# Starwood Shill discovered on TUG



## DeniseM (Aug 17, 2009)

In case you missed it - start reading on post #273 in this thread:
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24046&page=11


----------



## J&JFamily (Aug 17, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> In case you missed it - start reading on post #273 in this thread:
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24046&page=11



Well, it looks like Philliphan is not only a Starwood employee, but he or she is also a liar.  Reading through the old posts he/she denies being a starwood employee....     And then they wonder why we are so suspicious.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 18, 2009)

I still have respect for SPG and the hotel side of Starwood. On the other hand, I have no respect for SVO - their actions, as a company, detract from an otherwise excellent product. 

I will never purchase a developer week from SVO, and I will continue to persuade others to do the same. 

It is because of this that I doubt I will ever sit through another "owner's update".


----------



## Politico (Aug 18, 2009)

*Sales rep?*

Denise,

Can you tell if Philyphan is a sales rep.? If so, anyone working with her is probably entitled to know that their personal information is not safe.  My guess in reading her posts, though, is that she is somewhere in a business department.


----------



## jarta (Aug 18, 2009)

Ken555,   ...   Starwood's "actions, as a company, detract from an otherwise excellent product."

It sure looks like DeniseM has busted a Starwood employee posting as a TUG guest from her company IP address on TUG.

But why is this necessarily a Starwood-sponsored action?  Or, were you speaking about other clearly corporate actions, like rules or reservation screw ups and shifting around rules to close "loopholes?"

All other persons linked in to TUG (14 of them; all guests) from what sure looks like a Starwood company internet address are mere lurkers.  Philyphan is the only one who has ever posted (9 times).

Philyphan looks like a loyal, but dumb, Starwood employee posting (mostly) during working hours.  I doubt Starwood sent Philyphan here to post disinformation and I bet Starwood doesn't take kindly to the posting here on company time from a company computer.  Most of the posts are that overall Starwood is not that bad (a view shared here by a few) and that the information posted here about how to use "loopholes" in Starwood's system irks Starwood no end (I'm sure that's true and to which I say "too bad, so sad").

As for the 14 others who are lurkers, maybe some are happy, loyal Starwood employees like Philyphan and maybe others are disgruntled employees who tune in to hear things said they'd like to say in public.  And, yes, maybe some are assigned by Starwood to lurk.

Kudos to DeniseM for good detective work.  But, lets not get paranoid about Starwood employees lurking under our beds.  TUG suspected it for a long time.      ...   eom


----------



## tomandrobin (Aug 18, 2009)

We have DVC/Disney employees lurking on the MouseOwners and Disboards sites....Its not just Starwood specific. 

Personally, it does not bother me if they lurk or post. I would prefer they would just post and come clean, like the Starwood Lurker on Flyer Talk. 

It would be refreshing to have dialogue instead of us trying to "guess" everything on our own.


----------



## Politico (Aug 18, 2009)

tomandrobin said:


> We have DVC/Disney employees lurking on the MouseOwners and Disboards sites....Its not just Starwood specific.
> 
> Personally, it does not bother me if they lurk or post. I would prefer they would just post and come clean, like the Starwood Lurker on Flyer Talk.
> 
> It would be refreshing to have dialogue instead of us trying to "guess" everything on our own.



totally agree.


----------



## jarta (Aug 18, 2009)

tomandrobin,   ...   I said kudos are due to DeniseM for good detective work.  However, gleefully referring to what probably is a dumb employee who posts on TUG as a Starwood "shill" based upon 9 posts and devoting an entire new thread to Starwood's "shilling" is not the way to open communication or improve relations.

But, I doubt Starwood cares to communicate with such consistently negative critics as we have here on TUG.  Starwood would prefer to run its timeshare business without TUG interference and, of course, with an eye on the Starwood bottom line.  I like the service I have received as a Starwood owner with all weeks (5 and soon to be 6; with 345,000 Staroptions having been retroed by spending about $42K on new developer weeks) being in the SVN network.

I think a lot of the animosity between Starwood and TUG is that on TUG it is generally advocated that being in the SVN is a waste of money and that it is better to pick up resale weeks cheaply at voluntary resorts and use those weeks to trade into Starwood (or better) resorts using the Starwood 3 day II preference than always buying directly from Starwood (good advice) or by retroing a week into the SVN (maybe good advice; maybe bad.  It depends on what your goals are!).  

Starwood rewards members of the SVN by giving them privileges.  Those who trade in through II using voluntary resales have no SVN privileges.  At times I feel those people are jealous of those privileges and, therefore, pooh-pooh them by saying they have no real value because they cost too much money.  And, they do cost money - although retroing somewhat diminishes the overall cost.

I have always pointed out that being in TUG saved me a lot of money getting to Starwood Five Star Elite but also said: "to each his own" - and I have been criticized for TUG heresy for saying that.  I have even been accused of being a Starwood employee - which I definitely am not.  I have no connections to Starwood other than I like their timeshare resorts, I own nothing but Starwood resorts, I like the flexibility and ease of being in SVN and I like the Five Star Elite benefits - which work for me but wouldn't work for everyone.

tomandrobin, I think there is just too great a gulf to build a bridge.  And, I think that, even if it's inevitable, it's a little sad.   ...   eom


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 18, 2009)

TUG is such a small number of owners, I don't see how TUG members can hurt the sales department.  I don't understand the need for a Starwood employee to come here at all.  

Perhaps this salesperson tried to sell something to a TUG member who was trying to follow Kath's path to 5 Star.  How likely is it that this person would get more than one of these TUG members?  Not likely.  

If there is a path to 5 star, then TUG members and lurkers who want to follow Kath's plan don't need to say that is their goal.  So why not get everything in order, then go to the sales department and let them discover what your options are.  They will figure it out, especially in this economy.  

We had a salesperson at Wyndham that counted up all of our Hawaii weeks and offered us Platinum (very substantial membership in Wyndham) for a small cost.  

When we went to Westin Princeville, the lady at the concierge desk was trying to get us on a presentation.  When she found out we had two SBP 2 bedroom units, she was very excited for us.   She said we would get a very high status in Starwood with what we already owned, and it would be worthwhile to see the presentation.  We declined.


----------



## Weez (Aug 18, 2009)

Jarta,

While i agree with some of what you state, the fact that a Starwood employee would use his/her insider ability to look up an owners information is such an egregious offense I would have done the exact same thing Denise did. In fact, I REALLY hope she is pursuing this with Starwood and contacting the appropriate people. I would not stop until he/she is dismissed. 

Weez


----------



## Captron (Aug 18, 2009)

here here!!!

Anyone accessing client information without a legitimate reason in my company would be dismissed and escorted off property by HR and security immediately! It has happened recently with an employee accessing information of a public figure. That does not even include posting said information in a public forum!!!

It is too bad some people feel compelled to try to defend reprehensible actions instead of start with, at least, an apology.     :annoyed:

(btw get the spelling of my name correct when you look my information up!!! - How many others here have you done this for???)


----------



## dss (Aug 18, 2009)

This person is personification of why SVN should have assigned a "Starwood Lurker" to SVN. There are significantly more challenges on a daily basis at Flyertalk then at TUG given the amount of hotels and guests coming and going every day at SPG, but having a customer advocate, who is friendly and willing to engage SPG's best customers buys them a TON of goodwill and slack. Even when people have a complaint, they know someone is going to listen and take action (if required) so their tone is more conversational where as here, we unfortunately are left to vent to ourselves since SVN has turned a deaf ear to their most educated and active customer base. 

phillyphan just posted a follow up comment on the original thread where he/she is continuing to rail against "bad information" instead of owning up to the major privacy issue. In reading back postings, the maturity level of his/her postings is roughly middle school caliber so I get the impression this person is a bit buzzed on the kool-aid and no amount of reasonable discourse is going to change that. I sincerely hope SDKath decides to take this breach as seriously as SVN should and make it clear to upper management that they need to remedy both the immediate leak (ie phillyphan) and use this as a turning point to chart a new course of positive engagement with their customer base. I can live with the fact that the information we receive is not always what we might want to hear, but treat us like adults and we might find more common ground than you would anticipate.


----------



## esk444 (Aug 18, 2009)

Captron said:


> here here!!!
> 
> Anyone accessing client information without a legitimate reason in my company would be dismissed and escorted off property by HR and security immediately! It has happened recently with an employee accessing information of a public figure. That does not even include posting said information in a public forum!!!



Posting account information of an owner in a public forum is probably a violation of Starwood's privacy policy.  If so, Philyphan may have violated the California Online Privacy Protection Act.

I'm also guessing it is not difficult to find out all employee user id's that have accessed this account in question and to figure out the one individual that didn't have a legitimate reason.


----------



## Joshadelic (Aug 18, 2009)

esk444 said:


> Posting account information of an owner in a public forum is probably a violation of Starwood's privacy policy.  If so, Philyphan may have violated the California Online Privacy Protection Act.
> 
> I'm also guessing it is not difficult to find out all employee user id's that have accessed this account in question and to figure out the one individual that didn't have a legitimate reason.



As a current IT student specializing in information security and networking, I can tell you that it is 100% possible, if desired, to prosecute this person.

SDKath...I'd also go for a civil suit.  You certainly have the grounds for one.


----------



## James1975NY (Aug 18, 2009)

Joshadelic said:


> As a current IT student specializing in information security and networking, I can tell you that it is 100% possible, if desired, to prosecute this person.
> 
> SDKath...I'd also go for a civil suit.  You certainly have the grounds for one.



Lets not get sue happy. At the end of the day, what are the damages and who will be paying the bill?

I agree that this needs to be addressed but I don't think a lawsuit is a necessary action at this point. I am sure SDKath will take action on her own recognizance.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 18, 2009)

jarta said:


> Ken555,   ...   Starwood's "actions, as a company, detract from an otherwise excellent product."
> 
> It sure looks like DeniseM has busted a Starwood employee posting as a TUG guest from her company IP address on TUG.
> 
> But why is this necessarily a Starwood-sponsored action?  Or, were you speaking about other clearly corporate actions, like rules or reservation screw ups and shifting around rules to close "loopholes?"



Yes. I was referring to the general actions by SVO, not this SW poster in specific.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 18, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> Lets not get sue happy. At the end of the day, what are the damages and who will be paying the bill?
> 
> I agree that this needs to be addressed but I don't think a lawsuit is a necessary action at this point. I am sure SDKath will take action on her own recognizance.



I agree. I hope Kath does *something*, but a lawsuit may not be the best method or the best course of action. Of course, as my attorney always tells me, "it remains an option".


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 18, 2009)

Politico said:


> Denise,
> 
> Can you tell if Philyphan is a sales rep.? If so, anyone working with her is probably entitled to know that their personal information is not safe.  My guess in reading her posts, though, is that she is somewhere in a business department.



I honestly don't know (nor could I reveal that info. if I did.)  All I know is that he/she posts from a Starwood IP address.


----------



## luvsvacation22 (Aug 18, 2009)

How did he link her Tug user name to an actual real name, thus finding her Starwood account. 
Do we need to be concerned about hacking or security issues here on Tug?


----------



## Weez (Aug 18, 2009)

luvsvacation22 said:


> How did he link her Tug user name to an actual real name, thus finding her Starwood account.
> Do we need to be concerned about hacking or security issues here on Tug?



Thats a good question, although i think that would be giving her too much credit. It's more likely she did a search for 5* elites named Katherine or maybe SDKath posted her name somewhere that she saw?


----------



## Westin5Star (Aug 18, 2009)

Ken555 said:


> I agree. I hope Kath does *something*, but a lawsuit may not be the best method or the best course of action. Of course, as my attorney always tells me, "it remains an option".



I think that Starwood should give SDKath free MFs for 3 years for the inconvinience of having her privacy violated!


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 18, 2009)

luvsvacation22 said:


> How did he link her Tug user name to an actual real name, thus finding her Starwood account.
> Do we need to be concerned about hacking or security issues here on Tug?



I don't think you need to be concerned at all.  I am sure that Starwood knows who all the regulars are, on TUG.  Remember, at least 15 Starwood employees have registered with TUG from their work IP and who knows how many from their home IP.  Big Brother is watching...  :rofl:


----------



## SDKath (Aug 18, 2009)

Westin5Star said:


> I think that Starwood should give SDKath free MFs for 3 years for the inconvinience of having her privacy violated!



I like that idea, thank you.  You should see my MF bills each Jan.   

I am going to minimize the drama but I want to assure you all that I am actively talking with Starwood about this....

Katherine


----------



## Joshadelic (Aug 18, 2009)

Good luck Kath!  Let us know how things turn out.  Hopefully this will be a turning point in our relationship with Starwood.  If it's not, I'm afraid there may never be one.  They screwed up here...BIG TIME...and I think most of us would be happy if they could just pay us back by communicating openly with us and treating us like adults and valued customers.  I don't think any of that is too much to ask for.  Of course, if that is not possible, we now have other options available that would have much less desirable outcomes for Starwood.


----------



## Weez (Aug 18, 2009)

SDKath said:


> I like that idea, thank you.  You should see my MF bills each Jan.
> 
> I am going to minimize the drama but I want to assure you all that I am actively talking with Starwood about this....
> 
> Katherine



Thats awesome to hear, I sincerely hope starwood takes this as seriously as it really is.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Aug 19, 2009)

If I were a SVO employee (esp a salesperson) - I would certainly lurk here - I am not surprised that the 'smart' ones do.  But PP is certainly not going to have a job at SVO for much longer by posting his/her garbage - but feel free to post away PP...  this board is suffering from its own success lately and needs a unifying force in order to grow and become more influential.

Unfortunately - Tuggers only represent a very small percentage of SVO Owners.


----------



## luvsvacation22 (Aug 19, 2009)

I was thinking about adding Starwood to my timeshare portfolio...after reading this forget it!


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 19, 2009)

luvsvacation22 said:


> I was thinking about adding Starwood to my timeshare portfolio...after reading this forget it!



I wouldn't let this effect my decision.  I am SURE this is a rogue employee.  Starwood has some problems, but they aren't stupid - they did not authorize this person to behave the way they have.  In fact we know that Starwood has a rule against employees posting on TUG.  

Even though I am at times unhappy with management, I will be the first to say that Starwood has a great product, and a savvy owner can get a lot out of the ownership, if they know what they are doing.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Aug 19, 2009)

luvsvacation22 said:


> I was thinking about adding Starwood to my timeshare portfolio...after reading this forget it!



btw - we love our SVO VOIs - and even more because we bought them resale (mostly).  Now if we could only have more transparency as to HOA and MFs issues...


----------



## ecwinch (Aug 19, 2009)

Trying to wrap myself around the distinction that is used here. Only because I have been unfairly accused for being a shill (agent) on another forum.

Now clearly phillyfan should not have disclosed someone else's personal information. 

But if he/she had disclosed that they worked for SVO, would that then make it a different case?

I mean we have other employees of developers on the forum. Some tend to treat them badly and they stop participating because of way they are treated. I personally think that is wrong. They are still entitled to an opinion. So is it the issue of disclosure?


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 19, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> I mean we have other employees of developers on the forum. Some tend to treat them badly and they stop participating because of way they are treated. So is the issue one of disclosure?



Confidentiality is the main issue, but if you read back through the other posts from this poster you will see how adversarial, dishonest, and manipulative he/she has been all along.  Most of his/her posts promote Starwood and criticize owners for being "negative" about Starwood.  Also - he/she outright denied being a Starwood employee months ago.  

So in my book this person is deceitful, manipulative, and he/she posted confidential info. about an owner. - We regularly ban shills on TUG, and that's all this person is....


----------



## ecwinch (Aug 19, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Confidentiality is the main issue, but if you read back through the other posts from this poster you will see how adversarial, dishonest, and manipulative he/she has been all along.  *Most of his/her posts promote Starwood and criticize owners for being "negative" about Starwood. * Also - he/she outright denied being a Starwood employee months ago.
> 
> So in my book this person is deceitful, manipulative, and he/she posted confidential info. about an owner. - We regularly ban shills on TUG, and that's all this person is....



On the lying and confidentiality points, I get it. But where do you draw the line on an employee that is passionate about the company they work for or used to work for? So I disagree on the bolded points above.

The core question is: Do we automatically eliminate the voice of others because of their employment status? Should we not let them post their viewpoint as long they have previously disclosed their status. They still have a valid viewpoint, and it is no less important than some of the anti-developer voices of other posters. If we let one extreme side voice their opinion, why should we silence the opposite side?

And do we not have the obligation to treat them like we do any other poster - i.e. with decency.


----------



## gravitar (Aug 19, 2009)

I don't think it became an issue until the poster violated a customers private information.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 19, 2009)

> The core question is: Do we automatically eliminate the voice of others because of their employment status?



If this person had disclosed their status, and had not posted confidential owner information, there would be no issues.

Regarding the words you put in bold - that describes how the poster acted as a shill - which is not allowed on TUG.  Companies and their representatives are not allowed to promote their product on TUG in a deceitful way.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 19, 2009)

gravitar said:


> I don't think it became an issue until the poster violated a customers private information.



Correct - I didn't know this person was a Starwood employee until after he/she posted confidential info. about an owner, although I had been suspicious from the beginning, because of the nature of their posts.  Then I did some investigating and discovered he/she is a Starwood employee.  There are 2 strikes against them:

1)  Acting as a shill
2)  Posting confidential info.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Aug 19, 2009)

DeniseM:

That was fantastic detective work. I participate in SPG eventhough I do not own a Starwood TS.  Philyphan had the opportunity to provide accurate and helpful information.  All the TS presentations I have ever attended stress how we own the vacation and we can sell it at a later date if we so desire.  Therefore, I see no reason for philyphan to be angry with people who purchase resale.  This is just proof that the TSs can be sold.  However, vacation ownership looses market value even more quickly than automobile ownership.

It seems to me that most people on TUGBBS are happy with their timeshares and enjoy their vacations.  It also seems that people who purchase resale pay the same MFs as people like me who purchased direct from the developer. It makes very little sense to attack and alienate satisfied customers.


----------



## Weez (Aug 19, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> On the lying and confidentiality points, I get it. But where do you draw the line on an employee that is passionate about the company they work for or used to work for? So I disagree on the bolded points above.
> 
> The core question is: Do we automatically eliminate the voice of others because of their employment status? Should we not let them post their viewpoint as long they have previously disclosed their status. They still have a valid viewpoint, and it is no less important than some of the anti-developer voices of other posters. If we let one extreme side voice their opinion, why should we silence the opposite side?
> 
> And do we not have the obligation to treat them like we do any other poster - i.e. with decency.



I think you draw the line the second the employee looked up the information unsolicited by the owner. The same way people are prosecuted for just accessing medical records or financial records. The fact that she posted it on a public forum makes it far worse imo but just looking it up is flat out wrong.


----------



## duke (Aug 20, 2009)

QUOTE: --> "According to a friend of mine, the reps that you have worked with are no longer with the company and you only have 1 eoy and it IS NOT fixed."

The above is the quote that is being referred to as violating confidentiality?

If you read the thread before this quote everyone is talking about EOY's and if your read all of SDKath's posts on requaling etc. there is lots of info about her status.

As well, PhilyPhil is saying that he got the info from SVO SALES REPS who are no longer with the company.  

How can anyone assume someone looked up confidential files?

Reps talk and certainly SDKath called alot of them.

Seems that this is a little overboard........


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 20, 2009)

First of all, the quote does not say Kath's info. came from sales Reps. who are no longer with the company.  It says the Sales Rep. Kath worked with is no longer with the company.

Secondly, philyphan WORKS for Starwood, so no matter, how he/she got the info., whether from another employee, or from Kath's file, itself, it was unethical for him/her to post it on the internet...

Kath has already stated: 





> How exactly do you know that I only have one EOY and it's not fixed?????????? Pray tell, because nowhere at TUG do I actually post my ownership info to that detail.



Maybe it's OK with you if Starwood posts YOUR info. on the internet, but you cannot deny someone else their right to confidentiality.


----------



## LisaRex (Aug 20, 2009)

duke said:


> QUOTE: --> "According to a friend of mine, the reps that you have worked with are no longer with the company and you only have 1 eoy and it IS NOT fixed."



The sentence reads to me like this:  "According to a (co-worker and) friend of mine (who accessed your file), the reps you worked with (who are also named in the file) no longer work for the company.  And (according to this file) you only have 1 eoy and it is not fixed."


----------



## nodge (Aug 20, 2009)

duke said:


> PHILYPHAN'S QUOTE: --> "According to a friend of mine, the reps that you have worked with are no longer with the company and you only have 1 eoy and it IS NOT fixed."........



I read it this way  . . . ..

"According to a friend of mine _(... scratch that . . . I accessed your SVO file and am trying to hide that fact by using the ol’ 'according to a friend of mine' trick)_, _(and after checking out today’s 'gold box' deal on Amazon.com, and snagging a 'good doughnut' from the sales floor breakfast counter before any 'one leggers' get to ‘em, and then bitching with my co-workers on how bad our boss is, and then badmouthing those co-workers to my boss, followed by making a few personal phone calls on company time to discuss wiener dogs with my mom, I got bored so I decided to root through TUG members’ SVO accounts . . . . and I found out that . . ..)_ the reps that you have worked with are no longer with the company and you only have 1 eoy and it IS NOT fixed _(and since I lack any sort of judgment or impulse control, I decided to post this information that is protected from public disclosure by both state and federal laws on a public online bulletin board as irrelevant grounds for trying to make a ridiculous point.)_"

-nodge


----------



## hockeybrain (Aug 20, 2009)

Any idea what the number of other individuals from other Timeshare resorts are regularly monitoring TUG?   I hate the idea of big brother watching.  Perhaps times are so bad for Timeshare divisions that they have nothing better to do with their time  !


----------



## mitchandjeanette (Aug 20, 2009)

nodge said:


> I read it this way  . . . ..
> 
> "According to a friend of mine _(... scratch that . . . I accessed your SVO file and am trying to hide that fact by using the ol’ 'according to a friend of mine' trick)_, _(and after checking out today’s 'gold box' deal on Amazon.com, and snagging a 'good doughnut' from the sales floor breakfast counter before any 'one leggers' get to ‘em, and then bitching with my co-workers on how bad our boss is, and then badmouthing those co-workers to my boss, followed by making a few personal phone calls on company time to discuss wiener dogs with my mom, I got bored so I decided to root through TUG member’s SVO accounts . . . . and I found out that . . ..)_ the reps that you have worked with are no longer with the company and you only have 1 eoy and it IS NOT fixed _(and since I lack any sort of judgment or impulse control, I decided to post this information that is protected from public disclosure by both state and federal laws on a public online bulletin board as irrelevant grounds for trying to make a ridiculous point.)_"
> 
> -nodge



Oh nodge, thanks again for a good chuckle, no time to give my input now....
my time is running out on my "gold box".....


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 20, 2009)

hockeybrain said:


> Any idea what the number of other individuals from other Timeshare resorts are regularly monitoring TUG?   I hate the idea of big brother watching.  Perhaps times are so bad for Timeshare divisions that they have nothing better to do with their time  !



There is no easy way to determine this.  Finding the info. about the users  using the Starwood IP took a little digging on my part, and some carelessness on their part.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 20, 2009)

nodge said:


> I read it this way  . . . ..
> 
> "According to a friend of mine _(... scratch that . . . I accessed your SVO file and am trying to hide that fact by using the ol’ 'according to a friend of mine' trick)_, _(and after checking out today’s 'gold box' deal on Amazon.com, and snagging a 'good doughnut' from the sales floor breakfast counter before any 'one leggers' get to ‘em, and then bitching with my co-workers on how bad our boss is, and then badmouthing those co-workers to my boss, followed by making a few personal phone calls on company time to discuss wiener dogs with my mom, I got bored so I decided to root through TUG members’ SVO accounts . . . . and I found out that . . ..)_ the reps that you have worked with are no longer with the company and you only have 1 eoy and it IS NOT fixed _(and since I lack any sort of judgment or impulse control, I decided to post this information that is protected from public disclosure by both state and federal laws on a public online bulletin board as irrelevant grounds for trying to make a ridiculous point.)_"
> 
> -nodge



That's EXACTLY how I read it!


----------



## SDKath (Aug 20, 2009)

I think it would be great if Starwood would post here on TUG.  Either they can post as an official rep of like on Flyertalk or they can register as an individual (during off hours) and just post as a knowledgable person who can present both sides of an issue well.  I don't even think they need to identify themselves as Starwood employees in the latter case.

My problem with this person has been that confidential info from PMs between myself an this person's "friend" was making it on a public board (such as me referring him to a sales rep who indeed recently left and I was not aware -- that said I gave said friend another rep's name).  And then of course posting my owner information was the last straw.  I feel a bit eerie about someone being able to look stuff up about me that I chose not to share with the world.  I guess that's the danger of a public board anyway, but still...

Katherine


----------



## deejay (Aug 20, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> There is no easy way to determine this.  Finding the info. about the users  using the Starwood IP took a little digging on my part, and some carelessness on their part.



Actually, this whole string is making me wonder if anyone's information is secure, even on TUG, even by TUG.


----------



## duke (Aug 20, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Maybe it's OK with you if Starwood posts YOUR info. on the internet, but you cannot deny someone else their right to confidentiality.



Maybe if everyone changed their profiles .........


----------



## ecwinch (Aug 20, 2009)

SDKath said:


> I think it would be great if Starwood would post here on TUG.  Either they can post as an official rep of like on Flyertalk or they can register as an individual (during off hours) and just post as a knowledgable person who can present both sides of an issue well.  I don't even think they need to identify themselves as Starwood employees in the latter case.



I took it from Denise's post that if they joined TUG that they would need to refrain from promoting their company's products.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 20, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> I took it from Denise's post that if they joined TUG that they would need to refrain from promoting their company's products.



An intelligent person should be able to discuss their company without stepping over that line.  We have lots of people who are in the TS industry who post on TUG and they manage with no problem.

From the TUG posting rules:



> If you are a broker or salesperson, or work in an allied field, we welcome your participation on the board. We value your industry perspective and valuable insights. We do not appreciate, however, attempts to use our bbs for direct commercial purposes. We do not, for instance, welcome your adding tag lines promoting your business, such as "Call me for more information." *Use the board as a way to be helpful and build your reputation, not as a direct sales tool, please.* Due to flagrant commercial violations by some abusers in the past, we have found it necessary to be very strict about this.


----------



## ecwinch (Aug 20, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> An intelligent person should be able to discuss their company without stepping over that line.  We have lots of people who are in the TS industry who post on TUG and they manage with no problem.
> 
> From the TUG posting rules:



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 20, 2009)

duke said:


> Maybe if everyone changed their profiles .........



I'm sorry - I don't understand what you mean?


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 20, 2009)

deejay said:


> Actually, this whole string is making me wonder if anyone's information is secure, even on TUG, even by TUG.



Just to clarify - moderators and Admins. can ONLY see what you CHOOSE to put in your user profile.  Some of that info. is available to everyone when they click on your user name, and then select "view public profile."  Some of that info. shows up every time you post.  We cannot see you CC numbers or phone number, or anything like that.  It's pretty basic info., unless, of course, you are trying to hide something.  Notice that through all of this, I haven't revealed ANY specifics  from philyphan's profile.

Any time you provide info. to any company, any where, online or not, you have to assume that some or all employees of that company have access to it.  So I guess the answer is that how secure your info. is depends on the ethics of the company and the individuals employed there.


----------



## deejay (Aug 20, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Just to clarify - moderators and Admins. can ONLY see what you CHOOSE to put in your user profile.  Some of that info. is available to everyone when they click on your user name, and then select "view public profile."  Some of that info. shows up every time you post.  We cannot see you CC numbers or phone number, or anything like that.  It's pretty basic info., unless, of course, you are trying to hide something.  Notice that through all of this, I haven't revealed ANY specifics  from philyphan's profile.
> 
> Any time you provide info. to any company, any where, online or not, you have to assume that some or all employees of that company have access to it.  So I guess the answer is that how secure your info. is depends on the ethics of the company and the individuals employed there.



Thanks for the clarification, Denise.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 20, 2009)

*As an example, here's everything that's in my TUG profile:*

User name:  DeniseM

Email:  dbmmayer@gmail.com

User title:  Moderator

Home page:  http://www.freewebs.com/denisetravels

Birthday:  Sept 16th (please make a note of this!)   

Signature:  
*Aloha!   
Denise*

_*TUG Moderator:  Exchanging, Starwood, & Hawaii Boards*_

My Travel Pages​
*IP Address:  207.200.116.10

Real Name:  Denise M.

Location:  Northern, CA

Resorts owned: 

Starwood-WKORV, SDO, & SVR, Branson-Roark Vacation Club, Tahoe-Kingsbury Crossing, Kauai Beach Villas - 2 weeks​
*The one thing you cannot lie about is you IP Address and that's how we catch most of the shills on TUG.


----------



## jarta (Aug 20, 2009)

DeniseM,   ...   My IP address does not show anywhere in my profile.  Nor does your IP address show anywhere in the links you posted although it is shown in your post.

However, the way you concluded (rightly) that Philyphan was a shill from Starwood was by tracing back her IP address to the other 14 lurkers and finding out they were all the same.  Then, you found out half of them gave TUG an email address at SVO when they registered with TUG.  I think that's really good detective work, but you were using non-public information.

Then, you posted:  "The plot thickens:

There are 15 registered users on TUG using that IP address, and half of them listed their SVO email address on their registration. It must be their IP address at work.

However, Philyphan is the only one who has actually posted - the others are just lurkers...

Here is a link to her other posts: [The link didn't work - see below.]"

Didn't you do and post a pretty similar type of research about philyphan as she did on SDKath?      ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 20, 2009)

Good question.  

First of all, I haven't _revealed_ any of the info. in his/her profile.

Second, the IP address belongs to Starwood, not to philyphan, and I haven't revealed what the IP address is.

Third, anyone can trace a poster's IP address - I have seen posters do it here on TUG, but I can't tell you exactly how it's done. - I will try to find out how it's done.  Now I'm curious, too.

Last, we routinely use IP addresses on TUG to "out" shills and spammers in exactly the same manner that I did.

So, what have I revealed?  That an unknown person is posting on TUG using Starwood's IP address.


----------



## Weez (Aug 20, 2009)

jarta said:


> Didn't you do and post a pretty similar type of research about philyphan as she did on SDKath?      ...   eom



I think those are two very very different issues. One is a very private financial record and one is information posted on a public forum that is often bogus information (very often i might add). I think once PhillyPhan crossed that line there was an absolute obligation give SDKath as much information as she could so SDKath could make an informed decision whether or not to pursue this issue.

There are reasons why people make throw away email addresses, fake names and browse thru proxies.


----------



## jarta (Aug 21, 2009)

Weez,   ...   "And, when they come for you, who are you going to turn to?"

Philyphan revealed merely that the unnamed reps SDKath had worked with were no longer at Starwood and that SDKath had only one EOY week at an unnamed resort and it wasn't fixed.  Philyphan says someone else told her/him, but I don't believe Philyphan for a moment.

The offending post (and it does violate SDKath's expectation of privacy):

"According to a friend of mine, the reps that you have worked with are no longer with the company and you only have 1 eoy and it IS NOT fixed. You need to be more responsible when posting. Your 5 Star Elite process is also outdated and cost many people lots of money who are now stuck with resale weeks that can't be upgraded. 

The company is no longer playing games with people trying to beat the system, and it is because of this site. I hope you are all happy."

Philyphan didn't give a price or any other financial information about SDKath's EOY week or how much she paid for any week, what size they are, what season they are in or even what resorts SDKath owns at.

Philyphan has been rightly chastised here for getting private information from company records and posting it on this BB.  DeniseM has been cheered on for getting private information from TUG records and posting it on this BB.

It is the way *private information* is collected, used and then *disbursed* that matters.  And, quite frankly, the good intentions of the disburser don't matter a whit.

I guess you feel tit for tat is OK if the motive is good or the result is popular.  I think both examples are not very kosher.  Oh, well.      ...   eom


----------



## jarta (Aug 21, 2009)

BTW, here's what SDKath posted that triggered Philyphan's rash response:

"You need a different sales rep. PM me and I can give you info for the 2 I have worked with who *both* have fixed EOYs for me without a problem."  (My emphasis added.)

I don't know or care who's right.  In each case, private information was publicly disclosed as retaliation because of what the other person said in a post.   ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 21, 2009)

jarta said:


> I don't know or care who's right.



I DO care who's right...  Philyfan has chosen to represent Starwood in the worst possible way.  I am more than pleased to blow the whistle on him/her!  YMMV...


----------



## Weez (Aug 21, 2009)

jarta said:


> Weez,   ...   "And, when they come for you, who are you going to turn to?"
> 
> _SNIP............_
> 
> ...



I think you're missing my point, PhillyPhan accessed private financial info without reason and without permission. She had no reason or right to do so. DeniseM had every reason to start digging as soon as that breach occured, I would say she had more of an obligation than a reason. 

Police officers get fired for doing background checks without cause, yet if you get pulled over there is an obvious reason to start digging. I don't see ANY difference at all here. 

I am not sure if you realize what information Denise obtained from her "detective" work but its not anything that any of us could not obtain doing a little work of our own (and entirely legal i might add), yet for most of us its not worth it nor will it reveal much, i could find out far more by going to my local tax collectors office and its legal.


----------



## Weez (Aug 21, 2009)

jarta said:


> I don't know or care who's right.  In each case, private information was publicly disclosed as retaliation because of what the other person said in a post.   ...   eom



Please explain what private information was accessed from DeniseM? Please do not say her ip address because that is NOT private in any way shape or form, neither is resolving a block of ip addresses and please do not say what she put in her very public profile. I am 100% convinced you just don't understand what has fully transpired here. It's not a knock on you it's just a fact. I truly believe if you understood what exactly was going on here this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I am very interested to see how Starwood handles this problem. That's where the real accessing of private information is going to take place *IF* they so desire to find out who exactly PhillyPhan is and if they have done enough to keep their job.


----------



## KristinB (Aug 21, 2009)

*Emphasis in the quotes below mine:*


jarta said:


> Weez,   ...   "And, when they come for you, who are you going to turn to?"
> 
> Philyphan revealed merely that the unnamed reps SDKath had worked with were no longer at Starwood and that SDKath had only one EOY week at an unnamed resort and it wasn't fixed.  Philyphan says someone else told her/him, but I don't believe Philyphan for a moment.
> 
> ...





jarta said:


> BTW, here's what SDKath posted that triggered Philyphan's rash response:
> 
> "You need a different sales rep. PM me and I can give you info for the 2 I have worked with who *both* have fixed EOYs for me without a problem."  (My emphasis added.)
> 
> I don't know or care who's right.  In each case, *private information was publicly disclosed as retaliation* because of what the other person said in a post.   ...   eom



The only private information Denise accessed was that the IP address that PhilyPhan was posting from matched that of known Starwood employees who had never posted.  *No private information was disclosed by Denise*, just that PhilyPhan was clearly a Starwood employee posting under false pretenses.  And her motive was not retaliation, it was just to ensure that Tug members were fully aware of the bias that PhilyPhan brought to the discussion (full disclosure).



Weez said:


> I think you're missing my point, PhillyPhan accessed private financial info without reason and without permission. She had no reason or right to do so. *DeniseM had every reason to start digging as soon as that breach occured, I would say she had more of an obligation than a reason. *
> 
> Police officers get fired for doing background checks without cause, yet if you get pulled over there is an obvious reason to start digging. I don't see ANY difference at all here.
> 
> I am not sure if you realize what information Denise obtained from her "detective" work but its not anything that any of us could not obtain doing a little work of our own (and entirely legal i might add), yet for most of us its not worth it nor will it reveal much, i could find out far more by going to my local tax collectors office and its legal.



Absolutely!  I don't have any stake in this (not involved in Starwood at all), but would like to say that Denise was simply doing her job upholding Tug rules as she quoted above.  When she suspected that PhilyPhan was acting as a shill for Starwood based upon the post referencing SDKath's personal info, she did the appropriate due diligence to confirm her suspicion.


----------



## london (Aug 21, 2009)

*Close Thread*

At this point, perhaps the thread should be closed. Why?

SD Kath is presently dealing with Starwood directly on the issues she may have about the person who posted on Tug.

Tug as a corporate entity, can also deal directly with Starwood on any issues it has, with regard to the poster in question.

Further discussion can go on, but why continue something that will evoke various opinions forever.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 21, 2009)

london said:


> At this point, perhaps the thread should be closed. Why?
> 
> SD Kath is presently dealing with Starwood directly on the issues she may have about the person who posted on Tug.
> 
> ...



Everyone in this thread has been polite and thoughtful in their response.  It's an interesting topic, and it's certainly not violating any TUG rules.  I see no reason to close the thread.


----------



## london (Aug 21, 2009)

*That's Fine*



DeniseM said:


> Everyone in this thread has been polite and thoughtful in their response.  It's an interesting topic, and it's certainly not violating any TUG rules.  I see no reason to close the thread.



That's fine with me.

It is an interesting topic, and further comments should be welcomed.


----------



## m61376 (Aug 21, 2009)

I am not a Starwood owner, but do find this thread disturbing. I have long suspected that at least the potential was there for company representatives to see what things were being posted about them online. I know there was recently a lengthy thread in the Marriott forum which some of us wondered whether Marriott employees were reading and using for customer feedback for a possible new internal trading program. It was clear that the thread discussing the Aruba Ocean Club was being monitored.

However, employees reading threads on a public forum is very different than employees posting as shills, giving the false impression that they are someone else. While I think that alone would be worthy of a supervisory reprimand, divulging confidential information about anyone else is a far more severe issue and I would hope that Starwood takes the complaints seriously.

Hopefully, something besides an apology will come out of this. It would be nice if the big companies allowed a rep to answer inquiries. Other companies have felt that it was worthwhile from a public relations vantage point.


----------



## ecwinch (Aug 21, 2009)

jarta said:


> It is the way *private information* is collected, used and then *disbursed* that matters.  And, quite frankly, the good intentions of the disburser don't matter a whit.
> 
> I guess you feel tit for tat is OK if the motive is good or the result is popular.  I think both examples are not very kosher.  Oh, well.      ...   eom



You are inferring that Denise disbursed the TUG registration information (e-mail addresses) to validate the claim that PhilyFan is a shill. She did not.

She only made reference to those e-mail addresses and that the post was from an IP associated with SVO. She did not disclose the details like PhilyFan did. 

That is the distinction that you seem to omit from your analysis. 

I would agree with you, but I find no evidence she disbursed the information as you indicate.


----------



## thomasro3 (Aug 24, 2009)

Philyphan's post reminds me of a commercial...

A guy was screaming "yeah yeah...stick it to the man!"... Then his assistant said, "but sir. You are the man?"

PhilyPhan (SVO) should not have posted personal info and should be reprimanded by Starwood appropriately.  Personally I would welcome Starwood "Lurkers" to this forum.  If only they would read (listen) to our concerns in order to deliver a better product.  After all we aren't trying to hide anything from Starwood but rather share our information (usually our mistakes) in order to help our fellow Tugger's get the best deal/experience possible with a product we all own and hopefully enjoy.

On a side note: I've read a lot of other forums from the Starwood Employee's rating SVO as an employer.  Much of it was not positive.  We all know Starwood likes to change things up.  Hopefully, this will help things toward a more positive change for all.

Well there are my two cents... though probably worth much less


----------



## Weez (Aug 24, 2009)

thomasro3 said:


> Snip..........Personally I would welcome Starwood "Lurkers" to this forum.



I totally agree, the "Starwood Lurker" over on flyertalk has done a tremendous job over there and has resolved hundreds of issues by himself. It was so successful they added Starwood Lurker2. I would absolutely love to have an official SVO rep here, even if it was just in a listening capacity.


----------



## Lawlar (Aug 24, 2009)

*Marriott Sales Reps Post in Forum*

I have no doubt that Marriott sales reps - probably on their own initiative - frequently post in the Marriott forums.  A few have been chased away.   

Whenever I see someone post about how wonderful the latest Marriott timeshare offering is, I become very suspicious that the OP is a salesperson looking to generate some commissions.

Good work Denise.


----------



## clsmit (Aug 25, 2009)

Wow, I go away for a week and all heck breaks loose! That will teach me!

How to translate an IP address into who owns it: Go to netsol.com and click on whois. Follow directions. Answer in seconds.

Like LisaRex, I'd be fired immediately for doing what PhillyPhan did. We have a very strict social networking policy and privacy policy at my company. I can't speak for my company in a public forum without senior legal approval and I can't look up accounts for any famous people we do or do not have as customers. I can't even look up my mom's account to help her with stuff (and I would only know if my mom were a customer if she were to tell me).

SDKath -- you go, girl. I am shocked (shocked!) that Starwood would allow that person to still be employed. A company of its size should have strict policies on account access and social networking. Shame on them for not enforcing it.

I would LOVE to have active representation from SVO on this board. There has to be some PR person who could do that.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 7, 2009)

Just an update:

philyphan is still visiting TUG every few days, and there is another Starwood lurker who joined in 2005, that also visits every few days - but has never posted.  This 2nd lurker always logs in from their Starwood ISP, so they may be an "official lurker."  Who knows?  It's interesting, anyway...  

Does anyone know where there is a Starwood employee directory?


----------



## Cathyb (Sep 8, 2009)

denisem:  No, but if someone has a Starwood salesperson that they consider a friend -- maybe they could find something out for you???


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 8, 2009)

Cathyb said:


> denisem:  No, but if someone has a Starwood salesperson that they consider a friend -- maybe they could find something out for you???



It would violate the privacy policy here, if I disclosed info. to anyone, and I wouldn't want to do that.


----------

