Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Community > TalkBoard Topics
Reload this Page >

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

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

 
Old Jun 11, 2010, 10:03 am
  #1  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 23,999
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.
lucky9876coins is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 11:40 am
  #2  
Posting Legend, Moderator, Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,400
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.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 1:09 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 23,999
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.
lucky9876coins is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 1:37 pm
  #4  
Posting Legend, Moderator, Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,400
Originally Posted by lucky9876coins
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?
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 1:59 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Programs: UA-1k, 1mm, Marriott-LT Platinum, Hertz-Presidents Circle
Posts: 6,355
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.
schley is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 3:06 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Exile
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by tcook052
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.
B747-437B is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 3:34 pm
  #7  
Posting Legend, Moderator, Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,400
Originally Posted by B747-437B
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.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 3:42 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Exile
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by tcook052
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.
B747-437B is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 4:36 pm
  #9  
Posting Legend, Moderator, Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,400
Originally Posted by B747-437B
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.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 4:37 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Exile
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by tcook052
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!!!
B747-437B is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 4:55 pm
  #11  
Posting Legend, Moderator, Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,400
Originally Posted by B747-437B
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.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 9:35 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Programs: VA Gold, UA, SPG Gold, HH Diamond, Marriott Gold, IHG Ambassador
Posts: 3,644
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 .
Downunder girl is offline  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 11:42 pm
  #13  
Moderator: Hyatt Gold Passport & Star Alliance
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: London, UK
Programs: UA-1K 3MM/HY- LT Globalist/BA-GGL/GfL
Posts: 12,003
Originally Posted by Downunder girl
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)
Markie is online now  
Old Jun 11, 2010, 11:47 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Greener Pastures
Posts: 10,515
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...
bhatnasx is offline  
Old Jun 12, 2010, 12:05 am
  #15  
Moderator: Luxury Hotels and FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palo Alto, California,USA
Posts: 17,833
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.
RichardInSF is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.