Well, I surely don't want to share any responsibility in any way for that.

What I am saying is not even that I personally feel like some here that because of these two issues the board is in big trouble, because it might all just be a storm in a tea cup.

I am merely trying to make you aware that, in my opinion, you completely underestimate the potential backlash from the above mentioned attitude.

The saddest post to read on the entire thread IMO.

Reading pretty clearly between the lines - this might occur again and again?

I had ageed with gleff's comment here only a few days back

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum.../000867-2.html

nice, you don't check the link but feel you can spout off about it http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Way out of line. I complained in the Air Canada forum about the Hilton Gold offer:

I'm not directing this at any one person, but as a whole we are here to maximize FF programs not screw them them out of everything we can.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum.../011373-3.html

Does this mean that I work for Hilton? Ultimately it got put in the talkmail letter so Randy might not have had a problem with it.

On the same grounds that I am allowed to express my opinion why is Lurker not allowed to in other forums? Should he have to stay in the Starwood forum and never venture out?

Maybe you haven't heard but Lurker has been known to take trips and max out miles where he can. Sounds like the spirit of FT to me.


Is that a personal attack?

I can't say for sure if Luker should step down from Talkboard. Personally I don't care. Lurker has always been unbiased in view in the Starwood board and he has done nothing to prove to me that in any other forum I have seen him in.

I guess for me it boils down to credibility, and William has lots of it with me http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif

[This message has been edited by cattle (edited Dec 03, 2003).]

Why does he have to answer to you if he has asked his boss a question? We might vote on FT but Randy is the ultimate owner and boss and the buck stops with him, not you the last time I checked.

I think this is very close to dispositive, but I'd like to add the following.

The distinction here seems to me to be between fraud and breach of contract. Fraud is criminal. Breach of contract is civil. We don't throw people in jail for breach of contract.

Affinity programs would love for you to believe that mere breach of contract is criminal. It is not. Programs are free to craft clauses into their contracts "punishing" people for breaching the contract - say by selling miles. However, the mere selling of miles is simply breach of contract, and certainly is not fraudulent. As previously stated, a fraudluent activity requires a willful misrepresentation, an intent to deceive. For example, sending in falsified boarding passes to get mileage credit.

Society draws a very firm line between breach of contract and fraud in our refusal to make breach of contract criminal. To me, that says something: let private contracts be private contracts, let the parties to them impose penalties against each other as they may so agree, but don't let society intervene of its own accord, on behalf of itself, to judge the party who may be in breach.

By disallowing speech related to fraudulent activity, FlyerTalk is helping to encourage people to abide by rules imposed generally by society. By taking this so far as to prohibit speech related to breach of contract seems to me to be sticking FlyerTalk's head right in the middle of something private between private parties. If society stays out of it (unless invited in to adjudicate a private dispute by one of the parties themselves), I think FlyerTalk should stay out of it, too.

I think you have to recognize that Randy's silence in the face of this "super-hyperbolic if not downright irrational" discussion might be of some significance.

Obviously, he knows what's going on, and we haven't heard a "hey, stop it" from him, even though he seems to be posting a bunch lately.

I forget who just wrote this, but the idea was that FT gets by on Randy-policing and member-policing. This is how we member-police. If you're going to hold an ideological position counter to what 99% of us wish for FT, you're gonna get criticized - deal with it.

As I am on the road and on a tight schedule, I only like to take the liberty to add my observations in brief:

Mr. Lurker,

thanks for your helpful posts in the Starwood forum but please refrain from posting the way you did in the Hilton points offer. That is not your business, neither is it mine! You were voted onto the Talkboard because of the helpful information, not the enforcement of the policies of hotel programs. BTW. Lakers beat the Spurs again last night! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I really wasn't going to post on this thread any more, but a couple of points:

This whole "I don't need to explain myself to anyone but Randy" line just doesn't cut the mustard, and you know it. In this very thread you asked for an explanation of Coupon Connection moderating, and along came Chuck and explained. He didn't say "I explain myself to Randy and not mere mortals like you so yah boo sucks." He turned up and explained his point of view and his motives. You then thanked him for his explanation. You understood why he did something, even if you may have thought (and indeed may still think) that he's wrong. Remember how warm and fuzzy you felt back then, when he took the time to do that? That's all we're asking for here.

You have understood that "the response" is not so much to do with what actually happened but much more a result of your failure to discuss it, haven't you?

Don't be so ridiculous. That's just a cheap shot to try and get some sympathy. If you don't want to have to explain yourself, then maybe you should leave Talkboard (although I do think that us "regular" posters have a duty to the community to explain, if asked, why we post in the way we do).

[This message has been edited by Wingnut (edited Dec 04, 2003).]

Very good examples. As long as a trade is not for the commercial benefit of any party involved it should be allowed. Certainly awards have a cash value IMO, but they are transferable, so nothing wrong with this and if the other party is so grateful that it wants to reward the gifter in any way - except for real cash, all within the rules and policies! - It should be allowed!

I also agree with wingnut's post. An if you did not want to discuss the mentioned issues here with anyone but Randy and wanted to leave, feel free - although that is not good community spirit!

Maybe you should step down from Talkboard!

I have never stated I was his boss. Common courtesy dictates that one address an answer to the person who asks the question - unless of course you have something to hide.

Oh yeah, it was not a personal attack. I know of fellow FT'rs who were "un-subscribed" from special offers posted in the Starwood forum because Starwood Lurker tracked them down by their e-mail and removed them from the promotion. It is that behavious which has made me stay away from their properties - plus 4 really bad experiences in a row at their properties.

Yikes. That is not nice to hear about. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/confused.gif

That is indeed not nice to hear. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsdown.gif

Folks, as an impartial observer, as I never frequent a Starwood property, I would like to make the following suggestion. In a court of law after the attorneys for both sides have made their arguments, the case is either handed over to the judge or the jury. In this case both the judge and jury are Randy. You can beat this issue to death, or step back and wait for Randy to give his decision. Nothing can be accomplished by this continued back and forth bickering except alienate people.