vetrade
Established Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2011
- Posts
- 1,766
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Yesterday I (inadvertently) posted an enquiry to the “Gold Membership for Sale?” thread which was deemed “commercial” and pulled because it involved an enquiry about possibly swapping FF points for a Gold membership. My fault for assuming I knew what “commercial” meant without first checking how the AFF rules define it !
Having ’fessed-up to my transgression, I still can’t help feeling the rule conflicts with the basic reasons that AFF exists i.e. to assist discourse between individuals who fly regularly, to their mutual benefit. Equally conflicting is the fact that the official material published on the site actually promotes / encourages the type of postings the “commercial posts are banned” rule prohibits. Do as I say, not as I do?
Firstly, the disclaimer:
I agree that posts promoting commercial business transactions should only be allowed as bona fide paid advertising. This provides an appropriate return for the site’s sponsors.
But how did one-off private arrangements become commerce? I’d like to point out the following for the information and consideration of members and moderators alike.
1. The latest AFF Newsletter carried a lead article under the heading “Cheap Qantas Gold Membership” highlighting excerpts from the “Gold membership For Sale?” thread. Surely the effect, if not the explicit intention, of this article was to draw attention to ways people could take advantage of the ability of WP1s to nominate a family member or friend for Gold membership.
By extension, the article was an obvious invitation to people, like me, who wanted Gold, to make their interest known to eligible WP1s through the forum. The offer of points (to match, or exceed, the number available to the WP1 from QFF to forfeit the benefit) was merely fair compensation and an obvious and appropriate recognition of the appreciation of the recipient.
Fbrimfield’s post to the thread encapsulates my thoughts…………“Surely a more fair arrangement would be to offer it to someone in exchange for a 50,000 family transfer. That way someone who is probably deserving (but can't quite make Gold) will get status for a year, and you still get 50,000 points like you would from QF anyway.” I’m surprised his post wasn’t pulled for “incitement”….LOL
2. Isn’t it stretching credibility to equate a personal arrangement between two individuals to exchange a Gold nomination for its fair value, with a commercial enterprise? In practice it’s innocuous and no different to, say, a classic car forum facilitating members to trade spare parts. To prevent it being abused, or attracting unwanted scrutiny, negotiations could be conducted in private via PMs, as my pulled post proposed.
I think it would be great if some way could be found to facilitate win/win arrangements between members rather than throwing them out with the commercial bathwater.
Having ’fessed-up to my transgression, I still can’t help feeling the rule conflicts with the basic reasons that AFF exists i.e. to assist discourse between individuals who fly regularly, to their mutual benefit. Equally conflicting is the fact that the official material published on the site actually promotes / encourages the type of postings the “commercial posts are banned” rule prohibits. Do as I say, not as I do?
Firstly, the disclaimer:
I agree that posts promoting commercial business transactions should only be allowed as bona fide paid advertising. This provides an appropriate return for the site’s sponsors.
But how did one-off private arrangements become commerce? I’d like to point out the following for the information and consideration of members and moderators alike.
1. The latest AFF Newsletter carried a lead article under the heading “Cheap Qantas Gold Membership” highlighting excerpts from the “Gold membership For Sale?” thread. Surely the effect, if not the explicit intention, of this article was to draw attention to ways people could take advantage of the ability of WP1s to nominate a family member or friend for Gold membership.
By extension, the article was an obvious invitation to people, like me, who wanted Gold, to make their interest known to eligible WP1s through the forum. The offer of points (to match, or exceed, the number available to the WP1 from QFF to forfeit the benefit) was merely fair compensation and an obvious and appropriate recognition of the appreciation of the recipient.
Fbrimfield’s post to the thread encapsulates my thoughts…………“Surely a more fair arrangement would be to offer it to someone in exchange for a 50,000 family transfer. That way someone who is probably deserving (but can't quite make Gold) will get status for a year, and you still get 50,000 points like you would from QF anyway.” I’m surprised his post wasn’t pulled for “incitement”….LOL
2. Isn’t it stretching credibility to equate a personal arrangement between two individuals to exchange a Gold nomination for its fair value, with a commercial enterprise? In practice it’s innocuous and no different to, say, a classic car forum facilitating members to trade spare parts. To prevent it being abused, or attracting unwanted scrutiny, negotiations could be conducted in private via PMs, as my pulled post proposed.
I think it would be great if some way could be found to facilitate win/win arrangements between members rather than throwing them out with the commercial bathwater.
