TalkBoard Topics - Request for 2nd sub-forum in Mileage Run with criterias similar to Coupon Connection

Dear TalkBoard members,


as you probably know, the Mileage Run forums can be a blessing, as well as a curse. Many Flyertalkers come here in order to find cheap fares or deals, and certainly, many real bargains could be had over the course of many years.

However, the sharing of deals and loopholes does not only have positive aspects – there are negative aspects as well. Deals tend to disappear quickly once posted out in the open, or they’re simply copied by bloggers who can easily access all the information in the respective threads.

Apart from the negative feedback from quite a substantial number of members, us Mileage Run forum moderators have also discovered another very negative effect – many knowledgeable posters leave the forum within a rolling 2-3 year period because they do not feel comfortable with sharing their deals out in the open anymore. Many members have left Flyertalk for the discussion of Mileage Run related issues since they are uncomfortable with sharing information that even becomes readily accessible to anybody savvy enough to use Google.

Many things regarding this issue have already been discussed with regards to: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/866063-vote-complete-motion-failed-restrict-access-mileage-run-deals-logged-users.html

We are certainly aware of the fact that one will never be able to stop airline lurkers or bloggers from accessing information on Flyertalk. Also, restricting one of the most interesting forums on Flyertalk completely would probably also not be the right solution.

However, we strongly believe that the creation of a second sub-forum to the Mileage Run forum with a closed-off criteria identical to those of the Coupon Connection can provide an environment that many users feel comfortable again to discuss and share ("de-googelize it", as a fellow member put it in the other thread). Based on PMs we have received, a major priority for many users seems to be that despite lurkers possibly gaining access to such a closed-off subforum as well, that they are definitely sharing with active members of the community who have at least posted to a certain extent on the boards.

We humbly submit this issue again for your review – this time it’s us volunteer moderators making the request on behalf of the members. We hope that you’ll be able to reach a positive vote on this matter, at least offering a chance to stop the exodus of long-standing members’ know-how to other forums outside of Flyertalk.

Also on behalf of my fellow Mileage Run forum moderators jpdx, BiziBB and beaubo


rcs85551

A suggestion I support and one that I too hope TB reconsiders.

Thank you for expressing our concerns so eloquently, rcs85551!

As one of the moderators of the MR forum, I am convinced that the time has come for a closed-off MR subforum. Thank you for your consideration, members of TB!

We volunteer Mods of Mileage Run have had issues with outbreaks of fear, loathing and hysteria in 2009 and 2010, regarding a few prominent topics or threads. Regulars will be familiar with them. We have had regular and major diversions of topics onto the need for some structural changes in the MR forums, in the interest of preserving deals and/or allowing some freer sharing.

We have been kept busy with a number of issues, but many come back to the tension between sharing and losing deals.

Some kind of step, in fact any step to a structural experiment in a members-only access, could be a chance to test out what many people have requested.
Not necessarily for all deals, but just for delicate topics (which were done in riddles and tricks until now, in the interests of preservation!).

Since there are so many differing opinions, I think that this needs to be framed as recognising a problem, first, then considering if no action is better than some actions.

I recommend that you peruse the great sharing, givng, encrypting, learning, helping, doing and stealing/pirating thread in Mileage Run Discussion (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-discussion/930922-trick-negotiate-special-savings-lounge-thread-337.html).
It is almost 5200 posts now and the recent losses of the Trick due to the piracy of the trick (and its almost immediate patching/closing by UA) is an example of where FT has failed to provide what many have requrested.

Mileage Run mods have been occupied with these problem for a long time but we just clean up the mess, but we see the frustration and disappointment come through very often, but are bound by the limitations of the current structure.

It is the users of the forum who have invested a lot of commitment and time, who lose when the valued posters who share a lot of deals or techniques for deals, desert the forum or stop sharing special fares and opportunities.

Check the recent pages of the trick thread to see people suggesting sharing off the forum.

We are all probably aware of secret deals being shared amongst friends; the lack of any special subforum (even just a specialist thread like a 'savings lounge' for loyal FTers) for tricks or special fares has meant that each major issue on the FT Mileage Run forums eventually leads to less sharing and fewer people generously sharing.

If you were a cardiologist and you noticed a problem with someone's heart, would you just leave the problem rather than try to treat it? That is what I infer from reading the discussion of the matter in the Mileage Run Discussion forum. At its heart,FT is all about finding, sharing, learning and doing deals to get miles, so we need to retain a place for certain discussions which the MR forums are great for. Please look at the problem and try to help with some action from TB to deal with it.


Thanks to all contributors (and former contributors) to Mileage Run.

It is sad to see MR forums decline. I hope that you can add your own perspective here on options to convince TalkBoard and/or Randy and the owner of this forum that the health and wellbeing of Mileage Run forums is an issue worth fighting for.

Special thanks to rcs85551 and jpdx who have been taking this up in person at a recent moderator function, last weekend. It must have been frustrating, not being able to get this thrashed out.
I wish that our request to discuss it as an agenda item had been successful. Hopefully it cannot be ignored now that it is posted here on TalkBoard. :)

Regards,
BiziBB, Moderator, Mileage Run

I understand the desire for a sub form, however I do wonder if you will loose your community growth along the way. As a regular reader with very few posts, I seriously think if the quality information is posted in hidden forums its its very likely that the site will loose my interest quickly.

FlyerTalk's lively discussion - often 500+ posts - helps to drive interest among new readers, as well as older readers.

Even if I can not identify how to do the fuel dumps, its still very interesting to think about what people are doing - and it increases knowledge within the community. Hopefully with that knowledge, at some point a reader like myself will stumble upon something useful the the community and add some value.

The best was to explain this is to say that I'm not going to spend a lot of time on FlyerTalk if the most of the posts I can read are along the lines of "what is the best airline program if you live near DCA" and "help me find a 20,000 mile mileage run out of DCA for this weekend for $100...."

I urge the FT Board to require an explicit statement of the criteria to join before approving this request. The current thread operates as a secret society IMHO contrary to the "community" of FT. Code words, unwillingness to help one figure it out (yes I -DID- print out the entire thread and try to piece together what was being done, several times, to no avail. Requests for clarification were not productive.), and not at all newbie friendly. Will the closed sub-thread perpetuate the past or will it ensure that the thread will reflect the FT "community" sharing spirit?

Glad this is being discussed in great detail.

So "seasoned" folks would be "in" on this subforum.
New folks would need to demonstrate a commitment of participation before being welcomed in to the subforum.

So this feels much like Coupon Connection, with it's qualifying (albeit minimal) requirements to post. I guess my concern is some "newbies" come to FT not because they heard of coupon connection, but because of a mistake fare they heard about from a friend, or a WSJ article talking about how FT is the place to be for deals and airline info. If we suddenly block a big reason why folks came in the first place, might it turn them off alltogether? Might we prevent ordinary folk from becoming fanboys/girls? Will our species eventually die off?

Also, who are we really concerned about? Not the newbies! They just ask dumb questions, as many of us did pre-500 posts. It's the airlines and hotel lurkers, and other spoilers that have changed our community. Its my belief that some of these rotten apples have well north of any minimum post criteria we may set. The world didn't just find out about FT last year..

In summary: Should we be looking at other creative means to determine eligibility? Some relationship with date joined/average posts per month/ and (big one), some QA test that is randomly performed by moderators or other assigned? Just my .02.

Again, thanks for continuing the discussion.

I for one have no problem whatsoever with the steps the mod squad is proposing and commend them for stepping forward and offering their opinions on the matter. It is time for TB to revist the issue and consider making changes to how MR Deals forum is accessed by members.

I understand the desire for a sub form, however I do wonder if you will loose your community growth along the way. As a regular reader with very few posts, I seriously think if the quality information is posted in hidden forums its its very likely that the site will loose my interest quickly.

I can understand that concern -- especially as Mileage Run was one of those forums that kept my interest level in FT higher than would otherwise be the case -- but I also understand that the current arrangement has lead to deal discussions going underground in various ways. The result of that being the more deal-plugged in members are probably not as active on FT as they could be again and there is at least some loss of (access to) expertise when it comes to valuable things other than just an extraordinarily good airfare.

Time spent PMing, emailing, and participating via other channels than FT is less time spent contributing openly on FT for the benefit of other active FT contributors on FT even on topics besides extraordinarily good airfares.

This approach suggested by the Mileage Run moderators won't turn back time and solve all of the problems related to deals closing as fast as they now do with discussions subsequently going deeper underground or into ever more esoteric shop-talk; but this approach seems pretty harmless to me with more upside for more FTers than the current "decline" of the Mileage Run forum(s) with ever deeper underground and esoteric communication.

I understand, and support, the need for a sort of "advanced MR techniques" forum, which understandably needs some more restrictions.

However, I would also suggest that with moving a lot of those intended discussions into a closed of part of FT, that subforum also keeps in mind that there will be aspirants in the MR forum, who could be of great value to the community. So I would suggest to also make sure there's information about "what is a fuel dump" and similar terms as a sticky/FAQ in the open part of the MR forum.

If topics are being discussed which are deemed "sensitive" and subsequently moved into the closed section, that should be done only under certain rules/circumstances etc.

In the long run, would the creation solve more problems then it could cause ?
(I don't know, at times I think it might, but then again, I've been a newbie in several areas before, and closed off sections are serious put-offs)

I understand the desire for a sub form, however I do wonder if you will loose your community growth along the way. As a regular reader with very few posts, I seriously think if the quality information is posted in hidden forums its its very likely that the site will loose my interest quickly.

That's exactly the reason why we believe that closing off the entire Mileage Run forum would be a mistake.

However, we cannot help but notice that any growth there is from new members is currently easily compensated by the loss of long-time and very knowledgeable members, who choose not to participate in the Mileage Run forum anymore since everything is accessible through Google and even to non-registered members.

The current thread operates as a secret society IMHO contrary to the "community" of FT. Code words, unwillingness to help one figure it out (yes I -DID- print out the entire thread and try to piece together what was being done, several times, to no avail. Requests for clarification were not productive.), and not at all newbie friendly. Will the closed sub-thread perpetuate the past or will it ensure that the thread will reflect the FT "community" sharing spirit?

That's exactly one of the reasons why us Mileage Run moderators are asking for this additional sub-forum. The current fuel surcharge "lounge" thread is virtually impossible to moderate, and all the cryptic language is not very user-friendly.

Having a sub-forum that is not as easily accessible, and most importantly, not spidered by the search engines, is our vision to bring back a more user-friendly environment to discuss those "hot topics" in a better way than it is today.

I urge the FT Board to require an explicit statement of the criteria to join before approving this request. The current thread operates as a secret society IMHO contrary to the "community" of FT. Code words, unwillingness to help one figure it out (yes I -DID- print out the entire thread and try to piece together what was being done, several times, to no avail. Requests for clarification were not productive.), and not at all newbie friendly. Will the closed sub-thread perpetuate the past or will it ensure that the thread will reflect the FT "community" sharing spirit?

I have similar thoughts as Bonnerbl. I have tried reading the fuel-lounge thread. It was just way too complicated. As a result I dont read that thread anymore.

That's exactly the reason why we believe that closing off the entire Mileage Run forum would be a mistake.

However, we cannot help but notice that any growth there is from new members is currently easily compensated by the loss of long-time and very knowledgeable members, who choose not to participate in the Mileage Run forum anymore since everything is accessible through Google and even to non-registered members.



That's exactly one of the reasons why us Mileage Run moderators are asking for this additional sub-forum. The current fuel surcharge "lounge" thread is virtually impossible to moderate, and all the cryptic language is not very user-friendly.

Having a sub-forum that is not as easily accessible, and most importantly, not spidered by the search engines, is our vision to bring back a more user-friendly environment to discuss those "hot topics" in a better way than it is today.

Well, it is indeed exciting to see the possibility of a closed MR-forum sub-thread. I think a lot of people can be helped.

I also feel that yes, there should definitely be a minimum number of posts required before access is given to that forum. Certain number of posts demonstrate commitment to FT.

As someone said upthread, as newbies, the first couple of hundred posts are spent on asking newbie questions. But, later, that person becomes a valuable resource.

I am new and I understand why some would want to close of this new area to newbies such as myself. Now I have asked for help in constructing MR's and finding lower fares but I am doing my own work trying to learn this as well. There's a lot of information out there and I want to absorb it all. The only thing I ask is that if you do close of an area of the MR forum is that you don't make it too hard to be able to get access to it, i.e. six months membership and 500+ posts. Also, an idea maybe after the post has been active for an x amount of time it is moved into the open MR forum. I am open to the idea but I just don't want to be shout out. I want to respect those who have been here for a long time but I want the opportunity to become one as well. Thanks.

I am sort of torn on this issue. Half the time I am on the site I am logged in, and half the time I am not. It would not be hard to train myself to be logged in more often.

When I log on, mileage run is the first place I go. I have tried to add in to this forum and share when I have knowledge to share, but I must honestly admit that in this forum I take more than I give. My knowledge and skills tend to be able to give more in other forums. I find that people on flyertalk are very kind, helpful and willing to share information. But I find that to be least true in mileage run.

I would gladly support a side forum with restrictions for entry if inside that sub forum people were more willing to share information. Like another person mentioned, I have been an active member. I only travel on my dime, and while I wish I could travel much more, I am somewhat limited. I would love to learn how to dump fuel, I get the general concept, but never understand the cryptic messages of exactly how it is getting done. This is such a frustration for me. It feels like that is a party going on, and I got a front row seat to watch it, from the other side of a fence.

In the end, count my vote as for the sub forum, with hope that it will be a great resource for everyone who meets the rules to have access to it.

I'll also take this moment to thank all those who contribute so much to this incredible resource and in particular to the moderators who volunteer their time to make it even better.

Mike

(quick side note ..... my blog mentioned in my signature is not a home for short term deals on flights.... it is information for my friends who are casual travelers to earn ff miles and things like that, click on link and see .... i only post a time or two a week, so please don't count my vote as that of the enemy.)

Flyertalk has changed. It's not a bad thing, but it is true.

In my opinion, the Mileage Run forum participants view is well stated by the moderators posts above. I'd like to thank the moderators for this request, and the style in which it is presented.

Having a "Level 2" or a "seperate sub-forum" will only add value to the Forum. I am 100% in favor of the proposal and would encourage the Talk Board to APPROVE it, please & thank you!

At first reading, this appears quite promising as a way to add value to FlyerTalk. I look forward to reading everyone's pro's and con's on this thread.

This is a great idea and I support it completely. Thank you to the moderators for putting this proposal together.

I realize that there is a great deal of concern that putting up a wall around some MR deals is contrary to the spirit of FT. Unfortunately, doing nothing is killing that same spirit with a thousand paper cuts.

In addition to a post count minimum, I hope strong and enforceable rules will be devised for this sub-forum. Just like CC is aggressively moderated, this sub-forum should be moderated to ensure that violators of terms are disabled from access to the forum. Reposting, retweeting, or reblogging of any deals posted should be violation #1.

I think this is a great idea and totally in the spirit of FT. It is about EXCHANGING information and tips! Having some level of active participation before accessing these more advanced tips and "secrets" will help maintain FT as a useful resource for all of us. If nothing is done I'm afraid that the most valuable contributors will find themselves in another more closed off forum and nothing of real value will be posted on FT anymore. I'm 100% in favor of creating this MR sub-forum.

I've been in favor of something like this for years. As long as there is a standard forum that even new users can post and see some deals on, I think everyone will be able to contribute. Sometimes the finer points have to be so obscured since anyone can see them, that many deals don't see the day of light on FT.

Sounds like the Mods have put a lot of thought into this, and it sounds good.

Whereas I like the idea in principle (protected deal forum), I'm not sure I fully support it. The challenge is that we need to look out for the well-being of all members, current and future, and their needs. I realize that a lot of great things that have been posted in the MR forum over the years have been abused & "closed" so that folks have taken it "underground" - but at what point would the new forum reach "saturation" and folks go "deeper underground"? Honestly, 500 posts & 6 months isn't that difficult of a thing to get to - and many deals posted have come from members with less than that "requirement".

I see the need & desire for a solution, but I'm not sure I know (or believe) that there's going to be a perfect solution out there.

I guess I'm on the fence on this one...primarily because of it's limitations...coupon connection, I understand & agree with - the old OMNI posting requirements, I understood & agreed with them too - a new MR sub-forum, makes sense to an extent as well, but I'm just not sure that I agree with the it. And, if it's created & let's says some members put some of their "secrets" out there, and then it doesn't develop as the mods hope & for some it it gets closed (some fora do get closed ya know! ;)) - what happens to the posts? They wouldn't get put back into the regular MR forum because the folks that posted them theoretically posted them with the understanding that they wouldn't be shared with the general public (i.e. lurkers, etc).

I guess the best solution to continue to learn is to go to FT events & network in person - that's how I've learned most of what I learned...

On the fence, see the need, but don't like, I guess...

Ok, the goal here is to keep the best deals that members post on MR forums active for a little longer, right? Keep them off other sites that may be more actively monitored by those who could kill the deal. FTers post these opportunities here so that others can get in on it. We just want FTers to have more time to jump in. Right?

Requiring a login to keep out "Googlers" and randoms seems fair. I'd be cool with a modest post requirement - how about 25 or 50? I'm being a little selfish here. Most people posting here have posted far, far more than I have - but I try to contribute where I have something to add to help another member. And I sure want to learn as much as I can. The idea of shutting off to only mega-posters doesn't feel conducive to community and those of us that are (slowly) helping others and working their way through the masses of awesome insight that makes FT great.

Randy's standard post to newbie folks who ask in ORP or elsewhere why they cannot access CC is along these lines - paraphrased.

"Think of access to it as an unexpected reward to that comes to you, after you've added 100 or so posts to this Community over a few months"

Likewise this idea surely is in the same boat, which I fully support.

Mask off everyone until 90 days and 90 posts on FT is what I hope the TB recommends, based on the mod input above.

A simple software tweak along the CC lines.

Glen

Flyertalk has changed. It's not a bad thing, but it is true.

In my opinion, the Mileage Run forum participants view is well stated by the moderators posts above. I'd like to thank the moderators for this request, and the style in which it is presented.

Having a "Level 2" or a "seperate sub-forum" will only add value to the Forum. I am 100% in favor of the proposal and would encourage the Talk Board to APPROVE it, please & thank you!

I agree, and couldn't have said it better.

Without registering my opinion on the subject one way or the other (since I don't really have a dog in the fight here), let me give you a scenario.

Say poster A posts a deal in the exclusive MR forum and afterward poster B posts the exact same deal in the no-entrance-requirement one, not knowing the post from poster A exists because they don't have access to that forum. Which one gets to stay, or do they both? Or is this an extremely low probability scenario?

And another spin on it... let's say I post a deal in the no-entrance-requirement forum but somebody thinks that it belongs in the exclusive one for whatever reason... does it automatically get moved there, or is there a process to determine whether or not it should be moved?

I'm in favor of some form of sub-forum entrance requirements. If nothing else to "de-Googlize" the information as other have coined it. Doing so would likely spawn some interesting scenarios such as those listed by lo2e. I'm willing to let the mods apply their skills to resolve those situations and we can dicker about their choices afterwards. :)

Say poster A posts a deal in the exclusive MR forum and afterward poster B posts the exact same deal in the no-entrance-requirement one, not knowing the post from poster A exists because they don't have access to that forum. Which one gets to stay, or do they both? Or is this an extremely low probability scenario?

And another spin on it... let's say I post a deal in the no-entrance-requirement forum but somebody thinks that it belongs in the exclusive one for whatever reason... does it automatically get moved there, or is there a process to determine whether or not it should be moved?

Someone in the Tricks thread, I believe, suggested before that the Dog felt he did nothing wrong. Let's make it part of the TOC that it is wrong to share any info gain in the sub-forum on other sites.

@bhatnasx (and others):

We are fully aware that it is impossible to find a perfect solution that suits everybody. Given the size of Flyertalk, it is impossible to manage anything that requires some manual vetting, plus it would most likely be against the priciples of Flyertalk we have all become accustomed to.

However, the current status quo is pretty much the worst-case scenario to us. If we don't get a Coupon Connection - like subforum, the cryptic language and possible hostility will continue, the more knowledgeable folks will continue to leave, and so on.

We certainly have to *give it a try* and do our best to make it work, but if we don't try, we will continue to see less and less traffic in the Mileage Run forum. Let's just say when I first became a moderator, the forum had substantially more traffic (and no cryptic language left and right) as compared to today.

With regards to the qualification criteria, our suggestion is to use those that have been established for the CC. This makes our suggestion very easy to implement from a technical standpoint (shouldn't take the tech guys more than 5 minutes), and we use criterias that have been established and accepted by the community.

For those who try to gain access to the closed-off subforum by resorting to prohibited actions like post-padding, it will be on the radar screen for both the Mileage Run moderators as well as the Coupon Connection moderators, who already take disciplinary action with regards to issues like that.


@lo2e (and others):

It certainly becomes our duty as the Mileage Run forum moderators to make a decision on behalf of the community in instances like that.

Personally, I envision a guideline that anything that's not sensitive would be consolidated in the public forum; if there is sensitive information in the closed-off subforum, we'd most likely let similar threads run on a parallel basis.

I am 100% in support of this idea. Like many, many others I have tried to get more advanced knowledge of MRing techniques. Heck, I even went a MR seminar (btw - Jaimito Cartero - you are the man) and booked a number of them. The problem is that once you get to a certain point, you hit a brick wall. The FD is an easy example so I will use that. I get the basics, but its nearly impossible to get into it unless your one of the lucky few that know somebody with "insider knowledge". That knowledge, IF someone were actually willing to break it down in the sub-forum (and thats a HUGE if), would be an amazing asset to the members of this forum and showcase the FT spirit.
As a side note, after 2 years I finally booked my first international MR with a FD. Its not the greatest but it worked. I would love to refine it if possible.

It does not seem unreasonable to me.

I have not posted a couple of deals that I have discovered just due to the fear of mass distribution. I would to a private subforum.

I support the MR mods on this & hope TB will consider & implement it.

Cheers.

It may be constructive for people posting here to put your arguments as a 'for' or 'against' and to list the benefits or costs for this proposal.

I am 'for' the approval of a special members section by TB in order to:
a) Have a place for discussion of special strategies for savings - especially to assist with certain trick sharing tips
b) Encourage sharing of any techniques or deals which are no longer shared on the Deals forum or tricks thread
c) Allow more people into the 'club' that is the current riddle tricks thread, by encouraging a little more knowledge sharing, outside the scope of searchbots.
d) Structure certain parts of Mileage Run forums more cleanly, so that off-topic stuff is easier to delete. Keeping discussion to the topic of the deal or the technique.

Thanks,
BiziBB

(Thanks BiziBB for pointing out this discussion topic to me!)

For me, FT serves a few main purposes:
1) It brings like-minded individuals together and gives them a place to share their passion/hobby/interests.
2) It's also an information center. New information is discussed and shared while old findings are archived for reference.

I think creating a sub-forum for Deals with criteria similar to CC is a good idea and helps resolve much of the current tension in that forum, especially around the FD topic. A closed sub-forum allows those with more experience to be able to share their knowledge and passion with others while knowing that their hard work isn't just going to pop-up on a "googled" blog.

We've all been newbies before...encountering all the daunting "techniques," acronyms, complex routings, etc. But those of us who are active participants and contributors have taken the time to learn by reading the past experiences of those more seasoned. Instead of just asking basic questions and expecting the answer to be delivered on a silver platter, we've put in the sweat and tears to learn on our own.

So I think it's important for newcomers to have a way to learn and digest on their own. Perhaps we can move dead deals to the open MR Discussion forum. That way newbies still have an opportunity to see methods, techniques, routings, etc without jeopardizing live "deals." And after they've "put some skin into the game," then they can move onto the next part of their journey - learning and contributing in the closed "deals" sub-forum. (My only concern is that by moving dead deals to MR Discussion, it will expose loopholes to the "googlers" and to the airlines. Do we want to "archive" past deals behind closed doors also? Would that be productive for the newbies though? I'm still torn on this issue...)

I think a similar "admittance" process like CC is appropriate, fair, and not too much to ask.

@bhatnasx (and others):

We are fully aware that it is impossible to find a perfect solution that suits everybody. Given the size of Flyertalk, it is impossible to manage anything that requires some manual vetting, plus it would most likely be against the priciples of Flyertalk we have all become accustomed to.

Like I said - I see the need, but don't like it all that much...

I almost feel a better solution (and I'm not necessarily suggesting this - but just brainstorming) would be a specific post count/time on the board & then a paid membership to access such forum. I just feel the goal is a protected forum where secrets are out in the open, the only real way would be to require some sort of annual subscription or something (maybe a $50 or $100 annual donation to FT cares fund or something?) - I have no solutions - but as noted, I see the need, but have some concerns...

...
So I think it's important for newcomers to have a way to learn and digest on their own. Perhaps we can move dead deals to the open MR Discussion forum. That way newbies still have an opportunity to see methods, techniques, routings, etc without jeopardizing live "deals." And after they've "put some skin into the game," then they can move onto the next part of their journey - learning and contributing in the closed "deals" sub-forum. (My only concern is that by moving dead deals to MR Discussion, it will expose loopholes to the "googlers" and to the airlines. Do we want to "archive" past deals behind closed doors also? Would that be productive for the newbies though? I'm still torn on this issue...)

I think a similar "admittance" process like CC is appropriate, fair, and not too much to ask.

I really like this idea of making "some" older deals accessible, although I agree that discretion would be needed. As a newbie, it would wet my appetite to learn more. People new to FT (and particularly MR Deals) need to get some sort of foothold to become involved, and therefore a trickle down of older information would be useful.

Even as a newbie I have to say that setting a limit does make sense. Even in my short time on FT I have struggled to keep up with deals in the Trick-It thread because they disappear so fast. I consider myself lucky to have managed to take advantage of the LAN and XP.FR deals in the past. However, the pace and secrecy (which IMO is needed) of the current Trick-It thread make it even hard for a non-beginner to keep up. Therefore I would love to see the lifetime of the deals last a bit longer, even if it means getting closed out for awhile until a certain post count is reached. I think those that are interested will eventually reach whatever threshold is set...and they are probably the one that will continue to contribute positively to the FT community. IMO, the real challenge is to set an appropriate threshold for getting access.

I do not believe that any forum on FlyerTalk should be restricted to specific users or be able to define any criteria for access. This includes Coupon Connection, OMNI or any others that may have such restrictions.

All information posted to FT should be fully available to everyone, whether registered or not, whether logged in or not, whether googlebot or not. If someone is not comfortable sharing information with the general public, then they can always choose to restrict their participation accordingly.

FT is not a clique of insiders who gather to keep secrets. It is a community that welcomes new members interested in sharing information that facilitates benefits when traveling.

This is one TalkBoard member who will definitely be voting AGAINST this proposal if it came to vote.

I do not believe that any forum on FlyerTalk should be restricted to specific users or be able to define any criteria for access. This includes Coupon Connection, OMNI or any others that may have such restrictions.

with all due respect...

Talk Board's mandate is to decide what is best for Flyertalk regardless of personal opinions.

We're not saying this is the perfect answer, although I think it has merit, based on what I've seen work on other forums. We're saying that they've come to you with a well thought out idea based on some long term problems and trends. I can't remember the last time I saw every moderator chime in one after the other, united in their request. They believe they have proposed a solution that suits the members of their forum. It would also lessen the workload that is a byproduct of this longstanding problem.


Googlization is not in the best interest of preserving a fare!

Please note the moderator's united pleas. If this proposal dies, that's fine...

...but If you decide against their recommendations, you have been implored to come up with a plan B.

I will support whatever decision the board comes up with. Flyertalk is a changing community to be sure, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

However I suggest that people who want restrictions make a list of those they are trying to restrict, and then look at that list and see if the restrictions would keep them out or not.

I think one of the major mistakes being made in all these discussions is the people you are trying to restict would not meet the guidelines for access.

All information posted to FT should be fully available to everyone, whether registered or not, whether logged in or not, whether googlebot or not.

I disagree. No restrictions has lead to many a deal not being posted but circulated privately which to me is to some degree moving away from the community culture FT strives to foster. Just MHO.

I realize that as an airline employee I'm considered an enemy of the people in this regard... but as a long time community member, I'm totally against this.

It's cliquish, selfish, greedy, and wrong.

I could get behind the expectation that someone need to be registered and signed in to view the MR forum, but splitting it into another "exclusive" subforum says to newer members:

"We're happy to have you share your great deal finds with us, but we aren't going to share any of ours you until you prove yourself. Welcome to Flyertalk."

No restrictions has lead to many a deal not being posted but circulated privately which to me is to some degree moving away from the community culture FT strives to foster. Just MHO.

An opinion with which I agree. That explains why I find the following characterization

It's cliquish, selfish, greedy, and wrong.

to be ironic, since the current way of operating with no viewing restrictions has lead to behavior that could be fairly characterized as "cliquish, selfish, greedy, and wrong" in comparison to "the community culture FT strives to foster".

It seems like the proposed door would be open to basically all registered FTers who participate on FT in much the same way as Coupon Connection is open to FTers.

It seems like the proposed door would be open to basically all registered FTers who participate on FT in much the same way as Coupon Connection is open to FTers.

but its not.

From what I'm reading, the current MR forum will remain, and the second subforum will be the exclusive one. So all of the in-crowd will be able to see and take advantage of any deals coming from new members (who will have no other place to post), but not the opposite.

Then there is the potential for the new member to post something extraordinarily good, at which point I imagine it will be sucked up into the private forum..."for the good of the community" and the OP won't even be able to access it.

All information posted to FT should be fully available to everyone, whether registered or not, whether logged in or not, whether googlebot or not. If someone is not comfortable sharing information with the general public, then they can always choose to restrict their participation accordingly.

FT is not a clique of insiders who gather to keep secrets. It is a community that welcomes new members interested in sharing information that facilitates benefits when traveling.

This is one TalkBoard member who will definitely be voting AGAINST this proposal if it came to vote.

Are you contending that open access maximizes the value of FT to our members and readers? If so, I am open to persuasion and I await your reasoning.

Or do you contend that openness is more important than maximizing value? If so, I am less likely to be persuaded, but I still would like to read you arguments.

I will support whatever decision the board comes up with. Flyertalk is a changing community to be sure, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

However I suggest that people who want restrictions make a list of those they are trying to restrict, and then look at that list and see if the restrictions would keep them out or not.

I think one of the major mistakes being made in all these discussions is the people you are trying to restict would not meet the guidelines for access.

I think this hits the nail on the head regarding the restrictions. It is going to be exceedingly difficult to find some criteria that does not potentially diminish the value of FT for newer members.

That being said, I can't see the benefit of two Mileage Run forums. The exclusive forum would likely be where any deal of value from veterans would be posted, leaving the open forum with little value and existing as an empty shell (some exceptions would of course exist).

I believe that requiring members to log-in to view the Mileage Run forum is a valid step. Signing in doesn't require too much effort, and may limit bot searches and google results. Perhaps testing of such a moderate step and then reviewing the impact would be prudent before further changes are neccesary.

As a newer member, I completely see the value in this proposal...with one caveat.

The restricted board should not be a place where veterans share normal MR fares. All regular "good deals" should remain available to all FTers. However, where there are abnormally good deals that, for the good of the deal, would benefit from de-googleization, then posting them in a restricted forum seems appropriate.

Also, on a personal note (as commented by another poster above), I have absolutely no idea what the whole fuel thread is about, mainly because it is so complex and jargon-filled that I simply cannot begin to understand it. For me, a restricted forum where I could read it with better explanations would be of enormous value. Conversely, I wouldn't lose anything if I didn't have access to it, since I can't really use the thread in its current state.

Another for reason: The IAH-ANC 218.00 fare from today was alive and well until someone posted on his blog/site and the fare disappeared within minutes.

do you honestly think that the airline that is monitoring the blog is also not monitoring this site? Or doesn't have employees who have been participating long enough that they'd get a pass into the super secret area too?

I too would like to voice my 100% support for a sub forum with similar entry criteria to the coupon connection.

do you honestly think that the airline that is monitoring the blog is also not monitoring this site? Or doesn't have employees who have been participating long enough that they'd get a pass into the super secret area too?

We clearly stated that it is impossible to implement some sort of vetting process to avoid something like that. Also, like moderators are members too, so are airline employees who also have every right to use a deal for themselves as a person.

What this request is about is not to keep airline employees out - anybody who is smart can easily understand the cryptic threads as well.

The goal is to provide established members of the community with a Coupon Connection - like subforum that enables them to share within the community, not to the benefit of Google users and such.

Honestly, if you really voice your opinion here, you should at least make yourself familiar with the issues that surfaced in the Mileage Run forum within the past 6 months. All the cryptic language, all the hostility, the very same debates over sharing vs. non-sharing all over again - plenty of stuff that's not in line what a community should be.

Plus, it's not supposed to be some secret place, the Coupon Connection isn't either.

The restricted board should not be a place where veterans share normal MR fares. All regular "good deals" should remain available to all FTers.

As already stated, that's something that us volunteer moderators will take care of and move threads without sensitive content to the publicly accessible forum as it would be appropriate.

We clearly stated that it is impossible to implement some sort of vetting process to avoid something like that. Also, like moderators are members too, so are airline employees who also have every right to use a deal for themselves as a person.

What this request is about is not to keep airline employees out - anybody who is smart can easily understand the cryptic threads as well.

The goal is to provide established members of the community with a Coupon Connection - like subforum that enables them to share within the community, not to the benefit of Google users and such.

Honestly, if you really voice your opinion here, you should at least make yourself familiar with the issues that surfaced in the Mileage Run forum within the past 6 months. All the cryptic language, all the hostility, the very same debates over sharing vs. non-sharing all over again - plenty of stuff that's not in line what a community should be.

Plus, it's not supposed to be some secret place, the Coupon Connection isn't either.


My apologies... I should have quoted the post directly above mine, as that is who I was responding to. Airlines have to file fares at certain intervals... they just aren't "pulled within seconds".

And again... I'm not opposed to making the MR forum as a whole accessible to only those who are logged in. I don't think there is anything wrong in general with reserving some parts of the board for those who can be bothered to log in.

But your comparison to coupon connection isn't accurate. We don't have a separate Coupon Connection for newbies, and one for the rest of us.

The splitting up of a single forum into "some can play here, but others can't" subset is not welcoming, and I don't believe is going to serve the purpose intended. (other than staving off the google bots)

Members will always have varying level of comfort sharing deals... that won't change. All this does is add another level. While it will make a few more comfortable, it will alienate just as many, if not more.

Thank You MR forum mods for voicing the opinion of so many more experienced MRer FTers.
Ok, the goal here is to keep the best deals that members post on MR forums active for a little longer, right?

My concern is not the exposure of mistake fares/fare war fares that almost never would live more than a day or two left alone. Rather it is exposure (followed by disappearance) of long term jewels that have been around for many years. When the jewel gets taken, it rarely returns. Ever.

Why should anyone in possession of the treasure share a jewel that has been around years knowing that most such jewels go away forever soon after being displayed and explained to the public?

Such jewels include thinks like certain prize routing rules, remaining fuel dump options, and certain obscure routes that have little utilized long term prize fares. These have lived long lives (in some cases, 10+ years); we want to preserve their lives! We want to share too, but cannot with the current situation.

Current situation: The above category is generally not shared.

Future situation if more restricted access forum is created: Some of the above category will get shared.

If its your aim to save the jewels, then stay off a web forum. I would LOVE to make sure things last longer, and we can all save more money, and get top tier with anyone. However, I have seen this happen on many boards, as they get larger and more popular, the top tier decide they are 'too good', and leave, and then they realize that alot of the deals they learn of are found by accident by new users. Those of us who have been around a long time remember the fare alert mailing list, and the arguments about that. I don't pretend to have a solution, but becoming more exclusive is NOT all that people think it is...
Thank You MR forum mods for voicing the opinion of so many more experienced MRer FTers.


My concern is not the exposure of mistake fares/fare war fares that almost never would live more than a day or two left alone. Rather it is exposure (followed by disappearance) of long term jewels that have been around for many years. When the jewel gets taken, it rarely returns. Ever.

Why should anyone in possession of the treasure share a jewel that has been around years knowing that most such jewels go away forever soon after being displayed and explained to the public?

Such jewels include thinks like certain prize routing rules, remaining fuel dump options, and certain obscure routes that have little utilized long term prize fares. These have lived long lives; we want to preserve their lives!

Current situation: The above category is generally not shared.

Future situation if more restricted access forum is created: Some of the above category will get shared.

If someone is not comfortable sharing information with the general public, then they can always choose to restrict their participation accordingly.

And many have. Much of the discussion has gone underground, traffic in the MR forum has gone down, and many knowledgeable posters have stopped contributing. This has been a tremendous loss to the FT community.

In addition, the ongoing loss of great fares and tricks has made the MR forum a rather contentious and hostile place. Many new threads now quickly devolve into discussions about the pros and cons of sharing, a "secret language" has developed, etc. These developments have robbed the MR forum of much of its prior attraction.

I would suggest that quality is the goal to strive for, even if it comes at the price of restricting access. The MR moderators welcome newbies with open arms, but we need the contributions of experienced posters. The forum becomes worthless if people stop sharing, and become argumentative and secretive.

FT is not a clique of insiders who gather to keep secrets. It is a community that welcomes new members interested in sharing information that facilitates benefits when traveling.

I would invite you to spend a few hours reading some recent MR threads, including the "tricks" thread, to see how cliquish and hostile the forum has become. It's great that you can stand there and proclaim what a great and welcoming community FT is; unfortunately the pretty picture you paint has very little to do with the reality.

with all due respect...

Talk Board's mandate is to decide what is best for Flyertalk regardless of personal opinions.

We're not saying this is the perfect answer, although I think it has merit, based on what I've seen work on other forums. We're saying that they've come to you with a well thought out idea based on some long term problems and trends. I can't remember the last time I saw every moderator chime in one after the other, united in their request. They believe they have proposed a solution that suits the members of their forum. It would also lessen the workload that is a byproduct of this longstanding problem.


Googlization is not in the best interest of preserving a fare!

Please note the moderator's united pleas. If this proposal dies, that's fine...

...but If you decide against their recommendations, you have been implored to come up with a plan B.



+1 what sean said, and said better than I could.

Cheers.

If its your aim to save the jewels, then stay off a web forum.
Many/Most of the most knowledgeable MR forum posters now post little/never in that section. They stay away, along with their knowledge. You think this is in the best interest of Flyertalk?
on many boards, as they get larger and more popular, the top tier decide they are 'too good', and leave, and then they realize that alot of the deals they learn of are found by accident by new users.
Many many jewels have not been posted by the new users in the MR forum.
Do we want them to be posted on Flyertalk?
(Or only elsewhere in restricted communities)

- anybody who is smart can easily understand the cryptic threads as well

Ok guess I belong in the stupid column. :cool:

Ok guess I belong in the stupid column. :cool:

Not really.

I'm not stupid but it took a while to decipher the lingo. I don't go there any more though for all of the reasons stated.

Many/Most of the most knowledgeable MR forum posters now post little/never in that section. They stay away, along with their knowledge. You think this is in the best interest of Flyertalk?

As opposed to what? Closing off any avenue of new users? In an ideal world, no one would alert the airlines to deals...but lets face it as much as we would like to deny it, we were all newbies at some time. I would LOVE to be special, and know about all the top deals and only have the deals for me, but then I wouldn't be able to preach the gospel about FT, and explain to people who sit near me HOW I was able to fly cheap, get 1K so easy etc.

Many many jewels have not been posted by the new users in the MR forum.
Do we want them to be posted on Flyertalk?
(Or only elsewhere in restricted communities)
I can speak from experience to tell you that moves like that fail. Eventually those boards split as well, with the people who have posted more feeling that THEY are more special, and deserve their own board, etc. The simple answer to this is that there IS no great answer. But we MUST not lock out newbies. If this new board is to come out, would we PUNISH people if they posted a deal on SD or FW? I have found many deals on those sites that I then cross posted here. How would we deal with those of us who have RSS feeds of the MR forum? There are many problems with every possibility.

If a newbie came along and posted a $28 fare SFO-CDG, one of the first spectacular fares I saw after joining FT, would that be allowed to exist on the public forum or would it be moved into the private forum? Can the Mileage Run moderators address this?

Also, could you post a couple samples of topics that would typically be seen in the private forum. It's not clear to me, besides the thread dealing with fuel dumps, exactly what you want to move into the private forum.

edited: Let me add another example. Today there is a $200 range fare from IAH-ANC posted by someone with 13 posts. Would that be allowed to stay in the public forum or instantly be moved to the private forum?

We are fully aware that it is impossible to find a perfect solution that suits everybody. Given the size of Flyertalk, it is impossible to manage anything that requires some manual vetting, plus it would most likely be against the priciples of Flyertalk we have all become accustomed to.

However, the current status quo is pretty much the worst-case scenario to us. If we don't get a Coupon Connection - like subforum, the cryptic language and possible hostility will continue, the more knowledgeable folks will continue to leave, and so on.

We certainly have to *give it a try* and do our best to make it work, but if we don't try, we will continue to see less and less traffic in the Mileage Run forum. Let's just say when I first became a moderator, the forum had substantially more traffic (and no cryptic language left and right) as compared to today.

With regards to the qualification criteria, our suggestion is to use those that have been established for the CC. This makes our suggestion very easy to implement from a technical standpoint (shouldn't take the tech guys more than 5 minutes), and we use criterias that have been established and accepted by the community.

For those who try to gain access to the closed-off subforum by resorting to prohibited actions like post-padding, it will be on the radar screen for both the Mileage Run moderators as well as the Coupon Connection moderators, who already take disciplinary action with regards to issues like that.


Agreed. Count me as supporting the mods requesting this change.

And again... I'm not opposed to making the MR forum as a whole accessible to only those who are logged in. I don't think there is anything wrong in general with reserving some parts of the board for those who can be bothered to log in.

...Members will always have varying level of comfort sharing deals... that won't change. All this does is add another level. While it will make a few more comfortable, it will alienate just as many, if not more.

It sounds like in one sentence you understand. Then in another sentence you misinterpret. This model works well on many forums.

The 2 level model IS NOT A SECRET CLUB, just the opposite. It's a Flyertalk community inclusive model, with restrictions mirroring ones already accepted and established.

...the top tier decide they are 'too good', and leave, and then they realize that alot of the deals they learn of are found by accident by new users. Those of us who have been around a long time remember the fare alert mailing list, and the arguments about that. I don't pretend to have a solution, but becoming more exclusive is NOT all that people think it is...

The fare alert was limited to those in "THE CLUB". This would be the opposite, open to Flyertalk members.

If a newbie came along and posted a $28 fare SFO-CDG, one of the first spectacular fares I saw after joining FT, would that be allowed to exist on the public forum or would it be moved into the private forum? Can the Mileage Run moderators address this?

Also, could you post a couple samples of topics that would typically be seen in the private forum. It's not clear to me, besides the thread dealing with fuel dumps, exactly what you want to move into the private forum.

edited: Let me add another example. Today there is a $200 range fare from IAH-ANC posted by someone with 13 posts. Would that be allowed to stay in the public forum or instantly be moved to the private forum?

Great questions, and ones to clarify for sure. I would suggest that , no thread movement from one to the other (outside of rules against copy threads). A great fare that an OP posted in the non-logged in forum, forum would not be able to be moved, or scooped up to level 2.


I'm really excited to see a new level of discussion evolve. As the mods state, the current system is broken.

At the very least, tring to de-googleize it

Question: would requiring log-in to view be sufficient to keep it off the spyders?

If a newbie came along and posted a $28 fare SFO-CDG, one of the first spectacular fares I saw after joining FT, would that be allowed to exist on the public forum or would it be moved into the private forum? Can the Mileage Run moderators address this?

Also, could you post a couple samples of topics that would typically be seen in the private forum. It's not clear to me, besides the thread dealing with fuel dumps, exactly what you want to move into the private forum.

edited: Let me add another example. Today there is a $200 range fare from IAH-ANC posted by someone with 13 posts. Would that be allowed to stay in the public forum or instantly be moved to the private forum?

Tom,
Thanks for raising this issue, because I'd like to clarify that nothing should be moved out and only a very small selection of topics really need a private area. Deals should stay publicly-shared as that's the purpose of the Mileage Run Deals forum. :)

As a personal story. Note that this is all my personal view as an FT consumer of deals and 'amateur' MR Deal user:
One of the best fares I've ever seen, which really got me into the Mileage Run forum to learn it properly, was by a new FTer and which was a CMB fare without HIP... a deal which not only was incredibly popular, but which lasted a relatively long time. :) Many similar fares have stayed alive because they were discussed in a non specific way and did not get promoted off FT.

No Mileage Run Deal should be posted in a non-public forum, IMHO.

The point of this proposal is not to take Mileage Run Deals 'private', but to allow the a future version of the trick thread some privacy.

IMHO nothing should be moved out of the public forum, but that we consider a safety valve for certain topics, which become very messy and heated when things go sour.

Numerous times, the trick thread has turned nasty and because it is a lounge thread, it is relatively lightly moderated because it's the catch-all for tricks.

Some info that might be helpful could be rephrased without the riddling and obscure references, outside the scope of the bots.

We are asking for an opportunity to try something because it's becoming a losing game, at least in terms of the trick lounge.


In terms of private, off topic deals, of course these are shared as is discussed above - they would be kept private to preserve them.

Any deal posted in Mileage Run is by definition a public, shared deal and this should not change. The request is for TalkBoard (and/or the forum owner and the 'boss' :p) to be aware of the problem and hopefully be interested in improving the retention of good content, rather than allowing the decline to continue, because of some misunderstanding of the behaviour of FT deal sharers.

I think that those who share will continue to do so.

The challenge is how to get this issue considered by the people who can allow it to be trialled. Then even more crucially, how to keep the deals coming in the Mileage Run Deals forum, while just a little subsection of savings strategies can in future be discussed away from the googlebots.

A big challenge, yes, but one which you are probably aware, a few people have been screaming for in 2009 and 2010.

Cheers,
BiziBB

Great questions, and ones to clarify for sure. I would suggest that , no thread movement from one to the other (outside of rules against copy threads). A great fare that an OP posted in the non-CC, forum would not be able to be moved, or scooped up..


There is no valid answer for this. These are actual examples just from TODAY that were excellent deals that no one would have known about with the 'top secret' club.

I'm really excited to see a new level of discussion evolve. As the mods state, the current system is broken.

At the very least, tring to de-googleize it

Question: would requiring log-in to view be sufficient to keep it off the spyders?

Yes, and it would keep it off of MANY of FT's loyal users screens also. FT has no current way to allow u/p's on RSS feeds. I have 5 different RSS clients pointing to FT MR. Are we now saying that I have to go thru to a full web browser to check MR? In the end here we have to ask ourselves, are we creating something thats worse than what we have now? If we JUST want to keep it off google, a simple no robots portion of the header would do that...I have NO problem with that.

My understanding, per BiziBB's post above, is the IAH-ANC fare today and similar deals would continue to be posted in the public area for all to see.

IAH-ANC for $200 is going to be a short lived fare no matter where it is posted.

On the other hand, when an mileage run expert works out a way to fuel dump that has worked for years, they risk killing it now by posting.

IMO, it is the long term jewels that need to be less blatantly displayed for everyone to see. Not short lived fares that come and go, dying quickly no matter what we do.

As opposed to what? Closing off any avenue of new users?

Certainly not. IMO, this would have little effect on new users. Most threads that exists today would still be in the public area. + There would, IMO, be more threads in the public area because some people who have checked out of the MR forum would stick around, posting both in the restricted and public parts of the forum.

New users would be motivated to become more involved in Flyertalk so that they can participate in the small parts of FT reserved to posters who have been around a little while.
These are actual examples just from TODAY that were excellent deals that no one would have known about with the 'top secret' club.
What? No.
These would have been posted in the public access section for everyone to enjoy.

examples just from TODAY that were excellent deals that no one would have known about with the 'top secret' club.


I'm confused my any suggestions that hint to some secret club. I don't understand. This proposal would be open for Flyertalk members by virtue of being members, not by knowing someone or some secret handshake.


...Are we now saying that I have to go thru to a full web browser to check MR? .


Do I read this correctly? You're inconvenienced by having to open a browser to view Flyertalk? :eek: The 'eek' smiley says it all. :D I'd hate to have to put you out ;)

Please stop refering to some secret club. I don't understand. This proposal would be open for Flyertalk members by virtue of being members, not by knowing someone or some secret handshake.
I'm confused my any suggestions that hint otherwise.

Last I checked, Coupon Connection required a number of posts to enter it. The first post of this thread is asking for this new forum to be "like coupon connection". This is what I am referring to.


Do I read this correctly? You're inconvenienced by having to open a browser to view Flyertalk? :eek: The 'eek' smiley says it all. :D I'd hate to have to put you out ;)
This has been brought up MANY times before. MANY people read, or at least check up on, Flyertalk via an RSS reader. Requiring authentication makes MOST RSS reading impossible, unless FT is going to issue coded rss URLs for each member to get their 'allowed' boards.

Last I checked, Coupon Connection required a number of posts to enter it. The first post of this thread is asking for this new forum to be "like coupon connection". This is what I am referring to.



Correct. And Coupon Connection is not a secret club either. Nor is it an idea foreign to FT. Hints to a secret club are insulting to the proposal, and misinformative at the least.

Sticking to the principles and ideas, it would seem to reason that...

if one has resistance to the proposal, they would also favor the elimination of Coupon connection restrictions?

I did not post in this thread to make a mess of this proposal. Nor did I intend to get in an back & forth with members. I appologize to the MR mods if I've put my foot in my mouth (again). This is a passionate topic for us Mileage Run members... The Lament of the Demise of Mileage Run forum.

This will be my last post on this thread. Thanks again to the MR mods. Thank you, too, to the Talk Board for discussing this proposal with an open mind. It is everyone's hope that an evolvement of MR will benefit all. It doesn't have to be this exact proposal, but we do need your help. Please keep the issue alive until the appropriate path of this help is decided amongst yourselves.

regards,
stp

I believe many of us sign in to FT for the news on mergers, seeking advice on fare rules and how to communicate and deal with airlines, something FT does very well due to the experience of its members. ^
However, I also take a peek in the MR forum pretty much every day to see what’s up. Like others I have seen the mood of sharing change. I certainly understand the reasons why some hesitate to share or do so privately with only those they trust.
I am for a 2nd sub-forum in Mileage Run with criterias similar to Coupon Connection. I trust the mods have discussed it thoroughly and have come to this conclusion as a workable solution. Even if replicating cc rules into a MR forum is not fool proof or going to provide a miraculous cure, it certainly is worth testing it out as described.

I too would like to thank the mods for considering it and bringing it up for discussion.

my two hockey pucks....

at the very least-restrict viewing to the m/r forum and proposed sub-fourm to logged in users the way cc is set up.

at the very best-both the m/r forum and the proposed sub-forum should have "access eligibility requirements" similar to that of cc but imho, they should be more restrictive tho i honestly do not know how one can set it up and "be fair" (i.e. too restrictive to eliminate new users who have been very "pro-f/t" or not strict enough to weed out those who are not up to no good but rather those who "post and run"/are in it only for themselves [you listening afwd :td:])

my two hockey pucks....

at the very least-restrict viewing to the m/r forum and proposed sub-fourm to logged in users the way cc is set up.

at the very best-both the m/r forum and the proposed sub-forum should have "access eligibility requirements" similar to that of cc but imho, they should be more restrictive tho i honestly do not know how one can set it up and "be fair" (i.e. too restrictive to eliminate new users who have been very "pro-f/t" or not strict enough to weed out those who are not up to no good but rather those who "post and run"/are in it only for themselves [you listening afwd :td:])

Do you think AFWD is not going to have enough posts to see this new forum?! I believe he is on FT and has more than 100 posts, if I remember correctly? Whats next, banning specific users? I understand the REASONING behind wanting this, but I just don't think it will work in practice. I think making a no robots so it doesn't hit google will achieve the same thing. I would not object to requiring that you have logged in to see MR, but I would require there to be a way to authenticate via RSS.

In the common law a dog owner is allowed "one bite" -- once the dog has bitten once the owner is put on notice he has a dangerous animal and is liable if the dog bites again... the AFWD has bitten once, and I think AFWD SHOULD be banned from a subforum if it's created!

There are ways to deal with violations in CC. The rules in CC are very strict and offenders are dealt with swiftly -- that's part of the FT self-policing spirit. I imagine a violation of the terms of any new MR subforum would be similarly enforced. I don't see how anyone can claim this is unworkable when no one's even tried it yet, especially in light of the CC experience which has proven EMINENTLY workable!

I would invite you to spend a few hours reading some recent MR threads, including the "tricks" thread, to see how cliquish and hostile the forum has become. It's great that you can stand there and proclaim what a great and welcoming community FT is; unfortunately the pretty picture you paint has very little to do with the reality.

At the risk of crossing the line into the verboten area of "discussion of moderation", perhaps this could be due to of a failure of the moderators in that forum to do their jobs properly and facilitate an enabling environment?

I'm a long time lurker, not for that fact that I don't want to participate but often find that people are much much faster on the keyboard then I am and that I don't really have much to add.

Flyertalk has been a great resource for me personally and professionally (I now travel every week for my job and am commended at my ability to manage costs for myself and my team) over the years. I feel that FT has changed from the spirit it was in the past and I'd be fully in support of a sub-forum similar to coupon connection in order to try and get that back. Besides reading the MR, NWA forums (defunct), MilesBuzz, SPG, and Alaska forums daily I have spent a long long time educating myself on KVS, educating others on ITA, and generally learning about the airline industry. I'd love to see more participation from "senior" flyertalkers that can teach me more, and I think I would be happier to participate more (even my daily reading has died off) and maybe even start posting more!

my two hockey pucks....

at the very least-restrict viewing to the m/r forum and proposed sub-fourm to logged in users the way cc is set up.

at the very best-both the m/r forum and the proposed sub-forum should have "access eligibility requirements" similar to that of cc but imho, they should be more restrictive tho i honestly do not know how one can set it up and "be fair" (i.e. too restrictive to eliminate new users who have been very "pro-f/t" or not strict enough to weed out those who are not up to no good but rather those who "post and run"/are in it only for themselves [you listening afwd :td:])Do you think AFWD is not going to have enough posts to see this new forum?! I believe he is on FT and has more than 100 posts, if I remember correctly? Whats next, banning specific users? I understand the REASONING behind wanting this, but I just don't think it will work in practice. I think making a no robots so it doesn't hit google will achieve the same thing. I would not object to requiring that you have logged in to see MR, but I would require there to be a way to authenticate via RSS.i didn't say ban specific users (tho banning afwd imho wouldn't be a bad idea ;)) but rather trying to find a way to make the proposed new sub-forum more restrictive based on past performance

im for it! reading this thread i see a lot of good, valid points are brought up but ultimately there is a real problem and a cc styled sub forum is prob one of the best ideas to address it.

I think AFWD SHOULD be banned from a subforum if it's created!

How about airline representatives that meet whatever criteria you establish for this forum? Where do you draw the line on who gets in and who doesn't get in?

Please, let's not sidetrack this (IMO) good proposal by mentioning specific users or airline folk being banned. I don't think that banning anyone is appropriate, unless they've violated TOS.

seanthepilot, in his multiple posts, has done a good job summarizing why this is a good idea, the pros/the cons - and also said that even if this doesn't pass, that someone come up w/ a Plan B because by a variety of accounts - including the 3 mods' input - the current model isn't working to its best effect.

The fact that the 3 mods of the forum have given specific reasons why they're introducing the proposal & would like to see it implemented, also holds weight for me. They're the ones that have to deal w/ the in/out everyday, and I don't think they take making the proposal lightly.

B747-437B's disdain for mods is apparant to pretty much everyone who reads TB, so it's not a surprise that he's implying the 3 MR mods are not doing their job, but IMO he's wrong & it's just same ole, same ole w/ him re: that topic. BTW - as an FT member I'm disappointed by a TB member who basically has said at the get-go that he's against the proposal - which implies that he won't change his mind even if people provide good reasons why it should be. Very dogmatic that. I'd like to think he would at least give the appearance of listening to input. Even some of the TM members who I've disagreed w/ on other proposals said while they didn't originally back a proposal they would consider re-evaluating their stance if enough evidence was provided. And lest we all forget, it's not just about B774's thoughts, it's about what overall is good for the FT community.

As mentioned previously, this is not creating a secret society :rolleyes:, but just making one forum similar to another that is part of FT & the FT community. That forum certainly hasn't fallen apart w/ having a bit of entry criteria.

OVMV. Cheers.

I think what most people are pissed about is AFWD and the airline reps being in the forums and able to end deals because of it. I understand this frustration, but I don't think that this deal is going to be able to solve this. This will end up being like any arms war, where everybody keeps raising the stakes...
Can someone please tell me why there shouldn't be a "Flyertalk Expert"? I would think most every forum (at least the popular ones) would want to have a semi-private area where only the best posters can talk...to me, this is just a method of further implementing a caste system on this board, which is exactly what this board is supposed to eliminate. Also, no one has yet to address how this would work with RSS readers, which I know is a big issue, as I am sure someone from IB can chime in with how many people read FT via RSS.

no one has yet to address how this would work with RSS readers

IMO, FT posters should take priority over FT readers.

IMO, FT posters should take priority over FT readers.

It works now for both. Why break it for one?

I'm disappointed by a TB member who basically has said at the get-go that he's against the proposal - which implies that he won't change his mind even if people provide good reasons why it should be. Very dogmatic that. I'd like to think he would at least give the appearance of listening to input.

There are some areas where my position will simply not change. Restricting access to forums on the basis of arbitrary criteria is one of those "dogmatic" areas. There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I would support any such proposal.

Some may consider that to be closed minded. I consider it the exact opposite - indeed it is applying the fundamental principle of an internet discussion forum, viz. sharing information openly for all to benefit.

I don't make any secrets about my positions. Never have, never will. If you don't agree with them, don't vote for me in the next election. However, judging by the PMs that I receive, I'm quite certain that enough people do agree with them to justify the constituency that I represent.

I just wanted to make clear that I do see the need for this...but I think it goes against FT's main principles...which is to make things available for everyone, and make flying smartly to be easy to learn.

I certainly would not vote for you. Something should (and will) get done eventually. Despite roadblocks. AFWD sabotaged FT and the results hurt everyone, in or out of the "club"

I certainly would not vote for you. Something should (and will) get done eventually. Despite roadblocks. AFWD sabotaged FT and the results hurt everyone, in or out of the "club"

How did AFWD 'sabotage' anything? He simply posted what is publicly available information! Thats what FT was MADE for. I am sure there are TONS of people are very happy that AFWD posted. Either those of us who frequent MR need to decide that MR should be COMPLETELY private and thus removed from FT, with some form of membership or proof of worthiness to enter, or it should stay public and on FT. I think what the last few posts have shown is that people are hurt that their deals were ended by being told to people who arent on FT, which is fine, but then thats a different argument, and not the one we are having here.

How did AFWD 'sabotage' anything? He simply posted what is publicly available information! Thats what FT was MADE for. I am sure there are TONS of people are very happy that AFWD posted. Either those of us who frequent MR need to decide that MR should be COMPLETELY private and thus removed from FT, with some form of membership or proof of worthiness to enter, or it should stay public and on FT. I think what the last few posts have shown is that people are hurt that their deals were ended by being told to people who arent on FT, which is fine, but then thats a different argument, and not the one we are having here. I'm not arguing with you about anything. However, your point could also be used to ban PMs, which I use to communicate deals to friends since the MR forum has turned into a mess with too many "takers" with NO or little participation. I do try and help the newbs on a daily basis "in the spirit of FT" but wont post deals publicly anymore. The same way I wouldn't leave a loaded gun around children with a PC view of entitlement and a less than adult view of consequences.

I'm not arguing with you about anything. However, your point could also be used to ban PMs, which I use to communicate deals to friends since the MR forum has turned into a mess with too many "takers" with NO or little participation. I do try and help the newbs on a daily basis "in the spirit of FT" but wont post deals publicly anymore. The same way I wouldn't leave a loaded gun around children with a PC view of entitlement and a less than adult view of consequences.

I can agree with that...but then we are talking about fundamentally changing FT...or maybe branching something off with a different mission/policy...I belong to many groups where this type of thing has happened, and it starts all gungho, but it crumbles shortly after that due to fractures in the "leadership" and regular members of that group feeling THEY should be leaders, etc...

At the risk of crossing the line into the verboten area of "discussion of moderation", perhaps this could be due to of a failure of the moderators in that forum to do their jobs properly and facilitate an enabling environment?

With all due respect, this proposal is exactly about doing our jobs properly. Us moderators come to TalkBoard, asking you to facilitate an enabling environment - which to facilitate you have been elected for by the members of Flyertalk. The decision is up to you at TalkBoard, it is not up to us volunteer moderators.

If you want to maintain your position that all four Mileage Run moderators have failed their members, bring it on. What a nice gesture from a Talkboard member.

At the same time, my personal view is that you seem fail at your job as a Talkboard member (elected my the members of Flyertalk) if you put lurkers and non-members first, and existing members last.

There are some areas where my position will simply not change. Restricting access to forums on the basis of arbitrary criteria is one of those "dogmatic" areas. There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I would support any such proposal.

Some may consider that to be closed minded. I consider it the exact opposite - indeed it is applying the fundamental principle of an internet discussion forum, viz. sharing information openly for all to benefit.

I don't make any secrets about my positions. Never have, never will. If you don't agree with them, don't vote for me in the next election. However, judging by the PMs that I receive, I'm quite certain that enough people do agree with them to justify the constituency that I represent.
Oh dear god - the appeal to the PM authority. I had thought that went the way of the dinosaur! :eek: ;) :D

Anyway:
Restricting access to forums on the basis of arbitrary criteria is one of those "dogmatic" areas. There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I would support any such proposal. That's sad. You'd allow a forum to go down in flames for a principle. Please justify how such inflexibility is actually a positive to FT?

After a recent experience when a VS deal got blogged in the US and shut down within an hour of the blog being posted as a result - at a point when not all VS regulars had seen the offer, I have a lot of sympathy with the request. FT should be primarily for FT members - and not as a handy resource for those who aren't willing to invest a lot of time and effort in the board...

I don't understand this iron-fisted rule coming from B747. If you truly believe in the open democracy of the Internet, then why not allow the subforum to be created? If you don't want to participate, then don't! Allow those who do want to participate to do so. To cut this off without any justification other than dogma, without any due consideration, without any willingness to trial this as an experiment, is the very definition of bias.

I can agree with that...but then we are talking about fundamentally changing FT...or maybe branching something off with a different mission/policy...I belong to many groups where this type of thing has happened, and it starts all gungho, but it crumbles shortly after that due to fractures in the "leadership" and regular members of that group feeling THEY should be leaders, etc...

Good lord. Just go and meet the post count criteria instead of complaining. It won't be a closed forum just one with requirements that are available to all, including the lurkers.

FT was fundamentally changed and not for the better when OMNI was opened to the world.

Good lord. Just go and meet the post count criteria instead of complaining. It won't be a closed forum just one with requirements that are available to all, including the lurkers.

FT was fundamentally changed and not for the better when OMNI was opened to the world.

Then how does this help ANYTHING from what people are asking for. People are trying to avoid AFWD and the like ending deals. This will have NO impact on that, it will ONLY keep a couple of first timers who post on MR saying "I need help getting to Orlando for $10" Thats ALL this will achieve. It will break many peoples ability to read MR, and make new users feel that FT is more of a membership club. I fail to see too much of a benefit...people seem to be looking for ANYTHING to be done, when its been shown that whats being asked for wont have the effect people want!

I'm a bit confused. How is a BB that is basically open to everyone yet has one forum that has a (let's face it) pretty minimum 'buy-in' & now a 2nd sub-forum same buy-in a 'membership club'? Unless, oh yes, the founder actually wanted people to 'contribute' to the 'core' of FT by the minimum buy-in before just swooping in & taking advantage of everything under the sun! It's not that hard for goodness' sake to contribute to the MAIN forums of FT. :rolleyes:

And oh my gawd, I never thought I'd be quoting some of the other TB members, but they did state when others started talking about creating a forum and/or keeping one from dying, that folk would suddenly throw out the, 'but what about this' few instances to keep something going. Well for me, those who say 'we will lose the few newbies that contributed something to MR deals', guess what - yes, that might happen. But I'd say, someone do a quantitative analysis & say how many of the MR deals were by newbies vs folk who had been around awhile. If the newbie posts are overwhelming, then there might be a case. But if they're not, then to quote my friend Spiff - well you know what he says ;) I'll know it when I see it.

And come on folk, there are lots of MR deals posted year round. Maybe a very few might be lost along the way, but let's face it, there will be others that are posted by people who do meet the (if implemented) criteria. It's not like MR deals will suddenly disappear by the implementation of the sub-forum w/ minimum buy-in access! Geesh.

Cheers.

At the risk of crossing the line into the verboten area of "discussion of moderation", perhaps this could be due to of a failure of the moderators in that forum to do their jobs properly and facilitate an enabling environment?

This dig is offensive. Please cite examples privately rather than throw mud at us.

IMHO your post above it an attempt to derail our proposal and the thread before it gets considered by TalkBoard.

I refer readers of this thread to the thread which is the cause of a lot of tension, which we have alluded to on page 1 of this thread:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-discussion/930922-trick-negotiate-special-savings-lounge-thread.html

6535k+ views to date is around 15x the most-viewed thread near the top of Mileage Run Deals, so even if you have closed off your mind to considering our proposal, perhaps, in your position of a TalkBoard elected representative, you could familiarise yourself with the tension and troubles on this thread?

The person who put together this proposal is the person who established this thread as a lounge thread. There has been a lot of great sharing and knowledge transfer on the thread and in most cases it is an asset to those who created it or who read the 5,000ish posts.

Spare the insults and please allow FT members to familiarise themselves with the issue, rather than attack the volunteers who have listened and tried many different strategies to improve the usability of the forum.

The proposal is to discuss the opportunity to allow a private space for certain fare savings strategies (separate and aside from Deals, which remain in the open, google-indexed forum).

seanthepilot has been fighting for this for some time, as have many other regulars of Mileage Run. I would hate to see more people discouraged, by posts in this thread, from participating and sharing their deals and tips in Mileage Run forums.

Please, let's not sidetrack this (IMO) good proposal by mentioning specific users or airline folk being banned. I don't think that banning anyone is appropriate, unless they've violated TOS.

seanthepilot, in his multiple posts, has done a good job summarizing why this is a good idea, the pros/the cons - and also said that even if this doesn't pass, that someone come up w/ a Plan B because by a variety of accounts - including the 3 mods' input - the current model isn't working to its best effect.

The fact that the 3 mods of the forum have given specific reasons why they're introducing the proposal & would like to see it implemented, also holds weight for me. They're the ones that have to deal w/ the in/out everyday, and I don't think they take making the proposal lightly.

...

As mentioned previously, this is not creating a secret society :rolleyes:, but just making one forum similar to another that is part of FT & the FT community. That forum certainly hasn't fallen apart w/ having a bit of entry criteria.

OVMV. Cheers.

Thanks for clarifying, too. ^ :)

As someone who is fairly new to FT, but eager to contribute (I posted the IAH-ANC deal yesterday), I just wanted to provide my perspective on this issue.

Unless you set the restrictions for the subforum to something absurd, like 5,000 posts and 5 years, you will never be able to stop sites like AFWD from gaining full access. To use them as an example, they have about 10 staff members who work more or less full time for them to spot deals. I'd be willing to bet most of them have accounts here that are over 90/90 already.

If you look back at all the well discussed "Fare Gone" super deals over the first few pages of the MR Discussion forum, you'll see that they were all posted by users with less than 600 posts, and over half of them by users with less than 100 posts. If you want people to keep sharing, you have to get them interested in the site, and the MR forum is one of the best ways to do that.

Slightly restricting the MR forum won't stop any of the cheap airfare sites from copying us and getting deals shut off. However, making a restrictive subforum discourages newer folk from sharing, as it offers us little in return.

That being said, I think the best thing to do would be to leave it all in the open.

Canadian Golf Guy, your observation that the number of "fare gone" threads started by relatively new FT members only proves the point the mods are making -- senior FT members aren't posting, and they're leaving FT in droves.

And while you're no doubt right that AFWD staff and airline staff will have access to any subforum, there is a key difference between the proposed subforum and the open MR forum -- the subforum will (presumably) have rules that allows mods to kick out members for violation of TOS, including re-posting any deals in the subforum. Right now this doesn't exist.

I really like the idea of a limited (but not too limited...anyone who's really contributed to FT should be able to get in) MR deals forum for tricks and mistakes. There are enough just good deals out there to leave in the regular MR forum and maintain readership and attract new members.

I am generally not passionate enough about the details of FT policy to vote for Talkboard candidates based on policy platforms (I'm glad some of you are). However, this is an issue where I will be ensuring I vote for people willing to establish this much-needed forum.

Is there a chance of a TB motion on this request anytime soon?

Canadian Golf Guy, your observation that the number of "fare gone" threads started by relatively new FT members only proves the point the mods are making -- senior FT members aren't posting, and they're leaving FT in droves.

And while you're no doubt right that AFWD staff and airline staff will have access to any subforum, there is a key difference between the proposed subforum and the open MR forum -- the subforum will (presumably) have rules that allows mods to kick out members for violation of TOS, including re-posting any deals in the subforum. Right now this doesn't exist.

So what you are saying is that NONE of the deals the new people have posted have been of value? Because by making a group they can't see/join, you are throwing away THEIR contributions!

And now we are proposing that this group have rules that no one can repost or speak about the deals posted within?! Everyone who posted saying this was not going to be a secret club, read what others are saying. This is VERY clearly headed for a train wreck...

I really like the idea of a limited (but not too limited...anyone who's really contributed to FT should be able to get in) MR deals forum for tricks and mistakes. There are enough just good deals out there to leave in the regular MR forum and maintain readership and attract new members.

I am generally not passionate enough about the details of FT policy to vote for Talkboard candidates based on policy platforms (I'm glad some of you are). However, this is an issue where I will be ensuring I vote for people willing to establish this much-needed forum.

Again, what people are now clearly speaking out for is for members to have to "prove" themselves to get into a "upper level FT". I think there is a place for this...but its not FT. FT is a place for everyone to be on the same level...we all started out as newbies once...why are we closing the door now?!

So what you are saying is that NONE of the deals the new people have posted have been of value? Because by making a group they can't see/join, you are throwing away THEIR contributions!

Logic?

If the proposal is passed, existing forums still exist. No contributions are being thrown away and everyone has a valuable place to contribute and is valued. The deal section open to everyone would be filled with as many or more posts as today. More engaged FT members = more good posts. The new section would be very small and invisible to new members. Not something they would miss or expect to exist. Does the coupon connection restriction chase new members away from Flyertalk?

Please read the posts by the Mileage Run Moderators, SkiAdcock, seanthepilot, and myself in this thread. If you understand these posts, you know no contributions are being thrown away, no one is being chased away, and everyone has access to a MR deal filled forum. The new section would mostly contain new content that is not posted on FT at this time (in a user friendly manner).

Logic?

If the proposal is passed, existing forums still exist. No contributions are being thrown away and everyone has a valuable place to contribute and is valued. The deal section open to everyone would be filled with as many or more posts as today. More engaged FT members = more good posts. The new section would be very small and invisible to new members. Not something they would miss or expect to exist. Does the coupon connection restriction chase new members away from Flyertalk?

Please read the posts by the Mileage Run Moderators, SkiAdcock, seanthepilot, and myself in this thread. If you understand these posts, you know no contributions are being thrown away, no one is being chased away, and everyone has access to a MR deal filled forum. The new section would mostly contain content that is not posted on FT at this time (in a user friendly manner).

Great, but thats not what the users think. If you read the last 2 pages of this thread, you will see that people are looking for a private forum, with the ability to toss out people who speak of any of the deals in the forum outside of it. Some people are also calling for banning of lurkers and other members of FT. As I have said before, I WANT this forum to be created...and I want to be a member, I just don't think its place is on FT.

Oh dear god - the appeal to the PM authority. I had thought that went the way of the dinosaur!

No more or no less than the moderators patented lynchmob(tm) authority did.

Every position has a majority view and a minority view. Neither is less valid than the other, but the majority view will prevail. That should never be a reason to stifle the minority opinion though.

After a recent experience when a VS deal got blogged in the US and shut down within an hour of the blog being posted as a result - at a point when not all VS regulars had seen the offer, I have a lot of sympathy with the request.

EXCUSE ME???? What constitutes a "VS Regular"??? It is this kind of talk that really gets my goat up. Every single user of FT has an equal right to the information shared with the community by another community member. If the poster of your "deal" wanted it to be kept private, he should not have shared it with anyone to begin with.

FT should be primarily for FT members - and not as a handy resource for those who aren't willing to invest a lot of time and effort in the board...

What exactly constitutes a "FT member" in your opinion? Registered members? Registered members with X posts? Registered members since X years? Registered lurkers? Trolls? Spambots? "VS Regulars"?

The community exists for the benefit of the community. Everyone who gives to or takes from the community is part of the community. Some take more and give less. Others take less and give more. By setting arbitrary or subjective standards as to what constitutes a community member, we run the danger of ruining the very community we strive to encourage.

EXCUSE ME???? What constitutes a "VS Regular"??? It is this kind of talk that really gets my goat up. Every single user of FT has an equal right to the information shared with the community by another community member. If the poster of your "deal" wanted it to be kept private, he should not have shared it with anyone to begin with. A VS Regular is someone who actually flies the airline. You know, the people most likely to benefit from the deal being offered, and doesn't just want it to arbitrage status in another airline.

And I agree upto a point. But then we lost the deal because the information was removed from FT and blogged to a wider community. So FTers lost out on information posted on FT, because that information was removed from FT and distributed beyond FT - the deal was dead within an hour of it being blogged, with no sign it had originally even come from FT (there is a chance it might not have been, but it was obscure, and it was within hours of it being posted on FT that it was blogged).

How is it good for the members to lose access to deals because they are being widely distributed beyond FT, before members might have had an opportunity to catch up on those deals, posted on FT?

As for what constitutes an FT member - well, you know, someone who actually has a log-in or indeed, even comes onto FT to read the board would be a start.

A VS Regular is someone who actually flies the airline. You know, the people most likely to benefit from the deal being offered, and doesn't just want it to arbitrage status in another airline.

And I agree upto a point. But then we lost the deal because the information was removed from FT and blogged to a wider community. So FTers lost out on information posted on FT, because that information was removed from FT and distributed beyond FT - the deal was dead within an hour of it being blogged, with no sign it had originally even come from FT (there is a chance it might not have been, but it was obscure, and it was within hours of it being posted on FT that it was blogged).

How is it good for the members to lose access to deals because they are being widely distributed beyond FT, before members might have had an opportunity to catch up on those deals, posted on FT?

As for what constitutes an FT member - well, you know, someone who actually has a log-in or indeed, even comes onto FT to read the board would be a start.

But isn't this just being the victim of our own success?

And why should be continue to be the victim of our own success if we can see some way to modify the downside?

I fully back the MODS of the MR forum on their proposal. Rather than repeat all the pro comments here, most fall in line with my opinion on the matter.

That being said, whether or not a similar 90/90 CC like forum would resolve the problems that have arisen in the forum or bring back former long time posters is unknown at this point, but at least it is an attempt to do something to resolve an ongoing problem. Since it works in CC, perhaps it will work in the MR forum. Please give it a chance.

I am generally not passionate enough about the details of FT policy to vote for Talkboard candidates based on policy platforms (I'm glad some of you are). However, this is an issue where I will be ensuring I vote for people willing to establish this much-needed forum.

+1

And why should be continue to be the victim of our own success if we can see some way to modify the downside?

So to make us run faster you cut off our legs?! Isn't the IDEA of FT to get information out to the masses?! As I have said before, if you want a deal to remain private, maybe FT isn't the best place for it. This forum will not keep what you are complaining about from happening again, as everyone you are afraid of getting a hold of the deals will still have access...So what changes?!

Since it works in CC, perhaps it will work in the MR forum. Please give it a chance.

It works to solve a completely different problem in CC.

A VS Regular is someone who actually flies the airline. You know, the people most likely to benefit from the deal being offered, and doesn't just want it to arbitrage status in another airline.

I think it is a very slippery slope when moderators start to apply arbitrary subjective criteria to assess the motives that someone may have for accessing information posted.

I repeat again, no user should have any more or any less right to access any information shared with the community.

But then we lost the deal because the information was removed from FT and blogged to a wider community. So FTers lost out on information posted on FT, because that information was removed from FT and distributed beyond FT - the deal was dead within an hour of it being blogged, with no sign it had originally even come from FT (there is a chance it might not have been, but it was obscure, and it was within hours of it being posted on FT that it was blogged).

If a deal is intended for the use of the wider community, dissemination to the wider community would not cause the deal to "die". If it wasn't intended to be disseminated to the wider community, then what exactly is the argument when the deal does "die"?

It is very easy for one to sit back and speak ill of the "wider community" when one may be part of the "insider clique".

So to make us run faster you cut off our legs?! Isn't the IDEA of FT to get information out to the masses?! As I have said before, if you want a deal to remain private, maybe FT isn't the best place for it. This forum will not keep what you are complaining about from happening again, as everyone you are afraid of getting a hold of the deals will still have access...So what changes?!
No, the deal is to get information out to the FT members. I'm not aware we have any duty whatsoever to the masses :confused: Perhaps you are confusing us with a newspaper?

I think it is a very slippery slope when moderators start to apply arbitrary subjective criteria to assess the motives that someone may have for accessing information posted. Perhaps you could point out where someone did that? I was posting my experiences as a member :confused: I don't post as a moderator on here generally, since it's kind of leading to discussion of moderation.

If a deal is intended for the use of the wider community, dissemination to the wider community would not cause the deal to "die". If it wasn't intended to be disseminated to the wider community, then what exactly is the argument when the deal does "die"?

It is very easy for one to sit back and speak ill of the "wider community" when one may be part of the "insider clique". As I just said, if you think it's FT's job to alert the world to errors and deals, then you don't seem to understand the function of FT - and of your role - which is to the members of FT - whom you were elected to represent. You were not elected to represent the interests of non-FT members - i.e. the wider community.

BTW, you don't seem to have answered my question:
How is it good for the members to lose access to deals because they are being widely distributed beyond FT, before members might have had an opportunity to catch up on those deals, posted on FT?

Because until you can answer that question, you are ignoring your responsibility as our elected representative.

No, the deal is to get information out to the FT members. I'm not aware we have any duty whatsoever to the masses :confused: Perhaps you are confusing us with a newspaper?

As opposed to what? A club with closed membership? We are a public web forum...that IS alot like a newspaper...in being public once information is posted.

I wish I had more to say, and more time at work to spend online (since I don't own a computer), but I don't, so I know I'll NEVER have a high rank here....but it's the first place I look when I need to find trip help. I love you all (almost)! :p

Might the happy medium to this whole thing be to start with having this subforum be "logged in members only" and see if that helps the situation, and if not, then take it a step further at a later point? Perhaps give it a six-month run with the understanding and responsibility of the mods that in six months they should come back and say "It's working because..." or "It's still not working because..."

And yes, I know some people will give this idea a :rolleyes:, but at least start somewhere and see what happens with a very strict set of rules.

Might the happy medium to this whole thing be to start with having this subforum be "logged in members only" and see if that helps the situation, and if not, then take it a step further at a later point? Perhaps give it a six-month run with the understanding and responsibility of the mods that in six months they should come back and say "It's working because..." or "It's still not working because..."

And yes, I know some people will give this idea a :rolleyes:, but at least start somewhere and see what happens with a very strict set of rules.

Logged in members only does break RSS. But I don't have an objection to it if we can overcome that hurdle.

No, the deal is to get information out to the FT members. I'm not aware we have any duty whatsoever to the masses :confused: Perhaps you are confusing us with a newspaper? I agree, for a while in dec there were lots of folks just posting FDs for the exercise (lose lips) with riddles that were so transparent it was silly. Starbucks to the olympics ?? give me a break. I really think a CC type section would work just fine. As a matter of fact, for every deal posted by someone with under 25 posts, I guarantee you I could find 300 posts that say "What's CC" PS joelfreak, give it a rest, we get your concern. PPS anyone notice the MR discussion (TRICK IT) has had a pregnant pause after the last post at 530 last nite. Seems someone found out how to FD all by themselves with out ever reading FT :rolleyes:

Let me just talk to myself out loud for a minute:

The PROBLEM that the Moderators want to solve, as I understand it, is that certain posters don't feel comfortable posting deals in MR, because they believe these posts are being republished elsewhere, causing said deals to go away faster. So they don't post, or post cryptically, causing hate and discontent for those who aren't in on the secret.

The PROBLEM that the Posters want to solve, as I understand it, is having information posted on FT reposted elsewhere, blogged, ratted out to the airlines, etc, causing their super finds to disappear faster.

The proposed SOLUTION by the moderators as I understand it, is to create a subforum with 90/90 access, in hopes that the formerly cryptic posters will feel more comfortable revealing their tricks.

However, it seems like many of those posters in this thread supporting the solution, believe it to be something its not. There is no rule in the FT TOS saying that things posted on Flyertalk cannot be re-published elsewhere (other than in the Private Talkteam and Talkboard forums). And there is certainly no rule that allows for the banning of posters who do. In fact, half of the Boarding Area blogs quote FT and FTers on a regular basis. With the new Facebook connect, that kind of thing seems to be encouraged.

Creating a new subforum will not change this rule.

As I just said, if you think it's FT's job to alert the world to errors and deals, then you don't seem to understand the function of FT - and of your role - which is to the members of FT - whom you were elected to represent. You were not elected to represent the interests of non-FT members - i.e. the wider community.

As much as it pains me to agree with B747 ;), I have to step in here.

Whether FTers leave because they can't find mistake fares, they're mad about OMNI, are pissed off at Delta Mods, or their lives just took them in a different direction... people are going to leave. "Valuable members of the community" leave. It happens. And new people will step in to fill those roles. It's the circle of life (cue Lion King music). The future of FT, and its continuing success lies within the wider community, which means that those interests SHOULD be considered by the Talkboard.

Everyone keeps referring to CC. But CC is all or nothing. You either see it or you don't. And still... there are references made to it regularly, and questions asked about it regularly.

The idea that this new forum will be one that "the new people will never know about it until they see it" is ridiculous. Mods have already stated that they will move threads between forums accordingly... so how are you not going to notice that?

Please let me respectfully answer aloud, missy

The PROBLEM that the Moderators want to solve, as I understand it, is that certain posters don't feel comfortable posting deals in MR, because they believe these posts are being republished elsewhere, causing said deals to go away faster. So they don't post, or post cryptically, causing hate and discontent for those who aren't in on the secret.


More than the MR Deals forum Mod.'s wants to solve this problem, missy, and I count myself among those with a similiar desire to see adjustments made.

The way you phrased the above passage to say that it's believed these deals & tricks are being spread far & wide on the internet is disingenuous since we know this to be happening without doubt as cases like AFWD showed. Pretending it either isn't happening or doesn't matter that much is not the way to go IMHO.

Please let me respectfully answer aloud, missy

More than the MR Deals forum Mod.'s wants to solve this problem, missy, and I count myself among those with a similiar desire to see adjustments made.

The way you phrased the above passage to say that it's believed these deals & tricks are being spread far & wide on the internet is disingenuous since we know this to be happening without doubt as cases like AFWD showed. Pretending it either isn't happening or doesn't matter that much is not the way to go IMHO.

No one is pretending it isn't happening. But we do seem to be pretending that a subforum will be a lot of things it isn't.

Unless I'm wrong, all the Mods are asking for is a 90/90 subforum...correct?

Creating a 90/90 subforum will not allow you to keep AFWD or others out, once they have met the forum requirement.

Creating a 90/90 subforum does not change the TOS to state people can't repost content. Or make it OK to ban people who do.

Creating a 90/90 forum doesn't keep out the long time airline employee posters.

My point was... what the moderators are asking for, and what the posters seem to be supporting are two different ideas.

As much as it pains me to agree with B747 ;), I have to step in here.

Whether FTers leave because they can't find mistake fares, they're mad about OMNI, are pissed off at Delta Mods, or their lives just took them in a different direction... people are going to leave. "Valuable members of the community" leave. It happens. And new people will step in to fill those roles. It's the circle of life (cue Lion King music). The future of FT, and its continuing success lies within the wider community, which means that those interests SHOULD be considered by the Talkboard.

Everyone keeps referring to CC. But CC is all or nothing. You either see it or you don't. And still... there are references made to it regularly, and questions asked about it regularly.

The idea that this new forum will be one that "the new people will never know about it until they see it" is ridiculous. Mods have already stated that they will move threads between forums accordingly... so how are you not going to notice that?
And great - as soon as they join FT, they can be welcomed and their views taken account of.

But to insist that it's important to consider the views and experiences of non-FT members over FT members - as both you and B747 seem to be arguing? Frankly, I'm pretty gobsmacked. No, I'm sorry Ma Kettle's opinion of what happens on FT (which she has probably never heard of) is not more important than a member's opinion of FT.

It's not just about attracting new customers (i.e. members) - it's also about trying to retain the ones we have and showing that this website is also about them. At the moment, both you and B747 are kind of waving us out the door, telling us this website is not about us. Without us (collectively), this website would not be what it is.

BTW, where have I ever suggested that 'new people will never know about it until they see it'? You seem to be attributing an idea to me I haven't even mentioned, suggested or considered :confused: Perhaps you could let me know where you got the idea i thought that?

BTW, where have I ever suggested that 'new people will never know about it until they see it'? You seem to be attributing an idea to me I haven't even mentioned, suggested or considered :confused: Perhaps you could let me know where you got the idea i thought that?

I dont have the idea that you thought that....

It was part of my "everyone keeps referring to CC" train of thought.

But to insist that it's important to consider the views and experiences of non-FT members over FT members - as both you and B747 seem to be arguing? Frankly, I'm pretty gobsmacked.


I didn't say non-members should be considered OVER FT member, but the Talkboard determines the direction of FT... and therefore FUTURE FT members needs should be considered along with current members.

No one is pretending it isn't happening.

Sorry but it sorta sounded like you were when you said MR Mods believe these posts are being republished elsewhere but I won't argue sentence semantics further.

MHO would be to make MR Deals forum member-only 90/90 like CC without trying to have a half & half open & closed MR Deals version which creates as many issues as it resolves.

Let me just talk to myself out loud for a minute:

The PROBLEM that the Moderators want to solve, as I understand it, is that certain posters don't feel comfortable posting deals in MR, because they believe these posts are being republished elsewhere, causing said deals to go away faster. So they don't post, or post cryptically, causing hate and discontent for those who aren't in on the secret.

The PROBLEM that the Posters want to solve, as I understand it, is having information posted on FT reposted elsewhere, blogged, ratted out to the airlines, etc, causing their super finds to disappear faster.

The proposed SOLUTION by the moderators as I understand it, is to create a subforum with 90/90 access, in hopes that the formerly cryptic posters will feel more comfortable revealing their tricks.

However, it seems like many of those posters in this thread supporting the solution, believe it to be something its not. There is no rule in the FT TOS saying that things posted on Flyertalk cannot be re-published elsewhere (other than in the Private Talkteam and Talkboard forums). And there is certainly no rule that allows for the banning of posters who do. In fact, half of the Boarding Area blogs quote FT and FTers on a regular basis. With the new Facebook connect, that kind of thing seems to be encouraged.

Creating a new subforum will not change this rule.

I think it's not entirely accurate to characterize CC as only following general FT TOS. CC has its own (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/coupon-connection/coupon-connection-terms-service-tos-frequently-asked-questions-faq-updated-10-16-2009-you-expected-read-adhere-tos-before-posting-updated-8-15-2009-246.html) TOS, which is worth reading for everyone considering this proposal. For example, CC prohibits selling upgrades or miles or cash. Mods have the authority to block access to CC for violators, and such access blocks last a minimum of 90 days.

You are correct, however, that no specific TOS for the MR subforum have been discussed. If you go back and read the first few posts in this thread, it's clear that the Mods feel one of the problems with the open MR forum is thread stealing -- folks aren't posting deals because the moment they do the deals are posted on AFWD, Slickdeals, etc. PRESUMABLY one of the TOS of the new MR subforum would be a prohibition on re-posting deals, and PRESUMABLY violations would be dealt with the same way as CC violations -- blocked access for a minimum of 90 days. These actual TOS are probably step 2 -- Step 2 is agreeing to create the subforum in the first place.

I think it's not entirely accurate to characterize CC as only following general FT TOS. CC has its own (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/coupon-connection/coupon-connection-terms-service-tos-frequently-asked-questions-faq-updated-10-16-2009-you-expected-read-adhere-tos-before-posting-updated-8-15-2009-246.html) TOS, which is worth reading for everyone considering this proposal. For example, CC prohibits selling upgrades or miles or cash. Mods have the authority to block access to CC for violators, and such access blocks last a minimum of 90 days.

You are correct, however, that no specific TOS for the MR subforum have been discussed. If you go back and read the first few posts in this thread, it's clear that the Mods feel one of the problems with the open MR forum is thread stealing -- folks aren't posting deals because the moment they do the deals are posted on AFWD, Slickdeals, etc. PRESUMABLY one of the TOS of the new MR subforum would be a prohibition on re-posting deals, and PRESUMABLY violations would be dealt with the same way as CC violations -- blocked access for a minimum of 90 days. These actual TOS are probably step 2 -- Step 2 is agreeing to create the subforum in the first place.
I viewed the rules in CC to be there to legally protect FT. These new rules you are suggesting being put in place for the new MR forum would make FT a completely different animal than it is now. If we were to take this step, why wouldn't EVERY forum get to have a subforum with its own rules and membership? At some point, it makes sense to say "there IS a place for these discussions, but not within FT as it currently exists".

The collateral damage of the current system is that ultra-long threads (Good Deals Premium Fares, Trick It Negotiate it come to mind) are allowed to flourish with the express purpose of being so unwieldy and cryptic, that they are user unfriendly....despite being in the public domain.

So, you can exclude the overall community through a qualifying private subforum or you can exclude them by making certain public threads essentially impenetrable.

I think a subforum will eliminate the pretext that many active members have about perpetuating ultra-long threads....which would be a huge plus for me to have access to streamlined information.

There remain plenty of terrific PUBLISHED fares, promotions, bonus deals that can be the basis of mileage runs. And 'mistake fares' methodology has not changed since I started paying attention 7 years ago- check the forum often, assume the fare will disappear imminently and pull the trigger now, decide later!!!!! Preserving 'mistake fares' is a relatively new expectation, booking a mistake fare used to be the prevailing sentiment. Veteran Lurkers, bloggers and big mouths who follow MR and presumably now, this thread, will be no less of a risk to fare outings/closings when (not if!) they qualify for the subforum.

So, whatever decision is made, I think that the end result of posting patterns in MR will be nominal at best. Those that have contributed and left, will remain content with their tighter circle of contacts. And risk of leakage might be mitigated, but certainly not even close to airtight.

I would prefer a sticky that simply advises that having an 'itchy trigger finger' to book freshly minted MR fares is the best utilization of the forum.

PRESUMABLY one of the TOS of the new MR subforum would be a prohibition on re-posting deals, and PRESUMABLY violations would be dealt with the same way as CC violations -- blocked access for a minimum of 90 days. These actual TOS are probably step 2 -- Step 2 is agreeing to create the subforum in the first place.

Any deal-stealer who wanted to obscure his identity for that purpose could do so very easily. Therefore a TOS prohibition would only catch ignorant violations. I'm not convinced that's the best option.

I disagree that the TOS discussion should come later. Let's get agreement on a starting point now. Otherwise the TB is voting on an incomplete proposal. I personally have no problem with letting the moderators fine tune the implementation, but we should be able to hash out the basics up front.

nsx, I am content for rcs85551's proposal in post #1 of this thread to be the starting point:

That TalkBoard approve the trial of a special savings subforum (note that this is not a Mileage Run Deals thread and isn't taking anything from the current strcture aside from a future discussion of tricks etc) for a fixed time and to approve or not approve it formally after the trial.

Here is a quote from post #1. I am happy to clarify my own position to TB members, so ask your questions. Mileage Run co-Mods will also be able to provide more detail.

Dear TalkBoard members,

...
Apart from the negative feedback from quite a substantial number of members, us Mileage Run forum moderators have also discovered another very negative effect – many knowledgeable posters leave the forum within a rolling 2-3 year period because they do not feel comfortable with sharing their deals out in the open anymore. Many members have left Flyertalk for the discussion of Mileage Run related issues since they are uncomfortable with sharing information that even becomes readily accessible to anybody savvy enough to use Google.

...However, we strongly believe that the creation of a second sub-forum to the Mileage Run forum with a closed-off criteria identical to those of the Coupon Connection can provide an environment that many users feel comfortable again to discuss and share ("de-googelize it", as a fellow member put it in the other thread). Based on PMs we have received, a major priority for many users seems to be that despite lurkers possibly gaining access to such a closed-off subforum as well, that they are definitely sharing with active members of the community who have at least posted to a certain extent on the boards.

We humbly submit this issue again for your review – this time it’s us volunteer moderators making the request on behalf of the members. We hope that you’ll be able to reach a positive vote on this matter, at least offering a chance to stop the exodus of long-standing members’ know-how to other forums outside of Flyertalk.

Also on behalf of my fellow Mileage Run forum moderators jpdx, BiziBB and beaubo

rcs85551

I agree that it would be useful to debate the ground rules, to clarify that this is not 'taking private' the existing forum and it is our latest way to help to get a trial of what so many members have been requesting in the Trick It thread, our Mileage Run Discussion survey thread and the previous proposal to TB which is also referenced in the post above. :)

My own feeling on the matter is that we should consider the proposal and modify it if necessary, but have something to try, rather than just shoot it down on general principle.

The concerns we raise are something which you should be able to easily verify.
The level of frustration with the current structure of the forum is not a secret and it is something you should realise is a genuine issue and is not something that can be joked away or deflected by a refusal to consider our proposal.

Thanks for your patient and diligent consideration of the issue.

Cheers,
BiziBB

I think it's not entirely accurate to characterize CC as only following general FT TOS. CC has its own (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/coupon-connection/coupon-connection-terms-service-tos-frequently-asked-questions-faq-updated-10-16-2009-you-expected-read-adhere-tos-before-posting-updated-8-15-2009-246.html) TOS, which is worth reading for everyone considering this proposal. For example, CC prohibits selling upgrades or miles or cash. Mods have the authority to block access to CC for violators, and such access blocks last a minimum of 90 days.

You are correct, however, that no specific TOS for the MR subforum have been discussed. If you go back and read the first few posts in this thread, it's clear that the Mods feel one of the problems with the open MR forum is thread stealing -- folks aren't posting deals because the moment they do the deals are posted on AFWD, Slickdeals, etc. PRESUMABLY one of the TOS of the new MR subforum would be a prohibition on re-posting deals, and PRESUMABLY violations would be dealt with the same way as CC violations -- blocked access for a minimum of 90 days. These actual TOS are probably step 2 -- Step 2 is agreeing to create the subforum in the first place.
But we have no control over content reposted in other places. It's unrealistic to assume that having a more private forum means we'd be able to put into place a rule saying 'no posting elsewhere'.

And if we did, it would be terribly easy to circumvent the rules, as Mods on this board don't have Mod priviledges on other forums to do investigations to see who has actually posted the information.

But we have no control over content reposted in other places. It's unrealistic to assume that having a more private forum means we'd be able to put into place a rule saying 'no posting elsewhere'.

And if we did, it would be terribly easy to circumvent the rules, as Mods on this board don't have Mod priviledges on other forums to do investigations to see who has actually posted the information.

Just because something is hard to do, does not mean it is not worth doing.

And if we did, it would be terribly easy to circumvent the rules, as Mods on this board don't have Mod priviledges on other forums to do investigations to see who has actually posted the information.

A potential workaround for that issue is something that another IBB I'm a member of uses (audio equipment). People who are using the site in a professional capacity (basically, if you manufacture or sell audio gear) are required to state their affiliation (and it's listed as a custom title for them). Failure to disclose such a relationship is a zero-tolerance bannable offense to prevent "astroturfing".

That means that if AFWD "screws the pooch" by spoiling another deal, the mods/management immediately can narrow it down. The AFWD staff as a whole could be masked from the forum, for example.

Just a thought.

Is there a chance of a TB motion on this request anytime soon?

What's the rush? There's a very good discussion taking place.

That means that if AFWD "screws the pooch" by spoiling another deal, the mods/management immediately can narrow it down. The AFWD staff as a whole could be masked from the forum, for example.

With thousands of FTers having access to this proposed private forum, do you really think that's going to work? Do you want the moderators to be tasked with being investigators? For all you know, I could be a staff member of AFWD. How would you or anyone else here know if I was or wasn't? One quick e-mail to them, or any other travel web site, and the info is out there and you would have no way to know I was the culprit.

With thousands of FTers having access to this proposed private forum, do you really think that's going to work? Do you want the moderators to be tasked with being investigators? For all you know, I could be a staff member of AFWD. How would you or anyone else here know if I was or wasn't? One quick e-mail to them, or any other travel web site, and the info is out there and you would have no way to know I was the culprit.

I am beginning to think that the TS/S forum may need to come into this thread to debunk it. Look, FT is a public forum. This is what I have been saying from the beginning. There IS a place for a private forum, and for all I know, there probably ARE private MR forums out there on the web. FT is NOT the place for this. I know EVERYONE wants to feel that they are in on a special deal, and the general public doesn't have access to it, because of their membership...but thats NOT what this is proposing, and thats NOT what FT is about at all.

That means that if AFWD "screws the pooch" by spoiling another deal, the mods/management immediately can narrow it down. The AFWD staff as a whole could be masked from the forum, for example.

masked for what violation? As has been said many times, AFWD did not violate any TOS rule. And while there is certainly a lot of presuming that some sort of rule to this effect will be implemented. .. the proposal before the Talkboard isn't asking for any such change to those rules.

masked for what violation? As has been said many times, AFWD did not violate any TOS rule. And while there is certainly a lot of presuming that some sort of rule to this effect will be implemented. .. the proposal before the Talkboard isn't asking for any such change to those rules.

However my personal belief is that the TalkBoard should express an opinion on such a rule. I am conflicted on the issue, because I realize that the rule would only be capable of catching the non-devious. It would resemble the Italian tax system. ;) However the rule would make an important statement of what behavior is expected of members. I lean toward favoring making that statement.

Let's keep the discussion going. Ideally, we can develop a first draft of the TalkBoard proposal right here in the open forum, so that everyone can point out the flaws before the TalkBoard freezes it and votes on it. Let's get it right the first time.

However my personal belief is that the TalkBoard should express an opinion on such a rule. I am conflicted on the issue, because I realize that the rule would only be capable of catching the non-devious. It would resemble the Italian tax system. ;) However the rule would make an important statement of what behavior is expected of members. I lean toward favoring making that statement.

Let's keep the discussion going. Ideally, we can develop a first draft of the TalkBoard proposal right here in the open forum, so that everyone can point out the flaws before the TalkBoard freezes it and votes on it. Let's get it right the first time.

I don't think the TB can even lay FRAMEWORK on this rule. Who would be the judge and jury? How can one be sure they are not being FRAMED? Even trying to put such a rule on paper would be a loosing cause as far as I am concerned...

With thousands of FTers having access to this proposed private forum, do you really think that's going to work? Do you want the moderators to be tasked with being investigators? For all you know, I could be a staff member of AFWD. How would you or anyone else here know if I was or wasn't? One quick e-mail to them, or any other travel web site, and the info is out there and you would have no way to know I was the culprit.

Under the idea I proposed, if you were affiliated with AFWD, failed to disclose that, and someone found out, you'd be banned. 1 strike and you're out. It's harsh, but it's prevented astroturfing at another IBB I'm on.

masked for what violation? As has been said many times, AFWD did not violate any TOS rule. And while there is certainly a lot of presuming that some sort of rule to this effect will be implemented. .. the proposal before the Talkboard isn't asking for any such change to those rules.

That's the other part of the concept that was implied in my idea, but not explicitly stated - the TOS for access to the private forum would need to be predicated on agreeing not to disclose the information discussed there outside the private forum. Kind of like the rules you've got for the TB forum. If you post something in the private forum, gleff (for instance) can't repost it anywhere else without your approval. Preferably, this would be an explicit opt-in, so users can't plead ignorance.

Under the idea I proposed, if you were affiliated with AFWD, failed to disclose that, and someone found out, you'd be banned. 1 strike and you're out. It's harsh, but it's prevented astroturfing at another IBB I'm on.

Is there anything you can tell us publicly about this?

Is there anything you can tell us publicly about this?

Perhaps a link to the terms which people agree to be bound by and which state the sanctions for breaking the terms?

I am labouring the point, but I think that anyone commenting in this thread should read the start (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-discussion/930922-trick-negotiate-special-savings-lounge-thread.html) and the end (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-discussion/930922-trick-negotiate-special-savings-lounge-thread-350.html)of the trick it thread because it has a good atmosphere of sharing and great suggestions at the beginning, then has become more and more impenetrable, off-topic at times and discouraging in the section in 2010. 2010 discussion begins around this page (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-discussion/930922-trick-negotiate-special-savings-lounge-thread-246.html)for me (at 15/page, around late 36xx post).

Thanks everyone for the input and for TalkBoard representatives for taking this issue seriously. :)

I don't think the TB can even lay FRAMEWORK on this rule. Who would be the judge and jury? How can one be sure they are not being FRAMED? Even trying to put such a rule on paper would be a loosing cause as far as I am concerned...

Come now, the Internet does not require a separate judge and jury does it? ;)

As far as being framed, surely you're reading too much Grisham these days. Unless someone gives away their username and password, I am unaware of any user being "framed" on FT.

All right, I'll bite. Here's my proposal:

********************************************

The Mileage Run Members Space is for registered Flyertalk members only. Qualification for viewing and posting in the Members Space shall follow the same rules for current access to The Coupon Connection, as amended from time to time.

The purpose of the Members Space is to permit the private discussion of mileage run deals. The primary space for posting mileage run deals is in the Mileage Run forum. However, Flyertalk recognizes that some members may not feel comfortable posting in the Mileage Run forum for a variety of reasons, and this Members Space is for the posting and discussion of fares in a more limited setting. Participation the Members Space is strictly voluntary.

Any mileage run deals posted in the Members Space is limited to discussion in the Members Space only. It is a violation of the Terms of Service (TOS) of the Members Space to re-post any specific deal in any manner or fashion in any medium. This includes, but is not limited to, blogging, web-posting, tweeting, posting on any social media network, emailing, or any other distribution to the general public, whether for profit or otherwise.

Moderators of the Members Space shall investigate all possible violations of the TOS. Violators shall be masked from the Members Space for a minimum of 90 days. Moderators reserve the right to extend the mask in cases of serious violations.

******************************************

Come now, the Internet does not require a separate judge and jury does it? ;)

As far as being framed, surely you're reading too much Grisham these days. Unless someone gives away their username and password, I am unaware of any user being "framed" on FT.

All right, I'll bite. Here's my proposal:

********************************************

The Mileage Run Members Space is for registered Flyertalk members only. Qualification for viewing and posting in the Members Space shall follow the same rules for current access to The Coupon Connection, as amended from time to time.

The purpose of the Members Space is to permit the private discussion of mileage run deals. The primary space for posting mileage run deals is in the Mileage Run forum. However, Flyertalk recognizes that some members may not feel comfortable posting in the Mileage Run forum for a variety of reasons, and this Members Space is for the posting and discussion of fares in a more limited setting. Participation the Members Space is strictly voluntary.

Any mileage run deals posted in the Members Space is limited to discussion in the Members Space only. It is a violation of the Terms of Service (TOS) of the Members Space to re-post any specific deal in any manner or fashion in any medium. This includes, but is not limited to, blogging, web-posting, tweeting, posting on any social media network, emailing, or any other distribution to the general public, whether for profit or otherwise.

Moderators of the Members Space shall investigate all possible violations of the TOS. Violators shall be masked from the Members Space for a minimum of 90 days. Moderators reserve the right to extend the mask in cases of serious violations.

******************************************

And who 'investigates' these violations? Unless someone ADMITS to it, who does the investigations? What happens if I tell my cousin about the deal, who happens to then tell someone else who posts it? Are there any methods of appeal? What happens if I post something in this thread that CAME from another board? Can I put somewhere the fact that its already out in public? This opens up WAY too many cans of worms, and I would think puts FT and IB in some legal hot water. You don't have the right to post on the boards, however if this is a ruling that comes out 'publicly' by a representative of FT, which is IB, it could perhaps be slander or libel. This is not somewhere I think FT wants to be.

And who 'investigates' these violations? Unless someone ADMITS to it, who does the investigations? What happens if I tell my cousin about the deal, who happens to then tell someone else who posts it? Are there any methods of appeal? What happens if I post something in this thread that CAME from another board? Can I put somewhere the fact that its already out in public? This opens up WAY too many cans of worms, and I would think puts FT and IB in some legal hot water. You don't have the right to post on the boards, however if this is a ruling that comes out 'publicly' by a representative of FT, which is IB, it could perhaps be slander or libel. This is not somewhere I think FT wants to be.

I don't like the fact that the prohibition is easy to evade by those who wish to do so. You have to weigh that against the value of making a policy statement by having the prohibition. You have illustrated the former but ignored the latter.

As to legal hot water for masking someone for a forum? I don't see any risk of that. The decision would not be public, any more than warnings and suspensions are today. It's between member and moderator(s).

I don't like the fact that the prohibition is easy to evade by those who wish to do so. You have to weigh that against the value of making a policy statement by having the prohibition. You have illustrated the former but ignored the latter.

As to legal hot water for masking someone for a forum? I don't see any risk of that. The decision would not be public, any more than warnings and suspensions are today. It's between member and moderator(s).

It would be a public accusation made I would assume...I will grant you that this is an extreme circumstance, but what if a reporter from a major paper/media outlet found their way in, and managed to get themselves banned for publicly disseminating fares found on the board. Would IB like to go against Fox/ABC/USAToday/etc?

All I am saying is I don't think FT is the place for these rules. As I have said many times, if you want to play by these rules, start a new place to trade your information. I would welcome that, and probably join. But I think FT as it exists today works very well without needing trials and passing judgment on people and their motives.

Under the idea I proposed, if you were affiliated with AFWD, failed to disclose that, and someone found out, you'd be banned. 1 strike and you're out. It's harsh, but it's prevented astroturfing at another IBB I'm on.

I hope you are not serious about this suggestion. Will there also be a secret police who investigates users to ensure they are who they say they are? Biometric ID verification to ensure usernames are not being shared? Name and shame of violators? Perhaps public floggings on Friday nights? Anonymous users who send cryptic PMs that self destruct? Rules like "The first rule of the PMR (Private Mileage Run) Club is YOU DONT TALK ABOUT THE PMR CLUB"? The possibilities are endless!!

IJAFIBB.

PS. I do volunteer to head up the secret police if we choose to go down that route. :p

Here's the forum heading from a private members section of a bulletin board:

Registered Members Forums (Level 2)
Forums here is closed for public and will not appear on search engines.

The Mileage Run Members Space is for registered Flyertalk members only. Qualification for viewing and posting in the Members Space shall follow the same rules for current access to The Coupon Connection, as amended from time to time.

The purpose of the Members Space is to permit the private discussion of mileage run deals. The primary space for posting mileage run deals is in the Mileage Run forum. However, Flyertalk recognizes that some members may not feel comfortable posting in the Mileage Run forum for a variety of reasons, and this Members Space is for the posting and discussion of fares in a more limited setting. Participation the Members Space is strictly voluntary.

Any mileage run deals posted in the Members Space is limited to discussion in the Members Space only. It is a violation of the Terms of Service (TOS) of the Members Space to re-post any specific deal in any manner or fashion in any medium. This includes, but is not limited to, blogging, web-posting, tweeting, posting on any social media network, emailing, or any other distribution to the general public, whether for profit or otherwise.

Moderators of the Members Space shall investigate all possible violations of the TOS. Violators shall be masked from the Members Space for a minimum of 90 days. Moderators reserve the right to extend the mask in cases of serious violations.

I support this. :D
And want the moderators in the new Members Space to get rid of the riddle posts and jargon. Otherwise tho I qualify for access it will still remain an opaque thread for me.

I'm enjoying the debate... despite the seemingly nonsensical scare tactics, or perhaps they are posts designed to be filibusters



Mods have already stated that they will move threads between forums accordingly...

I don't think this is accurate. The post in the original forum stay where the OP places them. Posts in the "Logged-in" forum stay where they are.

The only actoinable items that I could envision woule be a delete when a duplicate posts from the Logged-in forum is made in the open one. As far as I have read, I don't see anywhere that mods have stated repeated moving of threads.

Any deal-stealer who wanted to obscure his identity for that purpose could do so very easily. Therefore a TOS prohibition would only catch ignorant violations. I'm not convinced that's the best option.

Great point. I think the only sure violations we can prevent with any consistency is the internal duplicate postings from the Logged-in Forum to other areas in FT. Although I would have never intended to include terms re: posting on other websites; although I see difficulty in any follow through for violations, I strongly support the 'vocalization' of our principles in establishing the guidelines. They don't have to be enforcable to be a good idea. I support the principles of their inclusion in the "Logged-in forum" regardless of the difficulties of their existence.

But we have no control over content reposted in other places. It's unrealistic to assume that having a more private forum means we'd be able to put into place a rule saying 'no posting elsewhere'.

And if we did, it would be terribly easy to circumvent the rules, as Mods on this board don't have Mod priviledges on other forums to do investigations to see who has actually posted the information.

Agree and like I stated above, the statement of our principles is worth more than their ability to be enforced... just my opinion though...


All right, I'll bite. Here's my proposal:

********************************************

The Mileage Run Members Space is for registered Flyertalk members only. Qualification for viewing and posting in the Members Space shall follow the same rules for current access to The Coupon Connection, as amended from time to time.

The purpose of the Members Space is to permit the private discussion of mileage run deals....

...Any mileage run deals posted in the Members Space is limited to discussion in the Members Space only. It is a violation of the Terms of Service (TOS) of the Members Space to re-post any specific deal in any manner or fashion in any medium. This includes, but is not limited to, blogging, web-posting, tweeting, posting on any social media network, emailing, or any other distribution to the general public, whether for profit or otherwise.

...Moderators reserve the right to extend the mask in cases of serious violations.



Bravo on the first hypothetical draft. I think this proves how realistic the idea is. An evolvement or re-writing of the draft is a great step to a forward movement to the forum. Thank you for the time you took in compiling the points.

And who 'investigates' these violations? Unless someone ADMITS to it, who does the investigations?

...by a representative of FT, which is IB...

Initially, I thought you were just arguing with me, so I stopped posting. But it seems that you are legitimately out to criticize every supporter of this proposal with your 24 posts (of almost 150 total posts in this thread) in the thread.

I'd hope you'd have some constructive criticism soon. Can you recommend any ideas that would improve the current situation? Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve the proposal that the moderators (that have been working for years on the forum) have brought forward. I can see you are passionate about the subject. How about using that passion to help us... not just fillabuster.

All I am saying is I don't think FT is the place for these rules. As I have said many times, if you want to play by these rules, start a new place to trade your information...

This, again, is just the opposite of what has been done in the past. This is a way to be innovative. How many forums have had members leave in a huff because FT does not serve their needs. This is not some revolt to take from FT. The members that suggest and support this love FT. The members that oppose it love FT. Let's recognize that our passion for FlyerTalk may be the common link between us, while simultaneously being the common hurdle between us.

This is the opposite, trying to find a way to keep FT integral to its purpose, while recognizing the needs of its members.

I think your suggestion that 'if you don't like it, leave and do it elsewhere' epitomizes the fact that many people still don't understand the reasons for the proposal. Mileage run has run into some systemic problems. The route to any change or evolvement is here at the Talk Board. Please help us continue this discussion in a positive manner. Who knows we may all be part of the next great chapter in FT history.

I hope you are not serious about this suggestion. Will there also be a secret police who investigates users to ensure they are who they say they are? Biometric ID verification to ensure usernames are not being shared? Name and shame of violators? Perhaps public floggings on Friday nights? Anonymous users who send cryptic PMs that self destruct? Rules like "The first rule of the ... Club is YOU DONT TALK ABOUT THE ... CLUB"? The possibilities are endless!!

With all due respect. And I do mean that. As a TalkBoard member and long term member of FT, your view of things, although different than ours, is important. However, I have to ask myself if your flippant comments are warranted here. This is a forum dedicated to Talk Board matters. I assume when I interact with TalkBoard members in this forum that they are posting in their offical capacity, and not as general members. Which leads me to reply to your question by quoting you...

"I hope you are not serious about this suggestion"?... I question why you would post the situations you describe, as funny as they are. "Floggings", "Shame of Violators" "biometrics", "secret police". I understand you are against this idea, AND THAT IS OK. But as a TB member, leaving the misinformation and fear tactics out of the discussion may be a more suitable approach.


We're on the right track. Let's just keep the ball roling....

Initially, I thought you were just arguing with me, so I stopped posting. But it seems that you are legitimately out to criticize every supporter of this proposal with your 24 posts (of almost 150 total posts in this thread) in the thread.

I'd hope you'd have some constructive criticism soon. Can you recommend any ideas that would improve the current situation? Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve the proposal that the moderators (that have been working for years on the forum) have brought forward. I can see you are passionate about the subject. How about using that passion to help us... not just fillabuster.

I think I AM giving constructive criticism. Many on here agree with me as well, as they have posted. Sometimes an idea is So against the nature of a place/forum, that even though it has alot of merit, it doesn't belong there...If some true Americans wanted to start a communist country, I would suggest they can TRY to change the system from within, but its probably best to start a new country with the principles they want from the start...thats what I see happening here. This proposal is so AGAINST what FT stands for, that I think forming a new place (and for all I know there ARE these places already) to discuss these 'must remain secret' fares is the best idea. If you take a step back, what you are asking is for a locked room in what is really an amphitheater. Everything on FT is meant to be public, by the nature that this is a FORUM. I wish to keep things that way, and not to have to start investigating everything right and left.


This, again, is just the opposite of what has been done in the past. This is a way to be innovative. How many forums have had members leave in a huff because FT does not serve their needs. This is not some revolt to take from FT. The members that suggest and support this love FT. The members that oppose it love FT. Let's recognize that our passion for FlyerTalk may be the common link between us, while simultaneously being the common hurdle between us.

Again, I don't know if you don't respect my opinion here, or you just don't get it...I am supporting FT by trying to protect it...my compromise was to let the current forum be made to be members only/logged in, but not with any of these rules about not posting elsewhere/etc. I don't even think THATS right, but that was a compromise.

This is the opposite, trying to find a way to keep FT integral to its purpose, while recognizing the needs of its members.

I think your suggestion that 'if you don't like it, leave and do it elsewhere' epitomizes the fact that many people still don't understand the reasons for the proposal. Mileage run has run into some systemic problems. The route to any change or evolvement is here at the Talk Board. Please help us continue this discussion in a positive manner. Who knows we may all be part of the next great chapter in FT history.

Again, I think what you have here is alot of people mad that deals are ending quickly, and thinking ANYTHING will work. You can see that from the posts where everyone thinks this is going to do something different than it actually was proposed to do in the beginning. Maybe you should step back and think why you joined FT when you first did...and how you would have felt if many of the boards were off limits to you when you joined...would you still be here today?!

An opinion with which I agree. That explains why I find the following characterization to be ironic, since the current way of operating with no viewing restrictions has lead to behavior that could be fairly characterized as "cliquish, selfish, greedy, and wrong" in comparison to "the community culture FT strives to foster".

It seems like the proposed door would be open to basically all registered FTers who participate on FT in much the same way as Coupon Connection is open to FTers.

I couldn't agree more. Even the "Trick it..." thread used to be relatively comprehensible, but lately looking through that thing is like trying to figure out poorly translated furniture assembly instructions.

When I first started following the MR Deals forum about three years ago, I could almost count on finding a great deal on any given night, but in the past couple of years it's gradually degenerated into a collection of mostly ho-hum "good deals" advertised on airline websites and emails mixed in with the usual help requests from new members.

At the very least the 'Deals' forum should be a sub-forum of the discussion forum rather that the other way around. Further restricting it to logged in members would have the added benefit of keeping it off the Google searches.

The idea of having a sub forum restricted to established members like CC is a bit more controversial. It would be a shame if the regular 'Deals' forum were further eroded due to the existence of a more exclusive "Super Insider MR Deals for Elite FT members only" forum. If we do end up creating a restricted sub-forum, it should be specifically for sharing tricks and loopholes, and not for posting deals that traditionally belong in the MR forum.

........ At the very least the 'Deals' forum should be a sub-forum of the discussion forum rather that the other way around.

I have supported this idea previously because it would lower the number of help posts on the MR Deal forum. Newbies would be more inclined to post their help requests in MR Discussion if it was the first forum they saw.


......Further restricting it to logged in members would have the added benefit of keeping it off the Google searches.

By restricting Google access, it should somewhat cut down on the number of newbies wanting explanations of the current code. These requests are meet with answers like "look through the last 20 pages" or "look through the first 20 and last 20 pages." A series of posts then argue about people resorting to the use of codes. Since I agree with those who decided to use codes to try to protect all the research they've done, I'm in favor of any attempts to cut down all the please-explain requests from newbies.


..... It would be a shame if the regular 'Deals' forum were further eroded due to the existence of a more exclusive "Super Insider MR Deals for Elite FT members only" forum. If we do end up creating a restricted sub-forum, it should be specifically for sharing tricks and loopholes, and not for posting deals that traditionally belong in the MR forum.

I think the erosion has occurred because most airlines and hotel chains have not only realized the benefits of social marketing, but have lurkers here so that they can quickly correct their mistakes.

I completely agree that the sub-forum should only be for tricks.

The views and opinions made in this post are those as an individual member of Talkboard and do not represent the views of the TB or my views as a Moderator


I have been reading this thread carefully since its inception. Whilst I think the aims of the thread are laudable, I think we're closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. I am regularly told that the real mistake fares never appear near Flyertalk as people have created their own fora for these elsewhere on the internet, or they are exchanged by email. I am not party to these thread or fora and so have no idea if this is true. However, based on the number of times I get told this, clearly there is an 'in' crowd who have access to these.

Personally, I think we run the risk of creating even more 'runners' (people making useless posts) in an attempt to get to the 'Special' section of Mileage Run. Also, unless we can attract back the people who know about the mistake fares or special tricks, there will huge disappointment when people do get access and discover just one or two things of interest. The days, mentioned before, of dozens of good deals I think are gone.

I am not sure that I support this proposal at present for the reasons mentioned above. If someone would care to persuade me otherwise, my mind is open on the subject.

I am in favor of this proposal and hope to see it implemented soon. The Mileage run forum is the first that I visit when I log on, it even has priority to reading my mail and that means a lot. The sub-forum would make it even more enticing with hopefully many posters who have left due to the problems in the past, returning and adding their invaluable experience back as before and making the deals potentially even sweeter. I did learn a lot in this forum and many MRs could not have been done without it.

I believe that

* Many of the best deals and fares have historically been posted by new members.

* That Flyertalk is best as an open community

And I do not favor restricted or closed discussion on Flyertalk of deals.

I have no issue with people taking their own or personal discussions offline. But Flyertalk is best as an inclusive community.

As for fuel dumps, by the way, what criteria would have kept the proprietor of the website that published details out of the know on that deal, and thus kept fuel dumps alive? Even with a restricted forum the very same story would have played out.

There's one idea floating around that I can't agree with regardless of whether a semi-private sub-forum is implemented:

Punishing someone on FT for their actions off-FT.

Someone in the hypothetical "private" forum facing expulsion or other sanction for leaking private forum information is not something I can agree to. We should not attempt to regulate what people choose to do off-FT.

Someone in the hypothetical "private" forum facing expulsion or other sanction for leaking private forum information is not something I can agree to.

Even if it's just blocking access to one forum? That's completely invisible to other members.

I think there is decently good proof (others have now alluded to in this thread) that the 'super fare' people have their own forums/mailing lists now. Will this forum bring them back? I can't see why they would, as the people they don't wish to see the deals would still be able to see them. So what we are left with now is the people who CONSUME the deals looking to get better access than newbies to FT MR. I think to say that the people who have these so called elite fares will suddenly come back to a CC-like limited forum is ridiculous. It also would be 100% against the spirit of FT, as some of the TB members have said, but even in foundation, I don't think it would solve any problems.
I am in favor of this proposal and hope to see it implemented soon. The Mileage run forum is the first that I visit when I log on, it even has priority to reading my mail and that means a lot. The sub-forum would make it even more enticing with hopefully many posters who have left due to the problems in the past, returning and adding their invaluable experience back as before and making the deals potentially even sweeter. I did learn a lot in this forum and many MRs could not have been done without it.

Even if it's just blocking access to one forum? That's completely invisible to other members.

I honestly ask that if this is allowed for MR (banning of people who post elsewhere, etc) why wouldn't this spread to other forums? Maybe the Luxury Hotel people will want an elite forum. Why wouldn't we have an UA forum where you have to PROVE you are 1K? Once you start this ball rolling, where/why does it stop?

I believe that

* Many of the best deals and fares have historically been posted by new members.

* That Flyertalk is best as an open community

And I do not favor restricted or closed discussion on Flyertalk of deals.

I have no issue with people taking their own or personal discussions offline. But Flyertalk is best as an inclusive community.


The Trick thread as it currently exists is already like Coupon Connection in that most of the real trick experts aren't willing to share their best stuff unless unless you have something to barter. It would be a lot more useful to those of us interested in discussing tricks to have actual forum rather than a mega-thread full of confusing riddles.

The reason CC has the restrictions it does is not to be exclusive or elitist, but rather to ensure that the real gravy is going to "those who are active participants and contributors to the airline/hotel/miles/points boards" and as a way to screen out and limit those opportunists simply looking to use the community like a cash register.


As for fuel dumps, by the way, what criteria would have kept the proprietor of the website that published details out of the know on that deal, and thus kept fuel dumps alive? Even with a restricted forum the very same story would have played out.

The point is that having the sub-forum would reduce the chance of non-registered lurkers simply stumbling onto a bunch of cool tricks and posting them on a blog. Someone who's invested the time to understand what Mileage Run Deals are all about and contribute to the Flyertalk community might have a little more appreciation for what their putting out there. If folks like AFWD want to poach our best stuff and exploit it to get page clicks and ad revenue, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to actively participate in Flyertalk.

The point is that having the sub-forum would reduce the chance of non-registered lurkers simply stumbling onto a bunch of cool tricks and posting them on a blog. Someone who's invested the time to understand what Mileage Run Deals are all about and contribute to the Flyertalk community might have a little more appreciation for what their putting out there. If folks like AFWD want to poach our best stuff and exploit it to get page clicks and ad revenue, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to actively participate in Flyertalk.

AFWD has HIRED some of the long-time FT members. I am not one of them, but I have seen the job postings...and I am SURE that other methods that MR fares have 'leaked' out have long-time FT members helping them. These people HAVE contributed for a long time, and now are getting paid for it. Are you suggesting that FT is like the Olympics used to be, and once someone gets paid for doing this they have to leave?
I know I am posting in this thread alot, but I am trying to get people to understand that there is no way to keep postings out from the general internet without a MAJOR shift in FT membership policy. Every day we get a posting on this thread of someone who thinks that they can keep AFWD/USAToday/etc out of the MR thread by following this proposal. It wont.

AFWD has HIRED some of the long-time FT members. I am not one of them, but I have seen the job postings...and I am SURE that other methods that MR fares have 'leaked' out have long-time FT members helping them. These people HAVE contributed for a long time, and now are getting paid for it. Are you suggesting that FT is like the Olympics used to be, and once someone gets paid for doing this they have to leave?
I know I am posting in this thread alot, but I am trying to get people to understand that there is no way to keep postings out from the general internet without a MAJOR shift in FT membership policy. Every day we get a posting on this thread of someone who thinks that they can keep AFWD/USAToday/etc out of the MR thread by following this proposal. It wont.

The point of a tricks sub-forum is not to keep secrets, that's impossible and eliminates the whole point of a public discussion board.

The goal and rationale for a restricted Tricks sub-forum should be:

1. Replace the cryptic mega-thread with a more comprehensible and easier to moderate forum.

2. Foster a sense of respect for the valuable information shared in the forum and encourage (not enforce) the use of discretion when posting outside of FT.

I'm not suggesting we go all Gestapo, but rather that we create an environment that's more conducive to useful discussion on this topic rather than the cluster-thread we have now.

Even if it's just blocking access to one forum? That's completely invisible to other members.

Yes, even then.

It's a slippery slope when FT makes its members accountable on FT for what they do off-FT.

While I would be in favor of a restricted use forum, if one of the issues if restricting information getting out to airline folks who currently monitor this site, how would this restrict them?


TBF

Although I have been a member for 6 years, my post count is rather low, not because I am keeping secrets, but rather because most things are answered before I ever get to read the topic...I also have read and re read the FD Mileage Run posts, and have not been able to figure it out for the life of me. I do keep trying though and hope to have an A Ha Moment .

I love the camaraderie and the knowledge that there are so many folks out there just as "avid" as I am about travel and miles (I think I am the only job applicant that answers 70% to the question "How much are you willing to travel?") but I also hate being left out of deals because I can't read between the lines. I have to agree that a "must be logged in" and a number of posts (or could it be length of membership?) should be used for a sub forum.

I honestly ask that if this is allowed for MR (banning of people who post elsewhere, etc) why wouldn't this spread to other forums? Maybe the Luxury Hotel people will want an elite forum. Why wouldn't we have an UA forum where you have to PROVE you are 1K? Once you start this ball rolling, where/why does it stop?

I have to say this -- I don't mean to be uncivil, and there's nothing wrong with being a frequent poster on a topic you feel passionately about, but your fearmongering about the consequences of creating a sub forum are unfounded and not based on any realistic past experience (because there is no past experience on FT except CC). I feel like it's 2003 all over again and I'm looking for WMD's under my bed.

To everyone who has posted concerns about exclusion -- exclusion is a part of life. I know it's an ugly word and it offends American sensibilities. I had Indian for dinner tonight, to the exclusion of Italian. I drive a German car, to the exclusion of a Japanese carmaker. Flyertalk is for aviation enthusiasts, to the exclusion of pig farmers and crochet knitters. I think all that the mods are asking for here is moving the line from all public members to dedicated mileage collectors and aviation fans. The bar is not high, and is identical to the one implemented for CC, and is being asked for the same reasons as CC's existence. The exclusion, it is hoped, will create a more comfortable atmosphere for dedicated mileage runners by excluding those who earn a salary by stealing deals from FT for their own content generation. In this manner, it is hoped, community involvement will increase on FT, and in turn create more INCLUSION.

And to those who say this won't work, I say you may be right. I've heard a lot of compelling reasons such as the deals are already gone, there's already a network to talk about this, the horse has already left the stable, etc. I also say you may be wrong. No one will know unless it is tried. What is the harm in trying this on a trial basis, as the moderators have requested?

The point of a tricks sub-forum is not to keep secrets, that's impossible and eliminates the whole point of a public discussion board.

The goal and rationale for a restricted Tricks sub-forum should be:

1. Replace the cryptic mega-thread with a more comprehensible and easier to moderate forum.

2. Foster a sense of respect for the valuable information shared in the forum and encourage (not enforce) the use of discretion when posting outside of FT.

I'm not suggesting we go all Gestapo, but rather that we create an environment that's more conducive to useful discussion on this topic rather than the cluster-thread we have now.

I fully agree with this post. There's no doubt that no matter what we do, information will leak out. Some long-time posters will "graduate" from FT and move on. Mistakes and exceptional deals will be shared privately. Such deals will still occasionally be posted on FT, and we will have long discussions on whether this "publicity" killed the deal prematurely.

We should accept that we cannot change any of this.

We can, however, change the divisiveness the "tricks" thread has generated in the MR forums. As a Moderator, I don't want to get dozens of RBPs each day, some saying, "I have no idea what these cryptic posts are doing," and the rest saying "OMG, someone is sharing too much information, delete it quickly."

I believe that a walled subforum can create more openness and information sharing, and make the MR forum a useful and civilized forum again.

I have to say this -- I don't mean to be uncivil, and there's nothing wrong with being a frequent poster on a topic you feel passionately about, but your fearmongering about the consequences of creating a sub forum are unfounded and not based on any realistic past experience (because there is no past experience on FT except CC). I feel like it's 2003 all over again and I'm looking for WMD's under my bed.


Saying that other forms may want to have walled forums as well is FEAR MONGERING?! I completely disagree. I think I am being realistic.
There is a reason why there are absolutely NO private forums on FT other than CC, which we have gone over the reasons why that happened in prior posts. The simple answer to this is that all this will do is cause what has already happened in this TB thread...much bickering, finger-pointing and anger, and no problems will be solved.

I believe that a walled subforum can create more openness and information sharing, and make the MR forum a useful and civilized forum again.

Honest question: What difference will this being a walled forum make than what we have now? Why will the FD thread and other coded threads be any different when they don't have the ability to pick and choose whose allowed to read and share? Can someone who has been refusing to post come forward and say this simple change will make them suddenly change their behavior? We have already seen people who say that walling the forum off will KEEP them from participating.

There's one idea floating around that I can't agree with regardless of whether a semi-private sub-forum is implemented:

Punishing someone on FT for their actions off-FT.

Someone in the hypothetical "private" forum facing expulsion or other sanction for leaking private forum information is not something I can agree to. We should not attempt to regulate what people choose to do off-FT.

Didn't some people feel a little heat with the Tireflock brouhaha a few years back, specifically with regard to PM content reposted outside FT?

Didn't some people feel a little heat with the Tireflock brouhaha a few years back, specifically with regard to PM content reposted outside FT?

I dunno. It is against the FT TOS to Post Private Emails and Messages Without the Author's Permission (http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q84).

While I can see a parallel, I can't quite equate PM/email with the contents of a large semi-private forum.

I fully agree with this post. There's no doubt that no matter what we do, information will leak out. Some long-time posters will "graduate" from FT and move on. Mistakes and exceptional deals will be shared privately. Such deals will still occasionally be posted on FT, and we will have long discussions on whether this "publicity" killed the deal prematurely.

We should accept that we cannot change any of this.

We can, however, change the divisiveness the "tricks" thread has generated in the MR forums. As a Moderator, I don't want to get dozens of RBPs each day, some saying, "I have no idea what these cryptic posts are doing," and the rest saying "OMG, someone is sharing too much information, delete it quickly."
Indeed; this is an example of the cause of so much conflict in the past year.
It followed an increased level of frustration expressed by people trying to understand the thread, vs. people opposed to allowing too much clear info on deals, lest they get pirated and subsequently killed because too many people were trying to book them.

I believe that a walled subforum can create more openness and information sharing, and make the MR forum a useful and civilized forum again.

Whether or not the subforum will help, is something we would like to see and try. This is the purpose of the request and this thread - for TalkBoard to endorse the trial.

I've been offline a bit this weekend, but will catch up on the rest of the recent posts.

What else to TB representatives require, to draft a useful proposal which they are willing to support?

I couldn't agree more. Even the "Trick it..." thread used to be relatively comprehensible, but lately looking through that thing is like trying to figure out poorly translated furniture assembly instructions.

When I first started following the MR Deals forum about three years ago, I could almost count on finding a great deal on any given night, but in the past couple of years it's gradually degenerated into a collection of mostly ho-hum "good deals" advertised on airline websites and emails mixed in with the usual help requests from new members.
Recent events have profoundly affected some of the content of the tricks thread and since then, regular contributors may have modified their advice to be even harder to be pirated.

I like the comment about furniture instructions. ;)

At the very least the 'Deals' forum should be a sub-forum of the discussion forum rather that the other way around. Further restricting it to logged in members would have the added benefit of keeping it off the Google searches.
This idea had been discussed in off-topic diversions of the trick thread and subsequently were moved to another discussion thread in Mileage Run Discussion. After that, the Mileage Run moderators sought input from members about their views on the future of the mileage run forums. Again, this was proposed and discussed by some.

However it is not the proposal here and it is clear that the proposal does not restructure the format of the two MR forums.

Thus, it is irrelevant in this TB thread. Maybe it could be a future, separate proposal after this one is dealt with by TB.

The idea of having a sub forum restricted to established members like CC is a bit more controversial. It would be a shame if the regular 'Deals' forum were further eroded due to the existence of a more exclusive "Super Insider MR Deals for Elite FT members only" forum. If we do end up creating a restricted sub-forum, it should be specifically for sharing tricks and loopholes, and not for posting deals that traditionally belong in the MR forum.

Yes, the proposal is only for special strategies and tricks.
Not a new forum which cannibalises the Deals forum.

This has been made clear numerous times. :)
I agree that any proposal for a TB vote needs to be very clear that the proposal is for future topics (not current threads or forums) such as for savings strategies and tips, like we currently see in the tricks thread.

Thanks for your well thought-out contribution. ^

Yes, the proposal is only for special strategies and tricks. Not a new forum which cannibalises the Deals forum.

FWIW, I would support a new sub-forum for Special Strategies and Tricks, provided that there were no access restrictions applied.

The collateral damage of the current system is that ultra-long threads (Good Deals Premium Fares, Trick It Negotiate it come to mind) are allowed to flourish with the express purpose of being so unwieldy and cryptic, that they are user unfriendly....despite being in the public domain.

Once again, I put forward the suggestion that if a thread or discussion topic is becoming "user unfriendly", would it not be the role of the moderators to ensure that it remains "user friendly"?

We can, however, change the divisiveness the "tricks" thread has generated in the MR forums. As a Moderator, I don't want to get dozens of RBPs each day, some saying, "I have no idea what these cryptic posts are doing," and the rest saying "OMG, someone is sharing too much information, delete it quickly."

I believe that a walled subforum can create more openness and information sharing, and make the MR forum a useful and civilized forum again.

I agree.. My 2 cents on this whole matter:

1. Signing in: There is nothing wrong with asking users of flyertalk to sign in to even get access to anything. No minimum post required, no one turned down BUT you do need to sign in. Many websites have this requirement and you are not going against the spirit of FT - just asking people to sign in. By signing in, you can reply to posts, etc and thus you are encouraging people to contribute and be a part of the FT and not live in the "shadows" - this is the true spirit of FT.

2. Additional requirements for certain forums: While most forums would be open to anyone who sign in, I am not against having a few small forums that have certain requirements for people to see.. like an elite status if you will. These requirements will be well published and known to all. By doing so, you are not leaving anyone out but rather encouraging people to get involved so that they become participating members of FT. Of course, there will be certain rules that posting in certain forums wont add to your post count, posts shorther than a few words wont count, moderators who feel people are just posting to pad their post count will be warned, etc. This is better than having "secret societies", cryptic threads of 350 pages that no one should have time to read, etc. There are certain requirements, if you meet them, you're in.. If not, continue contributing. I dont mind airline/hotel staff meeting these requirements and having access to those forums. We have plenty of airline employees on these boards already who contribute a great deal. After a while, they become a part of FT and would be less likely to kill a deal quickly if its limited to a select few of their best customers and its not abused.


So in short, I'd be all for it. As long as we are open, transparent and fair with what we are doing so that anyone can eventually qualify, I see no harm in it.

Does anyone really enjoy the tricks thread as is? There is a small group of people 'in the know' who are terrified of secrets getting out and a large group of people who want to know but either can't or won't bother to figure it out.

If the thread is left 'as is', I expect that eventually the moderators or the 'in the know' group will get frustrated and abandon/close the thread. Then all that will be left are people who were more or less clueless...

I think the best policy is to keep those people with an active stake (i.e. moderators and serious deal-finders) happy, because without them, you have nothing. I think we are in serious danger of killing the golden goose.

Worst case, you already have cliques forming; how hard would it be to set up another website/chat room outside of flyertalk? If nothing is done to fix this wrecked thread, someone with a modicum of programming skill may set up an alternate site where the discussion can be self-policed. This is not my intent, but even with my limited skills, I could probably do it in a few hours. Then FT is the big loser due to reduced traffic. :confused:

I would like to be an active contributor to this forum, and I think I have shown my willingness to do research and figure out puzzles in the past. Right now, the thread is honestly too arcane for me to invest my time, especially when I think (but can't confirm!) that most of the deals aren't available through my preferred alliance. Please do something to fix it! Even if the restrictions disqualify me from participation, I would still look forward to eventually getting access to the 'tricks' thread.

FWIW, I would support a new sub-forum for Special Strategies and Tricks, provided that there were no access restrictions applied.

I would be open to such a forum.

I would be open to such a forum. Gleff would you consider "signing in" an access restriction ??

FWIW, I would support a new sub-forum for Special Strategies and Tricks, provided that there were no access restrictions applied.

A subforum of MR Deals that is solely about Special Strategies and Tricks? Don't we already have one, namely the MR Discussion forum? Surely this forum could accommodate such discussions, couldn't it?

Regardless it seems like a compromise to me and I'm still holding out for a restricted area for MR Deals in one form or another. That's just MHO.

FWIW, I would support a new sub-forum for Special Strategies and Tricks, provided that there were no access restrictions applied.

How would this be different than the current thread in the MR discussion forum? Making a thread into a forum isn't going to change anything.

How would this be different than the current thread in the MR discussion forum? Making a thread into a forum isn't going to change anything.

Imagine for a moment if MR Deals wasn't a separate forum, but rather a single mega-thread that had been going for several years. This is what reading the premium fares and the tricks threads is like.

The problem with the mega-threads is that you often have several different topics all being discussed at once. It's like being at a party and trying to listen to ten conversations at once. It's a lot easier to keep track of several running discussions when they're started as separate threads as opposed to being buried inside these behemoths.

A proper forum could also have stickies, including a FAQ and a glossary giving new members some place to start instead telling them to go back and read two years of mostly out-dated and disorganized nonsense.

I recall discussion of searchbots (and have noted them on FT) on TalkBoard when there was the very long debate about the forum owner/host's opening of OMNI (it might have been rehashed in ORP, lots, too).

If a new forum is restricted to signed-in members but searchbots have FT handles, how do the proponents for sign-in access account for the effect of signed-in bots indexing the forum for every search engine which bothers to register a FT handle?

If I was a staff member of FT's owner, I think I'd be happy for TalkBoard to discuss anything, but would understand that the forum's owner would have reservations about the total page count of the forum (and viewing traffic aka eyebals) not being counted i it is avery restricted forum.

If the new forum was set up for signed in members with zero posts, then it is open season for every search index bot and the content is effectively in an open forum if accesssed by a search engine cache.
(Tech people may agree or disagree; I'd expect the content would be easily found once on the major search engines.)

I raise this because the proposal is per post #1 and that is for a forum with CC-style restrictions, rather than sign-in only. Proposing a sign-in level of access is not the purpose of this thread for a new sub-forum for fare strategies such as those discussed earlier.

Honest question: What difference will this being a walled forum make than what we have now? Why will the FD thread and other coded threads be any different when they don't have the ability to pick and choose whose allowed to read and share? Can someone who has been refusing to post come forward and say this simple change will make them suddenly change their behavior? We have already seen people who say that walling the forum off will KEEP them from participating.The main difference is the restricted forum will not show up when someone clicks on a blog link somewhere to get to it. It probably also does not show up in google searches. Basically some of the same advantages as CC.

FWIW, I would support a new sub-forum for Special Strategies and Tricks, provided that there were no access restrictions applied.

If this is going to be a public forum, I'd like to raise some questions.

If the newly created forum has a limited amount of threads, such as the senior forum that TalkBoard voted to close, would you support TalkBoard closing it after a certain trial period, and merging it with an existing forum? What kind of activity would you need to see in that forum to keep it open and not close it?

Using the "we'll know it when we see it" rule that has been used in the past for public forum creation by the TalkBoard, do you see enough current threads across FT to create such a forum? I remember months and months of trying to get TalkBoard to create a Virgin America forum, even when we could identify threads appearing all over FT on a daily basis, and we could not convince the TalkBoard to create a forum. I've only seen one thread used as support for a new forum in reading this thread.

Is the same criteria that was used for Virgin America being applied to the creation of a Tricks and Strategies forum? Are there different rules in play in creating this forum than other forums that have been requested?

Searchbots will avoid spidering a forum if we flag it for "no robots".

Searchbots will avoid spidering a forum if we flag it for "no robots".

Am I reading correctly? All the complaints about OMNI posts being searched could have been avoided by one setting? I know a lot of members were unhappy with their posts being searched, and several went back and deleted prior posts for fear their employers or associates would come upon them when the forum became "public". Some members have stopped posting entirely for the same reasons.

Could TalkBoard have that setting activated for OMNI and OMNI/PR? I'd be happy to start a new thread if you can confirm I'm reading your post correctly.

I think this debate is beginning to raise another fundamental question as to whether information on FT should be indexed and shared with the unregistered public. Right now, with a few very narrow exceptions, all FT content is fully indexed and searchable via Google and other engines.

The difference I see between Coupon Connection and a "Special Tricks" forum is that while CC by its nature promotes exclusively proprietary transactions which cannot be replicated (once you trade your SWU its gone and you are the final decision maker whether to proceed with a transaction), anything in the "Special Tricks" forum would not be that way. It is simply that some posters have been able to better interpret public domain information to their advantage and now seek to restrict that same public domain information. Simply put, that is illogical. Anything posted in a "Special Tricks" forum is out there for any one of the 5 billion people in this world to figure out for themselves, just like whoever posted it in the forum to begin with did. I personally know of at least a dozen ways to "trick" fares that have never been discussed on FT and probably never will be. There are hundreds and thousands more of these out there being used by competent travel agents all over the world right now. Does restricting the information on FT really stop the world from finding out anything?

And that doesn't even begin to address the question of whether it is our place to start imposing restrictions even if it did...

Once again, I put forward the suggestion that if a thread or discussion topic is becoming "user unfriendly", would it not be the role of the moderators to ensure that it remains "user friendly"?

That is one of the reasons this issue has been forwarded to Talkboard...there is not always unanimity of opinion amongst Mods about their forum policies!

In reading the original proposal & subsequent posts by the mods of the MR forum, I had the impression that most, if not all, were in favor of it.

Given that the mods themselves came forward w/ this proposal & did so to alleviate a problem that they see in the forum they moderate, that holds a lot of influence w/ me. I doubt they're thinking up ideas cuz they're bored.

As an FT member I would support the proposal as presented, before it got sidetracked with others changing the proposal. I would not support banning someone for off-FT activities or banning/barring anyone, unless they literally violated FT TOS, but again that's not what the mods are suggesting.

Cheers.

What issues need to be clarified for TalkBoard members, before this can be tabled for voting?

The original proposal in post #1 is phrased in a minimalist manner, to keep it as simple as possible, so that there is not too much else to add. In keeping with the spirit of the proposal, it would be good to raise any outstanding issues.

It would be good if other stakeholders could state if they are for or against the proposal and give evidence of why it is a good or bad proposal. I am not sure if everyone with a stake has contributed so far.

Thanks for everyone's contribution, to date. :)

Thanks.

What issues need to be clarified for TalkBoard members, before this can be tabled for voting?

The original proposal in post #1 is phrased in a minimalist manner, to keep it as simple as possible, so that there is not too much else to add. In keeping with the spirit of the proposal, it would be good to raise any outstanding issues.

It would be good if other stakeholders could state if they are for or against the proposal and give evidence of why it is a good or bad proposal. I am not sure if everyone with a stake has contributed so far.

Thanks for everyone's contribution, to date. :)

Thanks.


You need to try and find two TB members to propose/second the motion.

I would very much like to see a restricted MR forum. In my opinion the sense of community has been lost from the MR forum and with that also many deals. I think a forum where X posts (preferrably above 200) are required may be able to bring this back.

So I am in support of this proposal.

It is a coincidence that I post right after someone who also joined Flyertalk in 2003. I have vivid, fond, and everlasting memories of the journeys taken as a result of information shared in this forum. Based on these trips I still go to the forum several times a day ready to drop everything and start pounding the keys.
There have been quite small pickings over the past couple of years due to the reasons already stated and I hope a second forum similar to Coupon Connection is created.

You need to try and find two TB members to propose/second the motion.
So let's see where we are at then:

nsx - positive towards idea
bhatnasx - neutral/negative towards idea
Spiff - hasn't posted his opinion of idea overall, although has posted opinion on some suggested aspects
Markie - negative towards idea
gleff - negative towards idea
B747-437B - negative towards idea
lucky9876coins - has not posted in the thread at all. Don't know if he is even aware of it
skywalkerLAX - has not posted in the thread at all. Don't know if he is even aware of it.
radioman - has not posted in the thread at all. Don't know if he is even aware of it.

So given that this is a motion which is highly unlikely to pass, what solutions can TB come up with to try to ameliorate the problems identified? TB collectively has decided that the moderator suggested solution isn't suitable - what do they think should be done to try and help/resolve the identified problem? I expect TB members to be proactive in trying to generate solutions, and not always rely on the members/moderators to come up with stuff for them to say 'no' to.

So given that this is a motion which is highly unlikely to pass, what solutions can TB come up with to try to ameliorate the problems identified?

I am at least one TB member who needs to be convinced that there actually is a problem to begin with other than some moderators being unable/unwilling to control the tone of some threads in their forum.

That's your perogative.... I trust the topic will at least come up for discussion. If there really is a problem or not is a matter of perspective. We're saying there is.

Passes, or not... I'm not bothered either way

But...
I mean, what could it hurt to try?

I think this debate is beginning to raise another fundamental question as to whether information on FT should be indexed and shared with the unregistered public. Right now, with a few very narrow exceptions, all FT content is fully indexed and searchable via Google and other engines.

The difference I see between Coupon Connection and a "Special Tricks" forum is that while CC by its nature promotes exclusively proprietary transactions which cannot be replicated (once you trade your SWU its gone and you are the final decision maker whether to proceed with a transaction), anything in the "Special Tricks" forum would not be that way. It is simply that some posters have been able to better interpret public domain information to their advantage and now seek to restrict that same public domain information. Simply put, that is illogical. Anything posted in a "Special Tricks" forum is out there for any one of the 5 billion people in this world to figure out for themselves, just like whoever posted it in the forum to begin with did. I personally know of at least a dozen ways to "trick" fares that have never been discussed on FT and probably never will be. There are hundreds and thousands more of these out there being used by competent travel agents all over the world right now. Does restricting the information on FT really stop the world from finding out anything?

And that doesn't even begin to address the question of whether it is our place to start imposing restrictions even if it did... Interesting, seems you sit there in judgement, pontificating about people who are in the know, now wanting to restrict info, yet you are sitting on " a dozen ways to trick fares" and not posting them??? Are you restricting "your" private stash from worldwide consumption? Perhaps hoping they wont disappear in the blink of an eye. :D Since you need to be convinced that there "is" a problem, perhaps you should look at your own reasons, for not posting the tricks that you know.

Interesting, seems you sit there in judgement, pontificating about people who are in the know, now wanting to restrict info, yet you are sitting on " a dozen ways to trick fares" and not posting them??? Are you restricting "your" private stash from worldwide consumption? Perhaps hoping they wont disappear in the blink of an eye. :D Since you need to be convinced that there "is" a problem, perhaps you should look at your own reasons, for not posting the tricks that you know.

Giggy, I work for an airline and I teach the lost art of manual fare construction and paper ticketing to our staff. If you want to apply for a job with us, I would be perfectly happy to teach these to you as well. :)

And FWIW, I have absolutely no objection to someone choosing to not share any information they may possess. I do however object to creating barriers on Flyertalk to restrict the information to specific persons only. If one wishes not to share the information with all users of FT, one should not post it here. Simple.

Giggy, I work for an airline and I teach the lost art of manual fare construction and paper ticketing to our staff. If you want to apply for a job with us, I would be perfectly happy to teach these to you as well. :)

And FWIW, I have absolutely no objection to someone choosing to not share any information they may possess. I do however object to creating barriers on Flyertalk to restrict the information to specific persons only. If one wishes not to share the information with all users of FT, one should not post it here. Simple. Do you consider signing in a restriction?

Do you consider signing in a restriction?

Yes, I see it as a restriction but not neccessarily as an unreasonable restriction. However, I would need to be convinced why this new forum needs that restriction while other forums don't.

I am at least one TB member who needs to be convinced that there actually is a problem to begin with other than some moderators being unable/unwilling to control the tone of some threads in their forum.

:td: I completely disagree with this sentiment. Mod.'s are tasked with assisting all members while ensuring TOS is observed but are not expected to "control" the tone of debate on the forums they moderate. It is one thing for a TB member to disagree with a proposal these Mod.'s have put forward but it is another thing IMHO to lay the blame of a changing forum at their collective feet.

I've seen the overall quality and quantity of deals in the MR form go noticibly downhill. At first I chalked this up to there just being fewer such fares, but I'm led to understand that they're still out there, just not being shared with the wider community due to fears of being more widely disseminated. The questions, really, are whether the creation of a subforum would change the situation, and would the resulting change be "worth" the loss of openness. Would FTers who today aren't posting because the forum is open turn around and start posting?

I'm thinking of an example with which I've been personally involved but is no longer relevant: The "e500 glitch" on UA, which would let you take advantage of UA's origin-to-final-destination measurement of distance for upgrade purposes to fly around the country using a single cert. This is/was a relatively known glitch that many FTers used successfully over the years to fly up front on the cheap (e.g., if you booked LGA-IAD-SFO-LAX-JFK as a multicity itin, UA's website would see this as an LGA-JFK trip, charging you one e500 cert rather than 11-12...assuming all legs cleared before the commencement of travel). I picked up on this glitch partially on my own, mostly via the UA board, partially through private communications with others. There was a point in time, however, when more and more people started to discuss this glitch openly. My position was that (a) the more this glitch was openly discussed, the greater the chance it would get discovered and fixed; (b) I had no problem sharing all the gory details of the glitch with anyone who PM'ed me, and I said as much in threads that discussed it; (c) there was nothing FT could or should do to officially prevent its discussion; and yet (d) repeatedly talking about the details of the glitch in the open was going to be detrimental to FT's UA community.

So there you have it in a nutshell: How do we balance the desire to openly and widely share information with the understanding that doing so today may render it useless tomorrow? What combination of community norms and moderator actions will best accomplish this? Where should we draw the lines?

I don't know.

But I do know that we can speculate until the end of time about what might happen, but in the end, there's no way to know other than to try it out and see what actually does happen. I personally don't believe doing a trial run with a MR subforum is going to cause the sky to fall. At worst, no one takes the plunge and posts something juicy. (Well, actually at worst, FTers would do so, then have them widely disseminated just as they are now.) At best, we create a somewhat safer space in which to share this kind of information. Maybe the very creation of a subform with clear TOS would constitute a sufficient ethical/technical barrier to bring mroe MR tricks/mistakes out of hiding. Maybe not. But what is there to lose by trying?

So let's see where we are at then:

nsx - positive towards idea
bhatnasx - neutral/negative towards idea
Spiff - hasn't posted his opinion of idea overall, although has posted opinion on some suggested aspects
Markie - negative towards idea
gleff - negative towards idea
B747-437B - negative towards idea
lucky9876coins - has not posted in the thread at all. Don't know if he is even aware of it
skywalkerLAX - has not posted in the thread at all. Don't know if he is even aware of it.
radioman - has not posted in the thread at all. Don't know if he is even aware of it.

FWIW, and appropos a discussion elsewhere concerning what TB does, I would be very disappointed if not all TB members weighed in on this thread one way or the other. This is clearly a hot-button issue with potentially wide-reaching implications for the FT community. I want to hear what the TB members I voted for have to say on this rather than speculate why they have remained silent.

How do we balance the desire to openly and widely share information with the understanding that doing so today may render it useless tomorrow? What combination of community norms and moderator actions will best accomplish this? Where should we draw the lines?


Well said. I am in favor of trying, as soon as we can reach a consensus on what terms of use are best to start with. If the TOS discussion doesn't get anywhere, then I'd favor a simple recommendation to create a forum that requires login and see what happens with it. In the latter case the TalkBoard should expect to have to revisit the issue within a year or so.

I am at least one TB member who needs to be convinced that there actually is a problem to begin with other than some moderators being unable/unwilling to control the tone of some threads in their forum.

I think that what some people consider to be problems have been elucidated. You have just chosen to summarily dismiss them. Please PM with all your known fare tricks. I promise not to post them in the open MR forum.

Please PM with all your known fare tricks. I promise not to post them in the open MR forum.

I'm not particularly fussed if my "fare tricks" are posted in the "open MR forum" because none of them are of real value at consumer level. You can't really plug these "tricks" into Expedia and expect them to work! :)

Some of the more obvious (and perfectly legal) ones are :

a) Using passive segments instead of ARNKs to exempt transit taxes on multiple ticket itineraries with open jaws.

b) Long selling inventory that may not be properly AVS synched in order to obtain access to lower fare classes.

c) On carriers that permit ETK revalidation, building separate PNRs to combine otherwise non-combinable end-on-end fares but then revalidating via point of combination (this can be combined with "a" to get even better results).

d) Third party e-ticketing using non-BSP platforms to circumvent IATA resolution 852 (which only applies to BSP sales).

:td: I completely disagree with this sentiment. Mod.'s are tasked with assisting all members while ensuring TOS is observed but are not expected to "control" the tone of debate on the forums they moderate. It is one thing for a TB member to disagree with a proposal these Mod.'s have put forward but it is another thing IMHO to lay the blame of a changing forum at their collective feet.

I'm not placing the blame of the changing forum at the moderator's feet. I personally haven't seen any problems with the forum myself, which is why I am still a bit skeptical of the need for any changes.

However, if the moderators are attempting to justify the need for change on the basis that the "tone" of the forum is getting nasty, the only parties who can truly control that are the moderators themselves, not TalkBoard. I've been a moderator myself so I am not unfamiliar with what the role involves and the tools available to them. It appears to me that perhaps the moderators are scared to discourage the "nasty" and "cryptic" posters from changing their tone as they fear these "valued contributors" will rather stop posting? Pandering to this is not the right way to proceed and which is why I am opposed to this proposal at this time.

I'm not placing the blame of the changing forum at the moderator's feet.

It appears to me that perhaps the moderators are scared to discourage the "nasty" and "cryptic" posters from changing their tone as they fear these "valued contributors" will rather stop posting?

Sorry but it seems like blame to me, blaming the messenger rather than hearing the message which is unfortunate as I'd hoped early on this matter would have much more weight given the unanimity of the forum moderators.

FWIW I inhabit the forum a fair bit and have seen the gradual change in tone and understand and support the structural challenges the moderators are trying to suggest. While never having been a moderator I can appreciate their thankless role in trying to foster a positive forum atmosphere without going too far in controlling the debate. For example how do you moderate "snarky" which is not outside TOS bounds? Overzealous moderation of a forum would likely drive more posters away than the current problem so I hardly think a crack down would solve any purpose or change the overall tone. No, I believe there are problems and issues to be resolved but am sensing this TB is unwilling to act upon the moderators recommendations which is unfortunate IMHO. Maybe at the very least this lively discussion has begun a process which may take more time to complete so will hope another proposal in another form can come forward.

There are two strands of argument regarding restrictions.

1) The idea that not everyone deserves access to the information, or some are more deserving than others

2) Keeping discussion outside the line of site of airlines or others who might put an end to the deals or tricks being discussed.

I have no sympathy at all towards #1, I believe that all travelers who come to Flyertalk ought to be able to read and participate in the travel discussion on Flyertalk. Anyone who wants to discuss things in private may do so, but I don't want to see an insiders club as a formal part of Flyertalk.

As far as restricting airlines and travel providers from seeing these deals, a login restriction won't do that, there are many many folks aren't participating in these forums and registered as users, more than most probably realize. Literally dozens who are registered but rarely post or who don't identify themselves as working for travel providers. This restriction won't accomplish its end, while at the same time will seal off informaion from newcomers who may not register because they don't even come across part of what Flyertalk has to offer.

Ultimately I'm of the mindset that information ought to be shared broadly and that the community ought to be a welcoming one.

I believe that all travelers who come to Flyertalk ought to be able to read and participate in the travel discussion on Flyertalk. Anyone who wants to discuss things in private may do so, but I don't want to see an insiders club as a formal part of Flyertalk.

^ ^ ^

Ultimately I'm of the mindset that information ought to be shared broadly and that the community ought to be a welcoming one.

These are both highly desirable attributes for FT to have. ^

It seems to me, though, that this subforum issue is about whether and at what point these twin goals -- sharing information broadly and having a welcoming community -- come into conflict with one another, not about whether they are desirable in themselves. It seems that they are in conflict right now: FTers have openly stated they aren't posting as many tricks and mistake fares in the MR Deals forum, instead sharing them via PMs only with their friends. I don't know about you, but the thought that FTers are keeping lots of good information to themselves doesn't feel very welcoming to me.

The question I don't have the answer to is whether creating a lightly-restricted subforum would help or hurt the situation. Frankly, I don't know; but I'm not sure anyone knows and won't know unless and until some kind of experiment is done.

So given that this is a motion which is highly unlikely to pass, what solutions can TB come up with to try to ameliorate the problems identified? TB collectively has decided that the moderator suggested solution isn't suitable - what do they think should be done to try and help/resolve the identified problem? I expect TB members to be proactive in trying to generate solutions, and not always rely on the members/moderators to come up with stuff for them to say 'no' to.

* Agree.

That's your perogative.... I trust the topic will at least come up for discussion. If there really is a problem or not is a matter of perspective. We're saying there is.

Passes, or not... I'm not bothered either way

But...
I mean, what could it hurt to try?

* Agree.

Well said. I am in favor of trying, as soon as we can reach a consensus on what terms of use are best to start with. If the TOS discussion doesn't get anywhere, then I'd favor a simple recommendation to create a forum that requires login and see what happens with it. In the latter case the TalkBoard should expect to have to revisit the issue within a year or so.

* Agree.

Sorry but it seems like blame to me, blaming the messenger rather than hearing the message which is unfortunate as I'd hoped early on this matter would have much more weight given the unanimity of the forum moderators.

I believe there are problems and issues to be resolved but am sensing this TB is unwilling to act upon the moderators recommendations which is unfortunate IMHO. Maybe at the very least this lively discussion has begun a process which may take more time to complete so will hope another proposal in another form can come forward.

* Agree.


It seems to me, though, that this subforum issue is about whether and at what point these twin goals -- sharing information broadly and having a welcoming community -- come into conflict with one another, not about whether they are desirable in themselves. It seems that they are in conflict right now: FTers have openly stated they aren't posting as many tricks and mistake fares in the MR Deals forum, instead sharing them via PMs only with their friends. I don't know about you, but the thought that FTers are keeping lots of good information to themselves doesn't feel very welcoming to me.

The question I don't have the answer to is whether creating a lightly-restricted subforum would help or hurt the situation. Frankly, I don't know; but I'm not sure anyone knows and won't know unless and until some kind of experiment is done.

* Agree.

Cheers.

FTers have openly stated they aren't posting as many tricks and mistake fares in the MR Deals forum, instead sharing them via PMs only with their friends. I don't know about you, but the thought that FTers are keeping lots of good information to themselves doesn't feel very welcoming to me.

It should not be the business of anybody else whether or not a user chooses to post information on a forum or to keep it to themselves or share it via PM or whatever else they choose to do with it. If they do choose to share it on FT, then they must live with the possibility that everyone will see it and possibly share it onwards in turn, whether AFWD or anyone else.

It should not be the business of anybody else whether or not a user chooses to post information on a forum or to keep it to themselves or share it via PM or whatever else they choose to do with it. If they do choose to share it on FT, then they must live with the possibility that everyone will see it and possibly share it onwards in turn, whether AFWD or anyone else.

I guess I'm not really thinking about it in terms of whose "business" it is. Of course it's none of my business why an individual does or doesn't post about something. I think, though, that it is collectively FTers "business" whether or not the administration, structure, and moderation of FT overall furthers the goals of community sharing and community building. If more FTers would post deals in a restricted subforum, why is this a bad thing? There doesn't have to be any more or less of a barrier to entry than with CC.

Another example: Why require registration in order to post comments? Why not let people lurk or post without having to identify themselves to FT? I don't know the empirical answer to this question, but I can surely guess: Making registration a prerequisite to posting makes moderators' jobs easier and ultimately helps foster community...even if it comes at the cost of anonymity, even if it's none of my "business" who someone is or why they do or don't want others to know them by a stable online identity, even if it stiffles certain people from posting what they know. And yes, there are easy work arounds if FTers really wanted to post anonymously, but it's against the TOS to do so and, apparently, the barrier to entry is high enough to make all our lives easier.

And you're also of course right that anyone who posts anything on FT has to assume it will be broadcast throughout the world. True enough. But there's a difference between assuming it might happen and assuming it will happen. The question no one knows the answer to is whether a restricted subforum will reduce the incidence of the latter.

I guess I'm not really thinking about it in terms of whose "business" it is. Of course it's none of my business why an individual does or doesn't post about something. I think, though, that it is collectively FTers "business" whether or not the administration, structure, and moderation of FT overall furthers the goals of community sharing and community building. If more FTers would post deals in a restricted subforum, why is this a bad thing? There doesn't have to be any more or less of a barrier to entry than with CC.

Another example: Why require registration in order to post comments? Why not let people lurk or post without having to identify themselves to FT? I don't know the empirical answer to this question, but I can surely guess: Making registration a prerequisite to posting makes moderators' jobs easier and ultimately helps foster community...even if it comes at the cost of anonymity, even if it's none of my "business" who someone is or why they do or don't want others to know them by a stable online identity, even if it stiffles certain people from posting what they know. And yes, there are easy work arounds if FTers really wanted to post anonymously, but it's against the TOS to do so and, apparently, the barrier to entry is high enough to make all our lives easier.

And you're also of course right that anyone who posts anything on FT has to assume it will be broadcast throughout the world. True enough. But there's a difference between assuming it might happen and assuming it will happen. The question no one knows the answer to is whether a restricted subforum will reduce the incidence of the latter.

welcome to the world's
most popular frequent flyer community

flyertalk is an INTERACTIVE COMMUNITY that provides up-to-date
information on travel-related loyalty reward programs. It's the hub that brings everyone together-from leisure travelers to mileage junkies-to CONVERSE about programs, get the latest program buzz or DISCUSS how to maximize points or miles.


robots, lurkers and the like do not Converse, discuss or interact in the community


imagine a community that took an abandonded lot and made a community garden. Imagine if after 4 months of hard work, someone walked in one night and just took all the vegetables. Think that would make the local paper??

take it one step further.... Imagine the guy walking his dog past the garden for the last 4 months shows up at the local flea market and sets up a produce tent.

... I believe that all travelers who come to Flyertalk ought to be able to read and participate in the travel discussion on Flyertalk. Anyone who wants to discuss things in private may do so, but I don't want to see an insiders club as a formal part of Flyertalk.


There already is an "insiders club" as a (somewhat) formal part of the MR forum. If you dont believe me, just take a look at some of WingedWorldExplorers post. Those who understand them are firmly on the "inside".
The current structure of the forum has forced some members to create their own artificial insiders club which was only created to solve the problems that this proposal would help solving. In essence, the members had to take matters into their own hands due to lack of a suitable alternative being provided to them.

In my view, this proposal is simply an effort help members of FT that have already shown their willingness to help the community.

There already is an "insiders club" as a (somewhat) formal part of the MR forum. If you dont believe me, just take a look at some of WingedWorldExplorers post. Those who understand them are firmly on the "inside".
The current structure of the forum has forced some members to create their own artificial insiders club which was only created to solve the problems that this proposal would help solving. In essence, the members had to take matters into their own hands due to lack of a suitable alternative being provided to them.

In my view, this proposal is simply an effort help members of FT that have already shown their willingness to help the community.

What all the people who are for this proposal fail to realize is that the people who HAVE the deals don't want them getting out in public. This 'closed' group that just requires a login and maybe a small post count like CC is NOT enough to make them start posting everything. Many pages ago in this thread I asked for one person to come out and say that they would not post now, but with a login-only forum they would post all out in the open. That has not happened.
The problem with this proposal is that it fails to actually SOLVE any problem. It sounds like it may, which is why many people come out in favor of it, but it doesn't actually change the behavior of 'those in the know', who prefer to keep their deals ALOT more private than FT will allow. The only proposal I think would work, is a COMPLETELY private one, where its invite only. Problem is, that is not FT, and I don't want to see FT change to allow that.

I suppose we could just go on CC and post something like this

H MR from SEA <4 cpm 7617eqms W drink chit :D

So, I've been following the discussions, and it seems we've veered off a bit.

Whilst the original proposal was to have a more "quiet corner" to discuss tips'n'tricks, not actual MR-deals per se (!), it seems the discussion has favoured the latter explanation. :(

My understanding was that the "need to be logged in" or "more restricted, un-crawlable" section would be all about discussing generic or specific techniques. The "open" part could then still receive good deal info, and people can reference that the deal can be made (even) sweeter. Perhaps even with rules telling people that deals posted in the closed-off part would either need to be removed, or moved to the open part...

Now that last part needs drudging through a thread which is incomprehensible if you didn't start talking Swahili whenever someone mentions "PNR"... I believed it was the intention of the mods to give that discussion a place to be held, without resorting to all kinds of ways to scare almost everybody off, be they FT'ers (with or without accounts) or not.

The current situation with the one thread in code isn't working, and the mods are - from this delusional guys perspective - trying to address that issue, so that more people can participate, and the need for all the cryptic stuff is alleviated.

And now back to your regular scheduled discussion about the more esoteric definition of what FT is... :cool:

What all the people who are for this proposal fail to realize is that the people who HAVE the deals don't want them getting out in public. This 'closed' group that just requires a login and maybe a small post count like CC is NOT enough to make them start posting everything. Many pages ago in this thread I asked for one person to come out and say that they would not post now, but with a login-only forum they would post all out in the open. That has not happened.
The problem with this proposal is that it fails to actually SOLVE any problem. It sounds like it may, which is why many people come out in favor of it, but it doesn't actually change the behavior of 'those in the know', who prefer to keep their deals ALOT more private than FT will allow. The only proposal I think would work, is a COMPLETELY private one, where its invite only. Problem is, that is not FT, and I don't want to see FT change to allow that.

How could you possibly know whose behavior would or wouldn't be changed by a restricted subforum (other than your own, of course)? The fact that no one has done so in this thread is meaningless. We haven't even heard from all of the TB members much less the universe of FTers who post in the MR fora. I don't have the numbers, but I would imagine only a tiny fraction of those whose behavior might be affected are even aware this discussion is taking place.

I think the only way to find out is to try it and see what happens.

Seems like a really good idea to do the sub-forum. The quality / quantity of deals in the MR forum has been abysmal lately. Heck, I don't even check the forum much anymore, because of that.

The issue left unresolved, to me, is the policy on reposting deals that come from the sub-forum on your blog. Several TB members have their own blogs, and it almost seems like a conflict of interest, since on one hand they would be voting to wall-off some information that they might post on their blog anyway.

Anyway, not an easy subject, but I think it should be dealt with. And I've said that for years.

I realize that as an airline employee I'm considered an enemy of the people in this regard... but as a long time community member, I'm totally against this.

It's cliquish, selfish, greedy, and wrong.

I could get behind the expectation that someone need to be registered and signed in to view the MR forum, but splitting it into another "exclusive" subforum says to newer members:

"We're happy to have you share your great deal finds with us, but we aren't going to share any of ours you until you prove yourself. Welcome to Flyertalk."

Wow - you really miss the point. The people who have caused the problem are the ones who are selfish, greedy and wrong.

For better or worse FT is not and has never been a wide-appeal public website like tripadvisor, etc. - it has always been a very specialized community devoted to frequent flyers and in particular to airline and hotel miles. While FT has not and will never be a closed community it does have certain rules that restrict what can be posted and where, i.e no offensive speech, stick to the topic, etc. and there is an underlying assumption of shared values and goals, i.e. to assist fellow members with dissemination of information relating to miles, status, travel and locations.

IMO it is inappropriate for FT to permit others who do not share these values to access this information. That includes people who want to spoil mileage run deals and mistake fares that are posted, either by re-disseminating to a mass audience, notifying the travel provider of a potential mistake, etc. I think it entirely appropriate to exclude such people from certain sections where they do not provide any value whatsoever but rather simply seek to damage the community.

Unfortunately there is no simple solution to this problem when the goal is to maintain a relatively open and welcoming community. But the proposed solution strikes a fair balance, and it certainly would never exclude the vast majority of the community except for newer members and then only for a rather brief period.

I disagree. No restrictions has lead to many a deal not being posted but circulated privately which to me is to some degree moving away from the community culture FT strives to foster. Just MHO.

+1 The fact that people are circulating deals privately is an indication of a problem.

The blogs are another problem entirely as most if not all are maintained by valued community members. Perhaps the bloggers should be asked to take a loyalty oath (just kidding :D) In general though I see FT bloggers reporting credit card deals and the like and not so much mistake rates.

As far as restricting airlines and travel providers from seeing these deals, a login restriction won't do that, there are many many folks aren't participating in these forums and registered as users, more than most probably realize. Literally dozens who are registered but rarely post or who don't identify themselves as working for travel providers. This restriction won't accomplish its end, while at the same time will seal off informaion from newcomers who may not register because they don't even come across part of what Flyertalk has to offer.

Disagree.
Yes, UA IT guy can register and look at the forum, but how often he will do it? Their motivation seems to be less then ours :)
When anyone can google it or find it by mistake and then call UA and ask about it, UA has to fix it. May be not on the first call, but pretty soon.

The blogs are another problem entirely as most if not all are maintained by valued community members. Perhaps the bloggers should be asked to take a loyalty oath (just kidding :D) In general though I see FT bloggers reporting credit card deals and the like and not so much mistake rates.

I'm not aware of any bloggers here that have the reach or readership of Flyertalk.

The notion that some folks occasionally have, that tricks are somehow secret when posted on Flyertalk (check out the user statistics!) but go public when posted to a blog with a few thousand hits a day, seems strange to me.

I realize that as an airline employee I'm considered an enemy of the people in this regard... but as a long time community member, I'm totally against this.

It's cliquish, selfish, greedy, and wrong.
This sums up how I feel emotionally (I've already shared my take analytically).

"We're happy to have you share your great deal finds with us, but we aren't going to share any of ours you until you prove yourself. Welcome to Flyertalk."
Don't forget that some of the very best deals were posted by newbies!

This sums up how I feel emotionally (I've already shared my take analytically).


Don't forget that some of the very best deals were posted by newbies!

And who ever said that newbies could not post a deal?

Many people have commented on issues which are different from the proposal itself.

The proposal is the latest attempt by users and the moderator volunteers of the Mileage Run forums to make the forums a structure which helps people share and use info (as all posts are sharing in some way) to assist other FTers.

Some may have taken the negative view and extrapolated it into wider issues.

Few people have offered constructive advice on the problem described.

Here is a thread about the issues in the forum. There are others but this might be instructive:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-discussion/1057065-your-input-needed-future-mileage-run-megathreads.html

Cheers,
BiziBB

Maybe I need to come up with some other ideas, brainstorm them with my fellow mods and imporantly, test them with the forum users who contribute the Deals which people come for.

Many people have recently on this thread commented on the low volume and quality of Mileage Run Deals.

Do you need me to bring more evidence to the table on fewer people posting deals or fewer new or fewer longtime posters sharing? Or something else?

I fully expect further criticism of our proposal but would really appreciate some constructive criticism on how to fix this.

Maybe we close the trick it thread and moderate every single post from here on, to please some people here and to alienate a lot of our forum members. Would you love that? :)

Disagree.
Yes, UA IT guy can register and look at the forum, but how often he will do it? Their motivation seems to be less then ours :)
When anyone can google it or find it by mistake and then call UA and ask about it, UA has to fix it. May be not on the first call, but pretty soon.

If you don't think UA/DL/etc all have people whose JOBS it is to keep up with SD/FW/FT, you have another thing coming. This wouldn't be just something they do on the side, it would be part of their actual job duties.

As BizziBB said, most have gotten off the track on what the original proposal was (including the few TB members who posted). I would like to see discussion on the proposal itself.

And if that doesn't work, I'd like to see our duly-elected TB think about something else & propose/vote on it (as sean & others have said). Again, if all the mods of a particular forum are basically in agreement there's a problem, then there probably IS a problem. And thus, if the united mods come to TB looking for solutions - oh I don't know - maybe TB should do their job & actually try to sort out something that will work (even if it might have a few flaws). If you don't think this will work, then propose something different. When did TB become a passive entity, or was it always that way & this is just showing that up?

And on that other note re: everything being open for all. I don't think having have a small minimum entry is that big a problem, hence my agreeing w/ this proposal. It's not like you have to be on for a year & have 1,000 posts.

BUT - if everyone (TB included) is for openness only & no restrictions - then I say Open Up CC to Everyone - including those who not only don't have the # of days/posts, but those who aren't even registered or logged into FT. After all, they contribute just as much don't they (sarcasm on). Why should they be excluded from CC? You can't have it both ways.

Cheers.

BUT - if everyone (TB included) is for openness only & no restrictions - then I say Open Up CC to Everyone - including those who not only don't have the # of days/posts, but those who aren't even registered or logged into FT. After all, they contribute just as much don't they (sarcasm on). Why should they be excluded from CC?

Although you are being sarcastic when you say this, I am actually in full support of this kind of proposal. Caveat emptor is a better tone for CC than the partly regulated state that currently exists.

BUT - if everyone (TB included) is for openness only & no restrictions - then I say Open Up CC to Everyone - including those who not only don't have the # of days/posts, but those who aren't even registered or logged into FT. After all, they contribute just as much don't they (sarcasm on). Why should they be excluded from CC? You can't have it both ways.

Cheers.

As someone who does not even have access to CC, I thought about posting this earlier...so I am glad to see this posted. It would be interesting to see this proposed just to see how the arguements against this would completely go against what has prevoiusly been posted here.

We want new posters to contribute but they need to qualify for CC...but they should feel free to share great deals immediately:confused:. Gee thanks.

I know why the rules for CC exist, but (as mentioned above) but it is a conflict for new posters. Let's not do away with CC restricition, but let's be honest that some sort of mild restrictions would not damage the mileage run forum. If the proposed changes do not work...I am sure there are several that would quickly propose to open in up again. So I let's give it a try.

If you don't think UA/DL/etc all have people whose JOBS it is to keep up with SD/FW/FT, you have another thing coming. This wouldn't be just something they do on the side, it would be part of their actual job duties.

I think most posters realize this, especially with all the airline lurkers that are identified within their airlines forum. Perhaps they catch mistake fares and deal with them faster, but let's be honest that they are not in a big hurry to stop the fuel dumps. The airfare watchdog fiasco only brought the current issue to a boil...BUT fuel dumps are very much alive and well. And this will not change until airlines elimate fuel surcharges or change the rules.

To me the goal should really be to close down sections to the search engines. The people willing to register (and perhaps have enough posts...depending on what might eventually get proposed) would have access to the tricks. My belief is that by eliminating the bots/search engines that people can post specific details (routes, dates, airlines) about tricked threads that will let the FT community have a chance to book a similar tricked flight. We are not a charity, so I do not see a problem with resticting access to the rest of the world.

I would really like to see people sharing more and being more civil on the Trick-It thread. As I just found out, there are many people willing to share/help via PM but will not dare post in the thread itself. Is that the type of community we want? I hope a solution can be found that satisfies better than the current solution.

Although you are being sarcastic when you say this, I am actually in full support of this kind of proposal. Caveat emptor is a better tone for CC than the partly regulated state that currently exists.

I hate to continue to make it seem like Mods vs. TB, but I wonder what CC mods would think about this.

I am in complete agreement with SkiAdcock in that something needs to be done.

And if that doesn't work, I'd like to see our duly-elected TB think about something else & propose/vote on it (as sean & others have said). Again, if all the mods of a particular forum are basically in agreement there's a problem, then there probably IS a problem. And thus, if the united mods come to TB looking for solutions - oh I don't know - maybe TB should do their job & actually try to sort out something that will work (even if it might have a few flaws). If you don't think this will work, then propose something different. When did TB become a passive entity, or was it always that way & this is just showing that up? Completely agree.

I hate to continue to make it seem like Mods vs. TB, but I wonder what CC mods would think about this.

I am in complete agreement with SkiAdcock in that something needs to be done.

1. This thread is about Mileage Run

2. Randy is the one who has made CC a reward for those who participate

3. I am not at all in favor of 2. changing. I'd suggest a post in Only Randy Petersen if you want to discuss this matter.

Flyertalk has changed. It's not a bad thing, but it is true.

In my opinion, the Mileage Run forum participants view is well stated by the moderators posts above. I'd like to thank the moderators for this request, and the style in which it is presented.

Having a "Level 2" or a "seperate sub-forum" will only add value to the Forum. I am 100% in favor of the proposal and would encourage the Talk Board to APPROVE it, please & thank you!

There are two strands of argument regarding restrictions.

1) The idea that not everyone deserves access to the information, or some are more deserving than others

2) Keeping discussion outside the line of site of airlines or others who might put an end to the deals or tricks being discussed.



Don't forget Google and search spyders. What is being recommended is similar to other forums.

Remember the Mileage Run forum stays as is. Google will still have free access to the original deals content. But members will have the option to share with FT members only, and leave google awaiting. Remember, once the deal is DEAD, IT'S GONE FOREVER (similar to CC trades)... by keeping a deal alive longer, FT Members benefit.

Here's the forum heading from a private members section of a bulletin board:


Registered Members Forums (Level 2)
Forums here is closed for public and will not appear on search engines





Now let's back it up and look again at the moderator's proposal


we strongly believe that the creation of a second sub-forum to the Mileage Run forum with a closed-off criteria identical to those of the Coupon Connection can provide an environment that many users feel comfortable again to discuss and share ("de-googelize it", as a fellow member put it in the other thread). Based on PMs we have received, a major priority for many users seems to be that despite lurkers possibly gaining access to such a closed-off subforum as well, that they are definitely sharing with active members of the community who have at least posted to a certain extent on the boards.

We humbly submit this issue again for your review – this time it’s us volunteer moderators making the request on behalf of the members.

NOT a club ~ OPEN TO ALL FT members, after criteria identical to those already acceptable with FT standards.

Not replacing MR ~ COMPLEMENTING MILEAGE RUN, by providing a place to post for those current and future members who are not satisfied with the current MR environment

Adding Value to FlyerTalk ~ staying innovative, adding value to FT by hopefully retaining member churn and establishing a new venue for sharing.

Most of all this portion of Flyertalk, like coupon connection, would require sign-in to access. Wouldn't this assist its owners ability fo collect data and evaluate marketing / advertising strategies... resulting in FT being a better performing asset.



Suggested is an ALL INCLUSIVE way that does not affect the other forums.
Suggested using criteria already accepted and in place.
Suggested is a forum that current version of vbulletin will support.
Suggested is a trial period, one year was mentioned previously.
Suggested to provide older, newer, and future members a second place to post sensitive material, as is the case in many, many other forums.
The entire moderator group of the forum has posted in its support, this is not a fly by night proposal, one thought out with respect for the Talk Boards conservative nature

Remember FT is free and virtually unrestricted. We are suggesting changes to one area, A TROUBLED AREA.

kind regards,
stp

If you don't think UA/DL/etc all have people whose JOBS it is to keep up with SD/FW/FT, you have another thing coming. This wouldn't be just something they do on the side, it would be part of their actual job duties.
Really? And it took them years to figure out third strike while they were reading FT? I think UA just wasted their money then.

I am new and I understand why some would want to close of this new area to newbies such as myself. Now I have asked for help in constructing MR's and finding lower fares but I am doing my own work trying to learn this as well. There's a lot of information out there and I want to absorb it all. The only thing I ask is that if you do close of an area of the MR forum is that you don't make it too hard to be able to get access to it, i.e. six months membership and 500+ posts. Also, an idea maybe after the post has been active for an x amount of time it is moved into the open MR forum. I am open to the idea but I just don't want to be shout out. I want to respect those who have been here for a long time but I want the opportunity to become one as well. Thanks.

I'm very new to both FT and to MR's, and have found the information on FT to be important in understanding the how's and why's of a MR.

Please don't make me wait for 500+ posts to continue what I've just started. I don't want the rest of the forum to be filled with garbage, as users are trying to get to 500 posts, just to see whats behind the closed door.

1. This thread is about Mileage Run

2. Randy is the one who has made CC a reward for those who participate

3. I am not at all in favor of 2. changing. I'd suggest a post in Only Randy Petersen if you want to discuss this matter.

Sorry if my earlier post wasn't clear, I was trying to make the point that a forum that isn't open to everyone in the world does have a place on FT.

We agree on (3), but since the mods referenced the CC criteria in their original proposal, I argue that it is relevant to this discussion.

Sorry if my earlier post wasn't clear, I was trying to make the point that a forum that isn't open to everyone in the world does have a place on FT.

We agree on (3), but since the mods referenced the CC criteria in their original proposal, I argue that it is relevant to this discussion.

Ah, no.

Other than CC existing, the logistics and operation of CC are not up for debate here and are irrelevant to this discussion.

If you want to talk about CC, I suggest starting a new thread, preferrably in ORP.

So why would some people post deals in a MR (open) section, and others post in a MR (closed) section? How would this not segment a forum people are ALREADY complaining doesn't have enough quality material? I am sorry, I just don't buy the thought pattern that this proposal would do anything other than further dilute the existing posts...When you offer people 2 levels, people will almost always prefer the more 'exclusive' one.

So why would some people post deals in a MR (open) section, and others post in a MR (closed) section? How would this not segment a forum people are ALREADY complaining doesn't have enough quality material? I am sorry, I just don't buy the thought pattern that this proposal would do anything other than further dilute the existing posts...When you offer people 2 levels, people will almost always prefer the more 'exclusive' one.

The proposal is not for a new Deals forum. Deals do not belong there.
The proposal is to address the issue of riddles in the tricks lounge thread and the tension there.

It is not about trying to get more or better Deals posted in a private section.

The proposal specifically requests approval for a trial of a place where special fare savings strategies and tricks could be more directly discussed.

The issue with the tricks lounge thread is that is is a free-form lounge thread; it is not heavily moderated to delete every post which is not specifically discussing details of a 'deal'.

I am sure that this can be discussed, if any of the TalkBoard members are unsure of the meaning of the words in post #1.

It goes back to post #1 and it is up to everyone here to debate that proposal.
This topic is frequently going off-track; please ask details of the proposal rather than hypothesising any number of scenarios.

Have a look at the sticky at the top of Mileage Run Deals:
Welcome to the Mileage Run Forum - Important information how the MR forums work (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/454485-welcome-mileage-run-forum-important-information-how-mr-forums-work.html)
(yes, it is currently outdated and a new version has been made and should be up soon...)

To address your question:
Additional guidance and ground rules would need to be added in the event of a new section. The new information would specifically mention what is appropriate and not appropriate in each forum, so that the volunteer mods would use this as their rules for keeping the forums in order. :)

Thanks for your input; I hope that you can get an improved understanding that this proposal is specifically for discussion of savings strategies and tricks and is NOT a DEALS forum in any way. :)

Cheers,
BiziBB

PS. A reminder of the proposal, from rcs85551 (click the > to get to that post #1):
Dear TalkBoard members,


as you probably know, the Mileage Run forums can be a blessing, as well as a curse. Many Flyertalkers come here in order to find cheap fares or deals, and certainly, many real bargains could be had over the course of many years.

However, the sharing of deals and loopholes does not only have positive aspects – there are negative aspects as well. Deals tend to disappear quickly once posted out in the open, or they’re simply copied by bloggers who can easily access all the information in the respective threads.

Apart from the negative feedback from quite a substantial number of members, us Mileage Run forum moderators have also discovered another very negative effect – many knowledgeable posters leave the forum within a rolling 2-3 year period because they do not feel comfortable with sharing their deals out in the open anymore. Many members have left Flyertalk for the discussion of Mileage Run related issues since they are uncomfortable with sharing information that even becomes readily accessible to anybody savvy enough to use Google.

Many things regarding this issue have already been discussed with regards to: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/866063-vote-complete-motion-failed-restrict-access-mileage-run-deals-logged-users.html

We are certainly aware of the fact that one will never be able to stop airline lurkers or bloggers from accessing information on Flyertalk. Also, restricting one of the most interesting forums on Flyertalk completely would probably also not be the right solution.

However, we strongly believe that the creation of a second sub-forum to the Mileage Run forum with a closed-off criteria identical to those of the Coupon Connection can provide an environment that many users feel comfortable again to discuss and share ("de-googelize it", as a fellow member put it in the other thread). Based on PMs we have received, a major priority for many users seems to be that despite lurkers possibly gaining access to such a closed-off subforum as well, that they are definitely sharing with active members of the community who have at least posted to a certain extent on the boards.

We humbly submit this issue again for your review – this time it’s us volunteer moderators making the request on behalf of the members. We hope that you’ll be able to reach a positive vote on this matter, at least offering a chance to stop the exodus of long-standing members’ know-how to other forums outside of Flyertalk.

Also on behalf of my fellow Mileage Run forum moderators jpdx, BiziBB and beaubo


rcs85551

The proposal is not for a new Deals forum. Deals do not belong there.
The proposal is to address the issue of riddles in the tricks lounge thread and the tension there.

It is not about trying to get more or better Deals posted in a private section.

The proposal specifically requests approval for a trial of a place where special fare savings strategies and tricks could be more directly discussed.

So you see people posting HOW to do a FD, but if they find a particularly GOOD FD they would post it in the open forum?!
How can they not post a DEAL that relates to the very methods they would discuss there? Wont we just see people complain that no one is posting deals (which is exactly what we see now!)

Have a look at the sticky at the top of Mileage Run Deals:
Welcome to the Mileage Run Forum - Important information how the MR forums work (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/454485-welcome-mileage-run-forum-important-information-how-mr-forums-work.html)
(yes, it is currently outdated and a new version has been made and should be up soon...)


C'mon, man! I haven't been a moderator in that forum in almost 4
years! Cut some slack - it was one of first threads of it's kind when I wrote it! :D dmfriedman totally edited my post & copied almost everything verbatim into his! Isn't that a TOS violation?? :D ;)

C'mon, man! I haven't been a moderator in that forum in almost 4
years! Cut some slack - it was one of first threads of it's kind when I wrote it! :D dmfriedman totally edited my post & copied almost everything verbatim into his! Isn't that a TOS violation?? :D ;)

It's a credit to you that it's still 80% relevant, despite the forum being split... mate, do you want to come back and moderate the trick lounge thread? Talk about a plum spoil of glory... I can feel the love in that thread, already, just at the thought! :D

I only hope that people reading this thread have a read of the beginning and the recent pages of the trick it lounge thread in Mileage Run Discussion, so that it is obvious why so many people want something to change with the way tricks are discussed.

Maybe we get iron fisted with it and be done with this velvet glove of a proposal.
Maybe it is more of a brick wall that my head keeps pounding... and TalkBoard people don't really want to know about because of their ideas of forum structure are not able to change, despite what is in evidence here. :eek:
[I am only 47% serious... :D]

As small as some may think the issue is, note that the trick it thread alone has over 500,000 views.

Such a large audience would mean that the new forum would have good participation.

It's a credit to you that it's still 80% relevant, despite the forum being split... mate, do you want to come back and moderate the trick lounge thread? Talk about a plum spoil of glory... I can feel the love in that thread, already, just at the thought! :D

I only hope that people reading this thread have a read of the beginning and the recent pages of the trick it lounge thread in Mileage Run Discussion, so that it is obvious why so many people want something to change with the way tricks are discussed.

Maybe we get iron fisted with it and be done with this velvet glove of a proposal.
Maybe it is more of a brick wall that my head keeps pounding... and TalkBoard people don't really want to know about because of their ideas of forum structure are not able to change, despite what is in evidence here. :eek:
[I am only 47% serious... :D] Frankly: I think what the mods have unanimously proposed is a good idea. Its very rare that all you folks can agree. This holds quite a bit of weight. If nothing gets done on this, at least the brick wall can get voted out this fall.

The proposal specifically requests approval for a trial of a place where special fare savings strategies and tricks could be more directly discussed.

What exactly, other than the alleged "unwillingness" of the posters to share information, prevents these from being discussed in the existing forum already?

What exactly, other than the alleged "unwillingness" of the posters to share information, prevents these from being discussed in the existing forum already?

I am not a regular visitor to the MR forums but I have benefitted from one MR deal -- the Australia biz class mistake fare one, which many FTers did use. I got that one ONLY because someone emailed me about it as it was not posted at the time. I am not on any MR mail chain, it was just luck. I haven't gotten a MR PM or email since.

Within a very short time of when someone did finally post that mistake fare, it was gone. I think this proposal has just enough security that mistake fares posted there are likely to survive enough longer that those who want to can take advantage of them.

The very rapid disappearance of these fares once public is what prevents them from being discussed in the current totally open forum and it is what leads to the "unwillingness."

I realize this is different than tricks but I bet it would work for this as well.


I hope the TB allows this experiment.

What exactly, other than the alleged "unwillingness" of the posters to share information, prevents these from being discussed in the existing forum already?

I cannot speculate on what might happen in the extremely unlikely event that you and some other people become open to this proposal and the proposal is allowed to proceed in some way. I can only explain my understanding on how the forum works at present.

At the beginning of the Trick It special savings lounge thread, it is noted that any discussion of tricks in Mileage Run belongs in that thread (and anythiong posted elsewhere will either be deleted or moved to this thread).

The reaction of others on the trick it lounge is what prevents people from dicussing tricks 100% openly.

Have you read the thread or are you making a rhetorical question / statement?

Any 'ordinary person' reading the tricks thread would immediately notice that people posting are doing so in riddles and people who post directly are getting a lot of negative responses from a small number of very vocal advocates of riddles - all in the name of preserving deals.

I don't wish to be one of the people taking the proposal off course.



TalkBoard member 'representatives', I hope that as elected representatives of FT voters, you can represent those people by posting a note of your support, non-support or questions / reservations / comments on this thread, this week.

If we can get the remaining TB elected reps to do something on this thread, we can then either have a TB person and seconder take this to a vote or declare the proposal dead.

Leaving this proposal floundering does not help with the issues we have raised and we will need to get our members to consider alternative actions to resolve the problem.

Thanks,
BiziBB

The reaction of others on the trick it lounge is what prevents people from dicussing tricks 100% openly.... people who post directly are getting a lot of negative responses from a small number of very vocal advocates of riddles - all in the name of preserving deals.

I think this is the point I am trying to make here. There is a very vocal minority who wants to keep information restricted and may be violating the TOS in their efforts to do so. Rather than take action against this vocal minority (who admittedly may be excellent providers of content to the forum) for possibly violating the TOS, the consensus among the moderators seems to be to create a new playground for them. I am inherently opposed to that line of action.

Once information is in the public domain, it is the right of every FT user to do what they wish with that information. That may be to book a fare with it, to post it on their blog or to call the airline directly and tell them to fix a mistake. The information should also be equally accessible to every FT user, whether they have 10 posts or 10000 posts, whether they are lifetime elite or airline lurker. Any other FT user who tries to stop them from doing this or to give them "negative responses" may be violating the TOS and indeed THEY are more detrimental to the community than any person who might choose to share the information.

There is no right to have a "deal" preserved. There is no basis for either Moderators or TalkBoard to take any action to preserve a "deal" in their official capacities. Once a "deal" is posted, it is open season for anyone and everyone and let the chips fall as they will.

Like many things in life, the only way to keep a secret truly secret is to not share it with anyone to begin with.

If we can get the remaining TB elected reps to do something on this thread, we can then either have a TB person and seconder take this to a vote or declare the proposal dead.


There is a discussion on this matter in the private TB forum and I have personally offered to put forward a proposal there to take this matter to a vote once the discussion has concluded.

Just because I am opposed to the concept right now does not mean I (or my fellow TB members) do not think it should be fully discussed and voted upon! :)