If the journalist really did make a reservation under the room block for the event, and then was denied attendance to the event, it would seem fairly normal for the reservation to be canceled by the block holder.
Really, if the journalist wanted to cover the event without being noticed he could've done so undercover.
It does not seem likely that he booked it under the Flock room block. The text of the screenshotted email: "called on my behalf and canceled my hotel reservation that I personally made on Hilton's website. They also have not refunded the reservation, as it is now associated with Flock in the system."
It doesn't clearly state that it was part of the room block at Benn's initial booking, and it implies that the booking was not associated with Flock when the initial booking was made.
It depends how it's set up. Often a block will reserve a certain number of rooms for attendees, to ensure people will have somewhere to stay close to the conference site. Usually any unbooked rooms in the block get released closer to the event date.
Perhaps Flock would say that since they were denying the journalist a pass, they should also deny them the room block discount. The hotel could just charge the journalist the difference rather than cancel their room though.
If I booked as part of a block booking for a conference and the conference got cancelled or attendance criteria changed, it is nice if I don’t have to cancel the booking myself but instead the conference organizer did it on my behalf.
They're unimportant wording nit-picks, but actually, if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for the hotel: The hotel should only let the actual traveler cancel their booking.
The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking? If you think so, please let me know next time you have travel plans and we'll put that to the test. I would hope the hotel would not be vulnerable to that kind of attack.
> if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for the hotel
I see now suddenly we've gone from "Flock bad" to "hotel bad". I hope you recognize the importance of that shift in blame in relation to the submitted headline.
> The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking?
A booking made in a designated room block. If you call the hotel and claim to be a member of my family reunion then I'm going to call the hotel and tell them that you lied.
I made that edit specifically to clarify that I'm not "flock bad" in this scenario, I'm more surprised that the hotel will just comply with a request to cancel someone else's booking.
I too am surprised that the person wasn't contacted by the hotel and asked to choose between paying more money and canceling the booking. It seems like it would have been in the hotel's interest to offer to negate the group rate discount instead of canceling.
Seems fine. Blocks can be reserved or purchased by companies and have final say on who uses them, such as customers/attendees that did not misrepresent themselves.
Dude can book without the block or go to a different Hotel.
I'm vehemently anti-Flock but am upset the majority of that group, the people taking down these cameras, appear to be anti-cars because they won't do the same for surveillance speed cameras everywhere.
If the journalist really did make a reservation under the room block for the event, and then was denied attendance to the event, it would seem fairly normal for the reservation to be canceled by the block holder.
Really, if the journalist wanted to cover the event without being noticed he could've done so undercover.
It does not seem likely that he booked it under the Flock room block. The text of the screenshotted email: "called on my behalf and canceled my hotel reservation that I personally made on Hilton's website. They also have not refunded the reservation, as it is now associated with Flock in the system."
It doesn't clearly state that it was part of the room block at Benn's initial booking, and it implies that the booking was not associated with Flock when the initial booking was made.
That clearly ignores the first email from flock, where they told him "we canceled your registration and hotel reservation under the block"
Not really. A block is just a group discount.
It depends how it's set up. Often a block will reserve a certain number of rooms for attendees, to ensure people will have somewhere to stay close to the conference site. Usually any unbooked rooms in the block get released closer to the event date.
Perhaps Flock would say that since they were denying the journalist a pass, they should also deny them the room block discount. The hotel could just charge the journalist the difference rather than cancel their room though.
That comes with a contract between the hotel and the block holder.
Also holding rooms for that block, though.
Why is this flagged? Impersonation is a big deal :/
Because the title is an editorial lie and no one impersonated anyone. Nobody even claimed that if you follow the link
> impersonates
The person said: “…contact a hotel on my behalf…”.
They didn’t claim impersonation.
[flagged]
You said it: false alarm.
I might go further: the person who posted this story made up (aka lie) a headline which is not what the journalist claimed.
[flagged]
If I booked as part of a block booking for a conference and the conference got cancelled or attendance criteria changed, it is nice if I don’t have to cancel the booking myself but instead the conference organizer did it on my behalf.
The submitted headline editorializes a false claim.
A 2-steps-from-origin word-of-mouth claim of "They told me someone called on my behalf" is not the same thing as "Flock impersonates".
"they told me" (definitive) and "called on my behalf" (interpretable) are both important here.
They're unimportant wording nit-picks, but actually, if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for the hotel: The hotel should only let the actual traveler cancel their booking.
The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking? If you think so, please let me know next time you have travel plans and we'll put that to the test. I would hope the hotel would not be vulnerable to that kind of attack.
I've had a hotel cancel me and lie to my face that I called in. I was on a plane at the time they claimed I cancelled. It totally happens.
> They're unimportant wording nit-picks.
They're false statements of fact.
> if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for the hotel
I see now suddenly we've gone from "Flock bad" to "hotel bad". I hope you recognize the importance of that shift in blame in relation to the submitted headline.
> The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking?
A booking made in a designated room block. If you call the hotel and claim to be a member of my family reunion then I'm going to call the hotel and tell them that you lied.
I made that edit specifically to clarify that I'm not "flock bad" in this scenario, I'm more surprised that the hotel will just comply with a request to cancel someone else's booking.
I too am surprised that the person wasn't contacted by the hotel and asked to choose between paying more money and canceling the booking. It seems like it would have been in the hotel's interest to offer to negate the group rate discount instead of canceling.
Depends on if you're coming to my wedding where I have prepaid for a block of rooms to reserve them.
The submitted headline dangerously distorts an evidenced claim to the point of falsehood.
Yes that's what I said.
I wonder if this is in the typical runbook for other YC companies.
direct thread link https://x.com/bennjordan/status/2089430236945342508
Seems fine. Blocks can be reserved or purchased by companies and have final say on who uses them, such as customers/attendees that did not misrepresent themselves.
Dude can book without the block or go to a different Hotel.
I'm vehemently anti-Flock but am upset the majority of that group, the people taking down these cameras, appear to be anti-cars because they won't do the same for surveillance speed cameras everywhere.
i am anti cars.
You want to drive a 2 ton vehicle on roads i pay for, don't speed.
I'm anti-cyclist. I believe we should make the roads more hazardous to cyclists.
> "appear to be anti-cars because they won't do the same for surveillance speed cameras"
You mean they appear to be anti-speeding.
Being anti-speed cam do not mean pro speeding. I am anti breaking the law but I don't think we need surveillance everywhere to stop it.
I don't know what you're responding to, but it's not my statement.
Nobody said anything about being anti-speed-cam. The context is being pro-speed-cam.
you're not anti-car just because you don't oppose those cameras with the same vitriol. Flock is orders of magnitude more evil.
Why?