TalkBoard Topics - Motion Passed: Mileage Run Access for Logged-in Members as Only Restriction

Moved by bhatnasx and seconded by B747-437B that

The Talkboard, having passed a motion to consider a restriction on access to the Mileage Run form recommends that the Mileage Run forum be accessible only to registered and logged in members of FlyerTalk and that no further restrictions be adopted at this time.

This vote will close on June 25, 10 at 6:25 am or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:

The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

So while there is already a thread and discussion on this general topic and it is safe to assume that TalkBoard members have reviewed that thread, this thread is about this specific motion. Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback.

A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’

:confused: Why another motion on something already voted upon and adopted? The last motion stated:

"The TalkBoard, after consideration of input from the forum Moderators, believes that some content in the Mileage Run Discussions forum should be subject to access restrictions to be determined, that could include either minimum standards of community participation or mandatory login to view."

so I'm unsure why exactly this second motion is required since the first motion did not say future access restrictions would require another TB vote, only that these restrictions were to be determined.

Regardless of the semantics of the motions I support being logged in to view MR Deals forum.

The purpose of the first motion was to determine if some action was needed. The purpose of this motion (and any subsequent motion on the same topic) is to determine what action is needed. Hope that makes sense.

The purpose of the first motion was to determine if some action was needed. The purpose of this motion (and any subsequent motion on the same topic) is to determine what action is needed. Hope that makes sense.

Yes, it does, though wished the wording "to be determined" could've instead been worded as "to be voted upon" in the first motion. But that's just me being pedantic, I suppose. ;)

IMHO TB hasn't clearly enough laid out what was at stake as a result of this multi-part motion. For example, after having decided by a majority to restrict access to MR forum in the first motion, what happens if this current motion to require users to be signed in to view content is voted down? Does TB keep voting until an acceptable set of restrictions is agreed upon? Or if nothing can be reached by consensus will nothing happen despite the intent of the original motion?

I don't understand the process but I'm sure you all do. Thus I think you are looking for feedback so here is mine (if you aren't then ignore).

I think it is a wise first step on the way to securing part of a valuable forum to FT. I personally feel that the tricks thread is where the golden goose lies so to speak and that should be CC level protected. But you have to start somewhere, thus I support more restricted access to the MR forum.

so I'm unsure why exactly this second motion is required since the first motion did not say future access restrictions would require another TB vote, only that these restrictions were to be determined.

With all due respect, as the author of the first motion, I very clearly spelled out to all TB members in the private forum as well as on the public thread that it was intended to be a multi-part motion that would then vote on what restrictions were to be applied if the original motion passed.

With all due respect, as the author of the first motion, I very clearly spelled out to all TB members in the private forum as well as on the public thread that it was intended to be a multi-part motion that would then vote on what restrictions were to be applied if the original motion passed.

And IMHO it shouldn't be expected that posters go elsewhere to read an outline of the process TB was taking and with all due respect it should've been more clearly indicated as a preamble or preface to the first motion. Of course YMMV but that's MHO.

And IMHO it shouldn't be expected that posters go elsewhere to read an outline of the process TB was taking

Actually, that is EXACTLY what I expect from engaged posters considering the lengthy debate on the previous thread. If you want your views on an issue to be taken serioulsy, I hope that you would have researched everyone's position.

Right now, the only argument I see is one of semantics. At the end of the day, I get the feeling that a consensus is developing among TalkBoard in favour of a certain outcome and we are moving slowly towards that.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what I expect from engaged posters considering the lengthy debate on the previous thread. If you want your views on an issue to be taken serioulsy, I hope that you would have researched everyone's position.

FWIW I was following the debate but didn't think it too much to ask of TB to include a preamble or overview in the first motion to summarize what was being voted upon and what the process would be for the sake of clarity. It's unfortunate you have chosen to summarily dismiss my opinion as I understood this was the place to offer it as everyone was encouraged to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback in the OP.

It's unfortunate you have chosen to summarily dismiss my opinion as I understood this was the place to offer it as everyone was encouraged to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback in the OP.

If I was summarily dismissing your opinion, I wouldn't have bothered to respond. I'm engaging with you!!! :)

If I was summarily dismissing your opinion, I wouldn't have bothered to respond. I'm engaging with you!!! :)

And maybe I should've substituted discounting for dismissing but that's yet more semantics. ;)

FWIW I appreciate the member input TB solicits and wish more FTers would share their thoughts on matters such as this that directly relate to their FT experience. My input was simply that the roadmap could've been clearer but will leave it at that and let the debate on the motion as presented continue. :)

I would like to see login restrictions required. However, as schley suggested, for the Tricks thread, I think it should have CC type restrictions, not just a simple log in requirement. My 2 cents :).

I would like to see login restrictions required. However, as schley suggested, for the Tricks thread, I think it should have CC type restrictions, not just a simple log in requirement. My 2 cents :).

And this is exactly the issue at discussion. I have expressed a concern for this motion will preclude a vote on the more restrictive access you would like. At this stage I think it would be good to hear whether people support the level of restriction in the motion or a more restrictive access (for example the Coupon Connection limits)

I'm not sure that I would want to restrict an entire forum like that to protect one (albeit valuable) thread.

Another motion to further restrict could be made at another time. Another seconded motion can override this one...if it comes to that...

I am pretty sure that a log-in requirement will keep spider-bots out, and hence keep the thread from being indexed by search engines or anything similar. So it certainly seems like trying that as a first step (which could turn out to be the only step) wouldn't hurt.

As I've written elsewhere, I continue to oppose restricting access to travel discussion on Flyertalk in any form.

Boo Hiss :D

I support the motion. Who could actually vote against it being open to only registered & logged in FT members? :confused:

For crikey's sake, it doesn't take much to register & log in, even if you never post elsewhere or contribute back to FT. This isn't a hardship people.

If someone isn't willing to do even that, then one really does have to come to a pretty obvious conclusion on why those folk are frequenting the MR forum in the first place & what their stake is in it.

Cheers.

Who could actually vote against it being open to only registered & logged in FT members? :confused:

At least 2 TalkBoard members (myself and gleff) opposed the original motion, so that's two for you right there. :)

At least 2 TalkBoard members (myself and gleff) opposed the original motion, so that's two for you right there. :)

I get why you 2 are opposed to it at CC restriction level.

I DON'T get why you 2 are opposed to a simple registration/log-in process. There is literally no # of posts or time on FT required for registration & log-in, yet it keeps it out of the spiderbots which is a good thing.

Again, if someone isn't willing to do that, then they're just here to milk FT & deals IMO.

BTW - for those that said we had some folk post deals who wouldn't meet the CC restrictions, guess what - they actually cared enough to register & log-in & post deals.

If they can do it, then why can't the others, especially if the others are just trying to take advantage of the deals & not give back.

Again, it's not a hardship for goodness' sake. They're not being asked to donate, give up their firstborn, or even contribute to FT. They're just being asked to register/log in.

Cheers.

it keeps it out of the spiderbots which is a good thing

That's a matter of opinion. I have no problem with spiderbots and indeed encourage any system that allows better indexing of information.

The fundamental disagreement that I have with most other members (I won't pretend to speak for gleff but he has voiced a similar position) is that I do not believe that information shared freely by members on Flyertalk should be proprietary to this site alone.

I agree with that.

I also think the information is what encourages people to join in the first place, come for the deals and stay for the community.

I used to agree with that, but I also feel that some of the recent changes has made FT more open & accessible to all - which can be good, but at the same time, I also feel that FT can become to big for its own good. I see no issue with growth, but at the same time, I also see no issue with protecting a little bit of what folks contribute to keep the sense of community...

I disagree, gleff. I find , that a lot of newbies find FT because they are pissed off, after being screwed by an airline. They are livid, but dont know what to do about it. They search (their problem) and find FT. Then they become "enlightened". Putting a stop to lurkers in the MR forum (or at least , making them public) doesnt hurt the flow of info. It just allows us to "be aware" of who is in a forum. A simple sign in, isnt too much to ask anyone. I never have to sign in, since it happens automatically. SO whats the big friggen deal??? The RIDGID everything is open to evenyone mantra, is absurd. It will end up with no-one posting into one of the most viewed threads on FT. You are welcome to your opinion.......but it doesnt make common sense IMHO signing in to forum that saves folks $ isn't too much to ask. If it is, to you and the 747 guy, I'll lobby with all my heart, to get you guys bounced out of TB in the next election. I want FT to grow

signing in to forum that saves folks $ isn't too much to ask. If it is, to you and the 747 guy, I'll lobby with all my heart, to get you guys bounced out of TB in the next election. I want FT to grow

Seriously? Not a good way to try to get your point across in a respectable way, dude...

If you feel so strongly about it, run yourself. Both "the 747 guy" (a.k.a. B747-437B) and gleff were voted on by a popular vote and represent the thousands of FTers that voted for them - some folks may not have the same viewpoint as you - which is why these recommendations (and that's what they are - RP & IB have final say in everything), require a 2/3 majority vote.

:td:

Putting a stop to lurkers in the MR forum (or at least , making them public) doesnt hurt the flow of info. It just allows us to "be aware" of who is in a forum.

and how does you "being aware" of who is in a forum help the community at large?

I agree with that.

I also think the information is what encourages people to join in the first place, come for the deals and stay for the community.
Do you think you might have a conflict of interest, given you blog about deals which are found by FTers on your blog?

Well now, here is an interesting technicality: even though the first motion was worded as the "sense of," I would say that its passage implies that the only legitimate reason for a TB member to vote NO on this one should be because they want a stronger restriction.

Yet two TB members say they will vote against this one as yet another way of registering their objections to the previous, already passed, motion. Beginning to sound a lot like how Congress operates!

Do you think you might have a conflict of interest, given you blog about deals which are found by FTers on your blog?

And I contribute plenty to this forum, too.

No, I don't see any conflict of interest, this motion won't affect me in the least, no one is considering restricting content to only those members with over 30,000 posts! :p

Flyertalk has a great deal more viewership than my blog ever will to boot.

Well now, here is an interesting technicality: even though the first motion was worded as the "sense of," I would say that its passage implies that the only legitimate reason for a TB member to vote NO on this one should be because they want a stronger restriction.

Yet two TB members say they will vote against this one as yet another way of registering their objections to the previous, already passed, motion. Beginning to sound a lot like how Congress operates!
A majority of members said they favored a restriction. If that waasn't the case, NO additional motion in the area could pass.

But a majority of Flyertalkers doesn't bind me to support restrictions when I do not support resitrctions.

Quite the opposite of Congress, I vote my conscience and best judgment in every case. No one is offering me any enticements, campaign contributions, or hookers... :D

Do you think you might have a conflict of interest, given you blog about deals which are found by FTers on your blog?

I cannot believe that anyone would ever question Gleff's integrity.:confused:

Quite the opposite of Congress, I vote my conscience and best judgment in every case. No one is offering me any enticements, campaign contributions, or hookers... :D

What about blow? ;)

Yet two TB members say they will vote against this one as yet another way of registering their objections to the previous, already passed, motion.

I'm curious to know who these two TB members are? I know gleff has stated he is voting against it, but I can't seem to find a second person with a publicly stated position at this time.

I'm curious to know who these two TB members are? I know gleff has stated he is voting against it, but I can't seem to find a second person with a publicly stated position at this time.

For clarity I have voted in favour of this restriction.

I cannot believe that anyone would ever question Gleff's integrity.:confused:

Agree. I may not always agree with some TB members views on this or other topics but do not believe there are greater considerations at play beyond their desire to do what they see as best for FT.

I cannot believe that anyone would ever question Gleff's integrity.:confused:
I'm not questioning his integrity. I'm questioning whether his position on this matter (that information be open to absolutely anyone, even when sharing that information could adversely affect the FT members that he represents) is affected by the fact he also runs a blog in which he freely shares information he gleans off FT.

As a member who gleff represents, I do think I have the right to ask that question. If he wasn't a TB member, it would be none of my business. Just as in Parliament over here, all MPs are supposed to declare their interests which might affect their thinking on a position. I would imagine that gleff's thinking on the accessibility of information on FT is influenced by his blog, but his blog could have come about because of his position on information held on FT.

If you think I am questioning his integrity, you really need to see me when I am questioning his integrity ;) I am enquiring about how his own interests (i.e. things he is interested in before I am next told I am suggesting he makes money from his blog) affects his thinking on this matter.

I'm curious to know who these two TB members are? I know gleff has stated he is voting against it, but I can't seem to find a second person with a publicly stated position at this time.

I stand corrected, although actually I am sitting as I type this.

Since there is less than a week until the deadline for voting, I'd like to know if TalkBoard members have any questions for the users of the Mileage Run Discussion forum or more specifically, people who use (or try to use) the info shared in the Trick It thread?

Since the original motion and the 200+ posts made in discussion of the original proposal from Mileage Run forum Mods, there have been a few developments, so I would urge anyone who has not yet voted to read the latest pages of the Trick It thread, so that you are up-to-date on current sharing of info and who is there.

I am happy to relay any updates from behind the scenes, as long as that info is already in the FlyerTalk public domain. :)

Cheers,
BiziBB

Since there is less than a week until the deadline for voting, I'd like to know if TalkBoard members have any questions for the users of the Mileage Run Discussion forum or more specifically, people who use (or try to use) the info shared in the Trick It thread?

Thank you for taking the time to ask, but if TalkBoard Members had any questions I am quite confident that we would feel free to ask them of the people directly without needing to seek the permission of the Moderators.

but it doesnt make common sense IMHO signing in to forum that saves folks $ isn't too much to ask. ...I want FT to grow

Growth will come from having the content indexed and searchable. Limiting access to the content will stunt growth, not enhance it. Surely setting up an account and logging in is easy enough, but there are still plenty of folks who don't do it. I don't have any particularly recent stats from IB but my understanding is that the volume of traffic from not logged in users is significantly higher than logged in accounts. That suggests that growth will come from keeping access to all the data open, not closed.

Moreover, who are we trying to hide the content from? If all access requires is a registration then the mythical folks who ruin deals for everyone else will still have access to all the content but others who might discover a deal and then choose to participate in the community won't. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the community.

Restricting access to travel-based information goes against the ideals on which FlyerTalk was founded IMO. This is a very, very bad idea.

And I bet IB is quite happy w/ the fact that the # of non-logged in users is higher than logged in users. ;) I'm not sure I'd base a decision on a company who benefits from the more the merrier. I'm just sayin...

Granted we all do as well - presuming the folk actually give back to FT, but folk who just lurk & don't offer anything - eh, well glad they got their info, but not like they're helping out anyone else. Take & you shall receive?? Again, the 'newbies' who posted deals actually cared enough to register & log-on to offer up said deals. If they can do it, why can't the lurkers?

It's not a hardship to register & log-in to read the forum for goodness' sake. People are not being asked to give up their firstborn, their ipads, or be registered for 90days or post 90x. Just simply register & log-in.

Since sbm12 said very 2x, can I - this is a very, very good idea ;) :D

Cheers.

And I bet IB is quite happy w/ the fact that the # of non-logged in users is higher than logged in users. ;) I'm not sure I'd base a decision on a company who benefits from the more the merrier. I'm just sayin...

I have to say that IB has never attempted to influence the decisions made by TB.

Thank you for taking the time to ask, but if TalkBoard Members had any questions I am quite confident that we would feel free to ask them of the people directly without needing to seek the permission of the Moderators.

I did not post to get into an argument, but to offer any new information that I am aware of.

Those who are interested in additional information are welcome to ask each and every member, of course.

As someone who was involved in getting the proposal together and posted, plus some other information, I was volunteering my time to assist, again.

Although some may not value this offer, I am offering it as I think it may be of interest to some other TalkBoard members.

Though if nobody is interested, I am not offended or worried. ;)

Growth will come from having the content indexed and searchable. Limiting access to the content will stunt growth, not enhance it. Surely setting up an account and logging in is easy enough, but there are still plenty of folks who don't do it. I don't have any particularly recent stats from IB but my understanding is that the volume of traffic from not logged in users is significantly higher than logged in accounts. That suggests that growth will come from keeping access to all the data open, not closed.

Moreover, who are we trying to hide the content from? If all access requires is a registration then the mythical folks who ruin deals for everyone else will still have access to all the content but others who might discover a deal and then choose to participate in the community won't. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the community.

Restricting access to travel-based information goes against the ideals on which FlyerTalk was founded IMO. This is a very, very bad idea. FWIW, when I say grow..... I mean in a quality manner....which in turn...lasts.
If I'm out and need a public restroom....I head for a starbucks....your "growth' is more like heading for the honeybucket at a HS football game late in the fourth quarter :D AFA the "ideals" of FT....here's something to toss around. Last year there was a big fuss about Gift cards being traded in the CC. RP himself, weighed in and i'm (paraphrasing) felt that Gift Cards were a bit beyond what he had envisioned and made the CC a bit too Commercial. Thus a ban on GCs in that forum. So..... we have a restricted forum that has requirements to be able to view. Plus a certain amount of posts required to show that folks are part of the community (and not just drivebys) all OKed by the head honcho himself.

I would like a post restriction for the trickit thread. Plus a sign in req. I've already come to the conclusion that 1. wont happen, but 2. may. If thats the best we can do right now I'll be happy (for the time being) We may be quite surprised with a sign in req, when the "mythical folks" have to sign in.......in front of all of us, like in the CC. 33 members 133 guests is bull.

I would like a post restriction for the trickit thread. .

FWIW, I don't think that's even technically possible.

We may be quite surprised with a sign in req, when the "mythical folks" have to sign in.......in front of all of us, like in the CC. 33 members 133 guests is bull.
(emphasis mine)

Not sure if you had factored in the "invisible mode" (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=invisible&match=all&titlesonly=0) on FT. Even with sign-in, someone (or any FTer) can be "invisible" to everybody else (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/technical-issues/948457-i-can-no-longer-invisible-i-just-noticed.html).

Signing in (or not) may not make too much a difference other than stopping search engine spiders, if I understand (the technology) correctly. I think the issues are not with the "technology front." Rather it has to do with what and how FT can serve FTers better. Each TBer may see things differently and have his own ideas on implementation of his ideal FT.

In a funny (or sad) way way, I see the parallel between this debate and the googleable OMNI (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/only-randy-petersen/879190-omni-open-all-posts-showing-up-web-searches.html) re: how (un)restrictive FT should be. Not sure if it's for better (or for worse), some OMNIites have publicly "confessed" their change of posting behavior in the now unrestricted OMNI (i.e. stop posting or do "self-screening/selecting" posting...etc).

Even though I am not a regular participant in MR Forum, I learn from reading this TB proposal/motion, some MR frequents had made the same changes as well. It's up to TB if this sort of changes in (die-hard) FTers are good for FT. If not, what kind of policies TB should endorse or initiate to better FT.

The main difference between googleable OMNI and MR, IMHO, is that TB can do something about it. The voting on this TB motion shall give us a clear indication how TB stands on this fundamental front.

BTW, being a FT junkie, I normally don't sign in when visiting FT. I only sign in when I have to (making posts or RBPs...etc).

For what it's worth, I decided to vote against this motion in the end. FlyerTalk attracts a lot of new members through mistake fares, special deals, etc., and it's very hard for FlyerTalk to get any media attention (especially after the fact) if access is restricted to members. Beyond that, and more importantly, it's very hard to convince potential members to join if they don't know what they're missing out on. We need potential members to know about the mileage run forum, but at the same time it would be very difficult to describe, in my opinion.

For me the issue is that this is as much added "security" as the TSA -- anyone could get around this restriction, even those we don't want to have access. Anyone can register, so I don't see this stopping the airlines or anyone else from getting in on the deals. And I don't see the search engines as much of an issue here, as many of the best deals are gone within hours, where people are pointed directly to the deal.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to some form of restriction which would actually enhance the security or privacy of the mileage run forum, like a sub-forum with a post count/time on FT requirement or something like that.

While I agree it's easy enough to join, I just don't see how this would help anyone.

And by the way, I had a really hard time deciding which way to go on this one. Throughout the discussion I was generally opposed to this particular restriction, but at the same time the mods and frequent users of the MR forum seemed to be in favor, and I do value their opinions a lot...

I had voted for this motion..but I would agree with Lucky - this was a really tough one to vote on...

I made the following post in the private TB forum:

FWIW, I did think quite a bit about this one as well - and when it was up for voting the first time around (in 2008?) I had voted against this sort of a motion.

I guess part of me feels that the "protection" it provides is a something that's important to the community and keeping the community an actual community.

Another part of me feels that no community should be exclusive and the way that a community is defined is by their willingness to include everyone and exclude no one.

The reason I voted for this is because it seems that the community being "abused" by some - and that's not fair to the other members. So "laws" and must be enacted (signing in) and followed to be a member of the community".

I was pretty torn on the decision - and part of me feels that if this went up for vote again today, I'd potentially change my vote - but after being a part of this community for 7 years, I feel like it's grown so large it may need that protection...

A tough one to vote on for sure...

Again, the 'newbies' who posted deals actually cared enough to register & log-on to offer up said deals. If they can do it, why can't the lurkers?


You keep saying that... but the newbies who cared enough to register and sign in may have done so in the first place because they saw that there was a Deals forum which they could learn from and contribute to.

Or are we only interested in those who care enough to register because they are enthralled with up to the minute happenings of your goldfish?

If the Deals forum ... which is a HUGE draw to FT .... is not there for new visitors to see and know exists... then I think we will lose lots of potential new and valuable contributors, with very little gain... because I honestly believe that those of you who are banking on this move to get people to come out from behind their secret email lists are going to be dissapointed.

For what it's worth, I decided to vote against this motion in the end. FlyerTalk attracts a lot of new members through mistake fares, special deals, etc., and it's very hard for FlyerTalk to get any media attention (especially after the fact) if access is restricted to members. Beyond that, and more importantly, it's very hard to convince potential members to join if they don't know what they're missing out on. We need potential members to know about the mileage run forum, but at the same time it would be very difficult to describe, in my opinion.

For me the issue is that this is as much added "security" as the TSA -- anyone could get around this restriction, even those we don't want to have access. Anyone can register, so I don't see this stopping the airlines or anyone else from getting in on the deals. And I don't see the search engines as much of an issue here, as many of the best deals are gone within hours, where people are pointed directly to the deal.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to some form of restriction which would actually enhance the security or privacy of the mileage run forum, like a sub-forum with a post count/time on FT requirement or something like that.

While I agree it's easy enough to join, I just don't see how this would help anyone.

And by the way, I had a really hard time deciding which way to go on this one. Throughout the discussion I was generally opposed to this particular restriction, but at the same time the mods and frequent users of the MR forum seemed to be in favor, and I do value their opinions a lot... One again, its a quality vs quantity issue. Using your logic lucky is what brought TED to tampa, How did that work out for you??:D

My thanks to those TB members who have posted their views, but also for indicating that it was not a simple vote. Most realize that the forum is not working ideally, but finding an ideal solution might well be impossible. At the end of the day, what is best for the MR forum might not be best for FT as a whole. At least the process was started and we shall see what comes from the vote. Either way, it is comforting to know that TB took time to consider all aspects of the vote and their reprocussions (even if we do not end up agreeing).

If the Deals forum ... which is a HUGE draw to FT .... is not there for new visitors to see and know exists... then I think we will lose lots of potential new and valuable contributors, with very little gain... because I honestly believe that those of you who are banking on this move to get people to come out from behind their secret email lists are going to be dissapointed.

I can agree to this, but it would be better if we can prevent the next generation of FTers to not go the same route. I would love to see the older members return, but would also like to keep the current group of posters around too.

FWIW, the ONLY reason I voted for this proposal is that the majority of TalkBoard had voted in favour of some restrictions being applied in the first phase of the vote. Accordingly, I believed that it was the right thing to accept that position of the majority and vote for the most appropriate restriction since the decision to apply some sort of restriction had already been taken.

I voted AGAINST the original motion supporting any restrictions at all and my position continues to be very strongly against any restrictions whatsoever being applied.

Moved by bhatnasx and seconded by B747-437B that

The Talkboard, having passed a motion to consider a restriction on access to the Mileage Run form recommends that the Mileage Run forum be accessible only to registered and logged in members of FlyerTalk and that no further restrictions be adopted at this time.

Yes:
B747-437B, bhatnasx, Markie, nsx, skywalkerLAX, Spiff 6 75%

No:
gleff, lucky9876coins 2 25%

Abstain:
0 0%

Voters: 8.

Not Voting:
Radioman

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines, a motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’

Thanks to all those who explained their thought processes & concerns for both pros/cons, both amongst TB members as well as FT members. It's good to see people's reasoning on issues, and always provides valuable insight. Glad the vote went the way it did for a variety of reasons.

BTW - the goldfish are fine ;)

Cheers.

Thanks to all those who explained their thought processes & concerns for both pros/cons, both amongst TB members as well as FT members. It's good to see people's reasoning on issues, and always provides valuable insight. Glad the vote went the way it did for a variety of reasons.

Agree and glad to see one in particular citing the majority wishes as established in the first vote as a consideration in this ballot. ^

I ask that someone finds a solution to allow the MANY FT readers who use RSS readers to still read MR. Otherwise, I am sure we will find other solutions...

I deleted my last couple posts because they were rambly.... and I know this horse has left the barn, but...

In the first vote, the Talkboard passed the following (bolding mine)

The TalkBoard, after consideration of input from the forum Moderators, believes that some content in the Mileage Run Discussions forum should be subject to access restrictions to be determined, that could include either minimum standards of community participation or mandatory login to view

This motion states (bolding and italics mine):

The Talkboard, having passed a motion to consider a restriction on access to the Mileage Run form recommends that the Mileage Run forum be accessible only to registered and logged in members of FlyerTalk and that no further restrictions be adopted at this time.

The Talkboard did NOT pass a motion to consider restriction on the Mileage Run forum... they passed a motion to consider restriction on the Discussion forum.

As this vote was conditional on the previous one, I would like to ask that the TB apply their action to only the MR Discussion forum, or revote entirely with precise wording.

I have a question - maybe already answered somewhere but I didn't see it. Will someone not logged-in see that there is an MR forum altogether?

What should be (IMnshO) is that the non-registered user can view the Forum subject, and then when clicking on it, a message, such as "This Forum is open to registered FT users only. Registration is simple, and also provides xxxxxx" (fill in whatever other welcoming language.)

If one can't even see the existence of a MR forum, that is more troubling.

I honestly believe that those of you who are banking on this move to get people to come out from behind their secret email lists are going to be disappointed.

Perhaps. There's only one way to know for sure, and that's to try it for a while. That's why I voted yes.

If nothing improves, I'd support going back to the way it was. I'd expect the MR moderators to be the first to realize this and ask for the TalkBoard's OK to change back.

Not knowing how this works, does this take place right away? If not, the Mods might want to start a thread or announcement of stickey in that forum alerting folk that to view it in the future they'll need to log in to FT & reminding them that registering/logging in is easy to do.

Cheers.

Is there even a way to measure if things "improve"? Can we set some goalposts? There have been alot of deals posted within the last couple weeks that were decently good...I know there are others kept between 'friends', but how can we EVER measure if things 'changed'? Can we start a "Now that this is logged in only, post your hidden deals here" thread?

Is there even a way to measure if things "improve"? Can we set some goalposts? There have been alot of deals posted within the last couple weeks that were decently good...I know there are others kept between 'friends', but how can we EVER measure if things 'changed'? Can we start a "Now that this is logged in only, post your hidden deals here" thread?

I agree with nsx, for whilst the TB has not gone as far as the Mods of that forum requested, they should see whether it is working. If not I expect them to ask TB to go the whole hog and propose a minimum membership/posts requirement like Coupon Connection.

Question... and I do not use RSS that much... but I have never been asked to put in a username and password. Does that mean anyone who uses RSS will nto be able to see the MR forums?

I deleted my last couple posts because they were rambly.... and I know this horse has left the barn, but...

In the first vote, the Talkboard passed the following (bolding mine)



This motion states (bolding and italics mine):



The Talkboard did NOT pass a motion to consider restriction on the Mileage Run forum... they passed a motion to consider restriction on the Discussion forum.

As this vote was conditional on the previous one, I would like to ask that the TB apply their action to only the MR Discussion forum, or revote entirely with precise wording.

You are correct in this. This means in my view that we voted on a motion that has no effect for, as you correctly point out, there is no such forum as the Mileage Run forum. I believe that means that TB will have to start again with the process once a new motion is proposed/seconded.

You are correct in this. This means in my view that we voted on a motion that has no effect for, as you correctly point out, there is no such forum as the Mileage Run forum. I believe that means that TB will have to start again with the process once a new motion is proposed/seconded.

I wondered aloud about the whole process early on and in another thread what the TB Guidelines said about multi-part motions and so am curious how the strict interpretation will be addressed given the differences missy has rightly pointed out. Ultimately who decides whether these motions were held incorrectly or not? TB President or TB Host?

..so am curious how the strict interpretation will be addressed given the differences missy has rightly pointed out. Ultimately who decides whether these motions were held incorrectly or not? TB President or TB Host?
(emphasis mine)

I take it you meant "FT Host" (i.e. Randy)?

(emphasis mine)

I take it you meant "FT Host" (i.e. Randy)?

Yes must've mixed up the abbreviations. :D

Question... and I do not use RSS that much... but I have never been asked to put in a username and password. Does that mean anyone who uses RSS will nto be able to see the MR forums?

Exactly. MR does not exist for us any more. If this goes ahead, and there is no authentication added to the FT RSS, I will start another web site that crawls FT MR and makes an RSS feed, as I see absolutely nothing against the FT rules in doing that, as long as its not commercial.

MR does not exist for us any more

Then whom exactly does it exist for? Everyone who just wants a MR & doesn't care 2 patooties about FT in general? And who probably aren't going to be giving back to the core of FT? Or is the core of FT one of those old-fashioned concepts?

BTW - doesn't Fat Wallet or Airfare WatchDog exist for stuff like that? Perhaps you should be setting up your own website RSS feed surfing FW or AFWD instead ;)

Cheers.

I supported the logged in restriction for a variety of reasons. One being all the mods of that forum being in agreement that there were problems that needed to be addressed, and their cohesiveness made a difference. I doubt they're suggesting it just because they have nothing to do. ;)

Another being that I don't think it's a huge hardship on anyone to actually have to register & log-in to be able to see the forum. It's free. It doesn't require giving up a firstborn child or SWU or their entire mileage account. :rolleyes:

Some have said there are newbies who have posted deals & we'd lose that if there was a log-in restriction. I don't agree. Will we lose a few deals? Sure. No question. We're NEVER going to capture 100% of mileage run deals out there. But for the few we miss there are lots more posted.

For example, I checked MR deals for the month of June and here's what cropped up. It's in the following format: date deal was posted; join date of FTer.

6/23 -- 8/09
6/27 -- 6/10
6/24 -- 8/02
6/24 -- 7/07
6/24 -- 4/09
6/24 -- 1/06
6/24 -- 10/09
6/25 -- 8/09
6/25 -- 8/09
6/23 -- 1/99
6/23 -- 9/02
6/24 -- 2/04
6/25 -- 7/09
6/24 -- 12/05
6/23 -- 4/05
6/23 -- 9/05
6/24 -- 2/05
6/22 -- 10/06
6/23 -- 6/07
6/23 -- 3/00
6/24 -- 1/09
6/23 -- 10/06
6/23 -- 10/08
6/22 -- 2/10
6/14 -- 1/04
6/17 -- 8/09
6/22 -- 2/08
6/22 -- 3/00
6/22 -- 7/07
6/16 -- 1/07
6/18 -- 12/07
6/22 -- 6/07
6/21 -- 8/07
5/24 -- 2/07
5/26 -- 7/09
6/17 -- 9/05
6/14 -- 1/09
6/15 -- 3/08
6/9 -- 2/06
6/17 -- 3/02
6/18 -- 3/05
4/22 -- 3/10
6/14 -- 8/08
6/14 -- 9/05
5/30 -- 9/06
6/14 -- 2/03
6/13 -- 9/08
6/9 -- 5/06
5/29 -- 5/06
6/11 -- 1/07
4/9 -- 3/09
6/11 -- 11/02
6/11 -- 1/10
3/29 -- 11/09
5/27 -- 7/09
5/20 -- 12/07
6/5 -- 5/05
6/6 -- 3/08
6/7 -- 1/10
6/7 -- 6/09
5/11 -- 1/08
6/2 -- 5/05
6/5 -- 8/04
6/2 -- 3/00
5/26 -- 6/02
6/3 -- 4/05
6/3 -- 2/09
5/27 -- 12/02
5/18 -- 10/03
5/14 -- 3/00
4/26 -- 7/06
5/27 -- 1/03
5/25 -- 3/02

So, first, not a shortage of deals & second, 99+% of them are not posted by newbies. I think FT MR will survive if there's a simple registered, log-in requirement.

And I would also suggest that we might gain FT members who could potentially go over to the core forums & contribute there if there is a simple, log-in requirement, hence 'giving back' to FT. Every single thread above, the FTers had multiple posts & not all were in MR. Granted, it's not a given they'll head to other forums & contribute, but a possibility. But what IS a given (IMO) is that the folk who just surf MR & don't register at all but just benefit from MR are takers, not givers.

Having said all the above, if the logged-in goes through as the only minimal (and it is minimal) restriction, I think a stickey or something in advance of it for a while before being implemented would let folk who lurk know they'll need to register/log in but still have access, as well as the RSS folk if by chance there's a hiccup there. If they know in advance they can plan accordingly.

Cheers.

Well it certanly should still exist for those contributing members who are aren't able to sit on their computers surfing FT all day. why is it that you don't give 2 patooties about them? You know, the actual frequent flyers? Then whom exactly does it exist for? Everyone who just wants a MR & doesn't care 2 patooties about FT in general? And who probably aren't going to be giving back to the core of FT? Or is the core of FT one of those old-fashioned concepts?

BTW - doesn't Fat Wallet or Airfare WatchDog exist for stuff like that? Perhaps you should be setting up your own website RSS feed surfing FW or AFWD instead ;)

Cheers.

This is JUST the attitude that I think we need to try to ELIMINATE to encourage new posts...even on MR, and why I am AGAINST these new restrictions...If I don't access FT always via the web, I am not a worthy contributor?!

Also, just CHECK MR. I have added at LEAST 5 deals this year alone, some which were VERY popular.

Then whom exactly does it exist for? Everyone who just wants a MR & doesn't care 2 patooties about FT in general? And who probably aren't going to be giving back to the core of FT? Or is the core of FT one of those old-fashioned concepts?

BTW - doesn't Fat Wallet or Airfare WatchDog exist for stuff like that? Perhaps you should be setting up your own website RSS feed surfing FW or AFWD instead ;)

Cheers.

Moved by bhatnasx and seconded by B747-437B that

Yes:
B747-437B, bhatnasx, Markie, nsx, skywalkerLAX, Spiff 6 75%

No:
gleff, lucky9876coins 2 25%

Abstain:
0 0%

Voters: 8.

Not Voting:
Radioman

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines, a motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’

Active TalkBoard Members:
Please note Missydarlin's post quoted below.

Can TalkBoard please clarify the logic and scope of the proposal which you have approved, in light on the original request from Mileage Run Moderators?

Please note that our original proposal mentioned making a new subforum specifically for the Trick It thread.
This request came out of the many and continued calls and complaints both on the thread and our polling of forum members.

The Trick It thread is problematic for many FTers due to conflicting desires:
for information sharing (it's FT!); and
fare preservation by only allowing those who learn the riddles and techniques to be able to figure out the tricks.


Thanks to all those who explained their thought processes & concerns for both pros/cons, both amongst TB members as well as FT members. It's good to see people's reasoning on issues, and always provides valuable insight. Glad the vote went the way it did for a variety of reasons.

BTW - the goldfish are fine ;)
Cheers.

Thanks, active TalkBoard members, for taking your responsibilities seriously and thinking about the problem; from the perspective of current and prospective sharers of information on the Mileage Run forums.

Agree and glad to see one in particular citing the majority wishes as established in the first vote as a consideration in this ballot. ^

Respectful thanks to that member. I appreciate it, too. ^

.... and I know this horse has left the barn, but...

In the first vote, the Talkboard passed the following (bolding mine)

This motion states (bolding and italics mine):

The Talkboard did NOT pass a motion to consider restriction on the Mileage Run forum... they passed a motion to consider restriction on the Discussion forum.

As this vote was conditional on the previous one, I would like to ask that the TB apply their action to only the MR Discussion forum, or revote entirely with precise wording.
rcs85551, on behalf of Mileage Run Moderators, proposed the new subforum of Mileage Run Discussion with access restrictions specifically to resolve issues with the Trick It thread's competing/opposed needs for protection but with some open sharing for qualifying members.

The proposal did NOT affect Mileage Run Deals.
Your change is nothing like what we requested. Can the TB please redo this vote, to ensure it is the Mileage Run Discussion forum which requires login access?

If not, can you explain the contradiction Missydarlin points out?
Perhaps. There's only one way to know for sure, and that's to try it for a while. That's why I voted yes.

If nothing improves, I'd support going back to the way it was. I'd expect the MR moderators to be the first to realize this and ask for the TalkBoard's OK to change back.

I am in discussion and doing work, with MR Forums co-Mods, to try to resolve some current clashes in the Trick It thread, so that it is running in the spirit and rules of FlyerTalk.

The problem is confined at present to the Trick It thread and I can report that the Mileage Run Deals forum is running fine. :)


Thanks to everyone who has contributed here.

My plea:
Please try to remember what is the reported problem, then you have a better chance at considering a solution to that problem, rather than imagined problems.


BiziBB (as FT user and as (co-) Moderator, Mileage Run)

Well it certanly should still exist for those contributing members who are aren't able to sit on their computers surfing FT all day. why is it that you don't give 2 patooties about them? You know, the actual frequent flyers?

When & where have I ever said I don't care about actual frequent flyers? Especially since, w/ 3MM under my belt, I AM one. BTW - if they're surfing MR, they're most likely surfing FT. I would hazard a guess more check the website than do RSS.

I DO care about contributing members. But those who can't even be bothered to register, you're right. I don't really care about them that much because it's pretty obvious they don't really care about FT.

This is JUST the attitude that I think we need to try to ELIMINATE to encourage new posts...even on MR, and why I am AGAINST these new restrictions...If I don't access FT always via the web, I am not a worthy contributor?!

Also, just CHECK MR. I have added at LEAST 5 deals this year alone, some which were VERY popular.

And your deals (at least in June, which is all I tracked) were counted in the list I posted above.

But the argument was made by those who were against restricting MR to registered & logged-in members that it was because we were going to lose out on deals posted by the 'newbies'. I'm assuming that means whether in MR Deals or in the infamous Trick It thread. I was responding to that.

My post stated that we'll never capture 100% of deals even w/ newbies posting. However, it's not like there's a shortage of deals posted (approx 70 in June in MR) - and that the majority of them were posted by people who had been on FT a long time & were NOT newbies, a category you fall into w/ a join date of 2002 btw.

I personally don't see the big deal on requiring a registered, logged-in requirement. It's not like CC where you have to have Xposts/X time on FT. It just means you have to register & log in. Heck, I've got my smartphone set up to always register me as logged in & was checking FT when I was standing in line bored at the post office & bank today. Not in front of a computer, but if I wanted access to the threads I had it.

I also don't see understand why some want to cater to those who literally have no interest in FT other than the deals they can get from MR - or, from what BiziBB has stated, the "Trick It Thread". I'm not talking about the ones that contribute, but those who literally don't contribute. The bending over backward for them is what confuses me.

But as posted previously I appreciate everyone's input, pros/cons, whether FT members or TB members. And it will be interesting to see how the the little 'hiccup' gets resolved.

Cheers.

FWIW, as I'm sure more discussion will follow in the next several days, I'll be mostly offline from June 30-July 5 - but will keep up with these threads as best I can...