Yes. I have emailed Randy on more than one occasion on this topic.

The first time was in October. Then, cblaisd informed me of the groudrule that everyone, except for moderators, should follow: "If you are not interested in a thread, don't post." clblaisd was even cc'd in that email as it was his suggestion.

Anyways, if I can't ASK Randy here in this forum, Where can I ask it???

I'm sure he does appreciate everyone speaking for him.

Again, I point out the incongruity that lies on FlyerTalk:
A) The T&C says that posts that condone Illegal Activity (i.e. fraud upon any program) "will be removed".
B) The description of the Coupon Connection states, "This is N-O-T a forum for anything related to the buying, selling or bartering of airline awards."
C) The Unofficial Coupon Connection FAQ notes that it is technically agianst the airline's rule to barter.

YET, posts that explicity seek a trade regarding these upgrades are still permitted to occur. Again, I would appreciate it if someone can explain how this can be as it is the root of my confusion.

I SUGGEST that a new disclaimer should be put on flyertalk.com and the Coupon Connection which reads something along the lines of, "A place where you can break the rules but we don't care."

[This message has been edited by chexfan (edited 02-15-2003).]

A simple trade is not the same as bartering.

QL

Chexfan,

Sorry if this has been asked before...but why do you care anyway?

If Randy has not acted on this after the constant repetition here; well, afterall, as it's been reported here...it's his website.

Trading is bartering. Period.

Either the rules need to be changed to allow bartering, or they need to be changed to dis-allow trading.

This is obviously a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" scenario. The rules state no bartering, yet in actuality bartering is condoned.

The voice of reason has arrived.

I, too, am curious about the former.


------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.

If it's not apparent already, the nudge-nudge, wink wink already exists.

If it's not apparent already, Randy has given the impression that he doesn't care.

So if it doesn't bother the founder of this board, why should it bother you? Please read this in the 'tone' offered. Thanks.

And if it bothers you, so what. Some flyertalkers enjoy that particular feature.

Out of all the threads on flyertalk, this is the most annoying...on a regular basis.

What am I trying to prove? I don't know.
What are you trying to prove?

I would vote for the latter.

Exactly, imo.

I want to point something out about the Unofficial Coupon Connection FAQ: In the Coupon Connection main page, there is a standing link in the upper left corner to the FAQ which I authored (but which had lots of good contributions incorporated from others). I didn't put that link there; Randy or one of his staff did.

And if you click on that link you'll see (in what most of us would recognize, I would submit, as Randy's prose) a comment citing this "most excellent guide" and noting that folks ought to read it if they are going to "exchange" items. Again, I didn't write that. And it sure implies to me that Randy is aware of what is in the FAQ. In fact, some of you may remember when the thread title was "Proposed Unofficial Coupon Connection FAQ." I emailed Randy and asked him to take the 'Proposed' out of the title. He did so with the comment "good idea." Again, it doesn't explicitly mean that he has "endorsed" every line; but all of that taken together does indicate that Randy is aware of the situation and found it the FAQ a helpful guide to what's customary.

I hope the above clarifies this for you.

(Edited for coding)

[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited 02-15-2003).]

No, I'm sorry. It doesn't.

The above noted, speaks to my interpretation of the Unofficial FAQ, as, just as it is described... Unofficial. That is not my point of questioning.

AGAIN, my confusion, problem, and 'why I care' lies with the fact that in three places FlyerTalk does not condone the trading/bartering of airline awards, but the practice is allowed to happen.

Consistency. Harmony. Conformity. That's all I'm looking for.

Who ever knows. That your name is now Randy Petersen perhaps?

And if it is not, perhaps some of us may like to hear Randy's point on view on this whenever he has time. And perhaps NOT what you have indicated THREE times (so far) in this thread - i.e. what you "think" that point of view might be?

Just a polite suggestion ... using the voice of reason.

If, as is my guess,

* FlyerTalk (Randy) doesn't really mind to let us regular amateurs 'exchange' certificates without looking for 'professional' profit on this board,

* but on the other hand, Randy (with his links/interests/relations with airlines, ff-programs) doesn't want to make official statements regarding this subject (understandibly doesn't want to officially upset the airline industry)

I wouldn't go on asking for his oppinion here - I simply thank him and FlyerTalk for the tolerance on this subject.

Very well stated, Rudi.

dhammer don't you DARE try to put words in Randy's mouth. Someone else always tries to do that and gets upset when someone "beats" him to it!!

Well, you've consistently been stirring the same pot over there, and then some more, and then yet again.

I think you know only too well this isn't going to produce harmony.

SMessier, First, I kindly ask you to edit the second link 'as proof' of me "stirring the pot", as it simply does not relate to the issue itself of bartering against stated rules.

I kindly disagree. Consistency is what I'm looking for and it simply can be achieved. Flyertalk can either:
keep the wording that it currently has to not allow trading... and practice those words
-or-
change the wording about 'not allowing trading'... and let the trading fly.

Then, there will be harmony in what FT states that it approves & what is allowed to be pracitced on FT.

We will have to disagree on this one I'm afraid, as I respectfully disagree.

But those aren't the only two options available, as you well know. FT, and Randy has (I believe) written about this, has chosen to adopt a middle ground which involves some grey areas and the need for individual and community judgment on what is, and is not, acceptable. This (repeated) call for black and white rules only serves to stir the pot and create debate where, overall, it would appear that most people involved are happy with the system.

Indeed, it looks more and more like a game of flame baiting the Coupon Connection moderators, much like your UA SWU contest.