Lest Chuck be left out on his own to defend himself, I felt the need to speak up here.

Chuck and I have discussed this type of issue several times, and in any case where the situation is brought to our attention, we have strived to evenly apply the same principle -- if you're not interested in an offer, don't post. It's quite simple, actually. And we did not feel it would be appropriate for us to "waive" this concept for William because of his position with Starwood. It wasn't anything personal about William himself -- it was simply an even application of the procedures.

In my opinion, the points that William raises are quite valid in terms of what is permissible by Starwood program rules. However those points should be raised on the Starwood forum if it is to be a discussion of the rules themselves, or in this ORP forum if it is to be a discussion of whether we should allow people to offer trades that may violate program rules. It's simply not appropriate for The Coupon Connection, which is where people can give or trade miles and points with their fellow travelers.

Chuck and I will continue to evenly apply this in Coupon Connection unless and until Randy decides differently. Discussions on the policies of FlyerTalk, The Coupon Connection, or the moderators should not take place on Coupon Connection.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled traveling.

Edited to add: I do want to point out that I don't believe William is attempting to threaten anyone. In contrast, I actually believe that he is in fact looking out for SPG members' best interests by trying to protect them from losing their accounts. However that belief cannot interfere with the way Chuck and I apply the rules in Coupon Connection.

I would, however, go so far as to suggest that perhaps we could include in the Coupon Connection FAQ the note that William has been posting, along with (to be fair) one from any other official representative of a loyalty program, indicating what their formal stance would be. I don't believe that the rule or how we're applying it is incorrect, but in the spirit of community I'd like to find a compromise.

[This message has been edited by dmfriedman (edited Feb 24, 2004).]