Motion Passed: Create Frequent Travel Tools & Services Forum
Mar 18, 2012, 7:10 pm
#46
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Upcountry Maui, HI
Posts: 13,305
never mind, alert sent to mods requesting merger from the other thread to this one, we're repeating the discussion there. pls delete this post.
-David
-David
Mar 18, 2012, 7:33 pm
#47
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
pete4212 makes an excellent argument ^ in favor here but i disagree with one part of his post
....Right now, tool owners have an incentive to (and do) spam as many forums as possible with "official" threads about their tool or service to get as wide a reach, and as many eyeballs, as possible....
What should we do about the commercial services that currently post here on FT? This is already happening, the proposal simply controls where it goes.
We don't lose the ability to manage who posts and who doesn't post and we'll be able to moderate the new forum within the accepted guidelines the community already has. (goalie Dave, didn't TB have that discussion?)
If the service doesn't benefit the community, then they can't post in the context of proving information to the community. That doesn't change with this proposal.
I don't think we can afford to ignore what's already happening.
I guess I don't understand the emotional response.
-David
We don't lose the ability to manage who posts and who doesn't post and we'll be able to moderate the new forum within the accepted guidelines the community already has. (goalie Dave, didn't TB have that discussion?)
If the service doesn't benefit the community, then they can't post in the context of proving information to the community. That doesn't change with this proposal.
I don't think we can afford to ignore what's already happening.
I guess I don't understand the emotional response.
-David
There are currently many for profit services that are obviously money savers that FTers currently use. I guess the proposal here is to formally proceed with a forum format for useful for profit services. Those services for profit but clearly not useful will be commented on and evaluated ongoing. Even dialogue for not so useful services would be useful.
But I agree, what sort of parameters should be set before proceeding, and what legal ramifications exist? These and perhaps other areas should be evaluated before proceeding.
But I agree, what sort of parameters should be set before proceeding, and what legal ramifications exist? These and perhaps other areas should be evaluated before proceeding.
But the last sentence in your post which I also bolded goes hand-in hand with what I posted above as a response to my esteemed million mile flier living in paradise
Mar 18, 2012, 7:43 pm
#48
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Programs: Hyatt Diamond, Fairmont Platinum, Aeroplan Diamond, HHonors Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 18,686
In laymen's terms, those for profit services not useful, will experience a beat down.:-:
Mar 18, 2012, 7:49 pm
#49
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Upcountry Maui, HI
Posts: 13,305
I think we manage it for the benefit of the community.
For the rest of it, I have no idea what you are arguing for or against.
-David
Mar 18, 2012, 8:30 pm
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR S (former 75K, GLD, 1K, and S+, now an elite peon)
Posts: 23,194
I'm still not convinced what there is for F/t to gain-yes members reap the benefits ^ but what does "Flyertalk Corporate" reap as we're basically giving free advertising. Now if someone can tell me that it is IB's policy to allow forums for commercial ventures on FT gratis, then you have my vote. There I said it-what is in it financially for F/T-IB?
of the TalkBoard, as they rightly shouldn't be. The TalkBoard represents only the FlyerTalk membership.I take no stand on your vote, but I will make the observation that voting against this because it doesn't enhance the profit margins of Internet Brands while also admitting it does enhance the experience for FlyerTalk members seems to call into question what the TalkBoard stands for and who the TalkBoard represents.
Mar 19, 2012, 1:39 am
#51
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
I'm still not convinced what there is for F/t to gain-yes members reap the benefits ^ but what does "Flyertalk Corporate" reap as we're basically giving free advertising. Now if someone can tell me that it is IB's policy to allow forums for commercial ventures on FT gratis, then you have my vote. There I said it-what is in it financially for F/T-IB?
of the TalkBoard, as they rightly shouldn't be. The TalkBoard represents only the FlyerTalk membership.I take no stand on your vote, but I will make the observation that voting against this because it doesn't enhance the profit margins of Internet Brands while also admitting it does enhance the experience for FlyerTalk members seems to call into question what the TalkBoard stands for and who the TalkBoard represents.
Mar 19, 2012, 8:24 am
#52
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,107
Motion passed...
On March 19, 2012, Talkboard passed 7-1-1:
"TalkBoard recommends that a Frequent Travel Tools & Services forum be created that:
* allows the centralized discussion of any tool, service or software that is frequent travel related,
* allows links to that tool, service or software's web site by any FlyerTalker,
prohibits direct sales on FT for frequent travel related tools and services as spam
*lets the members decide what they want to talk about in terms of those tools without undue influence by the tool and service providers nor artificial limits imposed by FlyerTalk
* allows but does not require participation by the owner/provider of the tools and services, including a ‘master thread’ regarding a provider’s tool or service started by the provider
* allows online booking/bidding threads to be moved to the FT online booking/bidding forum and hardware and more general software technology not directly related to frequent travel tools and services threads to be moved to the FT Travel Tech forum.
The vision of the TalkBoard is that this forum exist for discussion of the frequent travel tools and services that Flyertalkers want to talk about and use."
Voting Yes: bhatnasx, cholula, goalie, kokonutz, nsx, RichMsn, SkiAdcock
Voting No: Spiff
Abstain: jackal
"TalkBoard recommends that a Frequent Travel Tools & Services forum be created that:
* allows the centralized discussion of any tool, service or software that is frequent travel related,
* allows links to that tool, service or software's web site by any FlyerTalker,
prohibits direct sales on FT for frequent travel related tools and services as spam
*lets the members decide what they want to talk about in terms of those tools without undue influence by the tool and service providers nor artificial limits imposed by FlyerTalk
* allows but does not require participation by the owner/provider of the tools and services, including a ‘master thread’ regarding a provider’s tool or service started by the provider
* allows online booking/bidding threads to be moved to the FT online booking/bidding forum and hardware and more general software technology not directly related to frequent travel tools and services threads to be moved to the FT Travel Tech forum.
The vision of the TalkBoard is that this forum exist for discussion of the frequent travel tools and services that Flyertalkers want to talk about and use."
Voting Yes: bhatnasx, cholula, goalie, kokonutz, nsx, RichMsn, SkiAdcock
Voting No: Spiff
Abstain: jackal
Mar 19, 2012, 8:26 am
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,107
Just a fyi. jackal posted in the private forum why he abstained and it was (IMO) a valid reason. He said he was going to post in the public forum as well to let you all know his reasoning, but I know he's busy with a relocation at the moment. Presumably he'll be on at some point to explain, but it wasn't to game the system or do a coward's no.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Mar 19, 2012, 10:29 pm
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SGF
Programs: AS, AA, UA, AGR S (former 75K, GLD, 1K, and S+, now an elite peon)
Posts: 23,194
Thanks, Sharon.
I abstained in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. My new employer has the potential to be affected by the presence of this forum, so it would not have been fair of me to cast a vote on this motion.
Plus, I get to claim to be the first person to legitimately abstain under the new and improved abstention rules. Previously, I would have been conflicted about casting an "abstain" vote, as it would have, in effect, been a "no" vote and consequently, I would be taking an active stand on the issue. My only recourse under the previous rules would have been to not vote, which came with its own set of negative consequences. With the new rules truly ensuring that an abstention has no bearing on the outcome of the vote and isn't simply a "coward's no," I have no conflict about abstaining from the vote, and it was the clear choice for me to make.
I abstained in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. My new employer has the potential to be affected by the presence of this forum, so it would not have been fair of me to cast a vote on this motion.
Plus, I get to claim to be the first person to legitimately abstain under the new and improved abstention rules.
Previously, I would have been conflicted about casting an "abstain" vote, as it would have, in effect, been a "no" vote and consequently, I would be taking an active stand on the issue. My only recourse under the previous rules would have been to not vote, which came with its own set of negative consequences. With the new rules truly ensuring that an abstention has no bearing on the outcome of the vote and isn't simply a "coward's no," I have no conflict about abstaining from the vote, and it was the clear choice for me to make.
Mar 20, 2012, 5:47 am
#55
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,606
Thanks, Sharon.
I abstained in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. My new employer has the potential to be affected by the presence of this forum, so it would not have been fair of me to cast a vote on this motion.
Plus, I get to claim to be the first person to legitimately abstain under the new and improved abstention rules. Previously, I would have been conflicted about casting an "abstain" vote, as it would have, in effect, been a "no" vote and consequently, I would be taking an active stand on the issue. My only recourse under the previous rules would have been to not vote, which came with its own set of negative consequences. With the new rules truly ensuring that an abstention has no bearing on the outcome of the vote and isn't simply a "coward's no," I have no conflict about abstaining from the vote, and it was the clear choice for me to make.
I abstained in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. My new employer has the potential to be affected by the presence of this forum, so it would not have been fair of me to cast a vote on this motion.
Plus, I get to claim to be the first person to legitimately abstain under the new and improved abstention rules.
Previously, I would have been conflicted about casting an "abstain" vote, as it would have, in effect, been a "no" vote and consequently, I would be taking an active stand on the issue. My only recourse under the previous rules would have been to not vote, which came with its own set of negative consequences. With the new rules truly ensuring that an abstention has no bearing on the outcome of the vote and isn't simply a "coward's no," I have no conflict about abstaining from the vote, and it was the clear choice for me to make.
Mar 20, 2012, 8:54 pm
#56
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Thanks, Sharon.
I abstained in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. My new employer has the potential to be affected by the presence of this forum, so it would not have been fair of me to cast a vote on this motion.
Plus, I get to claim to be the first person to legitimately abstain under the new and improved abstention rules. Previously, I would have been conflicted about casting an "abstain" vote, as it would have, in effect, been a "no" vote and consequently, I would be taking an active stand on the issue. My only recourse under the previous rules would have been to not vote, which came with its own set of negative consequences. With the new rules truly ensuring that an abstention has no bearing on the outcome of the vote and isn't simply a "coward's no," I have no conflict about abstaining from the vote, and it was the clear choice for me to make.
I abstained in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. My new employer has the potential to be affected by the presence of this forum, so it would not have been fair of me to cast a vote on this motion.
Plus, I get to claim to be the first person to legitimately abstain under the new and improved abstention rules.
Previously, I would have been conflicted about casting an "abstain" vote, as it would have, in effect, been a "no" vote and consequently, I would be taking an active stand on the issue. My only recourse under the previous rules would have been to not vote, which came with its own set of negative consequences. With the new rules truly ensuring that an abstention has no bearing on the outcome of the vote and isn't simply a "coward's no," I have no conflict about abstaining from the vote, and it was the clear choice for me to make.
Mar 20, 2012, 10:10 pm
#57
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Programs: Hyatt Diamond, Fairmont Platinum, Aeroplan Diamond, HHonors Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 18,686
Thanks, Sharon.
I abstained in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. My new employer has the potential to be affected by the presence of this forum, so it would not have been fair of me to cast a vote on this motion.
Plus, I get to claim to be the first person to legitimately abstain under the new and improved abstention rules. Previously, I would have been conflicted about casting an "abstain" vote, as it would have, in effect, been a "no" vote and consequently, I would be taking an active stand on the issue. My only recourse under the previous rules would have been to not vote, which came with its own set of negative consequences. With the new rules truly ensuring that an abstention has no bearing on the outcome of the vote and isn't simply a "coward's no," I have no conflict about abstaining from the vote, and it was the clear choice for me to make.
I abstained in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. My new employer has the potential to be affected by the presence of this forum, so it would not have been fair of me to cast a vote on this motion.
Plus, I get to claim to be the first person to legitimately abstain under the new and improved abstention rules.
Previously, I would have been conflicted about casting an "abstain" vote, as it would have, in effect, been a "no" vote and consequently, I would be taking an active stand on the issue. My only recourse under the previous rules would have been to not vote, which came with its own set of negative consequences. With the new rules truly ensuring that an abstention has no bearing on the outcome of the vote and isn't simply a "coward's no," I have no conflict about abstaining from the vote, and it was the clear choice for me to make.
Mar 21, 2012, 6:38 am
#58
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Either at the shooting range or anywhere good beer can be found...
Posts: 51,047
Thanks, Sharon.
I abstained in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. My new employer has the potential to be affected by the presence of this forum, so it would not have been fair of me to cast a vote on this motion.
Plus, I get to claim to be the first person to legitimately abstain under the new and improved abstention rules. Previously, I would have been conflicted about casting an "abstain" vote, as it would have, in effect, been a "no" vote and consequently, I would be taking an active stand on the issue. My only recourse under the previous rules would have been to not vote, which came with its own set of negative consequences. With the new rules truly ensuring that an abstention has no bearing on the outcome of the vote and isn't simply a "coward's no," I have no conflict about abstaining from the vote, and it was the clear choice for me to make.
I abstained in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. My new employer has the potential to be affected by the presence of this forum, so it would not have been fair of me to cast a vote on this motion.
Plus, I get to claim to be the first person to legitimately abstain under the new and improved abstention rules.
Previously, I would have been conflicted about casting an "abstain" vote, as it would have, in effect, been a "no" vote and consequently, I would be taking an active stand on the issue. My only recourse under the previous rules would have been to not vote, which came with its own set of negative consequences. With the new rules truly ensuring that an abstention has no bearing on the outcome of the vote and isn't simply a "coward's no," I have no conflict about abstaining from the vote, and it was the clear choice for me to make.
Mar 22, 2012, 7:35 pm
#59
Community Director Emerita
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Anywhere warm
Posts: 33,743
Apr 3, 2012, 11:10 am
#60
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: Gold, plat, diamond and more
Posts: 3,360
This was another great move by the current TB^
btw, am I the only one to wonder how it is possible to represent the membership by voting no to proposals WITHOUT bothering to, pre or post vote, explain?
btw, am I the only one to wonder how it is possible to represent the membership by voting no to proposals WITHOUT bothering to, pre or post vote, explain?