|
I just wanted to add my measly 2 cents since I was one of the people that was moderated. I agree with Chuck's moderation & I was pretty certain that I would be moderated when I made my post - it wasn't a response to the original posters topic - it was a response to another posters comment on the thread.
I think that dmfriedman's suggestion is an excellent one & that whereas one party may not be a percieve that they are a threat to the O.P. on that thread - the O.P. (and/or other readers of the post) may have that perception - especially the way things are worded. Again, just my measly 2 cents... |
I like dmfriedman's suggestion, and if it were acted upon, would not feel compelled to offer any further advisements in Coupon Connection concerning the Terms and Conditions of Membership in SPG.
This seems like a very reasonable compromise - to me anyway. Sincerely, William R. Sanders Customer Service Coordinator Starwood Preferred Services [email protected] [This message has been edited by Starwood Lurker (edited Feb 25, 2004).] |
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by dmfriedman: 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).]</font> ------------------ Sharon |
Okay, is everyone sitting down? I agree with the moderation of this thread. CC is where posts should be either making a offer, asking a question or answering a question about an offer, or YGM. Anything else is really off topic. I do think that sometimes comments need to be made about certain offers to protect the innocent (newbies), but other than that off topic comments should be moderated.
------------------ dallasflyer, Living in Denver and Dallas, oh boy! |
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by dallasflyer: Okay, is everyone sitting down? I agree with the moderation of this thread. CC is where posts should be either making a offer, asking a question or answering a question about an offer, or YGM. Anything else is really off topic. I do think that sometimes comments need to be made about certain offers to protect the innocent (newbies), but other than that off topic comments should be moderated. </font> |
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cactuspete: Without seeing the deleted comments, how can you make a determination that they were off-topic?</font> |
Meanwhile, it continues on with apparently no one the wiser:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/015103.html I know who both of these members are; however, I have no interest in turning them in to Accounts Integrity. I might add, though, that Accounts Integrity uses the same databases I do and they are only too adept at discovering their identities as well. Will someone please act soon to institute the compromise that dmfriedman suggested. If not, I will compelled to go back to Coupon Connection time and again to get the point across. Sincerely, William R. Sanders Customer Service Coordinator Starwood Preferred Services [email protected] |
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Starwood Lurker: I know who both of these members are; however, I have no interest in turning them in to Accounts Integrity. I might add, though, that Accounts Integrity uses the same databases I do and they are only too adept at discovering their identities as well.</font> |
attorney28...Good point and warning about the email address there. But another factor to consider is knowing whether or not the other party has a different email address listed as well.
In this case, it only takes one to tango. And the airlines and hotels can usually watch or tag almost anything that comes or goes from one party, as long as they know who that one party is. I know for a fact that a recipient of an award can be flagged just because they received an award or award reservation from someone that was already identified and tagged. And the reverse is true as well. Poisoned fruit, as it were. |
All you people that are praising the "Lurker's " help, should read his comments. He isn't going to turn you in, but the Starwood's accounts integrity might not be so nice. Even the guy on the DL board, who obviously works at Delta, never claims to be "officially" here. Only William does.
Quoted from flyertalk from this link: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum.../000950-2.html I know who both of these members are; however, I have no interest in turning them in to Accounts Integrity. I might add, though, that Accounts Integrity uses the same databases I do and they are only too adept at discovering their identities as well. Will someone please act soon to institute the compromise that dmfriedman suggested. If not, I will compelled to go back to Coupon Connection time and again to get the point across. Sincerely, William R. Sanders Customer Service Coordinator Starwood Preferred Services [email protected] [This message has been edited by USCGamecock (edited Feb 26, 2004).] |
Ouch! A bit heavy handed there fella, don't you think?
That's the last time I buy any Starpoints from you! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif |
USCGamecock...that was a bit harsh.
|
WOW.... being a bit "cocky" I believe in those statements.
William has been on FT for awhile... and I have yet to hear about anyone being notified by "Accounts Integrity" at Starwood. Believe me, he could have sent many people to AI by now. Unless you have data to support your charge, I believe you owe William an apology. or at the minimum, someone should edit that post because - IMO - it is very close to a personal attack. William Edited to correct stupid spelling mistake.. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif [This message has been edited by wharvey (edited Feb 26, 2004).] |
It is not the first – and maybe not the last time – that we discuss what is and what is not allowed to post on CC,
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> [t]he exchange forum for legally transferable coupons issued by various frequent traveler programs (these include free car rental days, 50 percent off hotel stays and upgrade coupons). This is N-O-T a forum for anything related to the buying, selling or bartering of airline awards. All exchange as a result of this forum are based upon free issuance and community spirit.</font> Let me come up with an example: UA’s SWUs are transferable, but they are void if sold or bartered). Here is the answer from our generous host: <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Randy Petersen: I think i can speak for myself and will post up shortly my views on this. I actually have one ready from about two weeks ago and was ready to send to the moderators to help them but travel and a magazine deadline got the best of my intentions. I'm glad i waited because it has given me a little time to read of more input from members. The almost funny idea crept into my head - why not simply cvlose that forum down. the help probably cancels the hurt and if it takes too much energy to manage, then it might not be the best thing for FT. It would find a way somewhere else and that can then be someone else's problem to deal with. It might just be getting too close to that point where members are reading into the fine print that makes it more trouble than it's worth. my only wrestle with this is that i still am fighting the demons that say – were you so innocent randy to think the Internet and your following could enjoy the pure topic of frequent flyer programs? Anyway, let me clean up my lengthy thoughts and post up for the moderators - and members.</font> Until August 2003, nobody cared about the fact, that *wood points were involved in exchanges on CC: Need *wood points for UA SWU Trade Starwood points for UAL comp,. cert? US voucher for *wood points? Offering 2 AA VIPOWs for AA/UA/*wood points Since last August member Starwood Lurker decided to remind us that some trades were against FGP rules: BerelSchus liked to trade 120K HHonors for *wood or Hyatt points USCGamecock liked to trade 15k Priority Club points for 10k *points flychick liked to trade HHonors for 30K *wood points rbAA was looking for *wood points I heard that FT members are not only playing within our TOS [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] and their Most Valued Guest Program rules, but they are also very generous to others (they do not sell or barter awards). If everybody who receives a gift is also as generous, he/she likes to know, which present fits to his/her alter ago (why should we give away SWUs if someone does not flying UA)? So if I understand our community spirit: What’s going on on CC is not a barter of awards it is just an exchange of gifts. But looking at some gift exchanges at CC, I have every now and than the impression, that the value of the actual experience outperform the monetary value (or in more straight terms: Some exchanges are not equal in an economy point of view). However, our moderators decided, that if someone is not interested in an offer, he should not post. Let me add this suggestion to our current practice: Why not stop the response (eg YGM) on CC completely? If someone has to offer a gift, he should post his gift and the gift he would be very happy to receive in exchange for his/her generosity. If the exchange is done, he could post “gift is on his way” and the moderators can close the thread. [This message has been edited by Patron (edited Feb 26, 2004).] |
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Patron: It is not the first – and maybe not the last time – that [URL=http://www.flyertalk.com/pasttalk/ftpasttalk_forum/Forum97/HTML/000686.html]...</font> It amuses me how some posters in that thread seem to think they need to play the police for the airlines/hotel programs. The truth is, companies can write a lot of stuff in their terms and conditions, but if whatever they put in there is even legally correct or enforceable is a whole other question. The prohibition of selling and bartering miles and points is something that is found within the program rules. The program rules are part of a contract between the airline/hotel and the consumer. They are NOT statutes, law or anything like that. Why some people feel compelled to comment on whether someone might be (and I am saying might be because many things in the standard terms and conditions of loyalty programs are simply against the law) in violation of a contractual relationship that he is not a party to is beyond me. It is nobody's business but the parties' of the contract - the airline and the individual consumer what that consumer does with his miles and points that he earned. People should stop treating the stuff airlines and hotels write into their terms and conditions as gospel or even statutory law. And that is why the coupon connection rules make sense - if you are not interested, do not comment - because you don't really have a right to do so, since you would be talking about a contract you are not a party to. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:15 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.