So how do you decide who is contributing and who is not, and what level of contribution is required?

I checked an unfamiliar screen name this morning with hundreds of posts that asked about Coupon Connection, and just this year he has posted once in a travel forum, once in SPAM, and 29 times in Coupon Connection. Would you consider him a contributing member of FT? Do we have a lot of members that consider Coupon Connection their "home" forum (meaning the majority of their posts are in that forum and not in the travel forums)?

That would be up to the person posting or replying to the offer/giveaway/request. I am not advocating that there be contribution requirements to visit or participate in CC... I was merely explaining my opinion that ignoring contributions elsewhere on FT is part of why CC has become the way it is.

If I have something to give away and (let's say) two people reply... both have equally compelling stories but one has a few hundred meaningful, contributory posts to FT and the other does not. In that situation, I would likely choose the contributor rather than the lurker, barring other extenuating circumstances. Similarly, if I see a request thread and I happen to have the item that the requester is seeking, I will consider his/her posting history (and hence contribution history) before replying.

There is no one standard... deciding who contributes and how to weigh that contribution is up to the individual. However, given what I believe to be Randy's original intent behind enacting CC, I think that ignoring or devaluing FT contributions outside of CC is, IMHO, also ignoring/devaluing that intent.

Again, my point is not that only contributors (prolific or otherwise) should be able to visit or participate in CC, but that one cannot decouple FT contributions from CC "reputation," especially when deciding whether to gift something to someone (by offer or by request). If people treat CC posters as if their non-CC FT contributions don't matter, then IMHO CC may as well not be part of FT at all.

I can't answer that question, but I would say that such a member could perhaps be suspect in his/her intentions. Again, there's no one clear standard; that judgment call is up to the individual.

While I don't know if this is possible, but perhaps one option would be the following. Randy sets a minimum level of posts necessary to access CC initially (say 200 for ease of example). A separate "posting score" is kept for CC at this point which compares their overall posts outside of CC (and Omni?). Everytime a new post is made to a travel related forun (M&P, T&D) then one "post" is added to the CC count. For every post INSIDE CC, the tally decreases by (for example) 10 (or higher). If the initial threshold number is 200, let's then say that if the CC count ever falls below 100 you lose access until it's back to 100 (so 10 CC posts with nothing outside). In this way the user can start using CC, but they can only continue to use it if they maintain a history on the rest of the site. Active folks have nothing to worry about. Active traders on the other hand!!! This would also serve to lower the amount of comments on trades

I see this as a result of the original problem

I'm glad you can speak for me.. that I don't have any interest in trades.. I do.. I just don't post when I make a deal.. I don't post.. deal done please lock this thread if I started the thread nor do I post.. when I've made a deal when I respond to another poster

I take my discussions offline when i have an interest; additionally I don't post YGM when I take it offline.. a bit off topic but I never understood why people do this.. it only creates more competition for the object by bumping it to the top

thats your two cents.. I dont have that opinion.. H: karma is pretty much one of my two biggest CC pet peeves

to argue that its not a unique animal is putting blinders on.. in what other forum do you blatantly (as a community) flaunt program rules, t&c's as you do in CC.. NONE.. and what other forum sanctions this same abuse.. NONE


I actually agree.. it does not really need to exist on FT.. there are other sources/websites for the transactions that are procured on FTCC.. ebay, craigslist and even the new flyertrade are legit options.. I will participate if it continues on FT (and it sounds like it will) but I wouldn't shed a tear if RP decided against ever putting CC back up live.

Im fine with that as well.. its just semantics at this point


the mods are supposed to be running some sort of script that Identifies this stuff.. I know some have been banned according to their banned or masked list

However there is nothing to stop people from never posting on FT at least when responding to others offers by just using a PM and never posting on CC.. no one would be the wiser.

See my post above.. a member could avoid the CC:total post ratio increase by just PM'ing rather than posting.. if one only posts when he/she wants something that isn't being shown rather than posting YGM to all his/her responses.. that person would be less likely to be flagged as a CC abuser.

In addition those who post on other threads could easily keep their ratio high enough to do as they wish.. I don't think this would do anything but create more headaches for the mods. Its not that difficult to make useful looking posts in threads that count toward your overall post count

While not a bad idea, unfortunately I think such a system would encourage posting runs and lead to a significant increase in the number of low-content or content-free posts, which would either degrade the quality of browsing on FT or would make life very difficult for all the mods.

If there were some measure of post quality rather than quantity, such a system might be useful, but there's no good way to automate that. One could implement a "reputation score," much like on other forums, but that is subjective and ripe for abuse.

Really, I think we're horribly overthinking all of this. IMHO it would be entirely sufficient to simply forbid 3rd-party commentary within trades (except for constructive information and/or clarification questions), to restrict any and all discussion to either dedicated discussion threads or a discussion sub-forum, to potentially (though this is not required) restrict or disallow GCs for trades, and (most importantly) to remember that CC is a part of FT and should be treated as such rather than as some sort of special-interest bazaar. Such changes require little or no modification to the infrastructure, only to the CC guidelines, and are therefore trivial to implement and fairly easy to enforce.

All the more reason to disallow trades entirely and only permit gifting... then, no rules are violated. That is, of course, a relatively radical solution. Nevertheless, you kind of missed my point as to it being unique. I agree, you can do things in CC you can't do in other forums on FT... but every forum has its rules and its subjects. In the UA forum, I can only discuss things that are UA related. In S.P.A.M., I can discuss or post coupon deals completely unrelated to miles, or even travel in general. And so on... every forum allows certain things and disallows other things. I should also note that pretty much every forum includes plenty of discussion about exactly how to flaunt program T&Cs, including instructions for doing it.

The only reason that people don't gift or trade instruments in the program forums is because that's disallowed. Looking at it another way: do you really think things would be any different if CC were disbanded and trades were allowed to occur within the program forums? I personally don't think so. The only reason that people treat CC as "unique" is because it happens to be a separate forum in order to allow the other forums to be about discussion rather than trading instruments, and because it makes it more convenient (so that one doesn't have to cross-post trades in multiple forums and/or check multiple forums looking for trades). The only way CC is "unique" is that it consolidates trades from every program into one forum, so as not to clutter the program forums and allow the discussions there to proceed unimpeded.

Yes, you can do things in CC you can't do in other forums, but the same is true of every forum on FT, because every forum has its own guidelines of what's allowed within. Ignoring the fact that CC is a part of FT, and that interactions within should therefore be entered into with exactly that mindset, is itself "putting blinders on."

Ah, of course.

Everyone should know to look at the Technical Issues forum to keep up-to-date on Randy's decisions, instead of the ORP forum.

I hope the CC comes back. I have used it in the past and not just for trading, but giving out stuff I did not need.
If your looking at a score system, some forum sites have a trade review page for each user that shows + % and - % trades, like ebay...

I also hope CC returns. Granted its not perfect but with all the feedback we can get it going in the right direction again. I know i have used it to get travel related instruments that i needed and at times give a few things i did not need. Its a great place to find people who can help in different ways to make travel easier and more comfortable, the idea i thought Cc was created with. I am looking forward for the RETURN of CC.

I'm curious what "problem" you think GCs are a part of. I never see threads whining about GCs. They are just all conveniently blamed whenever any debate comes up, usually by you. Most of the issues I have seen lately in CC have been unreasonably lowball offers (not at all related to GCs), and general rudeness in posts. Most of the rudeness focuses on people complaining about 1. h: karma threads (I am not a fan myself, but keep it civil), 2. Lowball offers, and 3. people not posting their exact trade requirements.

Saying that anyone not against GCs must be a GC trader is not a very good way of proving your point. You haven't given any reasons to back up your claim.

Again, they nastiness is not centered on GC trades, nor is the commercialization of CC. I saw several recent threads talking about one specific trader who uses CC to find business tickets, and then if his clients cancel he bailed on the trade. To me that is blatant abuse of CC for commercial gain.


As I mentioned before, I think this is one of the biggest values of CC in our community. The ability of others to come up with creative solutions. To require people to say h:x w: y in rigid terms makes this no different than eBay with fixed prices. I agree "auctions" asking for best offer are offensive, but to require people to ask for an exact item prevents people from offering what they might have available to solve someone's need. For example, if I need a hotel somewhere, why should I have to say I need HH? Why can't I say I need a hotel in xxx, and as long as I specify any requirements let people offer what they have available? And if you do not feel like helping out a fellow FTer find an acceptable hotel/flight/etc, you can skip over the thread altogether and move on to one with set "prices".

Agreed on all accounts. I think h: karma threads have become a allowed form of begging on CC. If the person that has Karma actually had Karma, they would probably know someone to PM to request the favour they need. I also agree that CC was not shut down because of GCs, but because so many people were complaining about things like h: Karma threads, lowball offers, and other uncivil behaviour.

An interesting theory. Any reasoning to support it? When was the last uncivilized discussion about GCs? I have never seen one. Just lots of unrelated uncivil threads that some people invariably reply to blaming GCs. The uncivilized posts I have seen in those threads tend to come from people against the use of GCs.


I would not be heartbroken if GCs were removed, but I am also sure it will not fix what many seem to feel are the current problems with CC. If it's done only because RP doesn't want GCs traded, then that is his choice.

Also, to say they are cash is not really fair, and it will need to have some clear lines drawn. For instance, if I trade for some PC points, am I allowed to have my TP redeem them for a GC? What if the TP already has a GC they got from a similar redemption? Do they need proof of the origin of the GC? What about vouchers? Are they also close enough to cash? If I have leftover GCs that are about to expire, should I really not have an avenue to give or trade them here just because a few people think they are too much like cash?

How about earlier in this thread? Like around post 39?

That is a ridiculous statement for many reasons, most importantly because FT is a huge community; just because one might contribute a lot does not mean one knows many FTers personally, much less that those FTers the person does know personally can fulfill the request... not to mention that the PM system limitations on recipients makes it difficult to message many people. PMs are also more "intrusive" than threads. On the other hand, a thread allows people who might "know" the requester by reputation (via reading the requester's posts, or some other way) to consider the request, should they choose to do so. Additionally, threads are not "intrusive" and are easily passed over, should one not desire to read them.

Speaking from my personal experience, at least half of my requests over the years were fulfilled by people with whom I had never previously interacted directly... they all seemed quite happy to help (for which I was most grateful) despite not "knowing" me personally.

There is a significant difference between "begging" and "asking for a favor" ... the first implies that nothing is ever given in return, while the latter suggests some form of tit-for-tat (whether by gifting something in the future, contributing information, or whatever). Referring to these requests as "begging" IMHO, again, epitomizes the commercialization of CC as it focuses primarily (if not purely) on the monetary value of CC items and dismisses the contributions elsewhere on FT as having no "real" value.

bold my emphasis

i'll concentrate on the two bolded statements here

hence where I think some call it discussion and RP may say here is where the uncivility sets in

anyway.. I would agree that PM is not a reasonable option IF you have karma and IMHO.. most requesting it on CC do not based on my non statistically valid sample of users requesting it.. however.. I don't think that most of us know who has what to offer.. so there would have to be another means.. oh yeah.. the beggar board.. or more PC.. the freebie sub-forum or as proposed before.. main forum.. again for me it doesn't really matter which is first and which is the sub-forum

next bold.. I take it this perspective comes from someone who consistently asks for (as identified in your latest CC thread requesting free 3P (thread started 7/9/09) - that we can't call up right now - that identified all the requests - 7 IIRC - for gratis items and I'll be fair saying you gave 3P once -.. yet seem to be parlaying that into a whole lot of Karma).. of course you are the same one arguing that other contributions should count (wiki IIRC)... so there is a self enhancing reason for your POV. This is all the more reason to have the beggars forum.. one can easily identify whos always asking for freebies then its easy to determine if you have a free item whether you want to give it to them. Sure you can still do this but it would be a lot less labor intensive with the separate forum

So, to summarize:

cepheid: People who ask for karma are good, others who complain are evil. GCs may or may not be evil.

TH: People who ask for karma are evil. GCs are evil.

The vast majority of everyone else?: Stop the bickering (both in this thread and by not allowing 3rd party comments except in special circumstances), try to eliminate professional CCers who don't contribute to FT, and leave GCs.

It's funny to see how many opinions are drowned out by just a few loud opinions.

Good luck trying to police the "except in special circumstances"

loud opinions, I think those are on every forum, according to one poster on here, CC is no different than any other forum and if he is right, then why should loud posters be any different

Oh, I wasn't complaining about it - just a reality check of what the vast majority of people here seem to have said.

For the record, the special circumstances thing is derived largely from a point you agree with: that noobs and others may actually need a little nudge to show that 75k DL does not equal 100k Amex or something of the sort. Many people here think that isn't necessary, but I think a lot agree that that kind of comment is fair - as you point out, implementation is a different story.