Originally Posted by
kipper
yet when people bring up concerns, they are told there is "inside" information
Did you miss
nsx's post?
The inside information was Carol's internal demonstration and related information that she herself posted just a short while later. You make it sound sinister when you know it's not.
As well as his older apology for misusing the term:
Yes. I shouldn't have used a loaded term like inside information to refer to what was merely knowledge that some relevant capabilities do exist within vBulletin. I don't yet know what they are, but I'm sure many users of vBulletin do.
Since it's been made (more or less) public now, I'll connect the dots and back up
nsx's claim that it was nothing sinister. Carol had conferred with the IB admins and confirmed that there was an existing plug-in that IB would be willing and able to use in the event the TalkBoard voted to implement this feature. In preparation for any "yes" vote that might occur, she had (independently of the TalkBoard) asked IB to temporarily turn this plug-in on as a test so she and the TalkBoard (and, incidentally, the forum moderators) could see what it looked like.
nsx's original (bad-word-choice) "insider information" post came after Carol made this announcement but before the plug-in was turned on, so he knew little about what the options were other than what Carol had said: that a plug-in existed, so if the TalkBoard were to vote yes, the implementation was technically feasible. Of course he couldn't say that here, because the information from Carol about the plug-in's existence was said in confidence. Simple as that.
IB then turned the plug-in on as per Carol's request, the test proceeded, and then Carol asked IB to turn the plug-in off.
Simple as that. Nothing malicious, sinister, or conspiratorial here. IB has always left the operation of FlyerTalk up to Carol, who has (so far) respected official votes of the TalkBoard, and nothing appears to have changed.