Two very key points magiciansampras!

My fear is that the folks looking for a "problem" motives are their dislike of OMNI and this is just one step in their efforts to see it abolished.

So what is broken on FT? Does this motion's passage solve that problem?

For what it's worth (or not), I see no reason to support this motion's passage until it is made clear to me that something is broken on FT and that this motion's passage actually fixes that problem without creating additional problems.

A couple of things are broken. The first is the spirit of a lot of people who contribute on OMNI and feel that their contributions should count just as much as someone posting in Travel Security or United Airlines. Some of the best information I've received from FT has been in OMNI. Some of the best information I have given has been in OMNI.

The other thing broken is consistency. Not all posts are no longer created equal and it is not clear on what this delineation is based.

Other posters may have other things to add.

Is there any harm if the status quo with regards to current post counts and post count policies stands?

Does anybody know of an instance where a person with a high OMNI post count actually gave out bad travel information to a newbie, or is this just all "Well it could happen" conjecture?

All of the crazy gamesters I know also seem to have a pretty solid grasp of the ins and outs of FT.

Just the continued disenfranchisement and consistency issues.

As I recall from earlier threads, you think OMNI posts should count, no?

"Disenfranchisement?"

So that I understand: on a frequent flyer bulletin board, not having future posts counted in the "everything else" forum somehow equates to "disenfranchisement?"

What, exactly, are you voting for that's somehow been taken away?

Now, if you are referring to the fact that Randy did not listen to the TB on this issue before (and probably won't this time), you still are not disenfranchised--since neither he nor IB is under any kind of obligation to listen to (much less obey) the whims of the Talkboard.

I'll give you the consistency issue--in fact, I suggest taking post counts out of all non-point/mile forums (with a huge debate over CommunityBuzz) to solve that problem.

But in the larger scheme of things, I don't think you want consistency with OMNI to the rest of FT--if that happened, several hundred thousand posts (and their count) would go up in smoke once all the game threads were deleted (post-padding gets enforced) and a bunch of members would be "on the beach" since it would be moderated in a way more akin to the core forums as opposed to the latitude which Randy personally oversees in OMNI.

From earlier threads related to post counts and through to the present, I have supported the maintenance of the status quo because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I see no harm from OMNI posts counting as they have. I do not favor the ghettoization of any sections of FT when a large part of what makes FT FT is the community aspect that is to be found in each and every active corner of FT where members post. That is, I do believe that OMNI posts should count toward post count totals since they do indicate engagement with FT and FT members.

The reason I am not in favor of this particular motion is because I don't see it as directly resolving anything, especially when it is worded as a suggestion -- for reconsideration -- rather than something more concrete.

Well, to use your own words as a rebuttal:

What are you referring to? To the best of my knowledge TalkBoard has not passed any motions concerning either Omni or post counts -- so there was nothing for Randy to listen to.

The closest that TB had to a decision was a 5-4 vote not to count Omni posts. It failed as any motion requires the approval of 2/3rds of those voting.

Somebody earlier in this thread (Koko? Magiciansampras?) tried to portray this as TB recommending to Randy that Omni posts be counted, but that, too, was wrong. A failed motion is no recommendation at all.

If this current motion fails, I certainly would not see it as a recommendation that Randy not count Omni posts. Unless and until TB actually approves something by a 2/3rds vote, it has not taken any action nor made any recommendation.

As to whether or not, if this motion passes, Randy would accept the recommendation is not something I would speculate about. As I noted earlier, Randy has accepted recommendations from TB with which he disagrees and even accepted one which failed to gain passage but did get 5 votes in favor.

In fact, I can not remember a single vote passed by TalkBoard since I first joined it which Randy refused to implement.

The implementation of this motion by Randy Petersen would mean that he will have reconsidered his position; but the motion's implementation (i.e., merely reconsideration of whether to continue with the status quo or how to disrupt the status quo) requires no further action beyond that (i.e., mere reconsideration) on his part for the motion to be considered fulfilled.

If I am wrong about the above, please straighten me out on it.

I know you like to minimize the arguments that other people make, dismissing them as unimportant and worthless, but you really shouldn't. I thank the TB members for at least not making fun of those of us who feel disenfranchised by this move.


In the larger scheme of things, I think a lot of people here are jealous of the post counts that the gamers have been able to amass in a short amount of time and others who have gotten large post counts predominantly in OMNI. That's what this is about, IMHO: jealousy.

Dude, it really is not advisable to make one argument and then use my rebuttal to it in support of it. ;)

I respect that. I think the ones that sponsored this motion feel like this is their best chance of getting Randy to reconsider his opinion. Obviously he acted unilaterally to stop OMNI post counts so maybe would not respond well to the TB telling him to reverse his decision. A TB motion to reconsider is worded a bit more lightly.

At the end of the day though this motion really is about one thing: whether or not the TB thinks OMNI posts should count.

That is not how the motion is worded and as such not necessarily how my vote on the matter is made. OTBMMFD.