yes, that's my thinking as well http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I think the c2it endless loop of money transfers is just as immoral as the idea first proposed in this thread. I am often amazed that people think that anything that might work must therefore be moral because it's only a business they are dealing with. For me it's pretty clear that any kind of endless loop with only one, or even none, real purchase that is reused to get endless bonuses, when one bonus per actual purchase is clearly intended, is stealing whether criminally chargeable or not. Am I missing something?

Why?! c2it aren't doing it to give them a warm, fuzzy glow. They're doing it to get more people into debt and to control a market.

This is like saying that it's immoral to pay off your credit card on time. Credit issuers give us interest free periods and frequent flyer points in the hope that we will over-use our cards and do into debt.

Are those who always pay their cards off on time being "immoral" too? How about those who go into their supermarket and only buy the loss-leaders that are on sale and don't buy any non-discounted products?

As has already been mentioned, it is normal for the rules to prevent infinite loops, such as for paying for, or payments by, gift voucher not to receive rewards. Supermarkets often make arbitrary quantity limits. One of my credit cards limits balance transfers (which earn reward points!) to 6 times per year, so that 6 times your credit limit is the effective max. per year.

If a company comes up with rules which allow something, I'd say fine, use it. If they are too incompetent to set up their rules sensibly, maybe they should employ one of us to write the rules for them?

no, it is quite different. It may not be moral either for Citibank to try to lure people into debt, but this doesn't make an endless loop scheme moral, at least not in my opinion. Period. That's my opinion. Just because someone else is doing something wrong doesn't make anything you do right. Neither does it make something right the mere fact that it can be done within the law. Period. That's my opinion. I call it the pillow test...when you lay your head down on the pillow at the end of the day, you know whether something is right or wrong, quite independent of any law or rule or loophole. I think common sense might be one definition. Abraham Lincoln had a marvelous saying, which I can't find at the moment and may be apochrophal anyway, to that effect...."If you think it's wrong, it's probably wrong"...(and he meant on introspection, not on parsing the terms and conditions). I just don't see how a clear headed, fair minded analysis of the 'loophole(s)' under discussion can lead to any other conclusion.

This of course goes beyond the destructive force of blind greed on FF programs in general, that effect is quite independent and that effect has an impact on my own reasonable self interest in FF programs fairly used for the benefit of actual customers. It's immoral on those grounds as well. It is ungenerous in spirit at a number of levels and is a disservice to this board and this community because it is too base and blindly greedy for reasonable people (IMHO of course, this is all IMHO)

[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-23-2001).]

then isn't it immoral to take advantage of $27 flights to paris (or other associated $0 fares)? they are obviously a mistake, a loophole if you will, yet there is a "list" devoted to such mistakes. does that make "the list" immoral as well?

(i'm glad we're having a morality/ethics discussion so close to christmas. it makes good sense to examine what types of individuals we are at this time of year!)

cheers

yep, the $27 ticket is taking advantage of the airline, though that one gets close to my own moral border as the airlines have purposely planted 'crazy' fares but that one would come under moral scrutiny as well. I don't think recycling gift certificates ad infinitum gets anywhere near the same level of being plausible as intended.

I chose not to join 'the list' because I think it goes to far, it's plain greed and it would never pass the 'do unto others' test, even if it is a business entity on the other side. We all have our limits, and I think that is what the intent of this discussion was, so I am explaining mine, you all will chose your own. I hope at least people will chose with more in mind than the scam of the moment, even if they have decided it is moral for them... Program degredation is, in my opinion, a likely consequence of what I see as, in addition to being immoral, very shortsighted thinking.

But then, shortsighted is very American (yes, I am an American, so I get to say that)

are these fraud as well?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/001210.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/005900.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/005420.html

basically, i'm asking: at what point do we draw the line? is it a personal opinion?

And God wept.

Of course we each draw our own line, I am just laying out what what I think. Some I think are fraud, like the original idea here. Some are just unfair, like the 27 ticket to Paris (and that one is borderline as I mentioned but a person KNEW they were taking adavantage).

On top of right or wrong is the consideration of future effect which is also important to me.

Again, if your trying to argue that because it was posted here before and someone did it before therefore it must be alright you'll get no support from me. A lot of things done by people here I think are very wrong, greedy, grasping, ungenerous, etc. That doesn't change the fact other people share useful, beneficial, helpul information that falls within my bounds of fair play. You'll have to make your own decisions and take whatever heat those who disagree care to give. You don't get to decide how others will react and if you can genuinely sleep with what you yourself have decided then I guess it's 'moral' to you. The question may be does the opinion of others count in your moral equation?

[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-24-2001).]

boo-boo

[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-24-2001).]

Another point to consider is whether we are killing the golden goose. Sure there are many good deals available, but if we started to set up businesses around these deals and market this to hundreds of thousands of people as a packaged convenience, these deals would dry up.

A long time ago Adam (from Hilton) asked Randy about the (negative) effect of the internet on targeted promotions.

(I'm posting this on Randy's forum as well. Sorry for the duplication).

this is what I mean by 'future effect' we can't expect generosity if what we give in return is gouging greed, if we hack up the programs either they end or the value gets diluted. As some have pointed out, the other side is a business, they aren't doing it to be nice. The issues are multiple and self interest may be served by something more than taking programs to the cleaners at any opportunity, self limiting in the end may be the most rewarding approach and has the added benefit of being more fair to all involved.

i think PG and wormwood are expressing exactly what cblaisd said best!

so, i'm curious - there seems to be a greater number of individuals who agree that this is destructive. HOWEVER, couldn't exploiting all loopholes be deemed unethical by the thinking above? doesn't cycling money through c2it qualify for ethical d***ation?

if a loophole/exploitation scheme is morally/ethically unacceptable for some individuals (it cannot be described as universally, since someone should come see the volume of email in my inbox regarding this), does that make it wrong to discuss in on FT? i think in that respect, to answer wormwood, yes, the opinion of others counts here.

(a clarification for wormwood - no, i'm not arguing that because it was posted here before that it must be alright. that would be just bad logic on my part. i'm just trying to point out that the c2it promo wasn't tackled using this moral/ethical perspective at all. nothing else)

merry christmas eve http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

(edited because i didn't realize da-m was an offensive word)

[This message has been edited by fireflyreaction (edited 12-24-2001).]

I didn't jump in on C2it because I only jump in now and again. Don't know why you got such a big reaction, for me it was just so clear this was way over my line for all the criteria I have discussed. This board has many bad ideas, along with many good ones. I was against Bhat run though didn't say too much on the topic. Though not directly related to the topics at hand, dilution of elite by people who really aren't elite customers (by my admittedly subjective definition) is very bad for FF. From my observations here they are amongst the most demanding while providing amongst the least benefit to the company they are elite with... this is good for all of us? I think not.

In the end, it will come down to of course, whether or not a critical mass of people will self limit to an extent that allows frequency programs to exist at at a level that allows the truly intended customer to benefit to a reasonable degree. If too many people hit them too hard they will change or disappear. If they get nibbled at the edges by a few it won't change much. The danger is that as FT grows the nibbling turns into gobbling as both raw numbers grow as does the percentage of true gougers. Any huge or commercialized exploitation of the programs by large numbers will be met with change, radical if need be, by the programs.

I post because I want to spell out my views with the hope, but not the expectation, that a few people will consider adjusting what their 'limit' is because they will have bought the argument that the overall greatest benefit will come if we all act reasonably... that we consider the commonweal when we undertake personal actions.

What..against the Bhat Run? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

------------------
MRKEY