Flock impersonates journalist in order to cancel his hotel reservations

61 pointsposted 10 hours ago
by nixass
(xcancel.com)

36 Comments

evan_a_a

10 hours ago

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.

code_biologist

9 hours ago

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.

s1artibartfast

9 hours ago

That clearly ignores the first email from flock, where they told him "we canceled your registration and hotel reservation under the block"

forestry

10 hours ago

Not really. A block is just a group discount.

pseudo0

9 hours ago

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.

cryptonector

9 hours ago

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.

evan_a_a

9 hours ago

That comes with a contract between the hotel and the block holder.

bjtitus

9 hours ago

Also holding rooms for that block, though.

purpleidea

2 hours ago

Why is this flagged? Impersonation is a big deal :/

s1artibartfast

11 minutes ago

Because the title is an editorial lie and no one impersonated anyone. Nobody even claimed that if you follow the link

andsoitis

10 hours ago

> impersonates

The person said: “…contact a hotel on my behalf…”.

They didn’t claim impersonation.

donkey_brains

10 hours ago

[flagged]

andsoitis

10 hours ago

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.

jdjdkdisosk

9 hours ago

[flagged]

andsoitis

8 hours ago

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.

BugsJustFindMe

9 hours ago

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.

ryandrake

9 hours ago

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.

quantified

6 hours ago

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.

BugsJustFindMe

9 hours ago

> 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.

ryandrake

9 hours ago

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.

BugsJustFindMe

9 hours ago

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.

s1artibartfast

9 hours ago

Depends on if you're coming to my wedding where I have prepaid for a block of rooms to reserve them.

code_biologist

9 hours ago

The submitted headline dangerously distorts an evidenced claim to the point of falsehood.

user

9 hours ago

[deleted]

Freedom2

10 hours ago

I wonder if this is in the typical runbook for other YC companies.

s1artibartfast

9 hours ago

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.

techteach00

10 hours ago

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.

tekno45

10 hours ago

i am anti cars.

You want to drive a 2 ton vehicle on roads i pay for, don't speed.

techteach00

4 hours ago

I'm anti-cyclist. I believe we should make the roads more hazardous to cyclists.

BugsJustFindMe

10 hours ago

> "appear to be anti-cars because they won't do the same for surveillance speed cameras"

You mean they appear to be anti-speeding.

chung8123

9 hours ago

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.

BugsJustFindMe

9 hours ago

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.

popalchemist

10 hours ago

you're not anti-car just because you don't oppose those cameras with the same vitriol. Flock is orders of magnitude more evil.