essxjay

Correction. One of us does have (and has already made) a decisive answer: Randy Petersen. That other FTers feel differently is another matter. @:-)

magiciansampras

Not to the questions that Punki asked, he doesn't.

Bobster

I recommend voting against the motion.

Randy gives us extra latitude in OMNI, and we should cheerfully give him extra latitude in moderation in return for what he gives us.

(And thanks for starting yet another thread asking my opinion so I can legally bump my post count by repeating what I have said before in previous threads on this same quesiton. )

Cholula

Punki, let's try some mid or short term thinking here too, OK??

30 or 50 years out we're both going to be six feet south of the grass.

Let's suggest working in weeks and months.

lin821

Even though it's off-topic, I will answer your question: my last OMNI post was on 1/12/08, but I "stopped by" OMNI just a couple of days ago. I don't always post in OMNI when I stop by.

Like I said in the other thread over the ORP, I am not anti-OMNI. I don't frequent OMNI but I did have the opportunity to participate in Gnopps' Proposal. That was indeed a lovely OMNI thread, showing the true spirit of FT community. That's not the point of THIS thread though.

I've read and seen "angry" responses, questioning why counting birthday posts, why counting posts in say fora, why not OMNI...etc. The way I see it would be a consistent and systemwise approach to address the post counts issue. I sincerely hope this TB can think outside the box and really makes a statement on a yet-to-be-seen well-put proposal about post counts in general (IF this TB really insists on presenting a proposal about post counts and advise Randy to "possibly" change his set mind.).

essxjay

By implication, he has already made -- note the tense -- a call about what's in FTs long-term best interest. To suggest that he did not have precedent-setting in mind back in 2004 amounts to Monday morning quarterbacking (at best). @:-)

Excellent point, Bobster, with emphasis on "cheerfully." ^

wr_schwab

I recognize the very real possibility that there could be members of the Talkboard who do not think they should count and would be very happy to leave the current situation as it currently stands.

In a previous post, I have attempted to present the argument as to why they should count. While it is not the exact motion before the floor, it is a possibile outcome should this motion pass. In this post, I will attempt to explain why, even if you don’t think OMNI posts should count should support this motion.

First a little history:

In Aug 2004 the board policy changed so that OMNI posts no longer counted.

By November 2004, it was deliberately changed back to the OMNI posts counting, as confirmed by the FT staff and in December 2004 by Randy, which lasted despite being brought before Talkboard in 2006 & 2007 lasted until February 12, 2008.

On that date we were given the story that this was the correction of a settings glitch and the policy was unilaterally changed. This was done without input from the community. It is the admin staff and the owners purgative if they want to make a unilateral change, since he who owns the gold makes the rules.

It was later discovered that the explanation that was given did not stand up to the facts. This resulted in the board being misled by Randy as to the reasoning behind the change. While I doubt it was his intention to mislead the community, it occurred nonetheless.

I will be more then happy to PM this documentation to anyone that asks. I have posted it enough times in recent threads on this debate that I don't feel the need to post it again here.

As a community we should hold those who have the power to make unilateral decisions to a higher standard. We should not accept (whether intentional or not) misleading explanations from those in a position of power.

By supporting this recommendation, we, as a community are sending the message to him that these types of actions are not acceptable to the community as a whole.

Is this the type of behavior we want to condone from its members, Talkboard, admin staff and the owners? I think not.

The FT community is built in part on trust between its members, Talkboard, the admin staff and its owners. This incident severely strains that trust.

I urge all of the Talkboard members to vote for this proposal. Not because it could restore the post count to OMNI, but because Talkboard must set a precedent that this type of behavior is not acceptable to a community as a whole.

If we fail to send that message, what type of precedent are we setting for the future?

Would it be acceptable if what happened was done to any other forum and this proposal was about any other forum besides OMNI?

If you truly believe the answer to my last question is yes, then you should not vote for the proposal. Otherwise, help set a precedent that the FT community does not condone these types of actions and vote yes to the proposal.

Punki

I do believe, Cholula, that my post makes it clear that I am thinking about the big picture--the whole picture. My question is how might the actions we take today affect the long-term development of FlyerTalk?

You are absolutely correct, essxjay, in that Randy has the power to do anything he wants without any input from anyone. My question is not whether or not he has the power, but rather, whether or not making unilateral decisions without soliciting and considering input from the TalkBoard and the membership at large, sets good long-term (even short or mid-term) precedent, upon which we can build a solid, healthy, vital community.

The real issue here is not whether or not OMNI posts count, but instead how we approach and resolve problems that arise within our community, today, tomorrow, a year from now and 20 years from now.

I seconded the motion to open dialogue, in hope that that dialogue woul lead to greater understanding.

itsaboutthejourney

excellent point punki. Randy is getting flack for this recent decision, and will likely get flack if he's convinced to reverse it. Hopefully the TB and the community as a whole can come to him with a solution(s), rather than more problems. I believe he's hinted at such a preference already.

lin821

I disgree and personally don't agree with your logic.

Randy has made his decision and revalidated that decision. Period. There's no need to turn a simple proposal about post counts into a "all-mighty weapon", as you so suggested. Life is too short, just take it easy.@:-)

I still view FT as Randy's board (maybe not technically, but you all know what I mean. ). He's still the MAN. With all the "historical data" you provided, I thought Randy had responded very nicely to you personally ( I also partially quoted below). Context is very important so people don't miss the forest for the trees. Why not just leave this generous man alone?

tom911

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).

Punki

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.

essxjay

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

thadocta

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

magiciansampras

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. @:-)