|
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)
Koko, do you understand the logic of the entry barrier business? I don't. Can anyone explain to me what entry barriers have to do ith posts not counting? |
I knew that... but if memory serves me right, the reasons both those forums have entry requirements has nothing to do with post counts & knowledge.
For cc, IIRC, it was to keep lurkers out as well as coupon brokers who only posted in cc For Omni, it was an attempt to alleviate the second-handle-getting trolls who did so just to start fights and/or disrupt As always, I welcome any correction to my failing memory :) |
Originally Posted by majorwibi
(Post 9311509)
The problem I see is that you, NickB, are making is the fatal (IMHO) assumption that the posts not counting in OMNI (anti-posts for quick reference) was the currently accepted status quo for FT.
Now, given the history of debate on the issue of omni-post counting, what was the more than likely coinsequence of putting forward a motion inviting Randy to reconsider his position? Was it likely to generate a high degree of consensus, peace and harmony on FT, or rather a heated and inconclusive debate? And are those TB members who put forward that proposal so naive as to believe that a topic which proved inconclusive and divisive in the past would all of the suddent become entirely uncontroversial and capable of generating a high degree of consensus even though there does not seem to have been any fundamental change that would suggest that FTers view would be fundamentally different this time round? And was, moreover, the context of requiring Randy to reconsider a decision which he has recently made or re-made even more likely to provoke controversy? |
Originally Posted by majorwibi
(Post 9311509)
The real issue, IMHO, is that the OMNI games got out of hand and that something needed to be done about it. Someone(s) who had their ego bruised by the fact that their superior post count was no longer as elite as it used to be pointed out that Randy had forgotten to enact a long passed 2004 motion regarding post counting for OMNI. Since this motion was never enacted and the general populous of FT had the understanding that OMNI posts were as valuable a part of FT as the rest of the forums some of us are confused as to why this change occurred so suddenly and without, in our feelings, just cause.
|
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
(Post 9311562)
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)
Koko, do you understand the logic of the entry barrier business? I don't. Can anyone explain to me what entry barriers have to do ith posts not counting? I remember the same reasons being stated that Mary does when the barriers were erected. I personally dont see the logic of consistently tying non-post count to entry barriers but that does not mean one does not exist. |
Originally Posted by kokonutz
(Post 9311963)
Even if I could crawl around in Randy's brain I think I'd be picking through some of the more valuable issue areas than this. :) @:-)
I remember the same reasons being stated that Mary does when the barriers were erected. I personally dont see the logic of consistently tying non-post count to entry barriers but that does not mean one does not exist. |
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 9311679)
No, I am not making any such assumption. All I said is that the topic is one on which there is not, and there has not been, any reasonable dergree of consensus. We have debated this in the past. The debate was lengthy, acrimonious and inconclusive. Randy, for whatever reason, took a particular decision in one direction.
My main point is that a decision was made in 2004 that was never enacted and it wasnt until early 2008 that it was pointed out to Randy that his 2004 decision was never enacted and that certain posters were abusing the OMNI posts counting to gain high post counts, thereby diluting the pool of people who are "FlyerTalk Evangelists" (IMHO). I find it highly curious that when this same discussion occured in 2007 that Randy chose not to act. What changed between that discussion in 2007 and the post in early Feb 2008 which appears to have started us down this path? The rest of your questions are not applicable to this discussion if you follow where my point was going. |
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 9311050)
You know, I don't think that this is fair comment. You guys use big words for rhetoric effect to give the appearance of weightiness to your arguments. Surely it is right and proper to investigate those big claims of "freedom of expression" or "disenfranchisement" to see whether they are actually based on something or mere puff, rhetorical powder thrown into the eyes.
It is not enough to merely say "I feel dienfranchised". Either you are genuinely disenfranchised, in which case you have a valid point, or you are not genuinely disenfranchised, in which case the solution should be sought not in seeking an FT motion of some description but rather speaking about it with your analyst to find out why you have this feeling of disenfranchisement which corresponds to no genuine disenfranchisement. So, in what way exactly are you and 'a large group of people' "disenfranchised? Clearly, you do not lose your rights to participate in any elections by having future omni posts not counted in your post count. So, you are not disenfranchised in the normal meaning of the word. Are you disenfranchised in the figurative sense of having power and opportunities taken away from you? What exactly is it that you can no longer do now that you could do before? You can post in just about any forum as you could before, you can send and receive pms just as much as before, you can laugh cry, joke, argue with other FTers just as much as you could before. So what is it that you could do before and can no longer do now? Because if there is no such thing, you simply cannot say that you are being disenfranchised. So, the only thing you could conceivably have lost the ability to do, at least in the future, is the possibility to flash a great big huge co....unt based on omni posts. Do you really want to call that disenfranchisement? Fair enough, but surely you cannot be surprised if others will feel like calling it something less grand and probably less flattering. But hang on, even that you have not lost. Rejoice, and rejoice nroscoe too, you have not lost your ability to boast and/or feel proud about the size of your post count including omni posts. Yes, you can still do it: all you need to do is put it in your signature. OK, it will require a bit of work on your part. You will need to regularly compute how many posts you have had in OMNI and add that to your total. But, after all, if displaying your omni-inclusive post count is something which is really important to you, a key element of your FT identity, it is worth that little effort, isn't it? What is more, you can actually choose to actually make a statement of it. Now, that is freedom of expression. Oh, but wait, is that not what you wanted? It is not the ability to display your post count that you are after, I hear you say? Ah, It is all about peer recognition. So what you really want is my, and all other FTers' seal of approval for telling you that omni post count really, really matters, and we are all so very proud of you for having such a big one. So, it is not just about leaving you free to do what yo want then, is it? It is about forcing all of us to worship to the altar of omni post counts. You know what? I think you are terribly close to the truth here. Forget about all the grand talk of disenfranchisement, freedom of expression, etc... This has nothing to with all of that. It might indeed all be ultimately about p.... envy (post-count envy, that is ;)) I have to agree with you that there is clearly a very substantial Freudian dimension to this debate and it clearly does not take a genius to work this one out. But you might think it through a little bit. Because if that is the case, and I think that it is, I am not sure that you will necessarily be happy with the conclusions you will be led to as to why you consider it so important to have your omni posts counted and displayed for all to see... What I care about is not my post count, but my posts being deemed as worthy in OMNI as those that happen in the Delta Lounge or off-topic threads in British Airways. It is disenfranchisement of a community that has made OMNI great. @:-) I daresay the ones with the post-envy are the ones that are jealous of the OMNI Game Thread folks. |
Actually, the jealously, such as it is, sure seems to be coming from the side of the house that wants to continue to rack up a huge post count counting down from 10 zillion.
What would really be nice is if Randy made this retroactive to when he first announced it, and took all other non-mile/point forums along for the same ride. |
Originally Posted by ClueByFour
(Post 9312929)
Actually, the jealously, such as it is, sure seems to be coming from the side of the house that wants to continue to rack up a huge post count counting down from 10 zillion.
|
Originally Posted by ClueByFour
(Post 9312929)
What would really be nice is if Randy made this retroactive to when he first announced it, and took all other non-mile/point forums along for the same ride.
However if anyone here requires ego reduction surgery (a manual decrement of post count) I'm sure the House of Miles can arrange that for you. You only need to ask. |
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
(Post 9312904)
You are really barking up the wrong tree here Nick. For if I have post-count envy, why have I said repeatedly that I will forego my post count?
I daresay the ones with the post-envy are the ones that are jealous of the OMNI Game Thread folks. It is disenfranchisement of a community that has made OMNI great. @:-) So, you must be referring to the figurative sense of disenfranchisement, whci means the loss of power of opportunities. And I have to ask again: what exactly is the power or opportunity that you and "the community that has made omni great" have lost? what is it that you could do before and no longer can do? (If I were to be facetious, I might be tempted to say that, if anything, it would seem that your power and opportunities have increased, since it would seem that you feel enabled to speak on behalf on the whole "community that made omni great" :).) So, do let us know. Because if you are unable to pinpoint what that loss or power or opportunity is, then clearly the time has come to stop speaking of any mythical "disenfranchisement". |
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 9313102)
Sorry if I was not clear on this. I do not mean this in a personal manner, as in the real person that uses magiciansampras as a handle. Rather, what I was doing was drawing out the implications of the line of reasoning that you put forward, when you draw the argument, not without reason imo, onto a psychonanalytical plane.
Originally Posted by you
Oh, but wait, is that not what you wanted? It is not the ability to display your post count that you are after, I hear you say?
Originally Posted by you
you have not lost your ability to boast and/or feel proud about the size of your post count including omni posts.
Originally Posted by you
So, it is not just about leaving you free to do what yo want then, is it? It is about forcing all of us to worship to the altar of omni post counts.
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 9313102)
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it.
Originally Posted by me
Well if we're going to be reasonable about this (imagine that!) I think it would be safe to say that there is probably jealousy, on behalf of some, on both sides.
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 9313102)
Either there is a psychonalaytical dimension to this, and you need to work it out in all its ramifications or there is not.
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 9313102)
But if that is so, why is it so? what does it say about the significance of post-count? And if there is such a significance, what does it say about those who think that making sure that all their posts are counted really, really matters?
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 9313102)
You know, you can keep repeating the word "disenfranchisement" a hundred million time. That will still not amount to providing any explanation or reasoning of what exactly that alleged disenfranchisement consists of. Disenfranchisement, in its original meaning, means being deprived of the right to vote. I take it that this is not what you meant by disenfranchisement in this context, since I don't see any right to vote that would be lost by no longer having omni posts included in post counts.
So, you must be referring to the figurative sense of disenfranchisement, whci means the loss of power of opportunities. And I have to ask again: what exactly is the power or opportunity that you and "the community that has made omni great" have lost? what is it that you could do before and no longer can do? (If I were to be facetious, I might be tempted to say that, if anything, it would seem that your power and opportunities have increased, since it would seem that you feel enabled to speak on behalf on the whole "community that made omni great" :).)
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 9313102)
So, do let us know. Because if you are unable to pinpoint what that loss or power or opportunity is, then clearly the time has come to stop speaking of any mythical "disenfranchisement".
|
Just as a reference for everyone, disenfranchise has two different meanings.
The first is what I am presuming NickB is thinking about and is probably the most well known definition due to FL in the 2000 election is to deprive someone of a right of citizenship such as the right to vote. The second definition, is what magiciansampras is talking about is to deprive a privilege, right, or franchise. While I don't think anyone is arguing that the OMNI posts not counting is depriving anyone of a right of citizenship. (Although if FT ever forms it's own country... :) ) It can be argued that the OMNI posts counting towards one's post count is a privilege and the fact that it was removed disenfranchised everyone that utilizes that area of FT. I have stated my position much earlier in this thread and do not see the need to rehash it since I don't believe a rehashing would contribute to further the debate. We now continue with the regularly scheduled debate :) |
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
(Post 9313152)
Sigh. I don't have time to educate you on the meaning of disenfranchisement
It is a real pity for me that I am too thick to understand your argument as I have some difficulties in relating the question of not counting omni post in post count to disenfranchisement in a Foucauldian sense but I understand that this is only a reflection of my extremely limited intellectual abilities and that it would be too arduous a task for you to explain to a thick skull like mine, so I will bow out and let other FTers who are clearly much more knowledgeable of Foucauldian thought than myself and much more worthy to take part in this discussion. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:44 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.