<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">There will always be two camps.</font>
Actually, there will always be at least
three camps:
1. those who see the world in black and white,
2. those who see the world in black, white, and various shades of grey in between, and
3. those who see the world in the full spectrum of the rainbow's colours.
In group 1 I see people who believe that the only two options are to broadcast and idea publicly for all the world to see, or to keep it to yourself.
In group 2 I see people who believe there are a limited number of ways to diseminate ideas, mostly based on internet technology.
And in group 3 I see people who are convinced there are a myriad of ways to diseminate information, including well beyond the internet, are not afraid to suggest whacky ways that may or may not work, and are open to trying them.
Also in group 1 I see people who believe that you either publicly broadcast every idea for all the world to see or else you are a greedy person who wants to keep every idea to yourself, leeching off the others while never contributing.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I myself am in favor of sharing on this board. Mainly for the following reasons:
* Fairness to Randy and his/our board here is, in my opinion, to publish/post openly here.
* Fairness to our fellow FlyerTalkers here on this/our board is, in my opinion, to share as much informations here on this board as possible (and as legally ok).
</font>
I'm quite frankly astonished by this philosophy -- we have an
obligation to post ideas here? To not post any idea is to cheat Randy, FT, or other posters? This seems preposterous and bizarre.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">* Fairness to the airlines: if loopholes really harm them, then I don't mind if they get to know. They will anyway know if many consumers take chances.</font>
Fairness is a two-way street. I don't think I've ever seen an airline that believes in "fairness". Otherwise, why would they charge some people 10 times or more for essentially the same product -- the seat on a flight. If they see a way to extract more money from a passenger by expoiting the customer's travel constraints, you can be sure they will.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">* Fairness on this board: don't attack (the) poster(s) - discuss/argue the arguments pro and contra.</font>
Absolutely!
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I don't mind if airlines/hotels/cars/... will close some loopholes afterwards</font>
So it's OK for them to close the loophole as long as you've already benefited, regardless of whether anyone else has? Would you care if they closed the loopholes
beforewards?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Often is is not even a loophole but just creative application of the rules WHEN someone notices it. How many here have already or will soon fly Concorde roundtrip after spending $1,250 for Inside Flyer magazines?</font>
Let me say this about that: GoldPoints, ValuMags, 4:1, 8:1, maximum transfers, evaporating points.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I feel that it's ok to post anything you find, but then it should also be ok to accept any outcome</font>
A nugget of wisdom.
The problem is when people feel the only possible "outcomes" are that FTers get to benefit from and idea or they don't. While those are possible outcomes, other outcomes, or consequences, are actions on the part of the airlines et al to end the/a practice, to attempt to reneg on the "deal" (Mexico Hilton, UA the first time around, GoldPoints), to change the rules for the worse, to tighten up other more generic benefits, and to make them paranoid enough to go looking for other "loopholes" before people can exploit them. I'm sure there are other consequences that I've not yet discovered or thought of.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In the case of the PVR flights I understood someone DID call orbitz or MX and that person was subsequently called all kinds of names (also in chat) for doing so as he "spoilt" the deal for others.</font>
An essential truth that I fear will be lost on most. Who is the most altruistic? The person who says I want you to publish everything so
I can benefit, even though others after me may not? Or the person who says use your best judgement so the largest number of people may benefit, even though I may not?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I am all for getting the best official price, the best ratio of personal costs/rewards/services for me (and as many FT colleagues as possible).</font>
As am I. But it is very simplistic (too simplistic, in fact) to simply say the best way to acheive this is to broadcast publicly for all the world to see.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Rudi and ScottC know what I are speaking of.</font>
Yet by this piece of enigma you infer you're not prepared to share it here. Fair enough, but it seems contrary to previously expressed views.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Ralf's contribution to the community helped a lot of people earn a lot of miles, but it was a genuine promo, not a mistake and not a loophole, it was a promo</font>
Now I understand.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">No the airline never called me and pointed out the error, they were perfectly willing to take the extra money from me and I dare say without any remorse.</font>
I wish I'd said that.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">So a thanks to all contributors and a vote for the sharing of all information. We as individuals can then decide how to act as dictated by our conscience.</font>
Unless of course the airline acts first to remove your choice. And everyone else's choice as well.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I agree 100% with Rudi's positions. All info. should be shared.</font>
Really? With who? Fters only? The public at large? The
airlines?
And
all info? Say, what's your credit card number? Perhaps you meant only information that will benefit
you?
That's the dark underbelly of this whole premise, isn't it? We all want the information "shared" so we can benefit from it, but when you get down to the essentials, we really mean only information that benefits
us, and only shared with our rather large clique, but not the general public, not with the news media and certainly not with the airlines. So what people really mean is "different degrees" of sharing.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In other words, I think it's one thing to take advantage of an error (because it may not turn out to be one), but another thing entirely to try to do everything possible to perpetuate that error.</font>
So it's OK for you to take advantage of it, but to take steps to allow others to do so is wrong? How is that different from just keeping the "error" to yourself, and not posting it?
Posting. Promoting. Publishing. Sharing.
These are all nice words used throughout this thread to describe the concept. But let me suggest another word, that more accurately describes the process, at least IMO:
EXPOSING.