|
So what exactly was your specific reason, Kiwi Flyer? Or yours, Clue?
Sometimes people talk and talk and talk and it is really hard to figure out if they have said anything. I have tried to read every post, painful as it might be, in search of real answers and have failed to find any, beyond the jealousy bit, so, if you actually have any, help me out and share them with me here and now. It appears, tcook052, that Randy has reconsidered the motion and rejected it, so I guess from that standpoinrt the motion was a success, or maybe a failure, depending on one's point of view. ;) Of course, Randy at this point can always do anything he darned well pleases regardless of what TalkBoard or the general membership think or say. That is why we call it a benevolent dictatorship. :D No, tcook052, the is no prohibition against starting another, maybe even better, motion after, or even before this one concludes. |
Originally Posted by Punki
(Post 9320828)
Loosely stealing a quote from my colleague, Cholula, "I would second a ham sandwich".
Translation for those of you who don't get it: If an elected TalkBoard member has an idea that they think is worthy of a motion, I will second it, whether or not I agree with it, just because I think any idea that a TalkBoard member thinks worthy of a motion is worthy of discussion and consideration, both private and public. |
Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer
(Post 9320787)
I answered in the other thread you started.
Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer
(Post 9306042)
A number of FTers have already given their reasons why OMNI posts shouldn't count.
Rightly or wrongly some (most?) newer FTers do equate post count with travel knowledge. If post counts more accurately reflected posting about travel then that is a good thing. Sure it will not be perfect - no system is. But not counting OMNI (and CC) is a very simple way to improve on the old post count. I don't think OMNI posts should count. I'm not anti-OMNI as some would characterise me. Heck I post enough there and should post count be adjusted retroactively (as it was once before on the WWBTNFTMTP thread) I'll be impacted more than most. |
Originally Posted by Punki
(Post 9320861)
Sometimes people talk and talk and talk and it is really hard to figure out if they have said anything.
the is no prohibition against starting another, maybe even better, motion after, or even before this one concludes. |
Oh, exactly like much of this thread. :D :D :D You Kiwi Flyer do not, IMHO, fall into this group.
Well, to tell you the truth, tcook052, I probably would not put forward another motion before this one was completed, but, you asked the question and I, as a good little TalkBoard member, was trying to help you understand the procedure as best I could. As far as Kiwi Flyer's idea goes, he has expressed his unsubstantiated opinion. It could be right and it could be wrong. I have no better way of knowing if it is true than he does. It is certainly a better opinion to consider than "I think it is in the best interests of FlyerTalk to discontinue OMNI post counts" but certainly not emperical or binding. You may puzzle away, nsx, but I am all for communitiy involvement and think that the general membership has a right to know about, and give input on, all things being considered by TalkBoad. Again, I am just not egomaniacal enough to think that only those subjects with which I agree are worthy of discussion and considertion. |
Hmm, so basically anyone who posts their thoughts is unsubtantiated Punki? What exactly constitutes unsubstantiated? That they agree w/ you? :rolleyes:
You asked me specifically & I was going to respond (& did a lot of research on my own & others viewpoints), but after reading some of your comments where you disregarded others' input as either not important enough or not in keeping w/ your viewpoints (while under the guise of requesting info), I decided not to bother. My vote is against. I made it plain to the TB members. They will take in the input, while hopefully avoiding the 1000th post by the same folk & just count their initial votes (whose initial posts are totally valid btw!). FWIW & IMO - doing a public motion asking Randy to 'reconsider' immediately after his decision was not one of the best thought-out motions I've seen on FT. Duh. There are some thoughts on this thread (actually by folks I wouldn't normally agree w/) that to me have better value, even if who knows on their chances of success. But speaking only for myself, a public call-out right after a decision. Did I say :rolleyes: yet? To paraphrase Spiff, OVMV. Cheers. See you on Friday after 5:10am. "Are we there yet?" PS - Speaking in advance, if this motion fails, I have totally sympathy for those TB members who voted against cuz the name calling & black helicopter comments will begin immediately after. ;) Good luck! Cheers. |
Originally Posted by Punki
(Post 9321031)
Well, to tell you the truth, tcook052, I probably would not put forward another motion before this one was completed
|
So, SkiAdcock, would you please post why you are against OMNI post counts so I could consier your opinion?
|
Stolen from Last Year
Last Year, I said:
This is an important issue... more than most posters may at first recognize, and it isn't really about simple and silly threads on Omni that exist solely for padding post counts. It also really isn't primarily about post count being a substitutional metric for trust. It still makes sense today. I'm opposed to this year's motion.This core issue is behavioral, and concerned with behavioral motivation in a relatively large community. Most behavior is, at one level or another, driven by reward, or lack thereof, based on metrics that include status and renumeration, or currency. The only measurable currency on FT is post count and title, and right now, it is earned without regard to "quality" of the behavior relative to the core purpose of the board. If the core purpose of this board is travel related conversation, then any currency on this website should be structured to reward travel related discussion, and issue no reward for other discussion. The Omni section of the board exists solely for this other discussion, and participation in it should confer no "currency" or reward in the board status system. The analogy here is to cut back a plant that grows tall and thin, because pruning will make it much fuller and more vibrant. Status is real, and everyone here knows it, because it is avidly pursued in a hundred different proxies for "real life" status, including FF programs, etc. Status is just as real on FT, and is conferred by post count, titles, elected office, etc. It is no more and no less than a proxy for "real life." So again, the issue here is to whether status is to be granted for noncore activities on this board. The lengths to which people will go to obtain this status is evident by the lengths to which they argue against their own dimunition of status in this thread, often without making reference to that as being their motivation. That alone acts as validation of the core theory. I applaud the TB for willingness to adjust board status in the "coin of the realm" by making it aligned with behaviors that increase the total value of the community. (Note: Minor edits to the quote for clarity and spelling) |
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
(Post 9321096)
Hmm, so basically anyone who posts their thoughts is unsubtantiated Punki? What exactly constitutes unsubstantiated? That they agree w/ you? :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Brian
(Post 9321136)
Last Year, I said:
It still makes sense today. I'm opposed to this year's motion. (Note: Minor edits to the quote for clarity and spelling) |
Originally Posted by majorwibi
(Post 9321187)
Based on these statements (which BTW I dont disagree with) a lot of other forums should have their post counts removed?
Generally, in most other Fora, the TOS, if evenly and consistently applied, would resolve the issue. But it's very hard to apply TOS consistently without appearing overbearing in threads that, at face value, don't seem disruptive. But they are then used as precedent for matters like this. Omni is different. It is not travel related, TOS are interpreted generally differently, and it is very lightly moderated. |
Originally Posted by Brian
(Post 9321136)
Last Year, I said:
This is an important issue... more than most posters may at first recognize, and it isn't really about simple and silly threads on Omni that exist solely for padding post counts. It also really isn't primarily about post count being a substitutional metric for trust. It still makes sense today. I'm opposed to this year's motion.This core issue is behavioral, and concerned with behavioral motivation in a relatively large community. Most behavior is, at one level or another, driven by reward, or lack thereof, based on metrics that include status and renumeration, or currency. The only measurable currency on FT is post count and title, and right now, it is earned without regard to "quality" of the behavior relative to the core purpose of the board. If the core purpose of this board is travel related conversation, then any currency on this website should be structured to reward travel related discussion, and issue no reward for other discussion. The Omni section of the board exists solely for this other discussion, and participation in it should confer no "currency" or reward in the board status system. The analogy here is to cut back a plant that grows tall and thin, because pruning will make it much fuller and more vibrant. Status is real, and everyone here knows it, because it is avidly pursued in a hundred different proxies for "real life" status, including FF programs, etc. Status is just as real on FT, and is conferred by post count, titles, elected office, etc. It is no more and no less than a proxy for "real life." So again, the issue here is to whether status is to be granted for noncore activities on this board. The lengths to which people will go to obtain this status is evident by the lengths to which they argue against their own dimunition of status in this thread, often without making reference to that as being their motivation. That alone acts as validation of the core theory. I applaud the TB for willingness to adjust board status in the "coin of the realm" by making it aligned with behaviors that increase the total value of the community. (Note: Minor edits to the quote for clarity and spelling) |
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
(Post 9321096)
Hmm, so basically anyone who posts their thoughts is unsubtantiated Punki? What exactly constitutes unsubstantiated?
|
SkiAdcock writes:
Hmm, so basically anyone who posts their thoughts is unsubtantiated Punki? What exactly constitutes unsubstantiated? That they agree w/ you? 1. High post counts by gamers make other high-post members jealous; and 2. Some newbies might think that people with high post counts have knowledge that they do not actually have. Thank you for that input, Kiwi Flyer. I sincerely do appreciate it. Conisdering all of that input, I have to make my own decisions after doing my own research. I am not impressed by what does or does not make people jealous. People given to jealousy will always find a reason. Further, I do not think that "newbies" are stupid enough to think that a high post count equals knowledge. In my own case, for instance, I have almost 10,000 post, with probably less than a dozen game posts, have flown over 150,000 miles a year for the past ten years and maintained 1k status for United and top status for both Hilton and Starwood for the same period of time, but I honestly don't know squat about American Airlines or Marriott. Despite my credentials, anybody who listened to my opinion about BA would have to be crazy. People have to be, and I do believe are, selective in what they believe, and are not really easily swayed by post counts. I have asked earlier and will ask again, does anybody really have evidende of a case where a newbie was misled by a gamester? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:30 am. |
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.