Hmm, so basically anyone who posts their thoughts is unsubtantiated Punki? What exactly constitutes unsubstantiated? That they agree w/ you? :rolleyes:

You asked me specifically & I was going to respond (& did a lot of research on my own & others viewpoints), but after reading some of your comments where you disregarded others' input as either not important enough or not in keeping w/ your viewpoints (while under the guise of requesting info), I decided not to bother.

My vote is against. I made it plain to the TB members. They will take in the input, while hopefully avoiding the 1000th post by the same folk & just count their initial votes (whose initial posts are totally valid btw!).

FWIW & IMO - doing a public motion asking Randy to 'reconsider' immediately after his decision was not one of the best thought-out motions I've seen on FT. Duh. There are some thoughts on this thread (actually by folks I wouldn't normally agree w/) that to me have better value, even if who knows on their chances of success. But speaking only for myself, a public call-out right after a decision. Did I say :rolleyes: yet?

To paraphrase Spiff, OVMV. Cheers. See you on Friday after 5:10am. "Are we there yet?"

PS - Speaking in advance, if this motion fails, I have totally sympathy for those TB members who voted against cuz the name calling & black helicopter comments will begin immediately after. ;) Good luck!

Cheers.

Hurray for common sense. ^

So, SkiAdcock, would you please post why you are against OMNI post counts so I could consier your opinion?

Stolen from Last Year
 

Last Year, I said:
It still makes sense today. I'm opposed to this year's motion.

(Note: Minor edits to the quote for clarity and spelling)

Question for you, Sharon. Can you explain to me how your close to 5000 posts in Travel Contests are more deserving of post counts than posts in OMNI? Thanks!

Based on these statements (which BTW I dont disagree with) a lot of other forums should have their post counts removed?

Yes, I'd be in favor of that, if they didn't support the core purpose of the board, which is travel related.

Generally, in most other Fora, the TOS, if evenly and consistently applied, would resolve the issue. But it's very hard to apply TOS consistently without appearing overbearing in threads that, at face value, don't seem disruptive. But they are then used as precedent for matters like this.

Omni is different. It is not travel related, TOS are interpreted generally differently, and it is very lightly moderated.

Wow, Brian. That was persuasive. It's really too bad the reputation feature didn't solve this problem.

Actually, the better question might be put as, "What constitutes a substantive argument?" w/r/t to Punki's special pleading.

SkiAdcock writes:

I am happy to listen to anybody's reasons. The sad thing is that so far I have only heard two reasons:

1. High post counts by gamers make other high-post members jealous; and
2. Some newbies might think that people with high post counts have knowledge that they do not actually have. Thank you for that input, Kiwi Flyer. I sincerely do appreciate it.

Conisdering all of that input, I have to make my own decisions after doing my own research.

I am not impressed by what does or does not make people jealous. People given to jealousy will always find a reason.

Further, I do not think that "newbies" are stupid enough to think that a high post count equals knowledge.

In my own case, for instance, I have almost 10,000 post, with probably less than a dozen game posts, have flown over 150,000 miles a year for the past ten years and maintained 1k status for United and top status for both Hilton and Starwood for the same period of time, but I honestly don't know squat about American Airlines or Marriott. Despite my credentials, anybody who listened to my opinion about BA would have to be crazy.

People have to be, and I do believe are, selective in what they believe, and are not really easily swayed by post counts.

I have asked earlier and will ask again, does anybody really have evidende of a case where a newbie was misled by a gamester?

Didn't Randy himself provide his reason for removing the Post Count? I seem to remember his point being that this change provides "consistency" between the two forums in FT that have post/time entry requirements (i.e. CC and OMNI).

Two reasons? :confused: Being an international student has always been a big disadvantage. I am a slower reader and sometimes I misunderstand the points. It usually takes me longer to write in English. I guess my English must not be as good as I once thought. I may need help. :o

First of all, even I am against this motion and don't support counting OMNI posts, I did read this whole thread (and some others from other fora on this counting-OMNI-or-not debates). I didn't take notes when I read all the posts, however, I failed to find the same reasons the way Punki summarized above. Now I am not sure if Punki and I had read the same thread/s. :confused:

Giving my confusion, I don't think I am competent enough to summarize what I had read so far. That's not my job anyway. ;)

The whole "process" as I recalled, both sides asked some good questions and made valid points. There were also unfortunate incidents that words got twisted and discussion went personal.

There are quite a few "big" words being thrown out in the "friendly" discussion, such as disenfranchisement; empirical and binding; substantive vs. unsubtantiated...etc. Besides all the big words, I don''t recall the no-OMNI-counting camp citing the "jealousy complex" as a "subtantiated" reason. Correct me if I am wrong, I believe it's magiciansampras who "introduced" the jealousy theme into the debate (maybe be two or three pages earlier) and some folks played along a little bit.

Even this motion is "simply" a TB recommendation, asking Randy to reconsider his decision, the debate goes FAR beyond what the motion is all about. FWIW, there's EVEN disagreement on what the motion IS about. ;) No doubt, the emotion is high. Or we wouldn't have 39-page of discussion by far and still going and going, just like the Energizer bunny. :)

A lots of issues emerge during the course of discussion that go WAY beyond the motion: the meaning of post counts; the value of post counts; the structure of post counts; FT contribution or participation; the consistency in TOS; the challenges of moderation; post padding; the hurt ego; the value of OMNI; game subforum...etc. Some issues may be contextual, intertwined or essential to a healthy FT community. Some should be dealt with in separate threads and TB motions.

I haven't "officially" joined FT community long enough to know all about the history. I would at least say killing all the birds with one stone is too ambitious. Don't overload this current motion.

"consistency" was the reason he cited, what prompted him to review were the recent threads started by civicmon and peteropny suggesting that OMNI was getting "annoying" and there was a large amount of "consecutive posts by a longstanding member". The issue raised seemed to mostly be the gaming/counting threads.

the problem some of us see with the "solution" is that he created a double-standard where now some posts count more than others. Meanwhile, 6969 post count club and such continue to flourish, as do threads such as this TB motion.

I have read through threads you mentioned, except I have to admit I hadn't seen the "6969" one.

All I was doing was replying to Punki who asked for "reasons". She had not listed Randy's reason that he offered. Given he made the change, it just seemed appropriate that we make sure everyone knows that he did in fact provide a reason.

I suggest you re-read this thread and the closed thread again because many more than one or two have responded with their reasons. :rolleyes:

You know what I love about how this discussion has gone. It hasnt actually fixed the problem that OMNI currently has which is fixing the games threads from runing OMNI. "Out of Sight Out of Mind" for the win!

People don't always agree with each other.

Frustration runs high and people get upset when communication fails to go through for whatever reasons, or when meanings get twisted. I am afraid that you haven't really got (sometimes even misunderstood) the points from the no-OMNI-counting camp (please see some of the responses: Post #456; Post #552; Post#561 ). Glad to hear your research is not finished and you are willing to listen though.

(Bolding mine)

I thought Randy had spoken on this very issue already? Why ask those who had voiced their opinions to repeat themselves over and over again? Just to give a summary?

Besides, it won't be fair for either party if they don't get the chance to answer the same question, right? I would think any TB member who hasn't formed an opinion and is openly seeking for members input would have asked both pro-count and against-count parties the same question.

UNLESS, Punki, you've already seen "a clear and concise post" that has stated the "clear, specific, cognitive, comprehensible, reason that they do believe OMNI posts should count"? If so, may I ask which post is it? TIA!
BTW, CC posts don't count.

Technically, a post is not a post and all posts are not equal in our FT world at this point. I am all for principles and consistency. First, we have to be very clear on what are our principles. If "consistency" in post counts shall be implemented, another TB motion should be in place. Don't we have a modest proposal from last year on post counts that hasn't been moved yet? @:-)

Nail - on - head

That would require a separate TB motion and no doubt many more times the talk than even this thread has generated. ;)

BTW, I'm not so quick to want to end all OMNI games as some who find them annoying. WWBTNFTTP is a much beloved OMNI game and you can't, IMHO at least, ban some games while not banning others.

No, no, no: His reason was that he made this decision in 2004 and forgot to flip a switch. Until wr_schwab did some research and found that this was not the case, after all, that Randy himself had back-tracked and said in late 2004 he was all for counting posts in OMNI.

THEN what you wrote became the reason.

At tom911's figures below show, some lucky folks appear to have wayyyy too much time on their hands,

Good for them. I wish I did. :)

But folks like my dear friend Alex posting near 20,000 times in just ONE totally mindless counting thread is just absurd if those posts count to an overall tally - which they have so far.

And what % of posts from these ~15,000 below (counting up and down from 100,000) did drbond make outside OMNI I wonder? I seem to recall in our last debate reading near zero. That is not adding to miles and points knowledge to anyone.

I do not recall ever seeing member szg post anywhere on FT that I have visited, yet note he/she has 16,422 posts in just 3 threads below. The mind boggles as what his/her total post count is.

-----------------------

Newest Omni Waste Of Time - Count Down From 100,000

User Name Posts
drbond 10,039
hhoope01 8,938
BiziBB 8,214
yashan 7,408
im-headed-west 6,005
oldpenny16 5,353
szg 4,604
the_traveler 4,179
Cornroaster 3,151
Amanda 3,058

Who Will Be The Next FlyerTalk Member To Post? An OMNI Game

User Name Posts
Kiwi Flyer 14,695
jfe 12,172
myefre 10,655
philk10 8,554
chrissxb 5,666
richard 5,030
Canarsie 4,992
Jenbel 3,472
szg 3,356
fumitani 3,029

Newest OMNI waste of time - count UP to 100,000

User Name Posts
Gaucho100K 18,357
szg 8,462
the_traveler 4,761
drbond 4,365

---------------------------

A simple posting bot could acheive the same ends and not add a bean of info to FT on miles and points.

We could have 1000 bots posting 10000 posts a day .. would that assist FT in any way?

Folks with weeks ans months of spare time to killl can do what they like with it on such threads - just from now on it will not count to absolutely massive post totals. Sounds fair, and is years overdue.

Glen

Agreed, but is triggering a formal vote really the only way, or the best way, to accomplish this? What's wrong with opening a discussion on this forum before seconding the proposal, allowing it to be debated and refined first?

Who really cares when it's done? A wrong/bad decision is a wrong/bad decision minutes after OR years after.

Yup, let's start the talk on "black helicopters." That's always productive.

FWIW, when I made this motion the TB Topics and ORP threads regarding this subject were locked...

What is the purpose of this post? Only thing I see this doing is rehasing something that we all (appear to) agree on: That posting in OMNI has been abused in some cases. Those threads you mentioned above are not a part of my argument since I agree that something needs to be done about them.

I'm just failing to understand how cutting off OMNI all together is more effective to solving this problem than an enforcement of the TOS.

Seemingly to sully some posters and not others for high OMNI post counts and perceived lack of participation elsewhere on FT. But perception isn't always reaility, luckily; szg does post beyond OMNI including this thread from the Community Forum hosting an FT Do in SZG.

It's important to get the TB members on the public record about as many issues as possible, particularly ones that are this controversial. This way, when the next election comes around, the members can make sure they vote for people who are representing their views.

How many FTers voted in the last TB election? How many of the FTers who even care to vote for TB members will even view threads about current TB motions? There are political games, and "putting others on the spot" is just another political game.

How much and what kind of an impact will such political games have? I know that votes for or against this specific motion won't influence me. Perhaps if the motion were more concrete -- something like a suggestion to "reconsider" is not a concrete motion IMO -- then it would impact my voting decisions.

The fact that few people view TB threads and even fewer probably have the time to review them during the election is exactly why it is so important to have the TB members go on the record about controversial issues. It's easy to view the list of motions that were voted on during the TB term, because that sub-forum doesn't get cluttered.

With TB members going on the record, it will be very easy to review those votes during the election process so that the members who are passionate about one or more issues can see if their views were represented by the TB this year.

OK, so there are three reasons I have been able to find why folks don't think OMNI posts should count:

1. High post counts by OMNI gamesters make other folks with "serious" high post counts feel jealous.

2. Newbies might be misled by high post counts by gamesters who really don't know much about frequent flyer stuff.

3. Removing OMNI post counts will maintain consistency.

The consistency argument logically leads us directly into a quagmire that is way too messy to cross. If we are going to be really consistent, no non-travel-related posts should count, and where would that take us?

You know, if FlyerTalk did away with everything except travel-related posts, I honestly believe it would start to fall apart within a year. Take a hard look at the folks who come here day after day. Sure some of us are heavy travelers who look for deals and tricks to maximize our dollars, miles, points and comfort on the road, but, seriously, how much is there for most of us to learn after 5 or 10 years of working out programs and checking into FT every single day.

FlyerTalk is what it is because of the unique and amazing relationships that we have built with one another, even the adversarial relationships make us a stronger community. FT thrives because, even folks who don't travel much anymore, think of it as home and come here every day to see what's happening with their friends whom they have known for years. FT is a cyber family/home to the road warrior who is stuck in a hotel room night after night while his/her kids are half way around the country, or even the world. FlyerTalk has become for many of us a place to connect with people all over the world and that is pretty special.

Something magical (that didn't have anything to do with points or miles) happened way back in the beginning that drew us closer than we could have dreamed and made us and FT a very unique, special community that, in the end, is every bit as important as our miles and points.

I would suspect that I probably have more miles and points than 99% of the folks who frequent FlyerTalk, but I would happily trade all of them in a heartbeat for the amazing, real-life, friends I have made along the way. I have, for instance, been blasted by a couple of folks in this thread whom I consider real-life friends and really and truly like. If I should learn that one of them died suddenly, I would use as many of my dollars, miles and/or points as it took to get myself to their funeral to pay my respects because that is the kind of community we have become.

IMHO, that is why all posts should count.

a fourth: it motivates more people in posting counting threads and that way clutter the front pages of OMNI and make it more difficult to find more interesting OMNI contributions.

As the creator of this thread and game, I am rather happy that whatever is posted to that thread does not count anymore towards one’s “post count”.

Traffic to that thread remains steady regardless. This proves that one’s “post count”, for the most part, basically does not matter to most of those FlyerTalk members who post to that thread.

Now maybe people will stop using that thread as a “scapegoat” once and for all and allow the FlyerTalk members who participate in it to freely enjoy it.

Earlier in this thread, I said that of the posters who have more than 1,000 posts in Delta Forum Lounge Thread, there is only one who I think would be upset if they were removed from the post count.

You are the creator of that thread, too. Do you agree with my estimate?

That, Rudi, is most certainly true and is exactly the reason that I had suggested in the private TalkBoard Forum that we split out OMNI games into a separate category, and then decide whether or not games posts should count.

The way I understand it, that was also Koko's motivation in making this motion--to get everything back to the way it was, to give us time to sit back, solicit input, and develop a broad-reaching solution.

I am still hopeful that we can find a way to accomplish that goal.

I have not had a chance to read this thread in its entirety, as I realized its existence only tonight.

However, if anything posted to that thread did not count towards one’s “post count”, that would be fine with me as well.

I am not certain about whom you are referring, but I can say for certain that in the case of both threads launched by me, it is not the “post count” that is the impetus that drives the participation in either thread.

I prefer not to mention any name but I am basing that on the particular poster's very vehement objection to not having Omni posts counted. I would imagine that this would extend to posts on the Lounge thread as well.

I believe we are in complete agreement that the post count plays no part at all as an impetus to participating in the Lounge thread. I am not familiar enough with the people in the "Who will be the next..." thread to comment on most of them, but the member with the highest count there certainly agrees with you.

I don't know what's wrong but it doesn't look right...
 

(Bolding Mine)
First of all, I do feel FT is very special. ^ However, are we looking at the same motion? :confused:

According to post #1 (quoted below), the current motion TB is voting on has nothing to do with counting all posts. It's about a recommendation to Randy to reconsider his decision. Am I that wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Punki, I really want to thank you for trying to summarize what you had read. I just can't pinpoint what's not right. Your wording/summary doesn't seem to accurately capture what had been said.

For example, both Kiwi Flyer and tazi had gone on record and disagreed with your jealousy "assessment/conclusion" (Me 3), but you keep using it in your summarized 1st reason (at least twice). Maybe that's how you "perceive" it but that's not what's been said. As for your summarized 2nd reason, it's a byproduct from post padding (which is applicable to all fora, not just OMNI). Gamesters in OMNI happen to be the most extreme cases of post padding. I am not sure what consistency you are referring to in your summarized 3rd reason though.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me with language barriers. Maybe it's how you punctuate the points. ;)

The jealousy comment was made by people who are for OMNI posts counting. Punki using it as a reason just goes to show how little she has really paid attention to those of us on the opposing side.

And yes, you are correct in regards to what the motion actually states. It is a reccommendation and nothing more.

Yes, we are looking at exactly the same motion. The motion is asking Randy to back up to where we were two weeks ago, reinstate OMNI post counts, and give the TalkBoard time to continue their discussions, and deliberations and come up with a well though out, comprehensive solution to the gaming issue.

As to the rest of your post, I am not entirely sure that I understand your point lin821.

Kiwi Flyer made a very clear case for why he does not think OMNI posts should count. I understand his position, have thanked him for his input, have considered his point of view, and very much appreciate it. His is IMHO the best and most clearly stated case against OMNI post counts. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but can really see where he is coming from and respect his clarity as well as his point of view.

To the best of my knowledge, Tazi had not stated a clear reason why he/she is opposed to OMNI post counts--please correct me if I am wrong. I really do try to read every single post related to TalkBoard motions, but there are times, especially when I am traveling a lot that I may miss something.

What are you basing this on?