FWIW, every single motion that the TB makes is a suggestion to Randy that something about FT be changed/improved. TB is an advisory council, not a policy-making body.

The wording of this motion was carefully chosen so as to make it perfectly clear to all posters that this is the case and not create any unwarranted expectations one way or the other. After all, if this motion had said "OMNI posts shall count...," and was passed by the TB it would have put Randy into the uncomfortable position of having to act totally against the TB's advice if that was his will.

So the wording of the motion was meant to:

1) Set realistic expectations,
2) Be as respectful of Randy as possible and
3) It was also crafted, as J-M notes, to put TB members on the record with regard to Randy's decision (since we never got that opportunity BEFORE he made the change) so that posters can know where their TB members stand on this issue without wading through 600 posts on the subject.

You must be one of the jealous ones. :D

Um, I believe ClubByFour agreed that there was jealousy on both sides.

Please make it clear that you are not speaking for all of us. This is opinion, not fact. Thanks!

I am green with envy. Nothing gets me quite as excited as a large ... post count. ;)

As things stand now, I would most likely vote again for you -- including for reasons related to my preference that OMNI posts be counted since I find that OMNI is a part of FT and an integral part of generating a sense of community -- but I am not convinced that this motion is the right approach.

Perhaps the motion might help set realistic expectations as you say; but I don't see how it necessarily does anything for "2"; nor do I personally see myself gaining anything from "3" which seems to be a game of "gotcha!" rather than an actual delivery of anything.

Sometimes I think some current and former members of TalkBoard are a bit too fond of practicing their political gamesmanship skills to nail their targets -- those targets being other FTers (and other FTers' post counts) -- and I'm not sure how I'm any better off from it than I was the last time around.

I would think so too.

I keep seeing that 'political gamesmanship' concept thrown around and it mystifies me.

Here is EXACTLY how my thinking went (and if you could read the private TB you'd see that this is true):

I thought Randy made a poor decision (although this is his prerogative).

I was disappointed that Randy didn't consult the TB before making the decision especially since the TB was already discussing the 'problem(s)' (although this is his prerogative).

As a member of the TB I felt that the TB should go on the record regarding his decision one way or the other (although Randy is under no obligation to listen).

Wanting to as respectful of Randy as possible I did two things:
1) Put the super-majority requirement on asking Randy to reconsider rather than on affirming his decision.

2) Made it clear that the goal was a suggestion to Randy rather than anything stronger such as a demand.


When I ran for TB I promised to speak and vote my mind and to do my best to make sure that the TB goes on the record on reasonable issues rather than letting them linger in 'discussion limbo.' Because without read-only access to the private TB forum that's the only way (aside from wading through hundreds of posts) that posters can know whether and how their TB members are representing them and that's with a formal motion and vote.

I hope that clarifies rather than muddies! :)

Yup.

The jealousy statement will never be admitted because I dont expect anyone to actually admit it (even if they were jealous). No proof from either side on statements of that nature :D

It helps -- unless or until someone jumps in and says something like "well, not exactly". :eek:

Thank you as it definitely helps put things in more perspective.

Just for my own sake -- since I want to understand TB procedures better than one candidate for President understands the economy -- can you tell me under what circumstances TB can put on or off the super-majority-requirement on a motion?

Koko, I for one don't doubt that your motives were pure and exactly as you stated them. Your objective (number 3) of putting the TB on record on the issue immediately conflicts directly with being as respectful to Randy as possible. Had you been willing to demote objective number 3 to lesser importance than objective number 2, you might have taken another approach. For example, delaying putting the TB on record until you had worked out a consensus proposal.

A super-majority (2/3) is always required for a regular TB motion to pass.

So it's all in the way one phrases the motion.

If I make a motion 'that the TB agrees with Randy's decision not count OMNI posts' then a 2/3 majority is required to pass that vote and put the TB in concurrence with Randy's decision.

If I make a motion 'that the TB ask Randy to reconsider his decision...' then a 2/3 majority is required for the TB to formally ask Randy to reconsider.

Now if I had gone with the former motion rather than the latter I think it would be fair to say that I was playing political games.

Just as if I made a motion that 'The TB recommend that no VX forum be created' so that it would fail and I could use that result to imply that a VX forum needs to be created I would be playing political games.

And while playing political games can be fun, I don't think they are in the beste interests of Flyertalk...

That is true. OTOH, no consensus position has arisen in this nor any other discussion of this topic nor did/do I believe one exists. Flyertalkers appear TO ME to be fairly evenly split on this question as last year's discussion and TB vote seemed to indicate.

That being the case, the status quo will prevail. And thanks to Randy's decision a couple weeks ago that status quo is now that OMNI and CC dont count but the rest of FT does.

But at least now this TB is on record on this question (or will be tomorrow in any case...).

Outstanding explanation. I hope this will stop anyone from accusing you of playing political games.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this thread, nor any other thread on the topic, accurately depicts how 160,000 FTers feel on the issue. There's been threads in OMNI alerting posters there about this thread, so they're more likely to be aware of it and be posting here. We don't have a thread in the AA or UA forum alerting posters about this thread, so they may not even know about it if they're infrequent OMNI posters, or have been scared off from posting in OMNI. If you publicized it across FT, maybe then you'd have a more accurate view, or even more so if you used FT's polling feature.

ya got that right GUWonder! It's entertaining to see the wolves circling each time a certain TB member posts.

The only other thing I'd add is the folks falling over themselves to claim the title as most loyal/protective of Randy, while forgetting they are hear to represent the members who elected them.

For those in the know, TB Topics is the new OMNI. :D

If this is the new OMNI, it is certainly news to me and undoubtedly politically far more sophisticated than the OMNI of old. I am a babe in the woods compared to the respectable wolves to be found here.

(Addressed to KiwiFlyer)


As a former TalkBoard member who has been posting on this thread and urging that no non M&P posts be counted, I would tumble from having double Evangelist status to a post count total of roughly 3,000.

Please explain to me how I am targetting "other FTers (and other FTers' post counts)."

I'd guess that a VERY large percentage of that 160,000 number either don't know or don't care about this issue. I was referring to flyertalkers who care. Heck a very large percentage don't even know what TB is much less have voted for TB representatives.

But the squeaky wheel get greased, ya gotta be in it to win it, and all that. :)

It's also interesting to see people get defensive out of the blue too, as if they believe the reference is applicable to them or that it needs to be redirected for purposes of political gamesmanship.

This place is interesting. :D

I appreciate wharvey's post, but I doubt any TB members are really still on the fence at this point. We're just waiting out the string now to see how many people abstained or voted no for no other reason than deference to Randy. I have great respect for those who vote no because that's how they feel, BTW.

I wish other posters (I know you didn't reference this koko, but merely quoted someone else) would stop throwing around 160K like it's some meaningful statistic. How many people registered and have posted once, twice....or haven't posted in years? Does putting some posting/logging in filters reduce the active number to 5K? 3K? Less? THAT is the real number of people around here.

My favorite part of this thread are the former TB members who have come on this thread and stated that they voted for or against this in the past, one even intimating that my opinion doesn't count as much as theirs cause I "lost" 2 TB elections. None of this is relevant. Please review the definition of "former" at your convenience. :)

Let's look at it this way. FT is about Miles and Points. Everything else is just fun or general information.

There is no reason to count anything except M & P. IMHO, there is no reason to have post counts at all, other than a minimum number to be CC or OMNI eligible.

This is, and has always been, an ego issue. Some FTers want, demand, desire (use your own word) high and mighty counts and titles.

None of this means a thing. Let's concentrate on Miles and Points and General Information and let those who want mind candy or time wasters or (use your own words) post away in OMNI. Just don't count the posts.

I would love to see someone move to do away with all counts and titles (can I make such a motion, or does it have to be made by TB member who can stand the heat?)

Please vote to keep no counts in OMNI.

Thank you,

Mike

I have a simple question.

Why do you (pro post counters) feel so strongly about this?

I kinda understand the anti post counters sentiments, but honestly don't know why this is such a big deal.

To me the most valuable knowledge I've received from this board has been from OMNI. Sure, I learned how to use the ITA Software Tool and some other neat travel things in the M&P forums, but in OMNI I learned about mortgage tax incentives, how to best understand a rental market, where conservatives and liberals come from when they speak of free trade not being fair trade, etc. etc. I have also made lots of friends in OMNI as opposed to the other forums which remain fairly sterile (which is why they have off-topic threads, like the Delta Lounge).

To me OMNI is an integral part not only of FT but one of the more informative and knowledge-rich forums anywhere. As such I think the knowledge there is deserving to "count" in any meaningful sense of the word. The way we have things "count" around here is to have them increase post count totals.

In short, I'll for OMNI counting. ^

This is not to say that OMNI is perfect. It's not. There are annoyances, there are game threads, there are post-padders, etc. etc. etc. However, all of these issues can be dealt with other much measures, some of which are already in place, they just need to be enforced (post padding in TOS, for instance).

I would like to have an experiment, actually. Eliminate all the non points and miles forums for a time, say 2 months. Let's see how many people come back day after day, then.

Those who are making a real contribution (even if it is just in the form of interesting albeit non-informative posts) would continue to come.

Those who are interested only in raising their post counts would not -- but I don't think that they contribute very much of value anyhow.

I disagree. I think post counts exist because it helps to drive content. It's not the only driver of content, but it is a significant factor. A psychological device, if you will.

I would continue to come. But weekly or so, not 4-5 times a day or whenever I have a free moment. I've heard many people say the same thing. To have such a measure as post count and then only apply it to some areas in a reasonably arbitrary (with justification invented afterwards) and certainly capricious way does nothing to spread goodwill, even if it only affects a vocal minority or posters. Those that would rather see the posts not count -- what does it hurt you? And some seem to have enjoyed this far too much - the schadenfreude is quite evident in some posts in this thread.

I participate actively in a few programs: NW, Starwood, Marriott. How much can we actually talk about ONLY that?

Some can, sure. Me? It would bore me to tears. It's not my raison d'être. And it's pretty consistent, too, as those that hold up their noses at OMNI and other like forums are not my kinds of people, either. Where's the shrug smiley?

Are you talking about post counts or what you've quoted? Eliminate everything not related to miles and points and you don't think there would be a significant dropoff in participation? Really?

FT would become stagnant quite quickly, I predict.

Dovster's theory is belied by the observations many have made about the lack of quality and quantity of posts in OMNI since "the decision." Example:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=795915

I agree, as much as I have learned on FT i doubt seriously I would be a regular visitor if it was only Miles and points.

If Ft were to eliminate everything not related to M&P's and traffic dropped off significantly would this effect would this effect FT's bottom line? I assume that the ad revenues must be based on the amount of traffic on the site.

I am talking about post counts. I have never suggested that non M&P forums/threads be ended.

If we are going to have post counts at all, I am leaning toward the conclusion that all posts should count, simply because I don't think anyone is so all-knowing, and has such perfect judgment, that they could accurately determine which posts should and which posts should not count.

Well I did receive an e-mail from one FlyerTalker advising me that they actually did have perfect judgment, but didn't have the time to read and make a decision on every single post. :D

You didn't answer tonerman's question

You/we can get "valuable information" anywhere on FT and still not need any post counts! Not getting an increase in post count in OMNI/ or anywhere on FT does not make the information any more or less "valuable,"

Now please tell me how counting games, who will be games etc. enhance your argument to keep counts?

Eliminating the Forums is not an answer...eliminate the post counts

Why take away any forum that FTers find useful/informative/fun?

Post counts drive ego. Dovster (I hate to agree with him :) ) is correct.

Well said, Mike. I could not agree more. ^

Given that ego probably does drive post counts for some FTers -- after all this is a community that is about racking up numbers under their accounts -- is ego-driving-posts/posts-driving-ego such a bad thing? Not in my opinion .... at least not as long as the ego factor includes being interested in posting quality posts that either provide information, contribute to the discussion and/or further a sense of community.

I can only imagine who sent you that :p