TalkBoard Topics - Motion Failed: Access Restriction for Mileage Run Discussion forum

Moved by gleff and seconded by Spiff

that the Mileage Run Discussion forum be accessible only to registered and logged in members of FlyerTalk, and that this restriction not apply to Mileage Run Deals.

This vote will close on July 12, 10 at 5:31 pm 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.’

For reasons that I have posted before, I have voted in favour of this one.

The longer this drags out, the more misgivings I have about the whole thing. Today its Mileage Run Discussions, tomorrow what? We are not a club of insiders sharing secrets. We should never allow that to even become a possibility.

As for "security" of information, I fully support the sharing of all information with everyone (member or otherwise) and let the chips fall as they may. Indeed, lucky9876coins and gleff share information very effectively via their blogs. I personally work in airline management and would use information I obtained about genuine error fares to alert my employers and/or our interline partners. What next? Restrict us from accessing forums because of our other activities?

I respect that the majority of the TalkBoard voted for some sort of restrictions to begin with and I voted in favour of the login restriction in the second vote ONLY as a result of that. I am however choosing to abstain on this vote as I do not want to be the one that either tips the vote in favour of restrictions (against my conscience) or against restrictions (against the will of the majority).

The longer this drags out, the more misgivings I have about the whole thing. Today its Mileage Run Discussions, tomorrow what? We are not a club of insiders sharing secrets. We should never allow that to even become a possibility.

As for "security" of information, I fully support the sharing of all information with everyone (member or otherwise) and let the chips fall as they may. Indeed, lucky9876coins and gleff share information very effectively via their blogs. I personally work in airline management and would use information I obtained about genuine error fares to alert my employers and/or our interline partners. What next? Restrict us from accessing forums because of our other activities?

I respect that the majority of the TalkBoard voted for some sort of restrictions to begin with and I voted in favour of the login restriction in the second vote ONLY as a result of that. I am however choosing to abstain on this vote as I do not want to be the one that either tips the vote in favour of restrictions (against my conscience) or against restrictions (against the will of the majority).

FWIW I sure hope this sudden change of heart hasn't doomed this clarified motion which was only made to correct its erroneously worded predecessor. IMHO it would be unfortunate to see a technicality scuttle something TB previously agreed upon.

I'm of the opinion that the minimum of being a registered FTer and signed in to view the MR Discussion forum is not too high a barrier to impose given the wealth of insights shared within that forum. And I've found that this complete openness has actually fostered an insiders club where information is more closely guarded than it used to be and so I believe it's already too late to expect that things really aren't the way they actually are.

FWIW I sure hope this sudden change of heart hasn't doomed this clarified motion which was only made to correct its erroneously worded predecessor. IMHO it would be unfortunate to see a technicality scuttle something TB previously agreed upon.

The motion will not fail as long as everyone else votes the way they did in the first motion (6 in favour, 2 against). However, at least two TB members have publicly stated that they may have had a change of heart and no longer support any restrictions. If they change their position in the current vote and vote against any restrictions, then only will this "scuttle" the passage of the current motion.

FWIW I sure hope this sudden change of heart hasn't doomed this clarified motion which was only made to correct its erroneously worded predecessor. IMHO it would be unfortunate to see a technicality scuttle something TB previously agreed upon.

I'm of the opinion that the minimum of being a registered FTer and signed in to view the MR Discussion forum is not too high a barrier to impose given the wealth of insights shared within that forum.

Agree w/ both paragraphs above.

Cheers.

FWIW, and I know that this isn't what I'm sure most people want to hear, I voted against this motion - although I had voted for the previous motion.

The reason I voted against this is twofold:

1) After reading more through the threads, I don't see how this will truly protect FTers. Just logging in isn't a strong enough requirement to protect that forum. It seems as if this whole motion is in regards to protecting 1 or 2 threads in the discussion forum and I don't think that its information that isn't already out there. Sure, the FD loophole was exploited & lost - but that was exploited & lost by someone who is a member of FT and who has been a long time member of FT - so the protection wouldn't have work. The login requirement would have been a "security theater" as I believe one of my colleagues referred to it. It's not protection. I don't know the best way of protecting this information - but this is not it.

2) When I voted on the original motion, I was voting for both MR Deals & MR Discussion - as the moderators often times move things from MR Deals to MR Discussion (Fare Gone type threads, for example), someone, who may not be a registered member, who is following a thread in the public Deals forum, wouldn't be able to continue to follow that thread in the Discussion forum, without registering & logging in....which is free and easy to do...so again, this new motion doesn't do anything to protect FT.

The last solution could be the original recommendation to create a separate private forum - similar to CC - with member/posting requirements - but again - what will that do? I'm sure that some folks still won't respect the spirit of that forum as they don't respect the spirit of the current forum...

So, where does that leave us, IMHO? I think that leaves us in the same place we are now - sharing information that folks are willing to share online & potentially sharing more information to the community offline - at DOs and FT events, as it seems that's where a lot of info is shared. If you want the "inside scoop" on FT, go out there & meet FTers in person. Be a more involved member in the community & you'll learn...

Not the answer I'm sure many want to hear, but until there's a strong proposal that'll be effective, that's the way I see it....When this idea first came up a few years ago, I voted against it as I believed it was in the spirit of FT to share. I feel I got caught up in the hoopla of the FD loss - but in looking at how it happened, this wouldn't have prevented anything.

Sorry to disappoint those that I disappointed, but in the spirit of FT, I believe I'm voting the right way...

Sorry to disappoint those that I disappointed, but in the spirit of FT, I believe I'm voting the right way...

Thanks for the brave vote. Now gleff and I will have company when the mob comes to lynch us! :D

Thanks for the brave vote. Now gleff and I will have company when the mob comes to lynch us! :DAu contraire :)

I for one respect your stance, it is most admiral. ^

My tuppence-worth: airlines (and online travel agencies) are much more savvy today than they were when online bookings were in their infancy. I cannot see how creating access restrictions to the Mileage Run Discussion forum (or any other forum) will return the forum to it's halcyon days. The futility of the gesture is eclipsed by the discomfort I feel about the proposed approach. To me, it goes against the guiding principles of FlyerTalk.

Since it was a simple register & log-on, it wasn't 'keeping people out' to some large extent like people worried about - they did not have to give up their firstborn or all of their hotel or airline points. It was not a CC connection restriction.

But it did require that they at least give the illusion of caring about FT enough to register & perhaps giving back to the community as a member, vs. just taking. Remember, most who post the deals everyone is so eager to gain were 99% started by FT members.

Also, I doubt the mods of the MR forum would have even requested some action be taken if they didn't think there was a problem that needed to be addressed. The action voted on & APPROVED previously was the least intrusive of the options available.

BTW - do you really think the people who aren't even willing to register & log-on in the first place are suddenly going to start showing up at FT Dos to share info? :rolleyes: About that proverbial London Bridge that's now based in AZ....

I am quite disappointed that something that was approved in the first place is now, due to a 'hiccup' in a word, going to be voted down. Perhaps all votes by TB should have 2nd chances. ;) I'm just sayin...

Cheers.

Sharon, similar to the issue gleff originally raised, how can you convince people to register for FlyerTalk if you don't even show them what they're missing out on? You can't dangle a carrot without showing them the carrot! If anything, I think more people are encouraged to register when they see the deals, because they'll want to ask questions, which is how we get them as members.

For the record, I'm not opposed to access restrictions in general, but they have to make sense. For example, I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of "members only" mileage run forum with certain requirements, where people might feel more comfortable sharing information. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would feel more comfortable sharing information just because there's a log-in requirement...

Sorry to disappoint those that I disappointed, but in the spirit of FT, I believe I'm voting the right way...

Didn't you believe you were voting the "right way" in the previous motion? :confused: If not, why?

Like Sharon I can't help but be a little disappointed that some TBers didn't vote the "right way" the first time this matter came up rather than use this unexpected second chance to mull over the issue in more detail and form a different opinion.

Sharon, similar to the issue gleff originally raised, how can you convince people to register for FlyerTalk if you don't even show them what they're missing out on? You can't dangle a carrot without showing them the carrot! If anything, I think more people are encouraged to register when they see the deals, because they'll want to ask questions, which is how we get them as members.

For the record, I'm not opposed to access restrictions in general, but they have to make sense. For example, I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of "members only" mileage run forum with certain requirements, where people might feel more comfortable sharing information. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would feel more comfortable sharing information just because there's a log-in requirement...

Is there really such a problem with saying that FT is for PUBLICLY available information, and that we are ok with people having their own little private groups to share "honeyholes?" What people are trying to do here is put the genie back in the bottle. Lately we have had MANY decent Mileage Run deals on the board...but no one is commenting on that...I applaud those members of TB that took a stand and realized that this proposal does no more than making someone take their shoes off before reading MR. :-)

I applaud those members of TB that took a stand

Some took a stand twice. :D

Sharon, similar to the issue gleff originally raised, how can you convince people to register for FlyerTalk if you don't even show them what they're missing out on? You can't dangle a carrot without showing them the carrot! If anything, I think more people are encouraged to register when they see the deals, because they'll want to ask questions, which is how we get them as members.

I honestly believe that the value of FT is beyond Mileage Runs (or indeed Coupon Connection). It's the Community you find in the lounge threads, the detailed experiences in Trip Reports, it's the hotel reviews in Hyatt, Starwood etc, the promo codes in Intercontinental.

We're dangling a whole range of carrots, not just one!

I honestly believe that the value of FT is beyond Mileage Runs (or indeed Coupon Connection). It's the Community you find in the lounge threads, the detailed experiences in Trip Reports, it's the hotel reviews in Hyatt, Starwood etc, the promo codes in Intercontinental.

We're dangling a whole range of carrots, not just one!
Agreed, though my post was in response to some stating that restricting access to the mileage run forum would encourage people to sign up. That I disagree with.

BTW - do you really think the people who aren't even willing to register & log-on in the first place are suddenly going to start showing up at FT Dos to share info? :rolleyes: About that proverbial London Bridge that's now based in AZ....

I am quite disappointed that something that was approved in the first place is now, due to a 'hiccup' in a word, going to be voted down. Perhaps all votes by TB should have 2nd chances. ;) I'm just sayin...

Cheers.

I wanted to address both of the above points...

Regarding people that aren't even willing to register & logging in showing up at FT events...I don't expect them to show up at all. And I still expect the best information to be shared that way - in person and with people who have met each other face to face. I don't go to a lot of DO's - I've been to the MR Seminar that Viajero Joven put on & I registered for the one in ORD later this October - and I've been to numberous other FT events such as Freddies, Happy Hours, etc, and that's where I've learned the most. The information is out there & folks will still generally freely share - not necessarily online, but with the community.

Also, regarding something that was voted on before & changed - I think there were definitely two different impressions...when I voted (and when I made my motion), I was under the impression we were referring to MR Deals & MR Discussion (hence the overal Mileage Run forum) - restricting both, not just MR Discussion. Apparently, some of the other TBers and even members didn't see it that way. To me, MR Deals is the parent forum & MR Discussion is a subforum. My assumption (and it was apparently not others assumption) was that both would be restricted.

If we're going to restrict something, I'd rather see both than just one - especially since mods often move from MR Deals to MR Discussion. That said, I the "problems" we've seen haven't been due to anyone who isn't a member - sure, I've seen threads in FW Travel that are based of off FT - however often times, it's the same username in both forums...someone who wants to be a "hero" and share FT knowledge with non-FTers is going to anyway - the login requirement doesn't do anything...

Didn't you believe you were voting the "right way" in the previous motion? :confused: If not, why?

I did & I didn't. I was pretty torn on the last vote. As I stated earlier, I think I got caught up in the hoopla of the FD loss. Also, my impression of what the recent vote represented was clearly different than what others thought.

I went back & re-read the old thread (2008 I think? Maybe 2007) and looked at the pros & cons and I felt that this was the right vote. And to be honest, when I hit the "YES" vote button on the last vote, part of me immediately regretted hitting it...

And to be honest, when I hit the "YES" vote button on the last vote, part of me immediately regretted hitting it...

I feel much the same after every election I vote in as well. ;)

I appreciate you letting us know where you were and are at. We may not agree on this issue and that's okay too.

Thanks for understanding! ^

I honestly believe that the value of FT is beyond Mileage Runs (or indeed Coupon Connection). It's the Community you find in the lounge threads, the detailed experiences in Trip Reports, it's the hotel reviews in Hyatt, Starwood etc, the promo codes in Intercontinental.

We're dangling a whole range of carrots, not just one!

Carrots or carats? I honestly believe the main reason many find their way here is still the deals and start at the MR Deals forum hoping to find that diamond in the rough in the form of a misprice or ultra low fare. Yes, I'll completely agree the wider FT has tremendous value, a fact I'm reminded of almost daily however I don't believe having to register is a great disincentive to particpation.

however I don't believe having to register is a great disincentive to particpation.

Nor do I, which is why I have voted (twice now) for this restriction.

Pardon me--I'm new at this! :D

I'm going to have to do a bunch more research on this issue. I was following it up until the beginning of May but then got sidetracked with some travel and work issues (and of course, I didn't know at that time that there would later be some responsibility on this matter falling into my hands! :eek:). I'm still catching up, so these are just my preliminary, non-fleshed-out thoughts.

I am in support of the requests from the community and the Mileage Run forum moderators to institute some method to allow certain mistakes and tricks to be shared in a manner that is less public than the existing Mileage Run Deals forum. What the best way of enacting and enforcing that exact method is, I have not formed a hard opinion on. I am leaning towards supporting the originally proposed new sub-forum with some form of access restrictions, although I'm going to have do some thinking about what needs to happen to achieve the goals those bringing up this proposal want.

However, I am not sure I support this, the latest proposal from TalkBoard to restrict access to the Mileage Run Discussions forum.

From what I've seen, outside of the trick it thread, there is a ton of valuable information in the Discussion forum that is not necessary to protect.

Much of the content that I see in Discussions serves as a draw to FlyerTalk. Blocking that forum from public search results and viewing would only serve to hinder people from discovering FlyerTalk and joining our community.

I can't see how obfuscating that content would serve to get users to register, since not only would they not be able to see its existence, they'd also see there's no place to talk about or discuss these fares and therefore think registering on FlyerTalk is not worth their time. (I suppose we could show a link to the Discussion forum but pop up a note they need to register to gain access, but that would hardly serve to hide the content therein from the industry types and blogger folks that would be the ones to "ruin" the deals for the rest of us.)

Given the above, at this time, I'm not sure I support the motion as currently proposed. However, I promised to be open to all points of view, and so I will pay close attention to this thread over the next few days (yes, I realize the vote closes on the 12th) and am also of course open to conversation in any form (PM, email, or heck, send me your phone number and I'll even call you ;)) until I have a more solid opinion.

Again, I am not opposed to the core idea behind this entire discussion, but I am not sure the significant costs (hiding good discussion and assistance from people looking for it) associated with this particular measure are worth the nonexistent desired payout (blocking access to those who would cause the deals to end).

I would like the community's feedback on what I thought was the original concept. In draft proposal form I am thinking of this:

The TalkBoard proposes that the FlyerTalk Host create a new Mileage Run subforum accessible only to registered and logged in members of FlyerTalk for discussion of high-value tricks and tips, and that this restriction not apply to Mileage Run Deals or Mileage Run Discussion.

I want to hear pros and cons, and I especially want ideas to delineate what items go into that new forum and who gets to decide (the thread originators or the moderators or both).

I would like the community's feedback on what I thought was the original concept. In draft proposal form I am thinking of this:

The TalkBoard proposes that the FlyerTalk Host create a new Mileage Run subforum accessible only to registered and logged in members of FlyerTalk for discussion of high-value tricks and tips, and that this restriction not apply to Mileage Run Deals or Mileage Run Discussion.

I want to hear pros and cons, and I especially want ideas to delineate what items go into that new forum and who gets to decide (the thread originators or the moderators or both).

If the only requirement is to be registered & logged in, how does that protect FT? As others before me have suggested, it's a security theater. If anything, it would be more harmful because the aforementioned forum would be easily accessible (registering & logging in) and contain all the tips/tricks rather than mixing them in with other threads.

I think there is one simple fact written large throughout the forest that cannot be easily seen from the trees: people who use the MR forums are overwhelmingly in favor of trying some sort of restriction.

If TB dithers and dithers, passing things and then defeating them, re-proposing slightly different things and endlessly debating them, and it all ends up with no action, that is what everyone will remember.

I predict inaction will turn out to be regarded as an indictment of the TB concept as it is currently structured, way more than anything else.

The challenge is creating a proposal that would actually be effective and still be in the spirit of FT. So far, I don't think I've seen a strong idea as yet.

With due respect why are we even discussing alternate plans until this current motion has been defeated? If everyone is quite sure it won't pass then I'd rather move the discussion to a new thread, though like RichardSF am beginning to think what will end up is no action at all.

With due respect why are we even discussing alternate plans until this current motion has been defeated?

Indeed, with jackal now being eligible to vote it requires FOUR TalkBoard members to not support this for it to be defeated.

So far gleff has declared his continued opposition, bhatnasx has stated that he has voted against and I have cast my "abstain" vote. That means that jackal could be the casting vote that either pushes the proposal through or kills it, unless yet another TalkBoard member has a change of heart and votes against the proposal.

If we wind up with a scenario where at least 4 TalkBoard members are not comfortable with the proposal, I think its fairly clear that we need to go back to the drawing board.

I think there is one simple fact written large throughout the forest that cannot be easily seen from the trees: people who use the MR forums are overwhelmingly in favor of trying some sort of restriction.

I can't accept that as true. There is definitely a chunk of users (including some Moderators) who are very vocal about their support for restrictions, but my conversations with other users have revealed a very split userbase on this issue.

I predict inaction will turn out to be regarded as an indictment of the TB concept as it is currently structured, way more than anything else.

I wouldn't call it inaction. If this does not pass, I would call it outright rejection of the proposal. Inaction would have been failure to even bring it to a vote.

With due respect why are we even discussing alternate plans until this current motion has been defeated? If everyone is quite sure it won't pass then I'd rather move the discussion to a new thread, though like RichardSF am beginning to think what will end up is no action at all.

The main reason I brought it up is because I wasn't here to vote on or discuss my take on the original proposal. It is partially my support of the original proposal that is currently leading me towards not supporting the current one.

In order for me to be comfortable supporting this proposal, I need to believe that 1) passing this proposal will have the desired effect of increasing the sharing of deals and 2) passing this proposal will not hurt the greater FlyerTalk community by obscuring a center of discussion and assistance that does the great service of attracting new people to the forums. So far, I am not convinced this proposal achieves either objective. I'm open for convincing, but we only have a few more days before the vote closes!

The main reason I brought it up is because I wasn't here to vote on or discuss my take on the original proposal. It is partially my support of the original proposal that is currently leading me towards not supporting the current one.

In order for me to be comfortable supporting this proposal, I need to believe that 1) passing this proposal will have the desired effect of increasing the sharing of deals and 2) passing this proposal will not hurt the greater FlyerTalk community by obscuring a center of discussion and assistance that does the great service of attracting new people to the forums. So far, I am not convinced this proposal achieves either objective. I'm open for convincing, but we only have a few more days before the vote closes!

Then if you're of two minds and feel ill prepared to make a quick decision consider an abstention. It just seems to me we should not be considering alternate proposals while this vote is underway, again with due respect.

If we wind up with a scenario where at least 4 TalkBoard members are not comfortable with the proposal, I think its fairly clear that we need to go back to the drawing board.

However, were even the most modest of proposals - a requirement to log in - doesn't pass, then nothing will IMHO. Seems ironic that having a restriction passed, and then having to be 'set aside' because of a technical error, the same restriction doesn't pass a second time.

I have to say that the feedback I am getting is 95% in favour of the logged-in requirement, but that may be because of our differing contacts.

Seems ironic that having a restriction passed, and then having to be 'set aside' because of a technical error, the same restriction doesn't pass a second time.
That I do agree, 100%.

Seems ironic that having a restriction passed, and then having to be 'set aside' because of a technical error, the same restriction doesn't pass a second time.

I think that if multiple people are having second thoughts about their votes, the second vote is probably a more accurate reflection of the TB's sentiment.

However, were even the most modest of proposals - a requirement to log in - doesn't pass, then nothing will IMHO.
I disagree. The reason I don't support this proposal is because it's "modest" -- it does nothing to actually protect the information in the mileage run forum. I'd likely be willing to support something more substantial, that would actually add more security. Maybe a CC type requirement for a sub-forum or second mileage run discussion forum. Not that this would make the forum "safe," but it would have a bit more substance than this idea, in my opinion.

it does nothing to actually protect the information in the mileage run forum

What exactly does information need to be "protected" from? Isn't the purpose of an internet forum to share information in the first place???

I think that if multiple people are having second thoughts about their votes, the second vote is probably a more accurate reflection of the TB's sentiment.

I think that if multiple people are having second thoughts about their votes neither vote could be called an accurate reflection of the TB's sentiment, only an accurate reflection of their sentiment at that time and as we've seen times change.

I think that if multiple people are having second thoughts about their votes neither vote could be called an accurate reflection of the TB's sentiment, only an accurate reflection of their sentiment at that time and as we've seen times change.
I can't speak to my thoughts on previous votes (except to say that I've long since wondered why there was not a more secure place to post deals, even before this topic was formally brought up), but I am still waiting to be convinced this particular measure is a good idea. I count four non-TB members who have posted to this thread in support of this proposal, none of whom is one of the MR moderators who originally pushed the basic idea of a protected forum in front of the TB and none of whom has put forth any good arguments to this specific proposal, instead arguing that we should pass it just because it is silly not to pass something at this stage. And so far, no one has attempted to personally convince me that this is a good idea.

I have spent considerable time the last couple of days familliarizing myself with this issue, and it is not that I do not feel prepared to vote. Instead, I am actively seeking for someone to show me the merits of the current proposal. So far, seeing none and having not been approached by anyone in support of the idea, I am quite prepared to vote "no," but I will remain available for the near term in the event someone wants to put forth a good argument.

Conversely, if those in this thread who have asked for this proposal to be passed instead want to expedite TB looking at a different and hopefully better proposal, feel free to encourage me to vote against this one, and we can have the matter done with.

What exactly does information need to be "protected" from? Isn't the purpose of an internet forum to share information in the first place???

This is 100% true. No one denies that there are now other places that exist where 'golden egg' deals are shared. NOTHING that is done on FT will bring these people back. It will only cause more splits of the current FT base (for example, eliminating the ability for those of us who use RSS readers to check on FT from reading the MR forum). The horse is out of the barn, and nothing you can do is going to get it back in...what this really is is a request for an 'expert' MR forum...and if its allowed, what is to stop an 'expert' UA forum, and then AA, etc...
Not one person has come into this thread and said they were holding BACK deals that they would post if we added a login requirement. The only thing one of them asked for were rules like CC, where an oath was 'signed' to not repeat info heard out of the new forum...this is not what the spirit of FT is all about...

I am actively seeking for someone to show me the merits of the current proposal.

And I will try but will begin by saying this compronise wouldn't be my ideal choice for access to MR forum(s), which would be to move the Tricks thread into MR Deals forum and require a sign-on to view that forum while leaving MR Duscission forum for just that purpose, general discussion of MR's for all, lurkers and members alike.

To me it comes down to which constituency does FT seek to serve, it's members or its lurkers? IMHO it should be the former rather than the latter by acknowledging that there is a value to what is shared within the MR fourm(s) by having what is to me a very low entry requirement such as a sign-in restriction. You yourself admitted wondering why there wasn't a more secure place to share deals and I've long been of the same opinion. The MR Mod.'s and many members myself included are of the opinion the current open format is serving as a disincentive to sharing and may be driving some away so why not consider alternatives? Why tune out members in favor of lurkers who've contributed nothing to FT? No, the restriction wouldn't prevent tricks and/or deals from going to a wider audience but at the core it says that there is value to being a FT member and should to my mind serve as an incentive to join. Hopefully those who do enrol will stay and participate and give something back to this place that's given so much to us all.

I won't rebutt on a point-by-point basis the arguments against this motion and access restrictions in general as you are able enough to have read them for yourself so will only add that I don't feel this proposal slams any doors to anyone, it merely posts notice on the door to FT's most popular forum that all are welcome when they tell us who they are.

I know I will read this later and think 'why didn't I include this or mention that' but that's my speech about this topic and if it serves in a some way to explain where I'm coming from, great. Not everyone has to agree as we all have our opinions but this debate to me serves as another reminder of the FT community spirit with so many presenting so well the pros and cons of what direction they feel this site should take. Maybe this motion at this time is wrong but at the very least it's good to me we're finally debating this issue as I've felt it's been long overdue. Good luck with your decision and I'm sure you'll base your decision on what you think is best for FT and that's really all any of us can ask of our TB representatives. :)

To me it comes down to which constituency does FT seek to serve, it's members or its lurkers? IMHO it should be the former rather than the latter by acknowledging that there is a value to what is shared within the MR fourm(s) by having what is to me a very low entry requirement such as a sign-in restriction.

You yourself admitted wondering why there wasn't a more secure place to share deals and I've long been of the same opinion. The MR Mod.'s and many members myself included are of the opinion the current open format is serving as a disincentive to sharing and may be driving some away so why not consider alternatives?

Why tune out members in favor of lurkers who've contributed nothing to FT? No, the restriction wouldn't prevent tricks and/or deals from going to a wider audience but at the core it says that there is value to being a FT member and should to my mind serve as an incentive to join.
Hopefully those who do enroll will stay and participate and give something back to this place that's given so much to us all.

Good luck with your decision and I'm sure you'll base your decision on what you think is best for FT and that's really all any of us can ask of our TB representatives. :)

I agree w/ the above, especially my bolded & underlined portions. I've said basically the same in the other threads that were posted, so rather than repeat I've cut & pasted, & highlighted my points, which I hope you will take into consideration when making your decision.

Cheers.

I think it's fair to say that the current proposal has nothing to do with what we've asked for. The feedback I have received (and agree with) is that any changes proposed, other than specifically voting on the proposal by rcs85551 in the first post of our thread, is not productive. Any other change, like the one proposed by B747, agreed upon and then rejected, is different from the proposal, does not address the issue we've raised.

Here is rcs85551' original proposal and rationale:

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: Vote Complete: Motion Failed-Restrict access to Mileage Run Deals to logged-in users

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.

The MR Mod.'s and many members myself included are of the opinion the current open format is serving as a disincentive to sharing and may be driving some away so why not consider alternatives? Why tune out members in favor of lurkers who've contributed nothing to FT?

I think the key difference of opinion is that while you believe the forum format is driving away members who choose not to post, others (such as myself) believe that it is the members who are making the chice not to post. As such the problem lies not with the forum, but rather with the member. If someone doesn't want to be a part of the community, they are free to move along and we wish them well elsewhere.

It would be different if there was anything proprietary or original about information being shared in the MR forums, but everything posted there is public information that anyone with an interest in the subject could reproduce. What exactly are we trying to protect, who are we protecting it from and why do we even need to do this?

Laissez faire et que sera sera.

There may be nothing proprietary in the ideas, but being an active member makes it more compelling to participate.

I have been a lurker before I became a poster and the fact that I signed up, made me more interested and I did not even know about CC until by accident, but having found it, found more ideas from there. Had I been allowed to just go to CC day one, I would have treated it as an ebay when I needed something.

I found several ideas by reading the threads. I spent hours going over FD trick by reading the thread. If AFWD had just posted as a sticky on the thread what he did openly on the web, I agree I would have been happier at the beginning in getting a predigested meal. That would have been far preferable to posting it in the website and newsletter. Some of the clues were terrible or my brain was just not quick enough. But I spent more time, cautiously PMed people and learnt some of the tricks slowly as the interest grew.

I discovered several glitches as well - some on US which I posted openly as I wanted to share and as usual with the publicity, the glitches were closed all too soon.

I feel having a closed area for MRs is very reasonable. This is only meant for the serious flyer, and not meant to be disseminated all over the web at once. If that happens, it gets closed down very quickly. If it is a community effort to share useful info, the info should be there long enough for the community to benefit.

There are several areas of FT that are useful for the general member and not having the best and most recent deals in the open will not prevent people from joining when they find a topic of interest. Honestly, Milesbuzz may be the next candidate for privacy. The citi online deal was killed by too much interest as well, as was the amex TC and the mint coins.


As such the problem lies not with the forum, but rather with the member. If someone doesn't want to be a part of the community, they are free to move along and we wish them well elsewhere. Laissez faire et que sera sera.
Then why are we giving this member all the secrets of the flying universe in the meantime?

Milesbuzz may be the next candidate for privacy.

This kind of thinking is another reason why I am so vehemently opposed to this kind of action. Today its Mileage Run, tomorrow MilesBuzz, then what? Soon the "community" will turn into a closed club of insiders with restrictions everywhere if we let this happen.

I have said this before and I'll say it again. The only reason a "deal" is taken down is when it is used in a manner inconsistent with the intention of the entity offering it. I fail to see how that is a bad thing for anyone with legitimate motives.

This kind of thinking is another reason why I am so vehemently opposed to this kind of action. Today its Mileage Run, tomorrow MilesBuzz, then what? Soon the "community" will turn into a closed club of insiders with restrictions everywhere if we let this happen.

Well there is no evidence for this fear - no one has made such a proposal as far as I can see. The reasons for Mileage Run Deals being restricted are very clear - what value would be obtained to the community from restricting MilesBuzz is hard to imagine.

I think it's fair to say that the current proposal has nothing to do with what we've asked for.
Here is rcs85551' original proposal and rationale:
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).


I support that original proposal, and I plan to offer it up for a vote if the current proposal fails and if I can assemble sufficient support for a version of it. I believe that the TalkBoard should give forum participants what they want in the absence of a powerful case to the contrary. I have read the objections, but they look weak to me when compared to the priority I give to the opinions of the people most directly concerned.

I think the key difference of opinion is that while you believe the forum format is driving away members who choose not to post, others (such as myself) believe that it is the members who are making the chice not to post. As such the problem lies not with the forum, but rather with the member. If someone doesn't want to be a part of the community, they are free to move along and we wish them well elsewhere.

I'd be inclined to agree were we talking about a few isolated individuals but neither I nor the MR Mod.'s who brought this issue to TB believe that's the case. So whose "problem" is it when enough members favor a change in the community? Theirs or the community's?

I also think it illogical to base a decision on this vote over fears about what may happen in the future. TB isn't being asked to do anything other than what was proposed and seconded in this revised motion, not create a precedent for future TB's to follow.

I support that original proposal, and I plan to offer it up for a vote if the current proposal fails and if I can assemble sufficient support for a version of it. I believe that the TalkBoard should give forum participants what they want in the absence of a powerful case to the contrary. I have read the objections, but they look weak to me when compared to the priority I give to the opinions of the people most directly concerned.

+1

Given nsx's statement that he will propose a motion on a matter which I support (and which, at the current time, I am inclined to second), and given that all parties involved admit the current motion is not the correct one to achieve any stated objectives, I have now cast my vote against this motion.

I'm looking forward to working with TB and the community to craft something that will hopefully work much better. :)

Given nsx's statement that he will propose a motion on a matter which I support (and which, at the current time, I am inclined to second), and given that all parties involved admit the current motion is not the correct one to achieve any stated objectives, I have now cast my vote against this motion.

Have all parties admitted the current motion is not the correct one to achieve any stated objectives? Seems to me nsx's statement did say if the current proposal fails so at least one TB may be voting yes on this current motion, which again has neither passed nor failed quite yet.

Have all parties admitted the current motion is not the correct one to achieve any stated objectives? Seems to me nsx's statement did say if the current proposal fails so at least one TB may be voting yes on this current motion, which again has neither passed nor failed quite yet.
I'm sorry, I should reword that to say that "all of the parties I have had dialogue with."

Here we go again...

So to give you guys a handful of my thoughts on this issue (I didnt feel there is the need to discuss it in length again).

I always believed in having at least a slight restriction for one of IMHO most sensitive parts of FT.

Voting in favor in the recent motion came along with not only my own opinion but also because I felt that many of the established FTers support this as well. I got their vote 2 years ago to implement & represent the memberships wishes in my voting decisions as well. My standpoint did not change, I voted again in favor and for what it's worth against the destruction of the recently passed motion.

This is not about moderation at the Mileage Run forum, I think those of us who frequent it will agree that the MR Forum is THE one on FlyerTalk that really moderates itself pretty well without much & barely any interaction of the mod's themselves (which somewhat puts in question why it needs 3 mods in the first place but anyway...). It is about having a little bit of privacy for things that many of our members are digging day after day through fares and schedules. There is IMHO no argument about members need to be recruited by seeing whats in for them in the MR/MR Deals Forum.

FlyerTalk defines itself through the community in terms of sharing information, contributing on the way of hotel reviews, trip reports personal experiences and opinions. We all (and I especially :)) like when we can get a great deal here and there but it is NOT the sole purpose of FT to catch the bargains in MR Deals, trading in CuponConnection and to vent in Omni.

Many of us spent years and contributed (& enjoyed) hours of time here on FT. This should be the motivation for someone to go through the simple registration process and short after that he can access MR Discussion or other subfora. This I do not call excluding potential members - but this is of course just my opinion and I respect my colleagues on the TB who see it different. Not everything can pass 9:0 ;)

I liked to follow this topic in public however for one reason: It brought many emotions up and I would wish for those getting actively involved in these discussions to maybe consider candidating for the upcoming TB elections in fall to give your voice and enthusiasm a little more weight ! ^

Cheers,
S

I think that if multiple people are having second thoughts about their votes, the second vote is probably a more accurate reflection of the TB's sentiment.

Well perhaps of some members of TB yes, but not of the wider community perhaps.

Have all parties admitted the current motion is not the correct one to achieve any stated objectives? Seems to me nsx's statement did say if the current proposal fails so at least one TB may be voting yes on this current motion, which again has neither passed nor failed quite yet.

At least one member of TB has voted in favour of the motion as it is, and indeed as it was when we last attempted this!

There may be nothing proprietary in the ideas, but being an active member makes it more compelling to participate.


Then a simple question to all of you looking to do this. Why does this stop with MR. Why don't these arguments work for EVERY forum on FT? Why should EVERY forum not have login/post requirements for 'expert' users?

Then a simple question to all of you looking to do this. Why does this stop with MR. Why don't these arguments work for EVERY forum on FT? Why should EVERY forum not have login/post requirements for 'expert' users?

I am not sure that 'this' proposal solves a problem which was described in the original proposal made by rcs85551 on behalf of the Mileage Run moderators, regarding just the Trick It posts (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-discussion/930922-trick-negotiate-special-savings-lounge-thread-393.html).

Thus this whole proposal is a waste of effort in my eyes, IF it is intended to be a measure to deal with the problem we note exist within the Trick It (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-discussion/930922-trick-negotiate-special-savings-lounge-thread-393.html)thread.

The specific proposal we made (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1080180-request-2nd-sub-forum-mileage-run-criterias-similar-coupon-connection.html) deserves proper consideration on its own merits.

That proposal (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1080180-request-2nd-sub-forum-mileage-run-criterias-similar-coupon-connection.html) would not restrict an entire forum - either MR Deals or MR Discussion.

Such a proposa (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1080180-request-2nd-sub-forum-mileage-run-criterias-similar-coupon-connection.html)l, seconded and up for debate and TB vote, would not raise the Chicken Little scenarios that some people may wish to turn this discussion into.

The sooner this proposal (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1080180-request-2nd-sub-forum-mileage-run-criterias-similar-coupon-connection.html)is voted against and the issue closed, the better, so that the original proposal can be discussed and considered on its own merits - and not causing some posters here the nightmares they are spinning. :)

Thanks to our newest TB representative, Jackal, who is consulting with us and has put a lot of time and effort into researching many aspects of the players and history of this proposal - and the Trick It thread itself.

Just in case anyone is reading this afresh -the original proposal is to set up a new sub-forum specifically for a future version of the current Trick It thread. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1080180-request-2nd-sub-forum-mileage-run-criterias-similar-coupon-connection.html)
NOT to move anything currently in the forum into this subforum - only new stuff, which we hope would be not written in riddles as it is now.

This would allow the future Trick It section to be more useful and learnable for other FTers - and not be necessary for someone to have to read the entire thread.

Another issue has been complaints that one or more FTers has broken the FT Rules by attempting to manipulate the thread in a way that makes it necessary for FTers to PM for help - and to solicit payment for the solution to some of the riddled deals.

Our proposal (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1080180-request-2nd-sub-forum-mileage-run-criterias-similar-coupon-connection.html)is aimed at making the Trick It topic more approachable, for more people, while having some protection for specific detail, so that it cannot be pirated as easily and used to kill off some tricks once published on pirate websites. Is that understood?

Cheers,
BiziBB,Moderator Mileage Run

only new stuff, which we hope would be not written in riddles as it is now

Why?

a) Do the moderators think that the riddles are against the TOS?

b) If yes, then why do the mods not remove the posts written in riddles?

c) If no, then what business is it of the moderators to try to change how they post?

This would allow the future Trick It section to be more useful and learnable for other FTers - and not be necessary for someone to have to read the entire thread.

Our proposal is aimed at making the Trick It topic more approachable, for more people, while having some protection for specific detail, so that it cannot be pirated as easily and used to kill off some tricks once published on pirate websites. Is that understood?


This can easily be achieved by the posters simply changing their posting habits and making the information they wish to share available in the existing forum.

As for comments like "tricks published on pirate websites", that is exactly what the Mileage Run Deals forum is in the eyes of airlines when the forum tries to encourage its members to book "mistake fares" and similar. Pot calling kettle black.

I understand the points you are making perfectly well, but I find them to be abhorrent and completely against the spirit of this community.

As someone who posts with some regularity in the now temporarily/permanently closed "Trick It" thread, I figured I needed to pop into this debate and give my two cents.

The main arguments against this and other similar motions are:

It's not enough

This I completely agree with. Just logging in won't stop your average Joe Schmo from reading and perhaps reposting information elsewhere. However, it will eliminate Google searches, which might deter some of these users a bit.

If we do it for this, when will it stop

This is a complete slippery slope argument. If I continue down the same line of thinking that I've been reading here, eventually every forum will have a 500 post count restriction, while there won't be any unrestricted fora to actually achieve your 500 posts. Does anyone really think that there's things in the CommunityBuzz or Star Alliance fora that we need to hide from the eyes of airline lurkers?

It's against the spirit of FlyerTalk

To me, the spirit of FlyerTalk is to have a place where we can exchange information with like-minded individuals. The problem is, right now, many of us like-minded individuals don't have a place where we feel we can share information usefully. The "Trick It" thread has become a mixture of substantive (albeit juvenile) posts, pleads for help, and commentary on the silliness that the thread itself has become. This is hardly an environment that makes it easy for anyone to wade through, much less actually benefit from.

The problem of course, it that these tricks are loopholes in the booking systems, and without restraint on some level, the loopholes will be closed more quickly than they otherwise would. By simply creating a modest post count requirement, it will eliminate a lot of the unnecessary riddles and whatnot, and we can actually just post the information at hand to make use of these deals while they're still around. If no action is taken, the thread will continue to devolve into the chaotic state that is its inevitability, and those that search out and post these deals for others will find a different venue to do so. I know I've personally thought about starting my own website to be able to post these deals out without the silly terminology, while being selective of my audience. By not taking any action, I fear it will actually create competition against FlyerTalk, and that certainly can't be in FT's best interest, could it?

Just some thoughts. Thanks for at least considering.

Chris

Thanks, Chris.

I am sorry that the Trick It thread is closed for the moment. I want it opened but there is still some unfinished business.
However, as you mention, the thread's current format is problematic for a lot of people.

This proposal, being voted in its current form, does not address the issue of that thread.

Why?

a) Do the moderators think that the riddles are against the TOS?

b) If yes, then why do the mods not remove the posts written in riddles?

c) If no, then what business is it of the moderators to try to change how they post?


http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q86
... If you have a question about a moderator action, contact the moderator directly or Randy Petersen.

In accordance with the FlyerTalk TOS which everyone who is registered agrees to, I would appreciate discussion or questions about this issue to be done privately.
Doing otherwise (a) takes this thread off-topic and (b) degenerates into arguments between individuals.

If this is something you wish to debate privately, please feel welcome to query in that manner, rather than in this thread.

Can TalkBoard members please clarify their understanding of their responsibility with regards to querying or raising the issue of moderator approaches/decisions/actions?

Can TalkBoard members please clarify their understanding of their responsibility with regards to querying or raising the issue of moderator approaches/decisions/actions?

If I am wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me, but here goes:

The TalkBoard has no authority to constrain moderators' actions. The TalkBoard can suggest creation of forums intended for specific purposes, but the actual use of the forums could arguably evolve into different purposes as the needs of posters change and as moderators accommodate those needs. This is the forum equivalent of thread drift. It's a feature, not a bug, IMHO.

Ideally the moderators, posters, readers, and the TalkBoard would all, or substantially all, agree on what needs to be done. Where that is not possible the TalkBoard Host (Randy) is the final authority on all organizational issues here. In gray areas and for contentious issues, he may be the first resort rather than the last.

FWIW, the moderators of some forums have set up threads specifically allowing discussion of general moderation practices for the forum. Participate there if you want to get a better perspective from all angles.

I understand the points you are making perfectly well, but I find them to be abhorrent and completely against the spirit of this community.

Nonsense. Frankly I find that kind of comment itself to be completely against the spirit of this community which as far as I've ever known has always encouraged members to bring forward their proposals they feel would make FT a better place whether it be a new forum or technical innovation like photo's in posts. Surely we can disagree with the opposing position without resorting to such comments.

The main arguments against this and other similar motions are:

It's not enough

This I completely agree with. Just logging in won't stop your average Joe Schmo from reading and perhaps reposting information elsewhere. However, it will eliminate Google searches, which might deter some of these users a bit.

There is nothing wrong with someone reposting what they learned here on FT somewhere else. Many of us learn what we post on MR elsewhere, and bring it to MR...


If we do it for this, when will it stop

This is a complete slippery slope argument. If I continue down the same line of thinking that I've been reading here, eventually every forum will have a 500 post count restriction, while there won't be any unrestricted fora to actually achieve your 500 posts. Does anyone really think that there's things in the CommunityBuzz or Star Alliance fora that we need to hide from the eyes of airline lurkers?
No one spoke about those forums. But you can't use that argument against moderating/limiting airline and hotel specific forums...I would LOVE a forum just filled with 1Ks, but I don't ask that it be created on FT.



It's against the spirit of FlyerTalk

To me, the spirit of FlyerTalk is to have a place where we can exchange information with like-minded individuals. The problem is, right now, many of us like-minded individuals don't have a place where we feel we can share information usefully. The "Trick It" thread has become a mixture of substantive (albeit juvenile) posts, pleads for help, and commentary on the silliness that the thread itself has become. This is hardly an environment that makes it easy for anyone to wade through, much less actually benefit from.

The problem of course, it that these tricks are loopholes in the booking systems, and without restraint on some level, the loopholes will be closed more quickly than they otherwise would. By simply creating a modest post count requirement, it will eliminate a lot of the unnecessary riddles and whatnot, and we can actually just post the information at hand to make use of these deals while they're still around. If no action is taken, the thread will continue to devolve into the chaotic state that is its inevitability, and those that search out and post these deals for others will find a different venue to do so. I know I've personally thought about starting my own website to be able to post these deals out without the silly terminology, while being selective of my audience. By not taking any action, I fear it will actually create competition against FlyerTalk, and that certainly can't be in FT's best interest, could it?

I was on a plane Saturday from LGA-ORD where the ENTIRE F section was filled with FT'ers doing a MR. Not all of them were 1K's. Some were 1P's and 2P's looking to keep there status. One was a newbie to UA. THAT is what Flyertalk is about. When I experienced what I experienced on that flight, I find it hard to even THINK about not allowing more people to enjoy flying and miles...This was EXACTLY why MR was around. There will ALWAYS be other places where people post deals. I am not looking to stop that. Not everything needs to be one stop shopping...But the idea of FT is an open, welcoming place for all.

I am afraid that the members of TB who changed their minds on this issue between votes have effectively killed any restriction dead for now. After elections in November, perhaps this will change if the members of the TB change.

As one of the members who lobbied for the original proposal, I am not dissapointed that/if this motion appears to have failed.

The original proposal would have provided an opportunity to see if the concept would address the needs of the members. Although I thank the Talk board for their attempt to mold a viable proposal, what we ended up with was an attempt to appease a resistance which, if implemented, would not have served the needs of the members.

Point of interest: The idea to split MR into Deals and Discussion forums was also resisted, but has turned out to be good for the forum and the community.

:-: I encourage the Talk Board to revisit the original proposal, at the appropriate time. :-:

I would also like to thank TB members for their candid comments.

However, I must applaud & commend the Mileage Run moderators for their approach to the issue this time around. Thank you for the manner in which you have represented the Mileage Run and the members of the forum. ^

I am afraid that the members of TB who changed their minds on this issue between votes have effectively killed any restriction dead for now. After elections in November, perhaps this will change if the members of the TB change.
It is probably one of TB's more bizarre decisions, that a revote for what was meant to be a purely technical reason has failed, after the original idea has passed. Odd behaviour on the part of our elected representatives. For those who saw this as a technical revote, thanks. For those who decided that this was a substantive vote, and decided to change their mind, actually, I'm not that impressed.

Capricious TB members! ;)

If you have a question about a moderator action, contact the moderator directly or Randy Petersen

If you think that my comments and my choice to represent other members' interests rather than being a pushover for some moderators' views is a violation of TOS, I urge you to RBP my posts. Heck, you could even go ahead and issue me a suspension. My next suspension will lead to me being disqualified from TalkBoard - so that might actually get you the votes you need to pass this proposal. :rolleyes:

Can TalkBoard members please clarify their understanding of their responsibility with regards to querying or raising the issue of moderator approaches/decisions/actions?

My understanding, confirmed to me in writing by "higher authorities", is that we are free to comment upon trends in general that may holistically encompass moderation, but that we may not publicly comment upon specific actions by moderators.

My understanding, confirmed to me in writing by "higher authorities", is that we are free to comment upon trends in general that may holistically encompass moderation, but that we may not publicly comment upon specific actions by moderators.

IMO, all members are allowed to discuss general moderation principles as long as they steer well clear or any specific cases. I know that my interpretation of the TOS is not universally shared. Regardless, I don't believe that the TalkBoard has any special privileges to discuss moderation.

If anybody wants to discuss general moderation principles privately with me, I promise to answer thoughtful PMs thoughtfully.

Moved by gleff and seconded by Spiff:

that the Mileage Run Discussion forum be accessible only to registered and logged in members of FlyerTalk, and that this restriction not apply to Mileage Run Deals.

Yes:
Markie, nsx, skywalkerLAX, Spiff 4 44%

No:
bhatnasx, gleff, jackal, lucky9876coins 4 44%

Abstain:
B747-437B 1 11%

Voters: 9.

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

Gee, what a surprise. I'll be watching for nsx's motion presently to restart the debate which AFAIC is a long way from over.

With due respect why are we even discussing alternate plans until this current motion has been defeated? If everyone is quite sure it won't pass then I'd rather move the discussion to a new thread, though like RichardSF am beginning to think what will end up is no action at all.

Now that the vote is complete, I can answer this without violating confidentiality. My reason was to accelerate resolution of the issue given the impending defeat of the proposal still being voted on. If this happens again, you can make the same inference. ;) However I always strive to achieve a consensus before putting something to a vote. It saves so much time on do-overs!

Thanks to all TalkBoad member for their involvement and efforts to represent everyone who posted on this thread and the original proposal thread.

Special thanks to the TB member who made the extra efforts to investigate some details and to get more information from some people close to the original proposal - and its minutae.

Unfortunately I am flat out right now, so cannot spend much time here for a few days. As always, I get PMs and that is the best way to reach me this week.

Cheers,
BiziBB

It is probably one of TB's more bizarre decisions, that a revote for what was meant to be a purely technical reason has failed, after the original idea has passed. Odd behaviour on the part of our elected representatives. For those who saw this as a technical revote, thanks. For those who decided that this was a substantive vote, and decided to change their mind, actually, I'm not that impressed.

Capricious TB members! ;)

Please direct your ire to those voting against - bhatnasx, gleff, jackal, lucky9876coins!

It is probably one of TB's more bizarre decisions, that a revote for what was meant to be a purely technical reason has failed, after the original idea has passed. Odd behaviour on the part of our elected representatives. For those who saw this as a technical revote, thanks. For those who decided that this was a substantive vote, and decided to change their mind, actually, I'm not that impressed.

Capricious TB members! ;)

I didn't view it as a technical correction. I understood Mileage Run (as I wrote the original motion) to be applicable to the Mileage Run Deals & Mileage Run Discussion (parent & child fora). As the mods often move things from Deals to Discussion for Fare Gone, it made no sense to me that a thread that was previously accessible to all no longer be accessible to all (including logged in members).

That...and I noted before, I got caught up in the hoopla...and actually voted as I originally voted in 2008.

Please direct your ire to those voting against - bhatnasx, gleff, jackal, lucky9876coins!

:rolleyes:

Please direct your ire to those voting against - bhatnasx, gleff, jackal, lucky9876coins!
I hope I made my reasons for voting against this particular proposal clear. Please let me know if there is any ambiguity, though, and I'll be happy to explain the best I can. :)

I've been very clear my strong feelings on this issue. Folks are welcome to disagree with those, of course. Line forms to the right :)

Please direct your ire to those voting against - bhatnasx, gleff, jackal, lucky9876coins!

Hey, I'd like some ire too please. :p

Hey, I'd like some ire too please. :p
That's ok, I always have plenty of ire to go around ;) :p

I've been very clear my strong feelings on this issue. Folks are welcome to disagree with those, of course. Line forms to the right :)

I agree with your position, but disagree with the line on the right. I want to line up on the left. Discuss. :-)

Discuss. :-)

I also have enough ire to go around. ;)

Hey, I'd like some ire too please. :p

I'll give you some of my ire - but only if you're nice to me! ;)

That's ok, I always have plenty of ire to go around ;) :p

I didn't think you were from Ire-land. ;)

I didn't think you were from Ire-land. ;)

Celts seems to have enough ire to share around (look at Mad Mel, aham, Braveheart!). :D

Regarding the vote, I just wanted to direct everyone again to the Trick It thread, which is now reopened, so that you can reacquaint yourself with the personalities there and issues that sometimes arise. Reopening post: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/14294677-post5895.html

It would be a shame to close off this very popular FlyerTalk feature due to the actions of one or two members.

Philosophically, those opposed to any form of a CC-style area for tricks should participate in this thread and get to know more about it. Then use that knowledge in any future proposal/vote.

Be aware that many on the thread have taken their discussions underground and the risk for FT is that many may cease to participate in FT once they have set up their private networks.

Just some speculation based on my experience on other MR-related megathreads :)

BB (now back to your ire-itch! I will put on my flameproof suit in anticipation of more abuse!!!)

It would be a shame to close off this very popular FlyerTalk feature due to the actions of one or two members.

Just to better understand, what were the actions of one or two members that required the thread to be closed in the first place?

Just to better understand, what were the actions of one or two members that required the thread to be closed in the first place?

Yes, unfortunately, they didn't workout very well tonight. I would agree with you this. It will locked the thread because it was tied voted to says yes or no. So it was very disappointed the news to hear from Talkboard is failed the motions. You can have reconsider to try another voting again in the future. Please accepted apologizes for your inconvenience from Talkboard Members.

Just to better understand, what were the actions of one or two members that required the thread to be closed in the first place?
And that would be discussion of specific moderator activity! ;)

Does anyone else see the irony that there's now a heated debate on what "abstain" & "is" is on a motion that had previously passed & the only reason it was up at all was due to a technicality, and then due to the technicality it allowed TB members to change their previous votes, and now everyone's duking it out on what abstain means????

Sharon, I voted to rescind the earlier motion knowing full well that some members intended to reverse their earlier positions. If I were a politician, I'd play to win and vote to deny others the chance to change their votes. However I believe the TalkBoard should not be political. Letting other TB members reconsider their earlier votes is a good idea, not a bad one. It's how we would all like to be treated.

If we can't come up with a version that 2/3 of us like, then the status quo continues. That's the way the rules are, and that's as it should be.

I am still hopeful we can work something out, but I know enough to be very patient. For one thing, each TB member has a real life. My real life interfered enough that the first proposal went to a vote without my having read and understood it adequately. This stuff happens.

As always, I want the TalkBoard to reach a consensus agreement. In this particular case, I might make an exception and call for a non-consensus vote out of respect for the efforts of those proposing the change, but that would be a last resort. So please don't expect speed, especially in this case.

Does anyone else see the irony that there's now a heated debate on what "abstain" & "is" is on a motion that had previously passed & the only reason it was up at all was due to a technicality, and then due to the technicality it allowed TB members to change their previous votes, and now everyone's duking it out on what abstain means????


Yes this is an irony not lost on those of us on TB that have been consistently in favour of a change. In fact TB now needs to revote on its initial motion to recommend a restriction on Mileage Run as it is irrelevant in the light of the second vote.

But as Dovster observes it's important to take the long view, procedures we adopt will be applied to all future decisions that we make (unless and until those procedures are revised). And changed procedures that help a given motion pass now may make it easier for changes current proponents do not favor in the future.


Gleff is completely right about this point. I certainly hope that no TalkBoard member votes (either way) on the question of abstentions simply to help the Mileage Run issue pass or fail.

(I can not do mileage runs from Israel, do not participate in that forum, and have absolutely no interest or opinion about this issue. That is not my reason for asking for clarification of abstentions.)

This seems to be a problem without a solution that will ever get 2/3 consensus in my view. Tricks and mistakes will just don't fit in with the (mostly, other than the private TB forum and the moderator star chamber) open culture of FT, especially with all the (otherwise absolutely wonderful) industry participation here.

Those things have migrated to closed communities on social networks and listservs. FT is now a spoiler in this arena, not a tool. Not as bad as the fare-dog SOB, but a spoiler nonetheless. By the time these things make it to FT they are finished...or soon will be! @:-)

FT just isn't the place for this stuff. I'd almost say close down MR. It tends to do more harm than good anymore. @:-)

This seems to be a problem without a solution that will ever get 2/3 consensus in my view. Tricks and mistakes will just don't fit in with the (mostly, other than the private TB forum and the moderator star chamber) open culture of FT, especially with all the (otherwise absolutely wonderful) industry participation here.

Those things have migrated to closed communities on social networks and listservs. FT is now a spoiler in this arena, not a tool. Not as bad as the fare-dog SOB, but a spoiler nonetheless. By the time these things make it to FT they are finished...or soon will be! @:-)

FT just isn't the place for this stuff. I'd almost say close down MR. It tends to do more harm than good anymore. @:-)

A harsh, but true reality...well said.

To suggest that the Mileage Run forum be closed instead of helping it evolve demonstrates an inability to look at the current situation with a neutral perspective.


A good descrription of the problem, assessed with a foot in the past.

FT is not the same place it was when many of us joined. However, it must evolve to address current trends/needs/realities. IBs changes have been a boon for its popularity. But with FT in the forefront, hasn't the modified landscape highlighted the possibility that changes may be needed? Has TB discussed this?

When I initially suggested separating discussions from the MR forum, there was little support for the idea. It turned out to be a good evolution.

When an idea to help the Intercontinental forum was brought up, Randy gave the idea instant approval. Knowing that even good change is difficult to get past the Talk Board, he created the subforum that exists now.


IMO, MR is failing its initial objective, in its current state. The participants and moderators have pleaded for help. They've even suggested ideas for 6 month trial (if I understand correctly).

Personal opinions, rather than what's in the best interests of FT and its members, lead to a mutation of the initial proposal, I'm guessing with the best intentions. This fillabustered the original proposal.

Those that requested the change pleaded with the Talk Board to either accept their proposal, or come up with a better idea.. Those opposed to the idea appear to have no interest in any changes. The pleas of the members and moderators have fallen by the wayside.

Perhaps we should approach Randy and bypass the Talk Board next time. Once a better idea or plan is devised. It seemed to have been the better choice for IC Hotels.

Unless Randy specifically gave you that reasoning, I'd be hesitant to put thoughts in his head, much less state them on his behalf.

I have a hard time believing that Randy created a subforum with the intention of undermining the Talkboards authority.

Perhaps you are correct. We were all there when it happened.

It was a great idea that didn't need to get caught up in red tape. now that subforum is a reality.

It may be presumptuous for me to publically say what his motives were (as knowing would be impossible to say for sure), but what other reasoning would one deduct.

I support Randy's decisions and authority.

But I don't presume the TBs autonomy as being beyond question.

In fact, I suggest that questioning any board happens regularly and is healthy for the system.

IMO, MR is failing its initial objective, in its current state. The participants and moderators have pleaded for help. They've even suggested ideas for 6 month trial (if I understand correctly).

IMO, and the opinion of at least a few other TB members, it is NOT failing any such objective. We disagree fundamentally with the moderators as to what these objectives may be.

Those that requested the change pleaded with the Talk Board to either accept their proposal, or come up with a better idea.. Those opposed to the idea appear to have no interest in any changes

Plenty of other ideas were tossed around. None have been found acceptable yet.

As an analogy, children often plead for chocolate. They don't always get it.

The pleas of the members and moderators have fallen by the wayside.


Stop being melodramatic and playing the martyr. It was a bad idea to begin with and it failed to gain sufficient support from the TalkBoard.

If you think you can do any better, there's an election in October. One more mod on TalkBoard will fit in just fine. :-/

It was a bad idea to begin with and it failed to gain sufficient support from the TalkBoard.

Now who's being melodramatic?

And it would also be more correct to say that some FTers, yourself included, felt it was a bad idea as it sure wasn't the majority opinion AFAIK.

.... It was a bad idea to begin with and it failed to gain sufficient support from the TalkBoard.

Then come up with something that works. I believe that the best solution may come from people who have no interest in the forum. You fit the bill.

Step up to the challenge and find us a solution. The ones we've come up with weren't even acceptable enough to warrant a trial run.

If you think you can do any better, there's an election in October. One more mod on TalkBoard will fit in just fine. :-/

No thanks. Your shoes would be too hard to fill. :D

Then come up with something that works. I believe that the best solution may come from people who have no interest in the forum. You fit the bill.

The issue is that I don't see a problem to begin with.

I do not view the wider and faster dissemination of information from any forum to be a bad thing, even if that includes the dissemination of information to airlines, hotels, media, etc...

You can't find a solution to something that you don't believe is a problem in the first place.

The issue is that I don't see a problem to begin with.

I do not view the wider and faster dissemination of information from any forum to be a bad thing, even if that includes the dissemination of information to airlines, hotels, media, etc...


So, you believe that its in Flyertalk's best interests to support dynamics that include:

the community that shares its information with its members,
and the subsequent removal of any of the benefits discussed online?

How exactly would this be in FTs best interests? How would this be in the members' best interests?


The 'freedom of speach' mentality has lead to the Mileage Run's reputation as a graveyard of good fares. How is that good for anyone outside of the airline industry?

And you don't see a problem?

I understand if you don't agree on the solution. But, as far as we're concerned, this is the opposite of what the Mileage Run forum was intended to be. And, it's producing the opposite results.

The free speech platform looks great on the board room table. But it has many participating less on FlyerTalk. How is that good for FT?

the community that shares its information with its members, and the subsequent removal of any of the benefits discussed online?

The only "benefits" that are removed are the ones that were never intended to be offered to the "community" in the first place. I've never seen a legitimate promotion "removed" because it generated too much business. If something is offered in error, then why is it a bad thing for the entity in question to then correct the error? Unless of course one has some sort of malafide intent to take advantage of the entity?

as far as we're concerned, this is the opposite of what the Mileage Run forum was intended to be.

And as far as I am concerned, I find the position of those who wish to restrict access to be abhorrent, selfish and completely against the principles of open information exchange that I perceive FT standing for. However, we can agree to disagree on this issue.

it has many participating less on FlyerTalk. How is that good for FT?

Some of those "participating less" on FlyerTalk were engaged in activity that bordered on criminal racketeering to begin with. Good riddance to them.

Your trolling demeanor is getting tiring. I refuse to further participate in this OMNIesque type of discussion where you have to win, because you're right.

We're wrong, because we dissagree with you. Not only are we wrong, we're morally bankrupt, guilty of buying and sharing stolen property or ideas, and by trying to keep the deals alive, are guilty of some type of organized crime outfit???? ARE YOU FOR REAL?

You've made your point. I've made mine. Good night.


I'm just glad that you don't let your personal views interfere with your duties on TB. ^

The 'freedom of speach' mentality has lead to the Mileage Run's reputation as a graveyard of good fares. How is that good for anyone outside of the airline industry?



Lol, maybe the solution is to rename the forum:

'Official Airline Fares, Moderately Excellent Fares as well as Mistakes and Tricks That Others Got to Use But That are Now No Longer Available Because They Have Been Posted Here.'

The 'OAFs, MEFs and great deal graveyard' forum, for short.

If I were still on the TB I would soooooo make that motion!

:D ;) :p

Lol, maybe the solution is to rename the forum:

'Official Airline Fares, Moderately Excellent Fares as well as Mistakes and Tricks That Others Got to Use But That are Now No Longer Available Because They Have Been Posted Here.'

The 'OAFs, MEFs and great deal graveyard' forum, for short.

If I were still on the TB I would soooooo make that motion!

:D ;) :p

That just gave me a great idea! Let's just bring back the "Discontinued Programs" forum and start posting deals in the LanPass forum - no one will ever think to look there! ;)

That just gave me a great idea! Let's just bring back the "Discontinued Programs" forum and start posting deals in the LanPass forum - no one will ever think to look there! ;)

Ah...the good old days!

Now we're just old.