Well, if you are running an all-you-can eat buffet and you forget to ban take-out, you might be in a similar position to Radission on this promotion. Wormwood says that we should not take advantage of what is almost certainly an oversight. I say that many people will do so, since the rules allow it, so my individual decision makes negligible difference overall. There is truth in both points of view, which is why neither of you will win the debate.

I have agreed all along that Radisson is within its legal rights to make changes with zero notice, but I maintain that this is no way to run a loyalty program. Members are expected (except possibly by wormwood) to maximize their benefits under the rules. The fickleness of their loyalties is the raison d'etre of loyalty programs. Because of this inherent asymmetry, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the members to assign the same value to maintaining good relations with the program that the program should assign to maintaining good relations with members. Just my 1 mile (=$.02).

If a program wants me to be loyal, it has to earn it. For example, if Southwest were ever to offer anything like ValueMags, I'd be on the phone pronto telling them to withdraw it immediately before the s**t hit the fan and caused financial losses and/or a devaluation of member benefits. They take good care of me and I will help them every way I can. (I wouldn't do this for any other program, BTW.) Maybe somebody did phone Radisson and was ignored, or maybe the holiday shutdown delayed their response; I don't know.