If you thought that was bad, read some of the commentary on request (a.k.a. "H: karma") threads. I agree with dhammer53's suggestion, which is similar to the one I posted previously. Discussion should be reserved for discussion threads; people who have no intention of participating in an offer/request/giveaway should not be allowed to hijack the thread.

Every useful for sale / trade forum I've participated in has had this rule. Most of them are instant ban from the forum if you troll in someone's thread. It weeds out that junk.

Might be helpful to have a sticky with trade RANGES of the most popular instruments, just to provide some context about avoiding lowballing or markupping:

Some examples arbitrary, for illustration only....
UA SWU: 20-30K miles
AA VIPOW: 15-25K miles
if you continue to allow GCs....
UA miles= 1.5-2. cents
DL Miles 1.0-1.5 cents


Also, might be helpful to provide some popular published exchange rates for context:

1 SPG= 3 Amex
1 AA= 2 HH
1 SPG= 1.25 miles in many program per 20K

Point is, that there will be less of a need for third parties to critique trading offers if CC already has a reasonable (though certainly not exhaustive) reference point. Maybe the reference point could be a locked first post and have it be the gateway post to the proposed CC Discussion thread. The gateway thread could be updated and amended based on CC Discussion post feedback.

While I don't use Coupon Connection that much as of late, I used to use it somewhat more back when first joining FT and I did benefit from gifts and trades with other FTers - so I would hate to see it remain closed for long.

Is it technically feasible to add the following type of condition as a requirement for starting threads in Coupon Connection: FTer must gift X number of hotel, car or flight related items that are taken up by another FTer in order to have creation rights for Y number of threads?

Something like that can of course be gamed by those with an intention to do so, but at least it would involve the spirit of giving in some limited regard.

AMEN^

I don't see what all the fuss was about, a few drama posts/diatribes sure but isn't that normal course for FT?

I had suggested this same thing on the "lowball" thread that was on CC.

Only question I would have is can I offer something outside those ranges stated? I would assume yes if I am the one offering what would be considered more of X than is "normal range" as I really need Y.

-

A couple of thoughts from someone who has only ever used CC to trade a few vouchers but who would be worse off if it did not reappear:

1. Gift cards = cash (especially as you can sell most gift cards on ebay for 90%+ of face), cash = selling something, selling something = going against the spirit of CC and indeed the T&C's of all airline and hotel programmes. It should be stopped.

2. Perhaps the entry requirements need to be tightend up, although the '90 days' rule is helpful and cannot be abused by post padding

3. It is difficult to put a value on what is 'fair' in terms of a trade. I'm in Basel next week and the only major chain is a hugely expensive Hilton. Its a city where I would potentially have traded a disproportionate number of other points (say 60k Priority Club) in return for 30k Hilton - others may have seen the trade as unfair to me but actually it would have been perfect in that scenario. It is also relatively easy for a newcomer to CC to search for similar trades to get a view of what is and is not reasonable.

4. There should be a rule that there should no third parties involved in any trade. If I do a deal with you to book a hotel room for you, it must be for you - I don't want to be booking for a random third person I don't know because the other side of the trade has resold my offer of a room for something else.

But CC should remain in some form, if only for people to give away stuff they don't need.

I said it above, and I'll say it again. That is a ridiculous line of reasoning. CC is a violation of the Ts&Cs of virtually every program - whether or not there are GCs. GCs have no effect on that violation, other than making it perhaps more obvious to you for no objectively discernable reason.

Again, I cited an example above - but, more generally, why do you feel the need to restrict things that can easily be negotiated by the parties? No third party trades is already a theoretical rule of CC, but if I want to trade my certs to book a hotel night for my parents and let my trading partner know up front that that's the case, why should we be prevented from doing the trade?

Regulation is BAD. CC is in the spirit of the community - and in that spirit, let people work out what is mutually beneficial.

This process should make sure that everyone benefits from CC, not make overly stringent rules that eliminate its usefullness.

Handful of comments-

- There was a CC thread tracking what successful trades had gone down. That, IMO, is as good as any way of tracking "value".

- I like the idea of "no comments in the thread unless you are wanting to participate in the deal".

- What's the difference between a gift card and a fare voucher with a dollar value, for practical purposes, other than an expiration date? And I'd argue a fare voucher is a very good example of something you might want to swap because you can't use it.

Agreed, in this case, but in my understanding of how some of the 'traders' on CC have been operating, this is not what happens.

Very true. There have been no few cases of "professional" traders being investigated and having their accounts, and those of the otherwise innocent trading partners, audited and closed. I'm not saying that there are many such people, but even a few can impact a lot of "regular" folks.

Cheers.

First off, I just wanted to say that I've benefited from the CC a few times when I've had miles or credits that were expiring and to thank Randy for the existence of CC until this point, I'm sure it's helped out thousands of FT regulars get more use out of their travel related miles/credits.

IMO, GC's were never the root of the problem and therefore eliminating them won't solve anything.

And where does it end? Ban bump voucher credits? Ban credit from canceled tickets?

The problems are:
-Members that post ridiculous offers far from acceptable ranges (W: 100k AA, H: 75K DL)
-The inability for the OP to respond to critiques.

It seems to me that many of the people whining about the commercialization of CC are the same ones who are constantly begging for goodies while not giving back to the community. It's easy to bemoan the lack of "givingness" in the CC when you are used to constantly being gifted things. Begrudging the entire FT community for trying to trade a 3P nomination for something of value instead of gifting it is downright spiteful.

Thinking that getting rid of GC/voucher trades will bring back a time when FT was smaller and more giving is borderline delusional thinking. It simply will not work

On the other hand, raising the CC posting requirements, making a CC discussion forum, making acceptable trade ranges, and loosening the 72 hour bumping rules will help.

I would not only have a minimum post count, I would require someone who wants access to the CC forum to submit links of posts that show that they are active participants in several other FT fora - the posts offered as examples should demonstrate that they impart knowledge, help other travelers and otherwise contribute to the ethos of FT.

This would eliminate the people who furiously generate one-word or other meaningless posts in order to get access to CC, then never post in any other forum except CC (and who swoop down like vultures whenever a no-strings gift is offered).

There was an existing thread for that, which wasn't based on opinion but just a compilation of fact. Personally, I think having any a priori guidelines of trade values discourages "marginal" trades, which I see as a bad thing - person X might be very willing to part with a SWU for only 15K miles but, knowing that the "market value" is 20K-30K, might not complete a trade or might pick a less-preferred trading partner to maximize "profit." If the spirit of CC is for it to be a swap meet, not an auction house, then official guidelines of trade values should be discouraged... a historical compilation is one thing (especially since most trades are done transparently and are therefore searchable), but I would oppose officially-sanctioned trade value guides.

(Craigslist has no officially-sanctioned value guides. Neither does eBay, although eBay does have searchable auction histories. If CC has to be compared to one, I'd rather it be compared to Craigslist than eBay.)

There is already no need for third parties to critique offers; every trade is based on the subjective value judgments of its participants... if one is uninterested, one should simply not respond. People who receive no responses to their offers will quickly get the picture; third-party critiquing is entirely unnecessary.

I would oppose this kind of restriction. Forcing altruism/generosity is the quickest way to kill it. While gifting things is very nice and IMHO enhances the community spirit of FT, nobody should be compelled to do so. CC would still function very well even if nobody gifted anything, as long as the vitriol and condescension are removed from posts.

The first is hardly a problem, and what you consider ridiculous, someone else might consider perfectly acceptable (e.g. someone wanting to get rid of miles they know that they will never use, even if it's not a "fair" trade). It's not anyone's place to prejudge what is a "ridiculous" offer; there is a reason why sites like Points.com still prosper despite their one-sided exchange rates.

The second point is very much a problem, but would be solved by eliminating criticisms from offer threads and restricting them to discussions. IMHO, that is really the one and only problem: the hijacking of offer threads by third parties, entirely uninterested in participating in the trade, who feel the need to criticize the offer or the OP (e.g. with comments like "this is a ridiculous offer").

I'm not sure if this is directed partly at me (and if so, we can discuss that privately) but I think you're dead wrong on this. I've read a number of posts from FTers who share these same views and are often on the giving end of gifts. I also haven't heard anyone "begrudging the entire FT community" for trading anything; it's not about the gifts or lack thereof, it's about the attitudes and atmosphere that pervade CC. I think gifts are actually just as common today as they were a few years ago, but visiting CC today feels much different than it did back then - the tone of posts is different, the attitudes are different, and especially the third-party commentary is different. CC could and would still be a perfectly wonderful place to visit even if nobody ever gifted anything, as long as the atmosphere improves.

I have read through this thread and it's quite an interesting debate. I have a few thoughts based on what I've witnessed as an infrequent CC user but a frequent CC browser.

1. Adjust the T&C's to require a specific trade request/requirement per thread, to eliminate the "H: 50k UA, W:? or W: AA/DL/IB/BA/HH/SPG/3P" type threads. By having a clear want and a clearly defined thing to trade, I think this might clean up the forum by ensuring people want to trade something for something, so you have a true "swap-meet" type forum.

2. Change the T&C's so that 3rd party commentary within the thread isn't allowed, that way you keep the often catty comments and sniping out of the thread. The OP will either get a response to his/her trade request or not, it depends on who sees the thread. It won't be up to self-appointed FT CC Cops/FBI/OSS types to determine what the "right" trade amounts are.

3. Eliminate the "W:_________ H: Karma/A flower/Peace and happiness" threads. Specify that if you want something, you need to just keep browsing CC instead of posting a thread that only invites controversy, as what seems to have happened a lot lately. The people who have things to gift/give away are of course encouraged to post threads as always.

Anyways just my $.02. I had planned to use the CC this week so I was pretty bummed out when I saw it had been placed on temporary hold, but Randy has every right to do what he sees as best for the FT community. No one's forcing any of us to come here and post. Sometimes I believe that is forgotten around here. Have a nice day

Where does the facts come from?

I can say I completed a trade for X, but did I really?

Especially, if I wanted to show those naysayers who said I was wanting too much for my trade.


Just thinking like a pro trader.