Voting Ended / Motion Passed: Creation of a Smoking Section
Jul 6, 2015, 7:34 pm
#316
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,927
It would be ridiculous, for example, in the New York City/Hotels thread to attempt to list all the hotels in NYC which do not allow it. However, a large grouping can be mentioned (unless it does not allow smoking anywhere in the world). It would be fine to say that in Manhattan of the 20+ HHonors hotels only two allow it and then identify them.
In the Las Vegas/Casinos thread the default position would be that smoking is allowed. Again, there is no reason to list all of them but if you run across a casino which does not permit it, it would be helpful to identify it.
Jul 6, 2015, 8:17 pm
#317
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: san francisco
Programs: No airline status whatsoever, Chase URs, HHonors Diamond, IHG Platinum
Posts: 567
I think we should have one. Smoking while travelling and not annoying others is a major PITA.
I've always thought that the anti-smokers were irrational and this proves it. If you're against smoking, why would you "oppose" a forum for smokers? That's just petty and small minded. It's OK to hate us, but nobody is forcing you to get on a smokers' forum.
I've always thought that the anti-smokers were irrational and this proves it. If you're against smoking, why would you "oppose" a forum for smokers? That's just petty and small minded. It's OK to hate us, but nobody is forcing you to get on a smokers' forum.
Jul 6, 2015, 8:21 pm
#318
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: san francisco
Programs: No airline status whatsoever, Chase URs, HHonors Diamond, IHG Platinum
Posts: 567
I would oppose for the simple reason that the Talkboard is going against it long espoused expectations of showing demand elsewhere on Flyertalk.
There have been few threads on this subject over the years; and I do not hold that people are not posting because of perceived biases.
I believe that the current structure can hold current demand until there is sufficient demand to support a unique forum.
I also find the title not adequately descriptive..... why not cover all the choices in the title?
There have been few threads on this subject over the years; and I do not hold that people are not posting because of perceived biases.
I believe that the current structure can hold current demand until there is sufficient demand to support a unique forum.
I also find the title not adequately descriptive..... why not cover all the choices in the title?
Jul 6, 2015, 8:21 pm
#319
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,409
Here's one more: We should not waste space by listing all the hotels, restaurants, casinos, etc, which have the local default position (meaning that almost all in a particular city allow smoking or almost all do not).
It would be ridiculous, for example, in the New York City/Hotels thread to attempt to list all the hotels in NYC which do not allow it. However, a large grouping can be mentioned (unless it does not allow smoking anywhere in the world). It would be fine to say that in Manhattan of the 20+ HHonors hotels only two allow it and then identify them.
In the Las Vegas/Casinos thread the default position would be that smoking is allowed. Again, there is no reason to list all of them but if you run across a casino which does not permit it, it would be helpful to identify it.
It would be ridiculous, for example, in the New York City/Hotels thread to attempt to list all the hotels in NYC which do not allow it. However, a large grouping can be mentioned (unless it does not allow smoking anywhere in the world). It would be fine to say that in Manhattan of the 20+ HHonors hotels only two allow it and then identify them.
In the Las Vegas/Casinos thread the default position would be that smoking is allowed. Again, there is no reason to list all of them but if you run across a casino which does not permit it, it would be helpful to identify it.
Another variation is nonsmoking hotels that permit smoking on balconies immediately outside of rooms so that smokers don't need to go downstairs and outdoors through the main hotel entrance/exit to find a place outdoors where they're allowed to smoke.
Jul 6, 2015, 8:24 pm
#320
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: san francisco
Programs: No airline status whatsoever, Chase URs, HHonors Diamond, IHG Platinum
Posts: 567
The forum will be a source of information for smokers. All the posts will stay in the Smokers' Forum. It will allow us to chose a hotel that offers smoking rooms, for instance. It will allow us to book a connecting flight through an airport which has smoking lounges.
Jul 6, 2015, 11:15 pm
#321
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,927
It could be useful to have information on whether the nonsmoking rules are strictly enforced or not.
Another variation is nonsmoking hotels that permit smoking on balconies immediately outside of rooms so that smokers don't need to go downstairs and outdoors through the main hotel entrance/exit to find a place outdoors where they're allowed to smoke.
Another variation is nonsmoking hotels that permit smoking on balconies immediately outside of rooms so that smokers don't need to go downstairs and outdoors through the main hotel entrance/exit to find a place outdoors where they're allowed to smoke.
For example, let's say we have one of each in the Orlando/Hotels thread. I could well see posts in that thread such as:
The Happy Mouse Hotel does not have smoking rooms, but it does offer rooms where you have your own balcony and you can walk onto it and light up whenever you want.
The Sneaky Duck Hotel, officially, does not allow smoking anywhere -- but when I checked in last week I was told that they don't enforce the rule and as long as you restrict your smoking to your own room, and not in the hallways, there will be no problem.
Jul 6, 2015, 11:22 pm
#322
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC, AA, UA, BA, Hilton
Posts: 2,907
Firstly, thanks to all who brought this topic to the point of a vote, and finally passed the hurdle of getting it on its way.
Question/suggestion: Has it been decided where the smoking forum will be placed, ie., in what section of FT where most on the website will be able to readily see it and either peruse the forum if they choose to or not, or hopefully add to the information? Hopefully in an otherwise active location where it will be noticed, or at least in the Special Interests section (for those specially interested in finding locations, etc. of course, where lighting up isn't an offense), but please don't hide it in some little used or visited location on FT which would otherwise defeat it's intended purpose or lose visitors to an unnoticed new forum.
Thanks,
bj-21.
Question/suggestion: Has it been decided where the smoking forum will be placed, ie., in what section of FT where most on the website will be able to readily see it and either peruse the forum if they choose to or not, or hopefully add to the information? Hopefully in an otherwise active location where it will be noticed, or at least in the Special Interests section (for those specially interested in finding locations, etc. of course, where lighting up isn't an offense), but please don't hide it in some little used or visited location on FT which would otherwise defeat it's intended purpose or lose visitors to an unnoticed new forum.
Thanks,
bj-21.
Jul 6, 2015, 11:35 pm
#323
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC, AA, UA, BA, Hilton
Posts: 2,907
and I'm definitely NOT running for moderator.HOWEVER, I'll gladly second Dovster's nomination to moderate the new forum, but if not moderate it, to at least try to keep the forum on track with his timely comments and suggestions if he has the time.
bj-21.
Jul 6, 2015, 11:49 pm
#324
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,927
As the owner of that site also pays me about 5 times that much for writing jobs, I would not like to offend him by being a moderator here for free.
Moreover, I come to FT just to enjoy myself, spend time with some friends on the Delta Forum, and drive the OmniLibs up a wall. I wouldn't want a recreational area to turn into a work place -- especially a work place where I would not be paid.
That said, I would be happy to work with the moderators in the initial phases of the Smokers Forum if they ask for my opinion.
Jul 6, 2015, 11:53 pm
#325
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,623
(Emphasis added)
Jul 7, 2015, 9:22 pm
#326
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: IAD/DCA
Posts: 31,797
1. demand doesnt work if its not allowed in a number of forums
2. how do you quantify nonsmoker demand (how to avoid smoking)
3. smokers are not encouraged to post by the anti-smoking replies
agree with Dovster its the 'exceptions to the rule' that are important 'lists'
sounds like good candidate moderators
as always, great things from SanDiego1K !
and when places tightly control smoking, nonsmokers know they do not have to ask about avoiding smoking areas/rooms/etc
some smokers may also be willing to pay "cleaning fees" in order to smoke in hotel rooms
reports on those would be useful, perhaps some dont always charge, or charge less than published
i have seen smoking discussion in various forums, from both smokers and nonsmokers
2. how do you quantify nonsmoker demand (how to avoid smoking)
3. smokers are not encouraged to post by the anti-smoking replies
agree with Dovster its the 'exceptions to the rule' that are important 'lists'
I have had active discussion with the candidate moderators
I will be giving them instructions that the forum is no place for vitriol against smoking.
I honestly don't know where one can legally smoke in the State of California outside ones own home. There might well be those who travel to the state who don't realize how tightly smoking is legislated.
I will be giving them instructions that the forum is no place for vitriol against smoking.
I honestly don't know where one can legally smoke in the State of California outside ones own home. There might well be those who travel to the state who don't realize how tightly smoking is legislated.
as always, great things from SanDiego1K !
and when places tightly control smoking, nonsmokers know they do not have to ask about avoiding smoking areas/rooms/etc
some smokers may also be willing to pay "cleaning fees" in order to smoke in hotel rooms
reports on those would be useful, perhaps some dont always charge, or charge less than published
i have seen smoking discussion in various forums, from both smokers and nonsmokers
Jul 8, 2015, 11:47 am
#327
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,409
For the record, I did express my reservations about the motion twice in the private TB forum, in two detailed posts on June 25 as the motion was being drafted. My conerns were not discussed then. Confidentiality prevents me from quoting the responses I received, but the following exchange from this thread in the public TBT forum conveys somewhat the flavor of the resulting stronger and generally derogatory comments in the private TB forum:
Here is a summary of my concerns about this motion:
Questionnaire information missing: The claim is that there have been few posts about smoking on FT because FT members are aftraid of the reaction such posts would generate from nonsmokers, so we should take activity in this thread and the companion discussion thread in TBT as evidence. However, most people who post actively on FT are required to be somewhat thick-skinned, so I find it a bit hard to accept that smokers have been afraid to post about smoking issues on FT.
Scope of forum: Will nonsmokers be welcome to participate actively (meaning to ask questions, post, and start threads)? Some people assert that the answer is yes, yet the forum description implicitly states no ("for smokers") and would certainly seem to make nonsmokers feel unwelcome in the new forum.
Marijuana: Will smoking (or other use) or marajuana (whether medicinal, legal, or otherwise) be permitted? [This was mentioned, perhaps half jokingly in the discussion in TBT, but not seriously discussed at any point.]
IB legal/policy issues: FT members have made two points about what IB might or might not let us do. While it's IB's decision and TB members do not work for IB or as lawyers, it might have been useful to at least think a bit about the contingencies.
**I think there would have been a concensus for a statement that we prefer that no health warning be attached to the forum, but we would rather have the new forum with a health warning statement at the top than no new smoking forum at all.
**I think the clear consensus is that access to the new forum should not be restricted (for example, to those over age 18), either by a member log in requirement or by the process some winery websites use of asking people to enter their birthdates. Perhaps a statement that if access is to be restricted, we would want to reconsider whether to proceed with the new forum, including discussion of the mechanism for restricting access.
I should also mention that I've been an active participant in both of the TBT threads on this issue, with 14 posts out of 325 in this thread (where some of the data starting from the top is bschobel 38, Dovster 33, SkiAdcock 14, MSPeconomist 14, tcook052 13, nsx 13, CMK10 2, dchristiva 2) and 20 out of 241 posts in the earlier discussion thread (Dovster 30, nsx 27, tcook052 21, MSPeconomist 20, kokonutz 19, Canarsie 12), in addition to the brief discussion in the private TB forum.
To repeat my overall "philosophy" a bit, I think TB is more effective when we discuss details and make clearly specified recommendations. When we suggest that a new forum be created, it should be more than just an idea of the general area that the new forum will cover, a name for the new forum, and a suggestion of where it generally should appear in the FT forum list. We're less useful than we could be when we just dump vague motions onto the CD's (virtual) desk without having thought out the details and it's even worse when (as happened recently) we pass a motion and then add a comment that it shouldn't be implemented immediately or that further study (regarding whether threads can be tagged, for example) needs to be done first.
Yes, apparently nonsmokers will be able to read the Smoking Section forum. [I think it's highly unlikely that FT members will be forced to certify that they smoke to gain access.]
However, will they be permitted to actively post? For example, would I be allowed to start a thread to ask "What hotel chains forbid smoking in all indoor areas worldwide?"
I've been saying all along that a smokers' forum could also be very helpful to nonsmokers who are especially sensitive, etc. to second hand smoke, but no one wants discuss how to clearly define the scope of the new forum beyond the assumption that proselytizing will not be allowed.
My stance is that I strongly want to see a precisely written formal motion before voting proceeds. While I understand that TB's role is advisory only and can always be overruled by the CD or IB (including on legal issues), IMO we're not as useful as we can be when we pass motions that are merely vague ideas and don't consider the details of what we're suggesting. We'd be more effective if we were to work out the details rather than leaving it to the CD to decide if, when, and how to implement our recommendations.
However, will they be permitted to actively post? For example, would I be allowed to start a thread to ask "What hotel chains forbid smoking in all indoor areas worldwide?"
I've been saying all along that a smokers' forum could also be very helpful to nonsmokers who are especially sensitive, etc. to second hand smoke, but no one wants discuss how to clearly define the scope of the new forum beyond the assumption that proselytizing will not be allowed.
My stance is that I strongly want to see a precisely written formal motion before voting proceeds. While I understand that TB's role is advisory only and can always be overruled by the CD or IB (including on legal issues), IMO we're not as useful as we can be when we pass motions that are merely vague ideas and don't consider the details of what we're suggesting. We'd be more effective if we were to work out the details rather than leaving it to the CD to decide if, when, and how to implement our recommendations.
"Discussion of Travel issues for Travelers who Smoke, Chew or Vape" is the proposed subtitle for the forum. To me, this doesn't at all say that nonsmokers/nonchewers/nonvapers will be welcome to post here even though we're travelers. At best, this description leaves the decision of whether my hypothetical "which chains forbid all indoor smoking" would be allowed up to whoever is appointed to moderate the forum. However, a literal reading of the words bolded above (part of the formal motion, taken from the OP in this thread, bold added) would suggest that the intent is that nonsmokers would not be welcome to actively participate in discussions or ask questions, even though we probably cannot be prevented from reading the Smoking Section forum.
You don't just want this, you "strongly want" it! Whew.
We have "a precisely written formal motion" right now, and voting is under way, as everyone here knows. Your job now is to vote on that motion, not lecture us about our drafting abilities -- or lack thereof. We're waiting.
Bruce
We have "a precisely written formal motion" right now, and voting is under way, as everyone here knows. Your job now is to vote on that motion, not lecture us about our drafting abilities -- or lack thereof. We're waiting.
Bruce
And every single hypothetical question need not be answered in advance, contrary to MSP's apparent desire.
This process is not like an execution, where you better get it right the first time! FlyerTalk has lots of opportunities to tweak its forum structure and rules. That's far better than paralysis.
Bruce
This process is not like an execution, where you better get it right the first time! FlyerTalk has lots of opportunities to tweak its forum structure and rules. That's far better than paralysis.
Bruce
Questionnaire information missing: The claim is that there have been few posts about smoking on FT because FT members are aftraid of the reaction such posts would generate from nonsmokers, so we should take activity in this thread and the companion discussion thread in TBT as evidence. However, most people who post actively on FT are required to be somewhat thick-skinned, so I find it a bit hard to accept that smokers have been afraid to post about smoking issues on FT.
Scope of forum: Will nonsmokers be welcome to participate actively (meaning to ask questions, post, and start threads)? Some people assert that the answer is yes, yet the forum description implicitly states no ("for smokers") and would certainly seem to make nonsmokers feel unwelcome in the new forum.
Marijuana: Will smoking (or other use) or marajuana (whether medicinal, legal, or otherwise) be permitted? [This was mentioned, perhaps half jokingly in the discussion in TBT, but not seriously discussed at any point.]
IB legal/policy issues: FT members have made two points about what IB might or might not let us do. While it's IB's decision and TB members do not work for IB or as lawyers, it might have been useful to at least think a bit about the contingencies.
**I think there would have been a concensus for a statement that we prefer that no health warning be attached to the forum, but we would rather have the new forum with a health warning statement at the top than no new smoking forum at all.
**I think the clear consensus is that access to the new forum should not be restricted (for example, to those over age 18), either by a member log in requirement or by the process some winery websites use of asking people to enter their birthdates. Perhaps a statement that if access is to be restricted, we would want to reconsider whether to proceed with the new forum, including discussion of the mechanism for restricting access.
I should also mention that I've been an active participant in both of the TBT threads on this issue, with 14 posts out of 325 in this thread (where some of the data starting from the top is bschobel 38, Dovster 33, SkiAdcock 14, MSPeconomist 14, tcook052 13, nsx 13, CMK10 2, dchristiva 2) and 20 out of 241 posts in the earlier discussion thread (Dovster 30, nsx 27, tcook052 21, MSPeconomist 20, kokonutz 19, Canarsie 12), in addition to the brief discussion in the private TB forum.
To repeat my overall "philosophy" a bit, I think TB is more effective when we discuss details and make clearly specified recommendations. When we suggest that a new forum be created, it should be more than just an idea of the general area that the new forum will cover, a name for the new forum, and a suggestion of where it generally should appear in the FT forum list. We're less useful than we could be when we just dump vague motions onto the CD's (virtual) desk without having thought out the details and it's even worse when (as happened recently) we pass a motion and then add a comment that it shouldn't be implemented immediately or that further study (regarding whether threads can be tagged, for example) needs to be done first.
Jul 8, 2015, 11:57 am
#328
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
...To repeat my overall "philosophy" a bit, I think TB is more effective when we discuss details and make clearly specified recommendations. When we suggest that a new forum be created, it should be more than just an idea of the general area that the new forum will cover, a name for the new forum, and a suggestion of where it generally should appear in the FT forum list. We're less useful than we could be when we just dump vague motions onto the CD's (virtual) desk without having thought out the details and it's even worse when (as happened recently) we pass a motion and then add a comment that it shouldn't be implemented immediately or that further study (regarding whether threads can be tagged, for example) needs to be done first.
Don't delay us any longer. This forum is long-awaited and will be very active. You and you alone are stopping it. If you don't like the motion, then vote no. But don't lecture us any more. I don't want to hear it.
Bruce
Jul 8, 2015, 12:12 pm
#329
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,447
To repeat my overall "philosophy" a bit, I think TB is more effective when we discuss details and make clearly specified recommendations. When we suggest that a new forum be created, it should be more than just an idea of the general area that the new forum will cover, a name for the new forum, and a suggestion of where it generally should appear in the FT forum list. We're less useful than we could be when we just dump vague motions onto the CD's (virtual) desk without having thought out the details and it's even worse when (as happened recently) we pass a motion and then add a comment that it shouldn't be implemented immediately or that further study (regarding whether threads can be tagged, for example) needs to be done first.
Jul 8, 2015, 12:13 pm
#330
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
You should run for TalkBoard. Seriously.
Bruce
Bruce