FWIW, every single motion that the TB makes is a suggestion to Randy that something about FT be changed/improved. TB is an advisory council, not a policy-making body.

The wording of this motion was carefully chosen so as to make it perfectly clear to all posters that this is the case and not create any unwarranted expectations one way or the other. After all, if this motion had said "OMNI posts shall count...," and was passed by the TB it would have put Randy into the uncomfortable position of having to act totally against the TB's advice if that was his will.

So the wording of the motion was meant to:

1) Set realistic expectations,
2) Be as respectful of Randy as possible and
3) It was also crafted, as J-M notes, to put TB members on the record with regard to Randy's decision (since we never got that opportunity BEFORE he made the change) so that posters can know where their TB members stand on this issue without wading through 600 posts on the subject.

You must be one of the jealous ones. :D

Um, I believe ClubByFour agreed that there was jealousy on both sides.

Please make it clear that you are not speaking for all of us. This is opinion, not fact. Thanks!

I am green with envy. Nothing gets me quite as excited as a large ... post count. ;)

As things stand now, I would most likely vote again for you -- including for reasons related to my preference that OMNI posts be counted since I find that OMNI is a part of FT and an integral part of generating a sense of community -- but I am not convinced that this motion is the right approach.

Perhaps the motion might help set realistic expectations as you say; but I don't see how it necessarily does anything for "2"; nor do I personally see myself gaining anything from "3" which seems to be a game of "gotcha!" rather than an actual delivery of anything.

Sometimes I think some current and former members of TalkBoard are a bit too fond of practicing their political gamesmanship skills to nail their targets -- those targets being other FTers (and other FTers' post counts) -- and I'm not sure how I'm any better off from it than I was the last time around.

I would think so too.

I keep seeing that 'political gamesmanship' concept thrown around and it mystifies me.

Here is EXACTLY how my thinking went (and if you could read the private TB you'd see that this is true):

I thought Randy made a poor decision (although this is his prerogative).

I was disappointed that Randy didn't consult the TB before making the decision especially since the TB was already discussing the 'problem(s)' (although this is his prerogative).

As a member of the TB I felt that the TB should go on the record regarding his decision one way or the other (although Randy is under no obligation to listen).

Wanting to as respectful of Randy as possible I did two things:
1) Put the super-majority requirement on asking Randy to reconsider rather than on affirming his decision.

2) Made it clear that the goal was a suggestion to Randy rather than anything stronger such as a demand.


When I ran for TB I promised to speak and vote my mind and to do my best to make sure that the TB goes on the record on reasonable issues rather than letting them linger in 'discussion limbo.' Because without read-only access to the private TB forum that's the only way (aside from wading through hundreds of posts) that posters can know whether and how their TB members are representing them and that's with a formal motion and vote.

I hope that clarifies rather than muddies! :)

Yup.

The jealousy statement will never be admitted because I dont expect anyone to actually admit it (even if they were jealous). No proof from either side on statements of that nature :D

It helps -- unless or until someone jumps in and says something like "well, not exactly". :eek:

Thank you as it definitely helps put things in more perspective.

Just for my own sake -- since I want to understand TB procedures better than one candidate for President understands the economy -- can you tell me under what circumstances TB can put on or off the super-majority-requirement on a motion?

Koko, I for one don't doubt that your motives were pure and exactly as you stated them. Your objective (number 3) of putting the TB on record on the issue immediately conflicts directly with being as respectful to Randy as possible. Had you been willing to demote objective number 3 to lesser importance than objective number 2, you might have taken another approach. For example, delaying putting the TB on record until you had worked out a consensus proposal.

A super-majority (2/3) is always required for a regular TB motion to pass.

So it's all in the way one phrases the motion.

If I make a motion 'that the TB agrees with Randy's decision not count OMNI posts' then a 2/3 majority is required to pass that vote and put the TB in concurrence with Randy's decision.

If I make a motion 'that the TB ask Randy to reconsider his decision...' then a 2/3 majority is required for the TB to formally ask Randy to reconsider.

Now if I had gone with the former motion rather than the latter I think it would be fair to say that I was playing political games.

Just as if I made a motion that 'The TB recommend that no VX forum be created' so that it would fail and I could use that result to imply that a VX forum needs to be created I would be playing political games.

And while playing political games can be fun, I don't think they are in the beste interests of Flyertalk...

That is true. OTOH, no consensus position has arisen in this nor any other discussion of this topic nor did/do I believe one exists. Flyertalkers appear TO ME to be fairly evenly split on this question as last year's discussion and TB vote seemed to indicate.

That being the case, the status quo will prevail. And thanks to Randy's decision a couple weeks ago that status quo is now that OMNI and CC dont count but the rest of FT does.

But at least now this TB is on record on this question (or will be tomorrow in any case...).

Outstanding explanation. I hope this will stop anyone from accusing you of playing political games.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this thread, nor any other thread on the topic, accurately depicts how 160,000 FTers feel on the issue. There's been threads in OMNI alerting posters there about this thread, so they're more likely to be aware of it and be posting here. We don't have a thread in the AA or UA forum alerting posters about this thread, so they may not even know about it if they're infrequent OMNI posters, or have been scared off from posting in OMNI. If you publicized it across FT, maybe then you'd have a more accurate view, or even more so if you used FT's polling feature.