Randy Petersen

If a post of yours is missing, it is because it is off-topic. Thank you.

SkiAdcock

Speaking for myself, I'm getting a bit tired (ok, way tired) of others who support Omni posts counting stating they represent the 'majority of FTers'.

Here's the bottom line - your vote/thought as a member represents you only. If others feel the same way (or differently) they can post & they'll represent only themselves. If they choose not to post, email or PM, that does not mean you (the generic you, not specific) suddenly get to represent them.

I'm not a techie so no idea how/if it could be implemented, but I like the idea of break-outs of posts so that people could see where the majority of them are (ie, UA, etc). Alternatively the 1 post count per thread also works for me. You get credit for posting, but aren't inflating the #s. Granted if someone is so obsessed that they would suddenly have to resort to padposting in multiple threads to get their posts up, they could do so. But I'd hazard a guess that mods of the travel forums would probably catch on to that. But getting out of logistics & back to the topic.

To all members of the TB: representing only myself - I vote against asking Randy to reconsider his decision.

Cheers.

Prospero

Thought I should raise my head above the parapet and make a single post voicing my own view...

I am entirely comfortable with Randy's decision. That pretty much covers it

NickB

Indeed.
The thing is, we have been there already in the past and we know that this is a divisive issue over which there is no overwhelming majority either way.

Now you would have thought that, armed with this knowledge, all TB members would have been relieved of having Randy deal with it and save us from going through yet another gazillion posts in which the temperature of the debate keeps rising at time goes by.

But no, some people are crusaders who know the Truth (with a capital T) and know that God is on their side and so think that it is worth having another religious war about this.

magiciansampras

Not surprising given that of your 4000+ posts, a mere 39 of them were in OMNI.

Like I said earlier, it strikes me that a lot of the folks against this proposal never step inside the OMNI forum...

Dovster

On the other hand, I also am against this proposal and I have 8737 posts on Omni.

As I have stated earlier, I would go a lot further than Randy has by including all the non-Miles and Posts forums and threads and making the whole thing retroactive -- which would reduce my post count far below the "Evangelist" level and leave that title to those who contribute to the sharing of knowledge about FT's raison d'etre.

magiciansampras

Good, I wish everyone in this thread was as forthright as you.

As for your suggestion, I like it because it is at least consistent. Signaling out OMNI is a bad idea, IMHO.

As always, OFTMDA.

nsx

How about we change the 10k moniker from "FT Evangelist" to "FT Addict"? Then maybe people wouldn't waste other members' time merely to increment the post counter.

magiciansampras

Or we could remove them altogether. @:-)

nsx

Indeed. Reality-based monikers would have a progression like this:

FT Newbie
FT Lurker
FT Tortoise
FT Searcher
FT Explorer
FT Contributor
FT Loudmouth
FT Slut
FT Addict
FT Obsessive



BTW, everyone posting here qualifies at least for the Addict level.

tazi

I am against this proposal and close to 1/3 of my total post count is OMNI based (2300+).

wharvey

Why not include Coupon Connection posts?

kokonutz

FWIW, far from being relieved I was very surprised that Randy re-raised this controversial issue by implementing the non-counting policy in spite of a vote by the last TB that did not recommend that he do so (although a majority of the TB voted that the posts not count, it was not a super-majority required by the TB rules).

FWIW,though, I prefer to call it Pravda...

ClueByFour

There might, just might, be a message there.

lin821

I don't agree with the above logic.

Post counts can only represent the number of posts the say person post in FT. What those numbers tell us is another story.

I visit FT EVERYDAY but I don't post daily. Sometimes I don't post a thing. At times, I post more than I should have (especially when I should focus on my dissertation. ) Technically, my (public) post counts don't equate to the frequency of my FT visits.

FTers can participate or engage themselves in other ways (such as PM, email; even phone calls or DOs...etc). The current system of post counts doesn't assign a number to those kind of activities. However, for those FTers who engage in those activities ARE nothing less than participating/contributing.

Logic fallacy, again.

I don't know whether it's a lot or just few NEVER take a peek of OMNI. I wouldn't say for certain unless I have data to back me up. @:-)

It's true that not every FTer who had got the OMNI admittance visits OMNI. On the other hand, not every FTer who visits OMNI chooses to post. Speaking for myself, my 1st OMNI post was way after my 1st OMNI visit. I don't visit OMNI daily nor do I post there whenever I stop by. I am against counting OMNI posts and the current TB motion though.

Last but not least, not every FTer who supports Randy's decision choose to speak up by posting. On the other hand, for those FTers who are all for counting OMNI posts, some choose to be very vocal in this thread or any other places they deem fit. Speaking loudly or louder doesn't make anyone's own view the majority.

From this thread, here are some examples of who share similar thoughts like mine: