Have you not been reading the ORP thread about post counts? He and Randy both have some comments in that thread. If you haven't seen wr_schwab's post there, is it safe to say you haven't read Randy's comments in that thread, either? Maybe reading Randy's comments would have impacted your decision to make this motion, or would have caused a different wording. Randy says quite a bit on this thread, so it would be worth your time to read it over.
Randy, please reconsider your 2004 OMNI Post Count decision

Randy has also posted additional comments in this thread (single post highlighted):
Suggestion: Make Post Counts Invisible to Users
View Single Post

as well as twice in this thread:
OMNI Post Counts 1

OMNI Post Counts 2

Did you read all his posts before you seconded this motion?

I request the TalkBoard vote against the motion as written and go back to the drawing board with one that will address games (recall games were the topic of two complaint threads this week, including one in ORP, before Randy made his OMNI post count decision).

Thank you tom911 for your post. I should have been more clear. What I meant was that I had never seen wr_schwab post before this issue arose. Yes, I have indeed read every word that she/he and Randy have written on this subject. Whether I always like it or not, that's sort of my job as a TalkBoard member. I just hope it doesn't keep me so busy that I miss out on the great $74.00 UA first-class, around-the-world mistake fare that Jailer was blabbing about for this spring. ;)

I actually interpret this particular "reconsideration" motion, as an opportunity to step back, and open a TalkBoard dialogue with Randy to help us better understand his position and, as you suggest, go back to the drawing board and start over in an attempt to find a solid solution that addresses everyone's concerns and needs. IMHO, that is what usually happens when people talk first and act later.

FWIW, during our internal TalkBoard discussions, even before Randy made his decision to eliminate OMNI post counts, I had suggested creating a new OMNI Games Forum and even creating a new "OMNI Gamester" title for folks who hit 40,000 posts primarily by playing OMNI games.

There are lots of good ideas out there among the very smart people in FlyerTalk Land and I am confident that those good ideas will, when blended together, lead to truly great solutions. We all just need to be willing to hold our horses (and decisions) long enough to really listen to one another, and set aside our pride and prejudices long enough to be able to truly understand and embrace the goodness in one another's ideas, rather than allowing ourselves to slip into an "I am right, so if you disagree with me, you must be wrong" mentality.

Randy's position on the matter is quite easy to understand. Dialogue as bludgeon is what some fail to grasp.

I will add my 2.2¢ here (.2¢ being Australian Goods and Services Tax @ 10%). And this has already been said, but I don't think it hurts to re-iterate it.

The reason we have FlyerTalk is to talk about travel and travel-related issues. A newcomer to a particular forum - or indeed FT as a whole - has no sure-fire way of gauging the credibility of a particular poster, if that poster responds to their queries. So barring a sure-fire way of determining a posters credibility, post-counts is normally used in this way.

"He has 9,217 posts, and hasn't been banned, he must surely know his stuff."

And that sort of thing.

Now, as I said, this is a travel-related board. So only posts that are related to travel should be considered when it comes to post-counts. Posts about who is going to win the GOP nomination, posts about the Australian government apology to Aboriginals, posts about whether Argentina should try and reclaim the Malvinas, none of this is travel related, and to include these posts in a post-count will enahnce a posters credibility to new-comers when it is perhaps not warranted.

That is why I think that this proposal should be rejected out-of-hand.

Dave

He made a call. Whether or not that call is in FT's best interest is an open question. That is what Punki asked in her series of questions. @:-)

In your view what would this proposal look like? What kinds of posts deserve being counted on FT and which don't?

Why even have a TB then? If Randy's position is the only one that matters, what are we all doing here talking about this?

Can I add one more thing?

Randy's turning off of OMNI post counts hasn't done anything to curb the OMNI games. This morning on my OMNI front page are 6 game threads.

Turns out maybe they don't care about the post counts and just like the games?

Oh, three posts in a row. Bad, bad, magiciansampras. :D

I'm tired of all those who keep saying it's Randy's sandbox. It's our sandbox and supposedly Internet Brands' business venture. Just like airline and hotel frequent flyer programs there's little effort these days (this universal decision without any public discussion, the ongoing technical issues that take a back seat to some other unspecified IB priority, etc.) around here with regards to customer service.

We are the customers of FT. We should've been consulted on this monumental change via our elected representatives (TalkBoard). Those that continue to deify management and put management on a pedestal (deserved or otherwise), why? I just don't get it. We are the customers!

I've said it many times before in other threads, so I'll just go on record in this one as favoring restoration of post counts in OMNI for a variety of reasons, the biggest one of which is fostering community among FT posters who regard this as a cyber-destination to hang out with fun and interesting people as well as a tremendous resource for travel information.

I'd also note that TB exists, two members have made a motion and are now soliciting feedback on the merits of the motion. I've provided mine.

So, the customer is always right? ;) All customers are desirable customers? ;) ;) (Not a personal jab, just a generalization)

Should airlines make their business plans and models around what some of the more vocal frequent flyers want, i.e. DYKWIA?!? :D

No, but they shouldn't be ignored or belittled or constantly reminded by others of management's "generosity" either. It's patronizing.

In the absence of a reason why not, I think yes.

^

a good place to start is acknowledging that apparently some "customers" are just as fanatic about their FT post count & status as they are about their hotel/airline points & status @:-) a successful business will find solutions to serve many segments of the market @:-)

Ah, but a successful business often realizes it cannot be all things to all people and concentrates on the things it does well. @:-)

How in the world does not counting OMNI posts in a post-count take away from what FT does well?

The discussion I've been having with you, RichMSN, nroscoe, and wr_schwab is of a general nature and not specifically applicable to persons (as I said earlier) or Omni post counts.

Perhaps the host of this website feels that such post counts take away from the experience that he wants to provide?

I'm not going to presume to speak for him, but I'd really need to see a huge potential negative dividend for me to advise him to change his mind on such a matter. Like it or not, this isn't a pure democracy - there are going to be some aspects of FlyerTalk, a private internet bulletin board, that will be implemented by the owners/hosts of this bulletin board without taking a sample of the mood of the community. Other TalkBoard members and FlyerTalkers may feel differently.

How about disenfranchisement of the OMNI community?

How about it?

Some people are happy about the post counts going away, others are not. Some are more vocal than others about this matter. However, I'm still looking for a reason to be rather presumptive and tell the host of this bulletin board that his judgement is unsound and that this decision is some colossal blunder that will destroy the FlyerTalk experience for all users for all time.

Let me ask this as a hypothetical, and I’m only using this example because I have seen you post a lot in the Travel and Security forum.

If they decided to unilaterally and arbitrarily stop counting posts in the Travel and Security forum would you be ok with it?

If they decided to unilaterally and arbitrarily made some other fundamental change to the Travel and Security forum, such as requiring 180 days and 180 posts to view it because people have been complaining about all of the TSA bashing threads would you be ok with it?

I doubt it.

This proposal is not about the OMNI post count. I don’t really care if the OMNI posts count or not. That is not why I have been arguing the entire time on this issue.

Yes, it directly affects that forum, and one of the possibilities of that could result from this motion passing is the restoration of the post count, but that is only because it had the misfortune of being caught in the cross fire of a much larger issue.

The issue is how as a community resolves problems and whether or not making unilateral decisions without gaining any input from either the elected representatives of the community or the community at large a good precedent.

If unilateral decision-making by Randy and the “powers that be” is that good for FlyerTalk, why do we even have a Talkboard? Why have elected representatives representing the community?

I’m guessing because, at least at one time, Randy and the “powers that be” thought it would be good for FlyerTalk’s membership to have a voice, to have input on things that matter to the community.

Now is the time for our elected representatives to stand up and say, “We have a voice. We want to be heard on issues that directly affect our membership. We do not approve of unilateral decision-making that directly affects our membership experience.”

Now... I truly do not understand... you feel you need a MOTION in order to have a dialogue with Randy? Why not just PM him and ask for a conversation with the Talkboard? Or to a private chat session with the Talkboard?

Why a formal motion just to have a "conversation"?

I had assumed this motion wanted him to change his mind... but the motion does not say that. Heck "reconsideration" could be interpreted as meaning "You should go back to 2004 and take back all posts not just going forward".

I'll stop beating around the bush and ask why Randy didn't simply stop the one user (who's handle ends in k) who's actions seem to be what got a vocal minority asking about OMNI & post counts.

As jenbel said so well in another thread, many features that benefit everyone have been taken away because of the misuse of only a few. FT should be adding features, that make the customers happy. It puzzles me that controls (ie: technical limits on consecutive posting) or discipline for the abuser(s) wasn't implemented before the recent pulling of post counts.

Randy is human after all and is allowed to make mistakes. Of course, we still love him and appreciate everything he's done for us. But one hopes those advising Randy can or have raised the above questions in context of both "customer experience" and the motion on TB's table.

From my perspective onlyBecause no single person speaks for the entire TB which is made up of 9 individuals with 9 different opinions and priorities. The only time the TB officially 'speaks' is through a motion garnering a super-majority.

The motion is pretty clear about what option the TB would like Randy to go to. But it does not preclude other ideas like a games subforum or any other outside-the-box idea:

"that the Talkboard recommend that Randy reconsider his decision to implement the policy of not counting posts in OMNI toward post totals and instead count OMNI posts in a poster's post count."

:)

Yeah, I actually would be ok with it. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

That's really a horse of another color. I don't think restricting access to such forums makes sense as it does for Omni and CC, but even if TS&S were to disappear tomorrow, I'd get over it and not get upset about it. Maybe I'm just pretty easy-going or maybe I'm all about the IJAIBB (albeit the best) philosophy...

This isn't about absolutes. Sometimes there are going to be decisions made that are made without consulting the membership. It's private property, not a true democracy.

As a volunteer adviser to IB/Randy Petersen, it would take something that I perceive to be a colossal blunder or that the other FlyerTalkers could convince me of being a colossal blunder before I'd presume to tell IB/Randy Petersen something to the effect: "How dare you do something without consulting all FlyerTalkers!?" Sorry, I 1)Don't see this as such a blunder and 2)am just not that presumptive that IB/Randy Petersen must consult the community on all matters. Other TalkBoard members may feel differently.

The issue, wharvey, is not just having a conversation about post counts. It is about establishing sound policies that will guide us all in the future.

Perhaps wr_schwab best expressed my concern in this post:

No need to get dramatic.

Randy took a unilateral action. What this proposal does is ask that he reconsider. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not presume that his action is unsound, it presumes that unilateral action is unsound. @:-)

No one is saying this is the end of the world. What it has done is fragmented those who use and enjoy OMNI from the rest of FT. It has said to us: "Your posts don't matter."

And, as I posted earlier, sometimes IB/Randy Petersen is going to sometimes make decisions without consulting the community. It's a fairly common process with a private, for-profit business. @:-)

No, it actually says "your Omni posts will no longer continue to cause the number underneath your handle to increment by one when you click the button near the bottom of the screen."

Let me show you some example assembly code:

Before:

Inc eAX ;accumulator holds post count
Call Post ;calls the posting function

After:

Nop ;burn 3 clock cycles
Call Post ;calls the posting function

Omni posts still matter.

OK, first of all, I have no idea what any of that means. :)

Second, I think you're wrong. A post count is a measure of posts. Those that aren't counted don't count. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

And sometimes, as I posted earlier, customers are going to complain. This is also a fairly common process with a private, for-profit business. @:-)

It's pretty straight-forward Intel 32-bit assembly language. :D

The posts still matter. The post count is just that: a counter. It says nothing about the quality of posts, nor do posts disappear if the counter is not incremented when the button near the bottom the screen is pressed.

I missed the part in the FAQs that states The post count is the metric that determines whether your posts matter. It is irrelevant if your post is a well-thought dissertation on the AA Challenges or if it's the 2000th time you've posted Dear Leader is a Boob. Only posts that cause the post count to increment are the posts that matter.

Indeed. But not all complaints are with merit. @:-)

(this is a business observation only, not a reflection on the complaint(s) posted in this thread)

Well, as you say, other TB members may feel differently. :)

Let's try to maintain some perspective about TB's role. Its function is an advisory board to Randy Petersen. That Randy permits his advisors to be chosen by popular vote doesn't change the nature of the counsel. Because, what he has permitted ...

... does not obviate his prerogative to act unilaterally in the long-term best interests of FT:


As for the sandbox itself, it is a member-driven forum for the exchange of info about miles and points and related topics. Labeling the membership as "We, The Customer" distorts the true nature of their roles as individuals. A Member is a source (as well as beneficiary) of the info contained here, but that fact does not _entitle_ them to decide how to run FT, even if granted a term of advisory status. The position of member-advisor on matters of FT management is a privilege, not a right, which is why Randy is under no obligation to heed TB. Talkboard -- like the member-moderator crew -- ultimately serves at Randy's pleasure, and so he is not constitutionally or morally bound to follow their advice (whether asked for or unasked).

Back to topic.

Our virtual rumpus room for letting off steam, which we affectionately refer to as OMNI, is merely a bonus privilege -- an elite perk, in FT parlance -- of membership. RP could temporarily (or even permanently) pull the plug on it at any point. I think some here are pushing their luck that he won't do what has already done once before. @:-)

Indeed! :)

But just so I'm clear on your position, you're saying that post count is just a counter. It conveys nothing more, nothing less. Is that right?

This post exhibits the feelings I mentioned earlier. Somehow I should feel grateful to Randy for OMNI and probably for something else. I don't get this mindset, sorry. I'm a customer. I've spent money subscribing to IF in the past and spend money each year to sidestep the advertisements.

I shouldn't have to explain why I want to question a decision that I, frankly, find capricious (not arbitrary, but capricious). And I shouldn't have to feel gratitude that someone doesn't pull the plug on OMNI or FT entirely. If that's what happens, it happens. Something would fill the void in the marketplace and in my life.

So, considering you were elected to represent the members, are you saying that you're actually representing Randy? If that's the case, I hope you plan to defend that position when you come up for re-election. The TB should be composed of FTers who represent the members wishes and make and vote on motions to forward those wishes to Randy.

Whether or not he chooses to act on them is immaterial. If you're acting as Randy's voice on the TB, why should we even have a TB?