This issue has been discussed ad nauseum. The majority of posters weighing in on the issue (both in the CC thread and in the proposal thread in the TB forum), including the CC mods themselves, believe a subforum is unwarranted. If one is uninterested in such threads, one can simply pass them by, just like any other thread in which one is not interested.

So far you're the only person to keep going on and on defending (sic) these types of threads. I'd really like to see what others who utilize the "H:karma W: something" system have to say.

Read the commentary in the appropriate threads; the only one open right now is in the TB forum, but when CC re-opens, there are at least 2 threads with relevant commentary. I am far from being the only one to defend these threads, I'm merely the most vocal.

I did read that one, it's definitely been eye opening (as I consider myself a reasonable person), but I really don't see overwhelming numbers chiming in to say they feel a separate subforum isn't warranted, I see a few attempts at eloquent arguments though. Also there does seem to be a vocal few members chiming in but beyond that it's appearing that a bare handful are against a subforum.

After thinking about this issue more, I feel (just my opinion) that a separate thread is the best way to support those who want something yet offer nothing. It would clean up the forum, get rid of silly, belligerent comments (and potential TOS violations), and relegate those that don't offer anything to one place. This thread, if stickied (stuck?) to the beginning of the forum, would ensure visibility and as such, those who wish to gift something to the FT community would see it and be able to post in there. Those who WANT something for free would merely have to spend a few minutes browsing the thread. In this way, the spirit of FT (members helping members) could be preserved, at the small expense of another member doing a few extra minutes browsing or scrolling.

I'm sorry, but your post, in a way, actually epitomizes exactly what is WRONG with CC.

You snottily suggest that people who "want something yet offer nothing" be "relegated" to a single thread. In other words, the beggars are just garbage and should be treated as such.

The reality is, sometimes such people might happen to be long-time members who have contributed massively to FT, in terms of knowledge and other things -- organizing FT dinners might be just one example.

The fact that someone who supposedly "offers nothing" should be treated as a second-class citizen on CC is a symptom of the over-commercialization of that forum. I have given away several things of value privately (i.e., by direct communication via e-mail with various FTers I know), but would not want to offer them on CC for a variety of reasons, one of which is the unpleasant commercialism there. How about the spirit of just gifting something rather than always seeking to maximize monetary value? @:-)

And frankly, most of the trades on CC do violate the T&Cs of the various programs. But gifting things, in many/most cases, does not! It depends on whether the things gifted are allowed to be transferred, of course. (And I don't mean "mutual gifting," which in fact is a trade.)

A bare handful out of what? Out of all of CC, or out of all the respondents? Let me reiterate what I said previously: the majority of posters weighing in on the issue believe a subforum is unwarranted. I didn't say a majority of CC users, but a majority of those who have actually posted their opinion. If you look at the TB thread (since that's the only open one right now), you'll note that of the 12 individuals posting in that thread, a full 11 of them feel that no subforum is needed. If a large number of people feel that a subforum is necessary, why are they not posting in that thread? In the relevant CC threads, the percentages aren't as heavily skewed, but still the majority of posters (in those threads, not in all of CC) do not feel a subforum is necessary or desirable.

Since we haven't queried every CC user, we can only go by the people who have actually posted their responses, and the percentages are clear: most respondents do not support a subforum.

How would it clean up the forum? The number of "H: karma" threads is relatively small; they are not overwhelming the forum. Getting rid of silly/belligerent comments is easily accomplished by disallowing third-party commentary without forbidding these threads; you agreed ("100%" even) with this upthread.

Besides, the correct solution to people being silly/belligerent/jerks is not to penalize the victims of such belligerence, but to penalize the offenders. Your solution is akin to implementing a ban on spray paint (or perhaps having it sold only with a permit) just because a few unscrupulous individuals use it for graffiti. At some people, people need to take personal responsibility for their words and their actions. The problem isn't the threads, it is the reactions of a few individuals who cannot control themselves; not only will banning such threads not solve that problem, it also penalizes those who play by the rules to sate those who do not.

As to your last point, I think Kathy addressed it fairly well.

Whoa. I posted this as a potential idea for Randy, not to start a flame war. If you could go back over into the "Karma" thread in CC, you would notice that I too voiced the opinion of "just don't read them if you don't like them". I didn't see the same concensus though and saw it being rehashed here. If it appears to be a "problem" to Randy, my suggestion was to put it into a subforum (not a single thread, everyone should be able to state their request). As I mentioned in my post earlier, I too have been the happy recipient of a gift "for nothing". But, it was in response to a generous offer of an expiring instrument, not an outright request.

I think Randy has bigger issues with CC than just the H:Karma posts. In fact, I'd probably put these at the bottom of the pile. Most, if not all, H:Karma posts end up with 0 replies under the current system. Thus, while it may bother some to see the request, the system solves it in it's own way. Let's focus on the larger picture and not distract ourselves with relatively minor annoyances.

Randy,

thanks for you thoughts on the coupon connection. It is sad to see it locked, but I understand your concerns.

I have given away for free as much as I traded (which wasn't much at all) and I always appreciated the opportunity to exchange miles and points with 'friends'.

Things I have given away included a 100 EUR Marriott BB coupon (which I didn't want to use since I wasn't with Marriott at that time) and a 75 CHF AF-coupon since it was only available for departures from Switzerland (and I just moved to the US when I got it).

I have traded a few NW coupons and I feel both parties got what they were looking for.

CC has been abused and there are many new members to FT who publicly state that the are post-padding to reach the 90/90 for CC access.

Why not make access to CC more difficult? 2 years and 2000 posts plus electronically sign a form that you will not sell anything for $$$, but only for miles/points/coupons/whatever?

Please, consider bringing CC back.

Whoa! 2000 posts? While I was member #6,XXX to join FT, to date I have only a little over 900 total posts. I certainly would not appreciate being excluded from CC under any such new exhorbitant CC access requirements, but seriously doubt such would be instituted.

Not to steal the thunder, the subforum idea was officially proposed by someone else on 7/12/09 in the TalkBoard Topics Forum. I also recall this suggestion had been popping up in various threads in CC Forum.

I am sure Randy himself should have read all those comments about the karma subforum idea.

Here is my 2 cents:

I don't understand the reasoning behind closing CC during the period of re-evaluation; what value does it add to that process ? I went to CC this morning to offer an instrument which is expiring in a few days, and find that there is now no way that I can offer this even for free to the FT community (given the TOS prohibition on offering things for free elsewhere on FT - which I believe is misguided). Whatever problems existed on CC, have existed for months/years, and a few days more (while changes are formulated) is surely not going to make a difference (though I'll accept the remote possibility that some kind of ultimatum may have been received from an airline/hotel - though in that case this could surely have been disclosed in vague/general terms).

I use CC regularly - 5-10 mutual giftings per year, but not IMO excessively. I use CC when I have something that I don't want/need and occasionally if I need something that I don't ahve. I periodically give away things that are of modest value that I can't use - SPG50, 10% off codes, expiring UGs, etc.

I strongly disagree with those who are suggesting mandating that something specific should be requested or offered. If I have a SWU that I know I'm not going to use, but don't have a specific or immediate need, it seems to me quite reasonable to indicate that I can be very flexible in considering different types of instrument. Similarly, where I have a specific need, I usually have a very wide array of things that I could gift in return. I do agree that some indication of expected "value" should be included - eg offering a SWU in exchange for 25k miles on one of several airlines or a comparable equivalent.

I strongly disagree with those who would limit "unfair"(sic) offers. There are very many occasions where a specific situation makes unusual "exchange rates" (sorry, I can't think of another way to express that) a fair (or even great) gifting for both partys. It is not reasonable for moderators to be put in the position of second-guessing the relative "value" of specific giftings to the specific parties at any specific time.

I sympathize with the concern about the increasing prevelence of GCs. I suspect that this is in part due to the economy - in tough times, there will be people who are sitting on heaps of miles who find themselves in a tough spot, and are tempted to use GC gifting as a way to monetize their miles. While I sympathize with the predicament of anybody in such a situation, this is precisely what CC is NOT about. GCs can be easily sold on eBay without violating T&Cs, so those who have unwanted GCs have alternatives. Although I have gifted GCs (that I already owned) on CC in exchange for instruments that I needed, proscribing GCs as an option would reduce the appearance of "cash trading" that has grown in recent months. GCs in this respect are different from (say) ticket credits, as in most cases it is not going to be possible to easily acquire such credits fee-free.

I'd support a CC "Karma" sub-forum in principle, though I see a risk of it attracting a fringe element who were motivated by getting something for nothing; a requirement to make a minimum number of offers each year to keep access could address that - but could be unduly burdensome to administer. I also believe that the TOS should be changed to allow offering (not seeking) of items to give away on the appropriate forums. Especially on smaller forums where there is a strong sub-community dynamic, the ability to offer expiring coupons on that forum strengthens the community aspect that is at the core of what FT should be all about.

I agree with the suggestion to separate out discussion into a sub-forum. Similarly, limiting CC posting to OPs, and not allowing follow-up (other than from the OP) could address many of the concerens about CC deviating from it's mission. A convention of optionally posting the gifting terms in the closing post would help newer or infrequent users of CC to get a good idea of what was the normal "valuation" in giftings.

(emphases mine)

What's the spirit of FT to you? What's the core of FT?

If a long time FTer Person A, who hardly ever visits CC but has been contributing to various fora about miles and points on FT, comes to CC one day and ask for something to trade for her/his gratitude, do you consider s/he wants something yet offers nothing? Does all her/his past offering on FT count nothing?

Community spirit on FT doesn't built upon CC trades (thank God for that ). As a FTer, my sense of community comes from interaction with fellow FTers in other fora that discuss miles and points. FTers help each other by sharing what we know about the point/mile. Because the sense of community, quite a few FTers (addicts) come to FT everyday and spend countless hours offering invaluable knowledge and sharing priceless info about FFPs and travel without asking for (FT) compensation (or Randy would have been broke long time ago ).

Because of common interests in points and miles, some FTers manage to meet in real life and develop lifelong friendships. Friendliness made CC possible in the very beginning. Even I am not one of the original members, the CC I know from my early FT years is quite different from today. I don't trade much on CC but I browse enough threads to feel the differences. Others have put it nicely about the "ebayish evolvement" in CC so I am not going to beat the dead horse.

Since late October 2008, there have been some improvements (btw, I am still waiting for this one to happen ) and policy changes on FT. I can't say whether the "deterioration" in CC is due to those new changes. But I must say (I feel) things have changed on FT, especially during the last 10 months. Threads (or newbies) promoting selling miles (in MilesBuzz!) and trolling in OMNI/PR are some examples. I imagine the workload for our mod team may have been heavier.

CC "makeover" should be a positive step to take, so we can bring back some FT spirit. Here are my two-centers:

1. If the karma offer is from someone short of FT spirit, FTers can tell from her/his posting history then decide whether to honor or ignore such request.

2. Post-padding is hard to miss, if you are willing to look closer. Besides, we have mods to take RBPs on post-runners.

3. The revision of CC guideline, if ever, should be derived from the core of FT and enhance community spirit on FT. CC isn't supposed to be a market place on FT.

4. CC discussion subforum could tidy up CC Forum.

5. I do think both a sticky thread and subforum on karma offers are simply overblown solutions.

Call me the old-timer curmudgeon in the corner if you must, but I do have to say that it is my opinion that the spirit and purpose of CC was perverted some time ago.

'Back in the day' I would go into CC and offer up upgrades, Premier Associate status, stuff like that, that I couldn't use. Offered them as in: 'can anyone use these?'

But some time ago, 'sharing the wealth' became 'barter town.' Trades of like-valued instruments became the norm. Folk like me stopped going to CC and instead now share expiring certificates and free status bumps and so forth off-FT.

It doesn't surprise me at all that the CC further evolved into a wink-wink open marketplace of buying and selling upgrades, miles, gift cards, whatever. That's what unregulated markets do: gravitate toward maximum profit as folks compete for the best 'deal' and to 'make the most.'

I knew CC had gone haywire when a good friend of mine said she didn't mind not requalifying for 1k this year because 'I can always just go on CC and buy SWUs.'

So the fundamental question to me is what CC is meant to be.

If it is to return to its original purpose, building a sense of community and generosity among FTers then trades, much less buying and selling, have to be disallowed completely. But it may be too late for that. And the community too large.

If it is going to be a marketplace then it will require strict regulation and heavy-handed control. Many of the 'trades' and 'buying and selling' that go on on CC are blatant or wink-wink violations of the various programs' T&Cs. That's simply not right and can't be allowed. Some of the suggestions about post count, feedback and disallowing pure cash/gift card transactions would have to be implemented and strictly enforced.

The way I would lean, however, is that the quaint original purpose of CC is anachronistic at this point in the evolution of FT, and that the time and trouble involved in making CC a well-regulated marketplace is well beyond a reasonable time investment to expect from unpaid moderators...especially as others make a 'profit' from the marketplace they regulate. My thinking is that the time for CC on FT may well have passed.

There is always eBay and craigslist for those who want/need to barter/buy/sell miles, points and certificates. @:-)

IME, it is considerably more than "many" of the posts that violate program T&Cs. Just about any "trade" that wants something in return, even like-kind items is, at the very least, a technical violation. This has always been tacitly overlooked in the basic fabric of CC. As this was allowed, I'd guess that this emboldened the "professionals" to try and push the envelope to see what they could get away with in deals, like the folks on eBay who would auction an empty while envelope and then throw in some form of SWU "for free."

It doesn't bother me, but we shouldn't ignore this aspect if we're talking about the ethics of CC. We can choose to allow trades despite this, of course, but we should know we're doing it. If we really want to follow the rules strictly, only the giveaway, karma deals would be allowed.

Cheers.

I won't re-hash most of the arguments made above, there has been plenty said on both sides of the issue. I personally agree that GCs aren't the heart of the problem, but I will respect any action Randy takes to try to get CC cleaned up.

My one comment is that I feel forbidding "h: aa miles w: ?" type posts would be steering CC to be more commercial than less. Right now if I have a few spare upgrades that will expire, I might offer them up, hoping to get something in return. Unless I happen to be planning a trip, I might not have specific things in mind. As someone who mainly stays with certain chains and flys one airline, I am always interested in trying new things out. I myself am always provide some framework (e.g. w: a nice hotel somewhere in san diego), but to leave it open-ended allows people to offer any options they might have available. I might even say h: xxxx w: A flight to a warm beach this weekend. If I'm really not picky, why should a moderator have to come decide if I have been specific enough to meet a few people's rigid requirements?

It might annoy some people to not know what to offer, but asking for ? seems much closer to the old way than requiring people to say exactly what they want in exchange. That to me sounds much more like eBay than asking for interesting offers.

I look forward to see the changes and thanks everyone for working together to try and make it better.