It's not really about arguing at this point, it is about trying to find a solution to the "problem" (however that is defined). If the problem is actually the games, I'm just trying to figure out how we'll know if this particular solution has solved the problem.

Give it a few months to allow the "Viva la Revolucion!" crowd some time to get over the post count thing.

The solution is in place, and the boss has made up his mind. I'm with Spiff--after four years, two (At least) affirmations, and a dozen threads across 3 forums on the topic, perhaps, just perhaps, badgering the snot out of Randy is not a particularly effective way to change his mind. I'd suggest picking a different Waterloo.

There is some revisionist history going on here. The last TB vote on the issue was an affirmation that OMNI post counts shall continue. This isn't nearly as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

But I understand it is one of your hobby horses, as you've been against OMNI post counts for a long time, so I don't expect us to agree on this issue. I do find the bit about finding a new Waterloo to be amusing though, since you clearly have not moved on either.

Im just disappointed that this decision was made without and discussion or vote.

FT is a great place to be but (IMHO) it appears that Randy is saying that one forum doesnt count towards the overall membership value of FT.

I have no issues with discounting OMNI posts but if that occurs then I strongly suggest FT does a much better job policing the rants/raves found in other sections (Travel Safety & Security comes to mind with all the anti TSA single sentance posts that do nothing to add to the coversations value)

Just my two cents since I was one of the folks fighting to keep OMNI actually counting for something during the last fight

I believe this is intentional. JMHO.

OMNI does not "count" when it comes to forum value. It disappeared once before, and if we're not careful it could disappear again....

The games did not start in earnest until last summer. All of a sudden, a few members decided they were going to bump up ancient posts and start piles of new games.

For the longest time, there was only 1 or 2 Omni games.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.1.17.0)

Maybe a good poll would be one in which we ask FT to vote on which 2 OMNI games they want to keep and then ban the rest.

FWIW - it WAS all about post padding, at least for some.

All of a sudden, I'm seeing some of these folks all over FT posting, where they hadn't posted much outside of Omni before.

Sure it is--your post count offers a hint as to why you feel as you do--If I had 19152 posts in OMNI, I'd probably feel the same way.

Randy decided not to count OMNI posts. The Talkboard tried to convince him differently. He stayed his course.

Let me share some deepter history with you: I moderated OMNI (I don't expect you to know that, as it was before you joined FT). I voluntarily resigned from that post because OMNI had become (and in many ways, remains) a cesspool. Randy shuttered it for awhile, and brought it back with himself as the mod, because it's essentially impossible to "moderate" it in the way that volunteers work. All that happened before the post count thing even surfaced back in '04.

That you don't like Randy's decision does not give you the authority to call it "revisionist history." You were not a registered member of the community at the time the seeds for the decision even took place. I moderated the forum. I'm willing to take the Pepsi challenge as to what happened and when .

Look, Randy has done lots of things I disagree with. Occasionally, I've been able to work with him and others to get him to change his mind, but that's not a universal thing. I'd suggest that given his track record and history of being pretty definitive on this issue that there are better places to make a stand. Were I at odds with Randy over an issue that he's treated like the OMNI post counts, I'd drop it. Why badger the guy--it's clearly not going to do any good? YMMV.

Mary2e as ClueByFour rightly said, it's not "badgering" that might get Randy to reconsider, its repercussions such as padding spill-over & work for the volunteer moderators that will get his attention. However, Randy seemed to think it was a non-issue, so you may want to send him any examples. Besides, it will add to the only 3-4 PM's he's received on this issue.

I think those repercussions you mention will have him warming up the RV, not reconsidering his position.

FWIW - I've long given Randy suggestions about Omni, and he knows my position regarding Omni & the counting threads. Heaven knows, I repeated it enough.

IMHO - it didn't and doesn't have to be the way it is. He disagrees with my thoughts, and I'm not going to beat him over the head with it. I get into enough trouble with him as it is

As for it being a cesspool, that's been my longest standing commentary to him with a solution. He just doesn't like my solution and that's fine with me too.

Omni posts were being counted at the time of the vote to which magiciansampras is referring.

I made the motion to stop counting Omni posts and to do it retroactively.

Five TB members voted in favor; four voted against. There was no supermajority so the vote did not pass.

In no way can this be construed as being Randy deciding not to count Omni posts and holding out against TB's recommendation.