Yes, and I mentioned as a contrast to TOS violations, which are applicable throughout FT.

Really? I wish I had a dollar for every time I saw someone post that Omni was a sewer and as such, no one goes there.

Then please remove the counts retroactively. Also consider removing them for non miles & points forums. After all, just because I post quite a bit in the Orlando forum about Disney world doesn't mean a hill of beans that I know what I'm talking about in a miles & points forum. The mods should also remove all OT posts in the miles & points forums. I looked, and there's a pile of OT in some of them, and the lounge threads are pretty big. One could easily rack up a a lot of posts there without knowing much of the programs involved.

Also, I remember when they did not count, and then I also remember when you shut down Omni and the posts started counting again when it was reopened. Can you clarify why you changed your mind?

I don't have to - I know you are

You just reminded me that he called yesterday Yes. I want a picture to add to the rest.

Randy, I didn't write to you on this because I felt there were enough people doing so. But my feelings have not changed. This is the only major board with these kinds of issues. I only wish you would have found a more consistent solution, because from my perspective, it isn't consistent.

Jenbel is correct and my (rushed) post from yesterday was poorly worded.

I MEANT to say that now a super-majority will be required to recommend that Randy reconsider his decision to implement the non-count and instead count OMNI posts. NOT that by its vote alone the TB could achieve that goal. That is clearly NOT the case and I apologize if my post left that impression. Randy's still da man. The TB is still the advisory board.

I think Dovster's pretty much summed up the situation as I see it: the TB is elected to give Randy feedback. What's the point of giving feedback if the only feedback we are ever going to give is 'yes sir!'?

Every single time the TB passes a motion, the TB is saying 'Hey, Randy, here is an idea for what we, the elected representatives, think would make FT a better place.'

I think Randy was very wise for setting this process up since he's a busy guy and can't always keep his fingers on the pulse of the FT community.

Once this motion either passes or fails Randy will have the TB's advice...just as he has had our advice on the creation of the Travel Products Forum, allowing a poster to solicit funds for a Sri Lankan orphanage or the creation of a VX forum. Ultimately, whether he has asked for it or not (and in nearly all cases Randy has NOT asked for the TB's opinion on a subject, instead the TB has proactively provided its collective opinion to Randy without being asked) of COURSE Randy is free to ignore the advice of the advisory board. But at least he will have it, one way or the other.

So I think it's pretty silly to continue to debate the logic behind the motion.

Randy never asked the TB what we thought about this implementation. What's wrong with proactively telling him just like we do with every other issue we bring to his attention?

In any case, I'm more interested in hearing what posters have to say say about the actual merits of the motion one way or the other:

Does counting OMNI posts make FT a better place or does not counting OMNI posts make FT a better place?

IMO, most everybody is over-analyzing and over-thinking this motion.

Again, IMO, it's simply a motion from two TB members who didn't agree with Randy's decision to arbitrarily stop counting OMNI posts. Or who wanted to get TB on record as to their stance on this decision.

There is no indication yet if a super majority of TB will agree. And, regardless, it's certainly not binding on RP in any case.




In my experience it's usually been compared to a cesspool.

I am against this proposal.

And in case any TB members are curious, I am also against clutter.

LOL! If it makes you feel better then call it whatever you want, Dov.

LOL! How about if we let FlyerTalk's Town Hall determine what it is -- instead of either you or me?

There's no question about who determines TB's role: They're under RP's jurisdiction. Period. Full stop.

And I will put odds down that RP either wrote the Town Hall description I just quoted or at least approved it.

The funny thing is that nowhere does it say that it is a "sounding board."

I am against this proposal.

As the early "sounding board" discussions pre-date your registration here, Dov, perhaps you should PM Randy directly about it. (I'm not at liberty to post private communiques that would satisfy your semantic concerns.) What I can say, freely, is this:

Randy has long sought out constructive input on FT's direction, structure and management from the membership. One of the earliest round of AdvisoryBoard invitees was in May or June of '01, of which I was one (along with at least two others who've posted in this thread). Though Randy made it very clear that he wanted FT to be represented by all sectors of the membership, I was never under the impression that our recommendations were anything other than elicited opinions. Currently, with the enumerated, formal TB Guidelines in place -- including language such as "elected" and "advisory board" and "super majority vote" -- TB's essence is as it always was. And that is, a sounding board for FT's host.

Maybe the objection about descriptors here is about a perceived lack of power that rings from "sounding board" rather than "advisory board"? I suppose that could rankle some sensibilities. But the reality is, at the end of the business day, someone must make a decision about FT's rules and regs. For now, the committee known as TalkBoard is _not_ that final arbiter.

As for what the final arbiter should do, that's another matter. However, unasked-for advice once a decision has been announced and justified borders on badgering.

Was this before or after Randy sold the board to IB?

It would seem to me that the sale complicates things a bit as both TB and Randy are now under IB's jurisdiction.

Ess, as noted above, just about every piece of advice that the TB gives Randy is unsolicited, unless you count the TB's original mandate as one grand solicitation for advice on anything that the TB decides (by a super-majority) to advise Randy on.

Quick example: Randy set up Flyertalk WITHOUT a Travel Products forum. That was his 'announced and justified' decision. Without ever being specifically asked about it by Randy the TB, by a super-majority vote, advised Randy that he ought to create one. He did.

That wasn't a critcism of Randy's original decision to not have a Travel Proudcts forum. That wasn't badgering Randy. It was simply saying, hey, we the elected TB representatives of the posters think FT could be even better with a Travel Products forum. That's simply pretty much how TB works.

Now the decision we are advising Randy on is one that was made more recently than the decision not to have a Travel Products forum to be sure. But that doesn't change the role of the TB: To advise Randy regarding issues that serve the long-term interests of the FlyerTalk community.

Let us say that hypothetically later today Randy eliminated all non-US based forum from Flyertalk, with the (very reasonable and true) justification that 'the vast majority of Flyertalkers use US-based airlines and posts about non-US airlines are cluttering that up.'

Wouldn't it be quite proper for the TB to take a vote to advise Randy whether we thought that was a good idea or not?

Look, it doesn't really matter what you call the TB; advisory, sounding, chicken salad, from the beginning (and yes, I do clearly remember those days) the idea of the TB has been to give Randy perspective and suggestions. And what he does with same is entirely up to him.

Both.

"It would seem to" only if you've forgotten what the nature of the agreement is between IB and Randy.

I've forgotten nothing. IB has kept Randy on board to manage/run things. This does not invalidate the fact that he is now under IB's jurisdiction. IB has the ultimate say in how this board is managed now that they own it.

Given the magnitude of the ramification (of excising non-US programs from FT) in your hypothetical, of course.

As for the current motion being "quite proper?" No, it's not. (IMHO.) Just because TB Guidelines permit that such a motion can be made, doesn't mean it should have been. Just my 2FFMW ... my judgment call about your judgment call. :shrug:

Mmmm ... chicken salad ... As it's lunch time here on the Left Coast, I like the sound of that.