Let's try to maintain some perspective about TB's role. Its function is an advisory board to Randy Petersen. That Randy permits his advisors to be chosen by popular vote doesn't change the nature of the counsel. Because, what he has permitted ...

... does not obviate his prerogative to act unilaterally in the long-term best interests of FT:


As for the sandbox itself, it is a member-driven forum for the exchange of info about miles and points and related topics. Labeling the membership as "We, The Customer" distorts the true nature of their roles as individuals. A Member is a source (as well as beneficiary) of the info contained here, but that fact does not _entitle_ them to decide how to run FT, even if granted a term of advisory status. The position of member-advisor on matters of FT management is a privilege, not a right, which is why Randy is under no obligation to heed TB. Talkboard -- like the member-moderator crew -- ultimately serves at Randy's pleasure, and so he is not constitutionally or morally bound to follow their advice (whether asked for or unasked).

Back to topic.

Our virtual rumpus room for letting off steam, which we affectionately refer to as OMNI, is merely a bonus privilege -- an elite perk, in FT parlance -- of membership. RP could temporarily (or even permanently) pull the plug on it at any point. I think some here are pushing their luck that he won't do what has already done once before. @:-)

Indeed!

But just so I'm clear on your position, you're saying that post count is just a counter. It conveys nothing more, nothing less. Is that right?

This post exhibits the feelings I mentioned earlier. Somehow I should feel grateful to Randy for OMNI and probably for something else. I don't get this mindset, sorry. I'm a customer. I've spent money subscribing to IF in the past and spend money each year to sidestep the advertisements.

I shouldn't have to explain why I want to question a decision that I, frankly, find capricious (not arbitrary, but capricious). And I shouldn't have to feel gratitude that someone doesn't pull the plug on OMNI or FT entirely. If that's what happens, it happens. Something would fill the void in the marketplace and in my life.

So, considering you were elected to represent the members, are you saying that you're actually representing Randy? If that's the case, I hope you plan to defend that position when you come up for re-election. The TB should be composed of FTers who represent the members wishes and make and vote on motions to forward those wishes to Randy.

Whether or not he chooses to act on them is immaterial. If you're acting as Randy's voice on the TB, why should we even have a TB?

^

I've made my views quite clear in the now closed ORP thread and over in OMNI. (as an aside, RP basically telling a poster "I don't want you posting here" when he called him on previous conflicting statements really, really, really rubbed me the wrong way. I was reminded of the confrontation between Andy Dufrense and the warden in Shawshank Redemption that landed Andy a trip to the hole.)

If you're going to have a post count (whether it's on the normal thread view or relegated to the user profile page), every post should count.

Your question is rather ridiculous.

It's funny how several people posting in this forum are somehow the voices for the 160,000 or so registered FlyerTalkers.

If a dozen people posted support of a suggestion to rename this bulletin board "FlyerPoop", and no one voiced an objection to such a request, guess what? I'd still vote against it.

Part of being on an advisory board is to make recommendations that not only reflect the wishes of those who elected me to serve, but also that make good sense for business or entity that is receiving the advising. I'm not sure how that translates into being Randy's voice on the TalkBoard, but I'm maybe I'm just not thinking the same way you do.

In any event, as to "defending my position" come possible re-election time, is this yet another "I didn't get my way so I'm not going to vote for you so there!" (and there goes Teddy again) post or are you making a cryptic offer to be my campaign manager, should I choose to seek re-election?

But you have to admit that the name is not only unique but also a little catchy!!

Demean the question to obfuscate and dodge it. Interesting strategy.

Maybe, maybe not... but those are the viewpoints you're getting and you've already made it quite clear in this thread that you don't care about member input. If you won't even listen to this group of members, how do you presume to know what the other 160,000 want? If you don't know what the other 160,000 want, and you refuse to listen to the members who do give their opinion, then exactly what do you base your votes on?

Now you're backpedaling. Earlier in this thread you said that you would not advise Randy to change a decision in spite of the wishes of the members you are representing unless it was a "colossal blunder". Now we've gone from "colossal blunder" to you "reflecting the wishes of those who elected [you]" and "mak[ing] good sense for business".

So which is it? Are you willing to consider member input? Or are you just going to steadfastly support Randy's position regardless of member opinions?

Neither... I'm simply stating that other Flyertalkers may feel differently come election time if they realize that a certain TB member doesn't care to consider the input of the members who elected him.

Actually, I demeaned the question and then answered it anyway. Your question was and still is ridiculous, but I still took the time to answer it. I don't think that's obfuscation or an attempt to dodge it.

By a few people in this thread. Others have been rather vocal elsewhere that they are happy with the change, would like to see post counts go away all together, couldn't care less, and other views too.

Untrue. Sorry, you can't always have your way. Poor Teddy.


Again, your research is suspect at best. And rather presumptuous too. How about the people who posted in other threads or at other times? How about the people who have contacted me by email, PM, or telephone? I guess they don't count because they didn't happen to post in this particular thread. So sorry, there are other opinions being registered, whether you get to see them in this thread or not.

I've already answered this rather ridiculous question.

And other FlyerTalkers might not be reaching the same bizarre "It's all about me!!!" conclusions that you are.

Some of us have even posted in this thread requesting that things stay exactly as they are now! So Spiff is indeed listening to (some of) the FT members.

Dave

The honorable Mr. Spiff has made his viewpoint abundantly clear and his logic behind it. As much as I disagree with his viewpoint and his logic, as I have said before, that alone does not make it incorrect. I respect him for his opinion.

As I have stated before, the central issue is how as a community resolves problems and whether or not making unilateral decisions without gaining any input from either the elected representatives of the community or the community at large a good precedent.

I clearly do not think that is sets a good precedent, especially when you consider all of various factors involved, such as the misleading explaination. If he wanted to do it, that was his perogative, but don't give the community an reason that has more holes in it then a slice of swiss cheese.

Reguardless of if this motion passes or not, the debate will not end on this topic. There will be people on both sides of the issue that feel like they got the short end of the stick.

But what this motion does, is give the community as a whole time. Time to work out a better compromise while not making a certain segment of it feel like they have been disenfranchised since things were put back to how they were.

It seems like there are several arguments that keep coming up every time this topic comes up for debate. How to attempt to resolve all of these different issues hasn't been a topic that I've seen debated?

That is a debate I would like to see because it can cause out of the box thinking to get the best possible solution. Now, we see in one fell swoop, the posts don't count towards one's post count. (Not withstanding Mr. Spiff's nice use of x86 assembler...I started laughing when I saw that) If they don't count, why have the conversation later?

One such example of thinking outside the box, would have been to put a clause in this motion so that it resets to the current state in 90 days or the end of a motion's voting, if the TB doesn't pass another motion addressing all of the issues of OMNI.

Punki, I agree wholeheartedly with your desire for an extended dialog leading to a workable solution that will address most of the concerns. However I disagree that forcing a vote is the right way to promote that dialog. It's like rounding up people at gunpoint rather than sending engraved invitations. Sure, you guarantee attendance, but you kill the collegial spirit.

Given that a majority voted to stop counting OMNI posts last time, there is no realistic chance of a 2/3 vote in the other direction this time. Forcing this immediate vote is both superfluous and divisive. It looks to me like confrontation for the sake of confrontation, rather than genuine solution seeking.

I have no axe to grind on post counts. I don't pay any attention to them, other than momentary notice of a round number. If others care about post counts, I'm willing to listen to what they want and try to find a way to please them without hurting the value of FT for the rest of us. But I'll have to control my natural inclination to see this whole debate as silly.

For starters, I can see that a major root cause is a lack of TOS enforcement in OMNI. Because that is outside TB's purview we have a challenge that may require input from Randy and the moderators. This seemingly silly topic will be quite difficult to untangle. An issue with so little at stake is ideally suited to helping us all learn something, not least how to work together constructively.

Punki, I recommend that you withdraw your seconding of the current proposal, stopping the vote. Then you and kokonutz can post progressive refinements of alternate versions here until you have a version that meets with general (not unanimous I'm sure) acceptance. You may find that Randy adopts it before you even have a chance to vote on formally recommending it to him!

I, for one, am pleased with Randy's decision.

What's the big deal anyway...

I'd go one step further, allowing only 1 post count per thread. OMNI posts excluded.

It might be helpful for those that post in this thread to note their level of activity in OMNI. Thanks!