fire, replace, and direct the discussion of the board, most people would consider that role to be somewhat inclusive of the term "boss."

The mod thing is flamebait. Randy has all those same rights (obviously) with the moderators, with the difference being that he's decided to stick to his own judgment for their appointment rather than electing them from the body politic.


On the contrary--what possible good does it do to ask the boss to reconsider a decision that's now been made, re-affirmed, and implemented over the course of 4 years?

Which is ultimately (besides the ownership and delegated contractual stuff from IB) why he's still the boss.

There is a huge difference between what you are suggesting and what is currently happening. What's currently happening, were it repeated over different subjects over a long enough period of time, would cause most bosses to start ignoring the advisory board.

I don't think Randy would do that, because I think he's a more patient soul than most. I fail, however, to see the utility in the current motion outside of absolutely thumbing one's nose at the boss. See "A Few Good Men," the "objection sequence."

You misconstrue both the meaning and intent of TB as Randy's "sounding board." Being a two-time board member yourself, it should not come as any surprise to you that TB exists for the purpose of fulfilling the mandate spelled out in the TB Guidelines.

Because, of course, Randy permits his sounding board to be elected by the membership.

Why "should" RP appoint his advisors any way other than he likes?

He made a unilateral decision to permit the general membership to do the cherry picking for him. While you and others may not like his unilateral decisions, that's just the way it is on FT.

BTW, it's rather disingenuous to suggest that RP would ever "tell TB not to come up w/suggestions." If you can support such an assertion I would be very interested in hearing what you have to offer.

How do you feel about TalkBoard voting on new forums?

Not too long ago, Randy told the TalkBoard that he doesn't want it to approve any new forums until it comes up with a formula for establishing them.

He repeated that here, on TalkBoard Topics:

Yet almost every TalkBoard member has, since then, either demonstrated his willingness to approve a new forum and/or stated he would do so without having this formula in place.

Five of the nine members voted for the VX Forum (Cholula, Punki, lucky9876coins, Techgirl and Kokonutz).

Jenbel, when asked if she would vote for a forum absent such guidelines, said "I'm happy to continue to consider forums on an ad hoc basis." She proved true to her word when she voted in favor of the Travel Products Forum.

Bhatnasx and Spiff both voted for the Travel Products Forum, showing that they, too, will not let the lack of a formula stop them if they feel a forum is a good idea.

The only one not to vote for a completely new forum since Randy made that statement is Gleff (although he did vote to make Travel Photography into a stand alone forum). He has not stated publicly whether he would or would not vote for a new forum absent such a formula.

So here we have a case where Randy specifically said he did not want TalkBoard establishing any forums until it comes up with a formula for it. Eight of the nine members have demonstrated their willingness to vote for a forum anyhow. Randy, in turn, has accepted their recommendation and the Travel Products Forum was established.

Did they do this to "thumb their nose at the boss"? I don't think so. They did it because, in their opinions, it was the right decision. If they feel that allowing Omni posts to be counted (which, as you know, I think is a bad idea), they should let Randy know that by voting in favor of it.

Obviously, any member who feels that Omni posts should not be counted should vote against it -- but it should be based on his own beliefs, not merely to go along with what Randy believes.


But that is exactly what a "sounding board" does. It never comes up with its own suggestions -- it exists to listen to what the person in charge has in mind and gives him feedback on his ideas.

I can not say that is the case with TalkBoard because I don't agree with you that it is a sounding board. I do feel it is an advisory board, which is a different matter altogether.

I'm mostly staying out of this debate to see what others have to say - but I've stepped in once before when the motion was misrepresented, and I'll step in here and now, because the motion is being misrepresented again. The motion under consideration is not 'Should OMNI posts be counted?' - the motion is about asking Randy to reconsider his decision on whether OMNI posts should count. That's a different thing from what you have just implied it is.

Thank you for the correction, Jenbel.

In that case, the motion is an extremely silly one. Presumably Randy reconsidered his position several times already -- as recently as before making his latest post on the issue.

What TalkBoard should be doing is let Randy know what its advice on the issue is. Does it favor having Omni posts counted or not? Randy may not accept the advice but at least TalkBoard will have taken a position -- not just told him to "reconsider".

There is an indication in the motion of which way the motion drafters believe Randy's reconsideration should come out:

Jenbel, it looks like you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
On one hand, you tell me that I am misrepresenting the motion by saying that it recommends that Randy count Omni posts.

On the other hand, you say that it not only recommends that he reconsider but that it also says Randy should "count OMNI posts".

With your latest post, I have to conclude that it actually is a motion which includes a recommendation that Omni post should be counted -- hence, there was no misrepresentation by me earlier.

The crucial sentence which I quoted is this one
You seemed (to me anyway) to be suggesting that this was a straight poll of whether we thought OMNI posts should count or not. Apologies if I have misread this - you certainly made no mention of recommendation in relation to this motion. But we're all singing from the same hymn sheet now.

I am a member and my input says to support Randy's decision. After reading through this thread it seems I am not alone, yet you and others here believe the TB representatives are not considering member input unless they agree with you. A little one-sided don't you think?

You are not seriously trying to blame others' bad behavior on Randy are you? Again, if people are behaving in a juvenile manner by causing problems because they disagree with a decision that was made, then they need to be dealt with accordingly. You don't give in to toddlers throwing tantrums!