Just the continued disenfranchisement and consistency issues.

As I recall from earlier threads, you think OMNI posts should count, no?

"Disenfranchisement?"

So that I understand: on a frequent flyer bulletin board, not having future posts counted in the "everything else" forum somehow equates to "disenfranchisement?"

What, exactly, are you voting for that's somehow been taken away?

Now, if you are referring to the fact that Randy did not listen to the TB on this issue before (and probably won't this time), you still are not disenfranchised--since neither he nor IB is under any kind of obligation to listen to (much less obey) the whims of the Talkboard.

I'll give you the consistency issue--in fact, I suggest taking post counts out of all non-point/mile forums (with a huge debate over CommunityBuzz) to solve that problem.

But in the larger scheme of things, I don't think you want consistency with OMNI to the rest of FT--if that happened, several hundred thousand posts (and their count) would go up in smoke once all the game threads were deleted (post-padding gets enforced) and a bunch of members would be "on the beach" since it would be moderated in a way more akin to the core forums as opposed to the latitude which Randy personally oversees in OMNI.

From earlier threads related to post counts and through to the present, I have supported the maintenance of the status quo because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I see no harm from OMNI posts counting as they have. I do not favor the ghettoization of any sections of FT when a large part of what makes FT FT is the community aspect that is to be found in each and every active corner of FT where members post. That is, I do believe that OMNI posts should count toward post count totals since they do indicate engagement with FT and FT members.

The reason I am not in favor of this particular motion is because I don't see it as directly resolving anything, especially when it is worded as a suggestion -- for reconsideration -- rather than something more concrete.

Well, to use your own words as a rebuttal:

What are you referring to? To the best of my knowledge TalkBoard has not passed any motions concerning either Omni or post counts -- so there was nothing for Randy to listen to.

The closest that TB had to a decision was a 5-4 vote not to count Omni posts. It failed as any motion requires the approval of 2/3rds of those voting.

Somebody earlier in this thread (Koko? Magiciansampras?) tried to portray this as TB recommending to Randy that Omni posts be counted, but that, too, was wrong. A failed motion is no recommendation at all.

If this current motion fails, I certainly would not see it as a recommendation that Randy not count Omni posts. Unless and until TB actually approves something by a 2/3rds vote, it has not taken any action nor made any recommendation.

As to whether or not, if this motion passes, Randy would accept the recommendation is not something I would speculate about. As I noted earlier, Randy has accepted recommendations from TB with which he disagrees and even accepted one which failed to gain passage but did get 5 votes in favor.

In fact, I can not remember a single vote passed by TalkBoard since I first joined it which Randy refused to implement.

The implementation of this motion by Randy Petersen would mean that he will have reconsidered his position; but the motion's implementation (i.e., merely reconsideration of whether to continue with the status quo or how to disrupt the status quo) requires no further action beyond that (i.e., mere reconsideration) on his part for the motion to be considered fulfilled.

If I am wrong about the above, please straighten me out on it.

I know you like to minimize the arguments that other people make, dismissing them as unimportant and worthless, but you really shouldn't. I thank the TB members for at least not making fun of those of us who feel disenfranchised by this move.


In the larger scheme of things, I think a lot of people here are jealous of the post counts that the gamers have been able to amass in a short amount of time and others who have gotten large post counts predominantly in OMNI. That's what this is about, IMHO: jealousy.

Dude, it really is not advisable to make one argument and then use my rebuttal to it in support of it. ;)

I respect that. I think the ones that sponsored this motion feel like this is their best chance of getting Randy to reconsider his opinion. Obviously he acted unilaterally to stop OMNI post counts so maybe would not respond well to the TB telling him to reverse his decision. A TB motion to reconsider is worded a bit more lightly.

At the end of the day though this motion really is about one thing: whether or not the TB thinks OMNI posts should count.

That is not how the motion is worded and as such not necessarily how my vote on the matter is made. OTBMMFD.

I wasn't; a Mod. says he gets lots of PM's from newbies but how many are because he's a Mod.? I am not a Mod. and get very few PM's asking general questions, feedback or advice from newbies.

IMHO, newbies can more readily separate the medium from the message then some might give them credit for and can understand after a short time that post counts are more to do with level or participation than overall travel knowledge.

That is why meaning is different from a strict reading.

It is so nice of you to interpret the meaning of this motion for everyone. Thank you for your participation, but I'll draw my own conclusions.

Other FlyerTalkers may also choose to interpret this matter for themselves.

Oh sorry, I forgot the obligatory this is my opinion only and other FTers and TBers may disagree and feel free to make up their own minds on this particular topic thank you for understanding.

:rolleyes:

This sort of action does generate some disenfanchisement feelings for me.

I know you keep discounting this as only a posts issue but yet that argument can hold weight from either side of the table. I fail to see how arguing it from the "removal of OMNI posts" side carries any more weight than from the "all posts should count equally" side.

Just more rhetoric...


I dont see the argument that we want OMNI treated differently than the rest of FT. In fact we are arguing that we would like OMNI treated exactly the same as the rest of FT (WRT to posts counting, post-padding, etc...)

OMNI is no different than any of the rest of FT other than it is a catch all for threads that dont relate directly to travel. That being said I'm still trying to grasp how the majority of postings in Travel Safety and Security (or the TSA bashing thread as I call it) have anything more to do with traveling than OMNI does.

I'm all for one standard that all threads in FT are judged on but by removing post counting from OMNI there is the creation of a double standard, which really causes me feelings of disenfranchisement.

Im not calling for OMNI to be allowed to go unchecked but am questioning why we are using a bomb to solve the problem when something more along the lines of a surgeons scalpel would more than fix the problem.

I have yet to see a single post where a member has used this as a reason for not wanting posts to count. Please post a link to back up your statememt.

You completely ducked what I said (something you enjoy--quotes out of context). So we'll try again:

What did you vote for in RE: "post count in OMNI" that you have now been disenfranchised of?

It's easy to dismiss your point when you can't even answer that question.

Now we are getting closer to reality.

Why do you assume disenfranchisement is limited to voting??

I "voted", in your modest post count thread, that OMNI posts should count. But FT is not a democracy. It's not even a state. Or a government, really. My "vote" doesn't matter in any meaningul sense unless it convinces someone in power to vote congruent to my wishes.

So you agree with me that a lot of the people that want to do away with OMNI post counts do so because they're jealous?

You know, I don't think that this is fair comment. You guys use big words for rhetoric effect to give the appearance of weightiness to your arguments. Surely it is right and proper to investigate those big claims of "freedom of expression" or "disenfranchisement" to see whether they are actually based on something or mere puff, rhetorical powder thrown into the eyes.
It is not enough to merely say "I feel dienfranchised". Either you are genuinely disenfranchised, in which case you have a valid point, or you are not genuinely disenfranchised, in which case the solution should be sought not in seeking an FT motion of some description but rather speaking about it with your analyst to find out why you have this feeling of disenfranchisement which corresponds to no genuine disenfranchisement.
So, in what way exactly are you and 'a large group of people' "disenfranchised? Clearly, you do not lose your rights to participate in any elections by having future omni posts not counted in your post count. So, you are not disenfranchised in the normal meaning of the word.
Are you disenfranchised in the figurative sense of having power and opportunities taken away from you? What exactly is it that you can no longer do now that you could do before? You can post in just about any forum as you could before, you can send and receive pms just as much as before, you can laugh cry, joke, argue with other FTers just as much as you could before. So what is it that you could do before and can no longer do now? Because if there is no such thing, you simply cannot say that you are being disenfranchised.

So, the only thing you could conceivably have lost the ability to do, at least in the future, is the possibility to flash a great big huge co....unt based on omni posts. Do you really want to call that disenfranchisement? Fair enough, but surely you cannot be surprised if others will feel like calling it something less grand and probably less flattering.

But hang on, even that you have not lost. Rejoice, and rejoice nroscoe too, you have not lost your ability to boast and/or feel proud about the size of your post count including omni posts. Yes, you can still do it: all you need to do is put it in your signature. OK, it will require a bit of work on your part. You will need to regularly compute how many posts you have had in OMNI and add that to your total. But, after all, if displaying your omni-inclusive post count is something which is really important to you, a key element of your FT identity, it is worth that little effort, isn't it? What is more, you can actually choose to actually make a statement of it. Now, that is freedom of expression.

Oh, but wait, is that not what you wanted? It is not the ability to display your post count that you are after, I hear you say?

Ah, It is all about peer recognition. So what you really want is my, and all other FTers' seal of approval for telling you that omni post count really, really matters, and we are all so very proud of you for having such a big one.

So, it is not just about leaving you free to do what yo want then, is it? It is about forcing all of us to worship to the altar of omni post counts.

You know what? I think you are terribly close to the truth here. Forget about all the grand talk of disenfranchisement, freedom of expression, etc... This has nothing to with all of that.
It might indeed all be ultimately about p.... envy (post-count envy, that is ;))
I have to agree with you that there is clearly a very substantial Freudian dimension to this debate and it clearly does not take a genius to work this one out.
But you might think it through a little bit. Because if that is the case, and I think that it is, I am not sure that you will necessarily be happy with the conclusions you will be led to as to why you consider it so important to have your omni posts counted and displayed for all to see...

31 pages (by my last count) and Im now sitting here wondering what the harm in OMNI posts counting is. That was where the commonly accepted status quo was prior to this most recent change (which sparked this discussion) and yet I cannot wrap my head around why OMNI posts counting in FT causes harm.

Can someone please explain this to me (since I'm obviously too dense right now to get it)?

As I understand it, counting OMNI posts was feeding the growth of purely post padding threads that arguably subtract value from OMNI.

OMNI is a difficult forum to moderate. Reasonable steps to make moderation easier help keep OMNI alive and healthy, and that's good for FT. Is Randy's decision the best possible option? I have no idea. But he certainly knows more than I do on this subject.

Could all of us here cooperate to come up with a superior proposal? Perhaps, but first we'd have to cooperate. I'm not hopeful about that. The underlying issue is ego-driven, and posturing seems to be the order of the day.

No problem. As soon as you explain why, on the other side, it is regarded as such an important issue.
Look, it is not the first time that there has been such a debate. Last time round, it also spawned a huge and inconclusive thread. What you really have to ask yourself, is: what did those who promoted a new motion on this expect it to produce other than yet another extremely lengthy, divisive and inconclusive debate?

the current motion was made in response to Randy's taking away post counts in OMNI 2 weeks ago @:-) It wasn't made willy nilly just to stir debate.

{edited by wharvey}

Thanks both to you and nsx for the answers. I agree with nsx on the assessment that this problem is very fixable once we all set aside our egos.

The problem I see is that you, NickB, are making is the fatal (IMHO) assumption that the posts not counting in OMNI (anti-posts for quick reference) was the currently accepted status quo for FT. This is counter to those of us who are arguing the other side understands it, that the status quo was OMNI posts counting (pro-posts for quick reference. Therefore it is extremely difficult for the pro-posts side to argue something that they assume is the status quo when the change was made without any perceived rational from Randy who I would consider anti-post for this argument.

The real issue, IMHO, is that the OMNI games got out of hand and that something needed to be done about it. Someone(s) who had their ego bruised by the fact that their superior post count was no longer as elite as it used to be pointed out that Randy had forgotten to enact a long passed 2004 motion regarding post counting for OMNI. Since this motion was never enacted and the general populous of FT had the understanding that OMNI posts were as valuable a part of FT as the rest of the forums some of us are confused as to why this change occurred so suddenly and without, in our feelings, just cause.

I would/could probably change my tune on this subject if someone could please explain to me how the spamming/post-padding that occurs in the Travel Safety and Security thread is different and of more value to FT than OMNI postings. I have asked this question multiple times and yet no one has answered it.

I'm not asking for OMNI to be treated differently than the rest of FT but am in fact asking that OMNI be treated exactly the same as the rest of FT. Blatant post padding should not be allowed to run unchecked on FT.

FWIW, Randy's stated position on the issue at this point is that posts in forums where there are entry barriers (ie, OMNI and Coupon Connection) should not count in the post count total. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...48&postcount=8

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

Koko, do you understand the logic of the entry barrier business? I don't. Can anyone explain to me what entry barriers have to do ith posts not counting?

I knew that... but if memory serves me right, the reasons both those forums have entry requirements has nothing to do with post counts & knowledge.

For cc, IIRC, it was to keep lurkers out as well as coupon brokers who only posted in cc

For Omni, it was an attempt to alleviate the second-handle-getting trolls who did so just to start fights and/or disrupt

As always, I welcome any correction to my failing memory :)

No, I am not making any such assumption. All I said is that the topic is one on which there is not, and there has not been, any reasonable dergree of consensus. We have debated this in the past. The debate was lengthy, acrimonious and inconclusive. Randy, for whatever reason, took a particular decision in one direction.
Now, given the history of debate on the issue of omni-post counting, what was the more than likely coinsequence of putting forward a motion inviting Randy to reconsider his position? Was it likely to generate a high degree of consensus, peace and harmony on FT, or rather a heated and inconclusive debate? And are those TB members who put forward that proposal so naive as to believe that a topic which proved inconclusive and divisive in the past would all of the suddent become entirely uncontroversial and capable of generating a high degree of consensus even though there does not seem to have been any fundamental change that would suggest that FTers view would be fundamentally different this time round?
And was, moreover, the context of requiring Randy to reconsider a decision which he has recently made or re-made even more likely to provoke controversy?

BINGO majorwibi! It's the dirty secret no one wants to admit. I can understand the argument from those that post in "real" forums (their words not mine) that their hard earned post counts get devalued when someone in a game forum speeds past them. But why punish everyone in OMNI and create a two-class system because of the infractions of a handful who could easily be spoken to, suspended or given technical time minimums between successive posting?

Even if I could crawl around in Randy's brain I think I'd be picking through some of the more valuable issue areas than this. :) @:-)

I remember the same reasons being stated that Mary does when the barriers were erected.

I personally dont see the logic of consistently tying non-post count to entry barriers but that does not mean one does not exist.

It sounds to me like reasoning applied after the change was made to try to appease some of the people in this thread. Problem is, people in this thread are not that gullible and we already know the definition of the word capricious.

You are missing my point here. I agree with your assessment that this has been an extremely lengthy, acrimonious and inconclusive topic every time it is discussed.

My main point is that a decision was made in 2004 that was never enacted and it wasnt until early 2008 that it was pointed out to Randy that his 2004 decision was never enacted and that certain posters were abusing the OMNI posts counting to gain high post counts, thereby diluting the pool of people who are "FlyerTalk Evangelists" (IMHO). I find it highly curious that when this same discussion occured in 2007 that Randy chose not to act. What changed between that discussion in 2007 and the post in early Feb 2008 which appears to have started us down this path?

The rest of your questions are not applicable to this discussion if you follow where my point was going.

You are really barking up the wrong tree here Nick. For if I have post-count envy, why have I said repeatedly that I will forego my post count? I have publicly stated that Randy can reset it to 0 if he likes (as long as I still have access to OMNI). So sorry to shoot a hole through your argument. Someone who has post count envy probably wouldn't be too thrilled with the idea of a post-count reset, right? In fact, if Randy wants to trade straight up my post count for OMNI posts counting, he can PM me. I'm willing to make that sacrifice. :)

What I care about is not my post count, but my posts being deemed as worthy in OMNI as those that happen in the Delta Lounge or off-topic threads in British Airways.

It is disenfranchisement of a community that has made OMNI great. @:-)

I daresay the ones with the post-envy are the ones that are jealous of the OMNI Game Thread folks.

Actually, the jealously, such as it is, sure seems to be coming from the side of the house that wants to continue to rack up a huge post count counting down from 10 zillion.

What would really be nice is if Randy made this retroactive to when he first announced it, and took all other non-mile/point forums along for the same ride.

Well if we're going to be reasonable about this (imagine that!) I think it would be safe to say that there is probably jealousy, on behalf of some, on both sides.

Retroactive change? Now look at who's trying to stir things up! If Randy did the reaction here would match the worst heat that Amtrak and GoldPoints have taken for some of their no-notice changes.

However if anyone here requires ego reduction surgery (a manual decrement of post count) I'm sure the House of Miles can arrange that for you. You only need to ask.

Sorry if I was not clear on this. I do not mean this in a personal manner, as in the real person that uses magiciansampras as a handle. Rather, what I was doing was drawing out the implications of the line of reasoning that you put forward, when you draw the argument, not without reason imo, onto a psychonanalytical plane.
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either there is a psychonalaytical dimension to this, and you need to work it out in all its ramifications or there is not. You cannot just pick and choose half of the argument when it suits you and drop the other half when it does not. Perhaps there is post-envy in the camp that you oppose. But if that is so, why is it so? what does it say about the significance of post-count? And if there is such a significance, what does it say about those who think that making sure that all their posts are counted really, really matters?


You know, you can keep repeating the word "disenfranchisement" a hundred million time. That will still not amount to providing any explanation or reasoning of what exactly that alleged disenfranchisement consists of. Disenfranchisement, in its original meaning, means being deprived of the right to vote. I take it that this is not what you meant by disenfranchisement in this context, since I don't see any right to vote that would be lost by no longer having omni posts included in post counts.
So, you must be referring to the figurative sense of disenfranchisement, whci means the loss of power of opportunities. And I have to ask again: what exactly is the power or opportunity that you and "the community that has made omni great" have lost? what is it that you could do before and no longer can do?
(If I were to be facetious, I might be tempted to say that, if anything, it would seem that your power and opportunities have increased, since it would seem that you feel enabled to speak on behalf on the whole "community that made omni great" :).)

So, do let us know. Because if you are unable to pinpoint what that loss or power or opportunity is, then clearly the time has come to stop speaking of any mythical "disenfranchisement".

Sorry if I was confused by such inflammatory and hyperbolic rhetoric as:
Sorry that it was me being confused here.

Please see:Every behavior has a psych dimension by definition.

I encourage you to go through the history of FT. Who clamored for OMNI post counts not to count in the first place? Who started all of this?


Sigh. I don't have time to educate you on the meaning of disenfranchisement, but in short I am using the term in the same way that both Nietzsche and Foucault use the term as it relates to non-political (i.e. non-warring) entities. @:-)

The loss is that of being told that your posts do not matter enough to count. That is a disenfranchisement of an entire community in OMNI. One that is based, I might add, on nothing more than having been in OMNI. I.e. the rationale is very weak for making substantive/non-substantive distinctions.

Just as a reference for everyone, disenfranchise has two different meanings.

The first is what I am presuming NickB is thinking about and is probably the most well known definition due to FL in the 2000 election is to deprive someone of a right of citizenship such as the right to vote.

The second definition, is what magiciansampras is talking about is to deprive a privilege, right, or franchise.

While I don't think anyone is arguing that the OMNI posts not counting is depriving anyone of a right of citizenship. (Although if FT ever forms it's own country... :) )

It can be argued that the OMNI posts counting towards one's post count is a privilege and the fact that it was removed disenfranchised everyone that utilizes that area of FT.

I have stated my position much earlier in this thread and do not see the need to rehash it since I don't believe a rehashing would contribute to further the debate.

We now continue with the regularly scheduled debate :)

I fully understand. You are obviously an extremely busy person whose time is much more valuable than all of ours, so I have to thank you profusely for the exceptional amount of your very scarce time that you have devoted in this thread to educate all of us, including extremely thick persons like me.
It is a real pity for me that I am too thick to understand your argument as I have some difficulties in relating the question of not counting omni post in post count to disenfranchisement in a Foucauldian sense but I understand that this is only a reflection of my extremely limited intellectual abilities and that it would be too arduous a task for you to explain to a thick skull like mine, so I will bow out and let other FTers who are clearly much more knowledgeable of Foucauldian thought than myself and much more worthy to take part in this discussion.