I never said you did. I just did not know if you were aware of the fact that Randy had posted that since it was rather hidden in a thread that was dealing with something else, so I thought I'd mention it in a somewhat related thread that I knew you would read.

No problem. I was aware he said that, but have not heard the explanation yet. Something I'm sure we are all anxious for, but I know Randy will get to it when he has the opportunity. Between you and me, I don't expect it to go my way, but even if it does, I promise not to gloat about it. There is certainly nothing to be gained by doing that.

Sincerely,

William R. Sanders
Customer Service Coordinator
Starwood Preferred Services

[email protected]

[This message has been edited by Starwood Lurker (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

Mr Lurker, one of the reasons people ask for explanations from you is because they voted for you. But we've been through this before.

From what I can tell, you provide an excellent service to your customers here on FT. As I mention in the referenced thread, you certainly add value to your brand. But I think that your election to the TB might have been an error of judgement (on both your part for standing, and mine for voting).

My opinion, FWIW, is that cblaisd's moderating was correct. Further, I am reassured to see the hand of moderation being evenly applied. You must understand, Mr Lurker that even though a threat is not implied, it may well be inferred...

Starwood Lurker: No gloating, no fun .

I appreciate that you have an opinion and are willing to share it. And, you are right in that there is nothing to be gained if anyone infers a threat even if there isn't one. How long do you think I would be here doing customer service if I went around threatening people? They would jerk me out of my chair so fast and show me the door that I would never have a chance to say "boo!"

Instead, I think a lot of people have chosen to convince themselves that I'm up to no good for some unknown reason. Can't even begin to tell you about the number of times people have said that I intimidate merely by my presence here working in a customer service capacity. But, there is certainly no evidence to support their fears, so I have to just keep plugging away and let them be them and me be me.

Honestly, I could really care less if anyone trades in Starpoints or promotion codes (although it does irk me to no end that someone would agree to Terms and Conditions of a program and turn around and do everything they can not to abide by them) except for the possible disappointment they could run into later. Then who do you think they ask to fix it. I guess I'm just better off saying nothing at all, but I really do care for all of you and the program I represent and I just don't see that there is a conflict of interest in that.

Sincerely,

William R. Sanders
Customer Service Coordinator
Starwood Preferred Services

[email protected]

[This message has been edited by Starwood Lurker (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

Too funny.

Good night folks.

Sincerely,

William R. Sanders
Customer Service Coordinator
Starwood Preferred Services

[email protected]

Much of this escalated because of my comments/rebuttals to the "Lurker." From someone who does business in Russia and frequented the Soviet Union many times during the Cold War, I really didn't like his posts for two reasons. First, here he was telling everyone about Starwood's rules and that they were violating them by trading; however, he thought nothing about violating this board's policy of only replying to the exact content of the poster's offer. Secondly, as an official representative of a company, he assumes that the people on this board are not bright enough to know what they are doing or that he was doing them/his company a big favor by warning/threatening them. Oh yes, when you post as an official your warning can be construed as a threat. Concerning this, there are many lawsuits against airlines and other various programs for being unfair, unethical and for illegally administering awards and the punishment of so-called "program violaters." I, for one, believe that miles and points are a commodity and they should be able to be freely traded as any other commodity is. Miles/points are not "free." What difference should it make to an airline or a hotel if that exact person, who probably travels enough to qualify as a road warrior and wants to stay home for a change, wishes to trade, give away, barter or even sell their miles. The reason, my fellow posters, is greed. They are hoping that, while they have already collected the cash for the miles/points, people won't cash in those miles or that they will years down the road. For them, the longer the better. By having a pitiful amount of inventory available, they will surely make a huge profit by knowing that they will collect much more than they "give" out in a fiscal year. FF miles/points are charged by the airlines/hotels in their pricing structure and you can believe it is on their books as a liability as soon as the points are awarded. However, you and I have an extremely difficult time in trying to cash in on our rewards. How many posts have I read from people wishing they didn't have so many awards offered because they were tired of not being able to use them? For the program hosts, it is like getting a million dollar bonus, but only paying tax on 50k for 20 years.

I've only been registered here for several months, but I've read posts here for many years and only decided recently to join the discussions. The people who post on this board are among the most intelligent and well-informed people I've ever had the pleasure to be associated with. I've seen a few, and spoken with, several of you at ATL and JFK airports by noticing you FT tags.

Bottom line, I am asking that Mr. Lurker keep his comments to himself so this board can continue to be what it was intended to be. Of course, I'll abide by RP's decision; however, I hope he will agree that we don't need a policeman/enforcer/KGB/TSA type of warning everytime someone wants to trade points in your precious Starwood or any other program. Thanks for reading and happy landings to everyone.

[This message has been edited by USCGamecock (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

If I were in William's shoes, I would probably have refrained from posting what he did, not because I think his motives are less than true and not because I think he really cares about fraud prevention at SPG (because they presumably don't pay him to do so and because oftentimes customer support and fraud prevention departments don't always see eye to eye on methods in any case), but because of the backlash that was sure to come (as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow).

I'm somewhat taken aback by the backlash this has generated. Folks, William's presence here probably generates enough revenue for Starwood to pay him, Jim Berra, about 16 SPG plat phone types, and the guy in charge of being hip at every W--it's reasonable to think that even if the "fraud prevention" or "revenue protection" at SPG cruises FT, that they are not going to be public when they strike, and they probably won't even notify William or his boss. Why?

Why screw with the good work that William does here and the loyalty (and presumably revenue) that it generates?

I don't know if Starwood has/retains a department like the RP group at Delta, for instance, but I'm as sure as a sane person can be that Senior Sanders has nothing to do with it.

To recap: William (IMNSHO) might have been better served by not posting what he did, but some folks on this thread clearly would be better served by thinking a bit before engaging the "add reply" reflex.

------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

Lest Chuck be left out on his own to defend himself, I felt the need to speak up here.

Chuck and I have discussed this type of issue several times, and in any case where the situation is brought to our attention, we have strived to evenly apply the same principle -- if you're not interested in an offer, don't post. It's quite simple, actually. And we did not feel it would be appropriate for us to "waive" this concept for William because of his position with Starwood. It wasn't anything personal about William himself -- it was simply an even application of the procedures.

In my opinion, the points that William raises are quite valid in terms of what is permissible by Starwood program rules. However those points should be raised on the Starwood forum if it is to be a discussion of the rules themselves, or in this ORP forum if it is to be a discussion of whether we should allow people to offer trades that may violate program rules. It's simply not appropriate for The Coupon Connection, which is where people can give or trade miles and points with their fellow travelers.

Chuck and I will continue to evenly apply this in Coupon Connection unless and until Randy decides differently. Discussions on the policies of FlyerTalk, The Coupon Connection, or the moderators should not take place on Coupon Connection.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled traveling.

Edited to add: I do want to point out that I don't believe William is attempting to threaten anyone. In contrast, I actually believe that he is in fact looking out for SPG members' best interests by trying to protect them from losing their accounts. However that belief cannot interfere with the way Chuck and I apply the rules in Coupon Connection.

I would, however, go so far as to suggest that perhaps we could include in the Coupon Connection FAQ the note that William has been posting, along with (to be fair) one from any other official representative of a loyalty program, indicating what their formal stance would be. I don't believe that the rule or how we're applying it is incorrect, but in the spirit of community I'd like to find a compromise.

[This message has been edited by dmfriedman (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

Hey - I noticed that too - almost immediately.

This is moderation gone nuts. IMHO.

Never seem anyhting remotely like it on FT, and sets a dreadful precedent.

--------------------------------
Starwood Lurker

Posts: 6462
From:
Registered: Nov 2000 posted Feb 23, 2004 06:47 PM

[Edited by the moderator because off-topic and replaced with the following: As announced many times, the practice in Coupon Connection -- the aim of which is to help make for a civil and helpful community -- is that if one is not interested in what the original offer/request, there is no need to respond on the thread.]
[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited Feb 23, 2004).]

------------------------
USCGamecock

Posts: 333
From: Augusta, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 2003 posted Feb 23, 2004 08:50 PM

[Edited out by the moderator because off-topic]
[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited Feb 23, 2004).]

-------------------------
cactuspete

Posts: 5529
From: U.S.A.
Registered: Sep 2000 posted Feb 24, 2004 11:15 AM

[Edited out by the moderator because off-topic]
[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

-------------------------------
flamboyant 1

Posts: 3204
From: D�sseldorf / Verbier / Rotterdam
Registered: Nov 2002 posted Feb 24, 2004 11:45 AM

[Edited out by the moderator because off-topic]
[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

--------------------------
Starwood Lurker

Posts: 6462
From:
Registered: Nov 2000 posted Feb 24, 2004 11:58 AM

[Edited out by the moderator because off-topic]
[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

--------------------------
cactuspete

Posts: 5529
From: U.S.A.
Registered: Sep 2000 posted Feb 24, 2004 12:20 PM

[Edited out by the moderator because off-topic]
[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

---------------------------
Starwood Lurker

Posts: 6462
From:
Registered: Nov 2000 posted Feb 24, 2004 12:28 PM

[Edited out by the moderator because off-topic]
[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

-----------------------------
bhatnasx

Posts: 1405
From: Greener Pastures
Registered: Feb 2003 posted Feb 24, 2004 01:57 PM

[Edited out by the moderator because off-topic]
[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

-------------------------------------
Starwood Lurker

Posts: 6462
From:
Registered: Nov 2000 posted Feb 24, 2004 02:08 PM

[Edited out by the moderator because off-topic]
[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited Feb 24, 2004).]

----------------------------------




[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited Feb 25, 2004).]

I totally agree with Glen!

Never seen that kind of moderation before.

Mr. Lurker, why do you post in the CC ? You were not willing to trade ! You knew it was not pleasing anybody and SPG trades have been done privately a few times (not from/to my account!), I would guess. You know that, just let us trade the points in CC at our own risk. Maybe you want to open a topic in the Starwood forum with an official reminder to us all about what is correct and what is against the SPG Policy/Law! Thank you for your attention.

I think that is an excellent suggestion. By getting this done, Starwood Lurker has fulfilled his duty out of loyalty to his employer and has officially reminded people that they might be doing something that is against the rules, so they will be proceeding at their own risk (that's life, anyway).

On the other hand, by leaving it at that, Starwood Lurker's workload will be reduced, since he will not have to monitor the Coupon Connection anymore and will not have to "police" individual threads, if you want to look at it that way - since he does not want to take action against the members anyway, but just wants to remind them that they might be proceeding at their own risk, this goal will be achieved as well.

Instead of this discussion here flaming up again and again, people have exchanged their viewpoints and the official statement from William/Starwood is out there, and it can be left at that.

I thought moderator bashing wasn't scheduled until March!

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Feb 25, 2004).]

First, I think moderation action was warranted.

Second, an act by a company rep telling another FT'er that he's violating SPG terms and conditions is an implicit (though unintended) escalation due to the assumption (unwarranted in this case) of adverse impact through official action.

Thus my opinion is that the wise thing for all involved is to back away from the potential conflict. It's not doing anyone any good for William to involve himself with CC any more than it would be for any of the AA employees on FT:AA to involve themselves with CC.

I guess they didn't want you to feel left out.

FewMiles..