fireflyreaction

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).]

MatthewClement

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

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

wormwood

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?

SpuddBrother

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

SpuddBrother

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

wormwood

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

flipside

Bad, bad bad bad.

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

Flip

cactuspete

Neither place is appropriate. Please delete your post.

SameerUCLA

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

fireflyreaction

hello

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

drtravels

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

Moderator2

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]

fireflyreaction

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

cblaisd

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).]

fireflyreaction

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