a new goldpoints idea
 

hi guys

i've had an idea and i'm hoping that everyone here will point out the flaws in it.

{THE CONTENTS HERE HAVE BEEN EDITED OUT BY MYSELF. ESSENTIALLY THERE WAS A DESCRIPTION OF A LOOPHOLE FOUND IN THE GOLDPOINTS PROMOTION. so as not to condone the activity of this loophole, i have removed it. THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS: if a (questionably leagal) loophole is found, is it ethically permissible to exploit it?}

this one is awfully close to the line of propriety. any thoughts?

many kind regards
happy christmas shopping!

firefly




[This message has been edited by fireflyreaction (edited 12-22-2001).]

This falls in "loophole" territory in my mind (and I doubt we'll take it forward at MileSpy). I suspect when they figure out what people are doing, they'll close the loophole down.

It's probably within the letter of the law, but definitely not within the spirit.

Just my 1.5 cents worth http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

------------------
Please visit The Mileage Runner's Toolkit and Unofficial United Airlines Guide

without commenting on whether it would work or not I will comment that it is, to me, way over the line of propriety. fraud and theft come to mind, ponzi scheme, robbing peter to pay paul, stealing.

is there any way to rationalize this into being fair?

Please don't do that! They'll stop giving points for gift certificates.

Please don't do that! They'll stop giving points for gift certificates.

not to mention this kind of thinking exactly points out the destructive force of unlimited greed combined with the instant communication of the internet to yeild degradation of frequent-point programs for people who play at least somewhere near to within the rules and intent of the programs. Will there be anything left when the greedbags who really aren't frequent customers of anything (at least not for the reason intended, i.e. travel) enter and destroy the programs both by destroying the value of points/miles as well as destroying the ranks of elite by bloating it and actually believing they have 'earned' status and deserve recognition and royal treatment (what do you MEAN no menus printed in 24K gold) for having scammed their way in for a few bucks. Will FT be the death of reasonable programs that reward real customers? From the direction it has taken in the last year my guess is it is contributing more damage than good to the overall and long-term health of the frequency programs.

well, there's my screed for the month (sometimes I miss having the ex-resident-greedbag to dump on, that was just too easy) but seriously, if people don't self-limit on how far to scam these programs they will be destroyed for everyone.

nothing personal

Bad, bad bad bad.

As stated before, it's just this kind of "loophole" that ruins it for everyone.

Flip

Neither place is appropriate. Please delete your post.

That's WAY too tempting for the unscrupulous among us. As was mentioned before, might be a good idea to delete your post so as NOT to give the idea (smart, devious, but wrong) to others.

- Sameer

hello http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

to play devil's advocate, let me state the following.

the government forces everyone to pay taxes, yet clearly there are tax loopholes, or else we wouldn't have nearly as many tax attorneys and accountants. those individuals who are able to afford the services of these professionals are able to take advantage of the loopholes. certainly, if no one used the loopholes, then they'd never be closed. but what good would they be? people DO use these loopholes for their own benefit and once enough people use them, the government takes notice and may choose to close the loophole (depending, of course, on the politics involved).

thus, we have individuals who earn large sums of money paying very little tax. is it illegal? perhaps (depending on the methods). is it unethical? likely. take for example, plato's discussions on the republic. is it immoral? that's for every person to individually decide.

now, with regards to this specific matter. i follow the lead of MatthewClement and his post in the Only Randy Petersen forum with regard to milespy. HOW is this unethical? (me with my minor in philosophy) i'm interested in that.

it's interesting that this point is brought up. perhaps some of you who got in on the valuemags deal early have already started receiving Scientific American. there is an article in this month's issue about this exact issue, called "The Economics of Fair Play" (http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=currentissue). Darwinian competition vs Darwinian cooperation. on the surface, it would appear that those individuals who wanted the most gain from this would go ahead and do it. those who favour the cooperative side would not do this in the hope that the ignoring the loophole will not cause the demise of FF programs.

in essence, it appears that the posts thus far have been heavily from those individuals who favour the "fair play" model of group micro-economics. but, then couldn't the same rationale be applied to the valuemags deal? if valuemags is doing this as a loss leader, then FT'ers who are buying huge amounts of magazines are in effect supporting the "selfish" model of group micro-economics.

i'd be interested to hear what others have to say. i would like to continue debate on this. if someone can figure out how i can edit my original post but continue on this discussion, i'd also be happy to hear! i'm more than willing to take the loophole down so long as we can continue to debate this topic.

kind regards
firefly

Consider if it was your business giving the points. Would you want this situation to occur? There is your answer.

Please note that in the future any new Goldpoints thread will be moved to the appropriate board:

S.P.A.M.
Sites with Points and Alternative Miles, including referral bonuses, congas, MyPoints, ClickRewards and AllAdvantage




------------------
Craig6z
Buzz & United Moderator
[email protected]

but if i were the government, wouldn't i want people to pay taxes?

It's unfortunate that you think we need to point out the flaws in this idea, but here goes:

1. It's likely fraud.

2. Therefore, it's arguably against the FlyerTalk Guidelines which state: Condoning of Illegal Activity -- Posts that condone illegal activity (i.e., buying and selling of awards, direct fraud upon any program) will be removed without notice and accounts subject to deletion! We're not the law, but we know where they are.

3. It brings FlyerTalk and Randy Petersen as the "publisher" of this site into disrespect. If that's your intention then that's pretty low; it's clearly the result.

4. And if you want to argue that it's not legal fraud, it is clearly moral fraud.

5. Do you have no shame?

I join those suggesting you edit your post to delete this information.

(edited for spelling)


[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited 12-22-2001).]

if this is fraud, then how is cycling your money through C2IT not fraud? i am also inclined to lean towards this idea of fraud and that's why i wanted to start a discussion on it.

not my intention at all. it's an academic discussion as far as i'm concerned. i don't think it brings him into disrespect at all. in fact, i believe it brings him greater respect. free discussion of ideas is paramount. allowing such discussion and a thorough examination of loopholes is commendable.

i'm not aruging it's not legal fraud at all. i'm not capable of positing such an argument. i'm interested in how it's "clearly moral fraud".

i do not see how this discussion reflects upon me as a person. i have not done it, nor am i condoning it. i brought it up.

this reminds me of peter singer, a famed bioethicist. he advocated that infanticide was ethically permissible. he didn't condone it, of course, but using interesting thought experiments, he provided an interesting perspective. of course, there were those who misunderstood his stance and condemned him.

i'm interested to hear what others say. is it unethical to exploit a loophole if the loophole is legal?

that is the fundamental issue here.
(and now that i've typed that, i've figured out how to edit my original post!)

regards

There are values important in any community in addition to "free discussion of ideas." Nor do I think it is even the "paramount" value; very, very important yes, "paramount" no. But we clearly disagree. And not every discussion of (to use your euphemism) a "loophole" is "commendable." If you found a bank vault unlocked, a discussion of how best to enter it would not be exploiting a "loophole" and it would not be "commendable," it would be conspiracy to commit theft. And it would be morally wrong, even it it were somehow legal.

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> i'm not aruging it's not legal fraud at all. i'm not capable of positing such an argument....

---

You're a student, no? You may wish to take some more moral philosophy courses or ethics courses then. Particularly since you seem to think (per your post upstream -- "take for example, plato's discussions on the republic. is it immoral? that's for every person to individually decide" ) that Plato's Republic is counseling that everyone has the right to decide for him- or herself re a given moral issue. (You also might wnat to consdier some work on orthography, especially the proper capitalization of words)

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> i do not see how this discussion reflects upon me as a person. i have not done it, nor am i condoning it. i brought it up. ...this reminds me of peter singer, a famed bioethicist. he advocated that infanticide was ethically permissible. he didn't condone it, of course, but using interesting thought experiments, he provided an interesting perspective. of course, there were those who misunderstood his stance and condemned him....

---

As one with advanced degrees in philosophy, please know that I am aware of folks like "peter singer" [sic -- for capitalization]. I'm also aware of arguments that some philosophers have made for child abuse through touting the "benefits" of older men having sex with young boys. It's easy to make an argument for a morally repugnant position, while disclaiming the "condoning" of the position. It also helps in the tenure rat-race. The harm it does is when folks who are less thoughtful, moral, and articulate than gentlemen like Peter Singer take up those positions and trivialize and misunderstand them for purposes of an "academic" discussion. I'm not sure Singer would be pleased to know that you are quoting him with approbation in order to justify what appears to be stealing.

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> i'm interested to hear what others say. is it unethical to exploit a loophole if the loophole is legal? ...

---

Yes it is. Since you want to cite philosophers, 1) it is clearly unethical on utilitarian grounds since it very quickly will undermine the greatest good for the greatest number (as also implied by a poster or two upstream); 2) on deontological grounds ( pace either Kant or Rawls, e.g.) it is not an action that you could will universally (John Rawls' A Theory of Justice would be particularly helpful here); 3) on Aristotelian grounds, the habits of action you are proposing will lessen the character of the community; 4) and if you're inclined to Christian theological ethical norms, you are proposing an action that clearly wouldn't stand the test of "Do unto others....."

Thank you for editing out the tawdry details of your intial post, though.

(Edited to take account of more closely reading the upstream posts)

[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited 12-22-2001).]

i am humbled.

a tremendous post with excellent ideas.

i lay down my sword. my bachelors, masters and medical degrees (well, medical degree to be) need rest http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

but i'm still going to type using small letters.

regards

"Looking for Loopholes" is the working title of Randy's hagiography. He makes a living helping people get the maximum value out of FF programs.

Hundreds of posts a week here seek "loopholes" in FF programs and many find them. If this warrants eternal ****ation, at least you'll have many FT friends to keep you company. Unfortunately, the heat may melt their luggage tags. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

(Edit: I can't believe that the word in the previous paragraph was censored. I don't think there is a dictionary in this dam nation that questions its use as taboo.)

[This message has been edited by dave99 (edited 12-22-2001).]

What was this idea anyway? Can someone email it to me please?

I have to confess at being surprised by the universal moral outrage I'm reading (I didn't read the original post but can guess at the nature).

I believe the major disconnect that may be happening here has to do with the nature of what we're participating in -- this is a business relationship. We're not getting FF miles for being nice guys or for having upstanding moral courage, we get them by fulfilling the completely arbitrary rules of the game.

I don't think the correct moral/ethical question here is one of "do unto others" because FF Programs/airlines are not people -- they have only fiduciary and legal responsibilities, there is no moral or ethical requirement for incorporation that i know of.

Obviously since people are tossing around words like "fraud" this proposal was on shaky ground beyond the ethical considerations.

But if you really want to discount the idea on ethical or moral grounds, I think you first have to explain why we have a responsibility to the program in the first place to do anything beyond fulfilling the letter of the rules of the FF program?

Why do we have so many threads about loopholes and tricks in the first place? Ethically, the only "correct" way to get the miles would be to fly them, but we have never seen a clear consensus on how many boxes of kellog's cereal are ethical and how many are immoral.

Someone who flies 49,950 miles and is refused Gold status is keenly aware that the airline has no interest in the "spirit" of the programs -- ultimately their only obligation is to the letter of the contract.

They may do you a "favor" by giving you Gold status regardless, but this is only a favor. You have clearly lived up to the "spirit" of the FF program by flying the large number of miles, you have only failed to achieve the letter of the contract, and we see nothing immoral about their actions.

So the more significant question is whether we have any ethical or moral obligation to the FF programs at all? Or is it simply a matter of enlightened self-interest that we should avoid tampering with the value of the programs? Because that doesn't seem like a particularly high moral ground from which to throw stones.

(edited to clarify :P)

[This message has been edited by artboy (edited 12-22-2001).]

I'd like to know too. The only thing I could figure out was that it involved buying gift certificates.

You raise interesting questions that are certainly worth considering. But, fyi, the original proposal had nothing to do with FF miles; it had to do with using real money to take advantage of a retailer.

IMO, fireflyreaction is to be commended for editing the info out of his post and hope that he'll not email the information out.

[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited 12-22-2001).]

Bravo to the consistent outrage in this thread! You are the ethical, play-hard-within the-rules group I want to learn from!

hello all

i specifically edited out the details of the loophole for a reason. i thought of a way to replace that content with "spirit". i do not want the loophole exploited. simply, i was trying to raise a debate on legality/ethics/morality of exploiting loopholes that:
a) could be on shakey legal grounds
b) if legal, were they moral and/or ethical?

the actual loophole isn't important. it's the issues i'm interested in. i think artboy had an interesting response. the original loophole took advantage of a retailer and by doing so, enabled the gain of many FF points for very little money. but, based on what artboy says, can we apply his thinking to businesses. simply replace FF with businesses and what happens?

by tampering with businesses who are in partnerships with FF programs, are the businesses not extensions of the FF programs? (a real question - i'm not sure of the answer.)

i'd love to hear someone's response to artboy .


as an aside, i will not be emailing out the loophole i found. i deleted that specific information out to prevent exploitation of the loophole.

cblaisd, i'd love to hear more of a response to what artboy said. regardless of the original proposal, i'd love to hear what you think about specific ethical or moral obligations we might have to FF programs (if any)!

2:21 is my bedtime. goodnight all http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

regards
firefly

I missed the argument here. Are people saying that it is immoral to buy thousands of dollars in mags to earn miles? Or is it something else?

Something else entirely.

To have a sensible discussion, it is important to have at least some idea what we are discussing.

As has been mentioned, the airlines, etc, write the rules and generally uphold them to the letter. I'd say any "loophole" is fair game, in the absence of any illegal, fraudulent, etc, behaviour.

After all, FT is often about loopholes of some sort. $30 trans-atlantic air fares. 0$ Hilton stays. Obtaining bonuses the airline didn't tell us about. Obtaining status in hotel schemes without any stays. Getting cheap Priceline stays and then getting upgrades with hotel status.

I don't believe that the businesses are an extension. They buy the awards and give them as an incentive since they know that is what people want. If we were collecting S&H greenstamps instead, they would purchase large units of those. In most cases the airlines say they are NOT responsible for what these businesses do and will refer you right back to them when something goes wrong or THEY (the other businesses) don't send your miles to the particular frequent flyer program. Another example is there have been some holiday promotions giving away $10.00 Toys R Us Certificates with purchases......but it is made clear that Toys R Us has NOTHING to do with the promotion or any affiliation with the other company. These companies are simply giving their customers what they want. They may get a discount from Toys R Us for buying them in bulk, but that is it.

By revealing the alleged loophole, FT's collective morality could really be tested.
Later, the people able to milk the most "loophole miles" could be forced to wear a large scarlet letter "L" while traveling. This would warn the airlines about the person's bizarre loophole driven proclivities. In the long run, however, I really think we may need a national Director of Loophole Security.

How about a new "business idea". Buy GCs (and get miles) through Goldpoints and sell the GCs on ebay for a discount.

Someone above said the actual loophole is not important for a discussion. I do not agree at all. Is taking a connecting flight instead of a non-stop to get more miles a loophole? Is booking a RT flight, but not taking the return a loophole? Is buying magazines you have no interest in, but getting do it for the points a loophole? Is paying for everyones dinner and getting points, then getting cash from the other diners at the table a loophole?

So, what was the "loophole" being discussed?

hello all

(this post is somewhat repetitive to another post - i apologize)
i first posted the loophole and then was persuaded by the arguments of cblaisd to take it down.

there seems to be a fairly high interest in the loophole/exploitation-scheme. quite a few individuals have emailed me asking for the loophole/exploitation-scheme and there seems to be some support for the actual loophole/exploitation-scheme to be re-posted.

i took it down because i felt that it possible to discuss the actual issues surrounding the loophole/exploitation-scheme rather than the loophole/exploitation-scheme itself.

the loophole/exploitation-scheme was not in a FF program, but rather one of the goldpoints partners. the loophole/exploitation-scheme was in the promotion by the PARTNER COMPANY. not goldpoints. not an FF program.

so, knowing this information, does that facilitate this conversation? (i think it does, but then again, i *know* the loophole/exploitation so i might be reading everything differently that those who don't know the details of the loophole/exploitation)

what do you think about a vote? (repost loophole/exploitation-scheme or no?)

i'm off to my first ever basketball game. raptors vs heat.

i look forward to reading this thread. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

kind regards
firefly

Of course there is. Have you joined "The List" maintained by Empress and Goldlust? That might be the best place to post your information. Just an idea.

[spelling]

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

i'm not sure what your "loophole" is but it seems fairly obvious that you can just get the miles without the magazines.

If you are looking for a vote, you should post it.

I was on "The List" but I thought it went away? Is it still around?

what is the list?

broadwayblue: I hope you don't have much Xmas shopping left to do.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/004564.html

so i take it i can't be on the list? or is it open again? or do you have to sponsor me? thanks.



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

broadwayblue: I'm not on The List by choice. Contact Empress or Goldlust whose e-mails are available on the thread I indicated.