I wound up at LGA a few weeks back a little too late to catch my connection to ORD. Actually, my UX arrival to LGA was early enough, but they refused to let anybody off until they had the planeside-checked bags available at the bottom of the stairs .
Anyway, there were no UAL people in sight, either at the gates or at the counters out front. I finally learned that there was an agent in the office by baggage claim, and went down there searching for her.
I identified myself as a 1K and asked for a hotel voucher. She said that she thought she couldn't do that for a weather delay, but she started to make some calls.
I discreetly went to my bag to retrieve a "going the extra mile" certificate. I didn't think she could see what I was doing as I was filling out her name and the circumstances. I filled it out and slid it into my shirt pocket.
She seemed to show a little more enthusiasm for setting me up at a hotel, and when she handed me the voucher, I pulled my cert out of my pocket. It was clear to me from her response (and lack of surprise) that she knew what it was and that it may have played a role in her actions. ^
Although I never look a gift horse in the mouth, and it was acceptable for my low standards , the Clarion across the street was a real dump.

So did you write the GTEM as a bribe, or what? It doesn't seem like she was really going the extra mile at any point in this experience, since that's a standard amenity...

I'm not sure this is actually a "standard amenity." The rules state that a hotel may be provided to a 1K because of weather delays, but that doesn't necessarily mean a 1K is guaranteed a hotel due to a weather delay. I believe it is still a local station decision.

the rules have a "yes"

They are posted in the faq

Above that "yes" it says "SUMMARY CHART OF AMENITIES THAT MAY BE PROVIDED DUE TO UA/UAX CONTROLLABLE DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/WEATHER/ FAA LIMITATIONS." It does not say "chart of amenities that are provided," which leads me to believe the decision is still up to the individual agent/station, especially since this is not a published benefit.

Yeah, I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

What cirumstances would you dictate no hotel be provided even though it is allowed?

If the passenger is not detained overnight?

From a popular (non-United) web site for United FAs:

United will discontinue offering customers meal vouchers in the event of a delay or cancellation except in the case of overnight accommodation (or a "flight of note," which is handled separately by the ProTeam). This change is effective June 16.

If there is a controllable delay or cancellation (i.e. United's fault), and the customer must be accommodated in a hotel to resume his/her travel the next day, customer service representatives (CSRs) may issue one $15 meal voucher per affected customer. CSRs are not authorized to provide meal vouchers under any other circumstances. This $15 voucher is a gesture of goodwill meant to defray the cost of a meal, not offset it.

Please understand that if you offer meal vouchers to customers outside of this policy, the CSRs will be unable to fulfill them.

We are making this change as we continue work to strike the right balance between providing meaningful goodwill to our customers in the event of a trip interruption and ensuring our expenses are appropriately targeted in this difficult business environment, we have an opportunity to be more consistent by providing accommodation where it is most impactful.

We will still comply with specific government regulations that differ from this new policy (e.g., European Union law.). And where minimum Star Alliance requirements differ from United�s policy, upon request, we will provide the eligible Star Alliance customer with the accommodation.

Very smart by UA!^ Removing benefits which are non-essential and can lower their costs, even if it's a delay totally within their control, makes perfect sense! Kudos!^

Did you drink the UAL water?

While I've never asked for or received a meal voucher (I expense my meals so don't really care about trying to find a place to take them) I don't think I'd be as enthusiastic as lucky about this nor give it a ^ but I suppose it sucks less than other cuts/fees/changes they could make to reduce costs.

(emphasis added)

IMO *A required accommodations should be provided without request.

OK, I thought it went without saying I was kidding (and I'm not a UA apologist, cowboy), but I guess I didn't make it clear enough.

Another poor example of UA making cuts in the wrong places, being penny wise and dollar foolish.

Speaking of this

what are the relevant "minimum Star Alliance requirements", and when and for whom do those minimum Star Alliance requirements come into play? Is this compliance with "minimum Star Alliance requirements" "upon request" of the customer or upon the request of someone else?

Given UA is only going to comply upon request, it's important to know this.

I do believe a is in order