Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:) :thumbup: :thumbdown: :D ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :clap: :crazy: :shh: :problem: :angel: :eh: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek: :shifty: :sick: :silent: :think: :wave: :wtf:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

Re: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

by blythburgh » Thu Jan 03 2013 7:31pm

I am happy for one person one vote. But I must insist that you take Bank Holiday's off Richard.

Re: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

by One Eyed Snake » Wed Jan 02 2013 4:06pm

richard@imutual wrote:..... I was concerned that polls might get manipulated by someone registering multiple accounts but, as there's no money at stake, perhaps these fears are unfounded
Must be some money at stake somewhere for someone if anyone ever spots the emperor confirming the new clothes are a figment and have no substance/value!

Re: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

by kevinchess1 » Wed Jan 02 2013 3:44pm

richard@imutual wrote:
kevinchess1 wrote:As for the POTM why not just make it 1 person 1 vote, same as evey other poll here
Use the share holding for Tie breaks
Could do. I was concerned that polls might get manipulated by someone registering multiple accounts but, as there's no money at stake, perhaps these fears are unfounded

Far more likey 2 be an issue with Claims
And that's 1 member 1 vote

Re: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

by Sarah » Wed Jan 02 2013 3:39pm

richard@imutual wrote:Could do. I was concerned that polls might get manipulated by someone registering multiple accounts
I think that's a valid point too and would prefer a compromise.

How about the option of keeping the voting statistics (shares) unpublished?

Re: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

by richard@imutual » Wed Jan 02 2013 3:13pm

kevinchess1 wrote:As for the POTM why not just make it 1 person 1 vote, same as evey other poll here
Use the share holding for Tie breaks
Could do. I was concerned that polls might get manipulated by someone registering multiple accounts but, as there's no money at stake, perhaps these fears are unfounded

Re: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

by kevinchess1 » Wed Jan 02 2013 3:05pm

Yes
That 2

Re: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

by Richard Frost » Wed Jan 02 2013 3:02pm

kevinchess1 wrote:If Imutualites want to keep their share amount private that is their right
I've never made any secret of my shareholding being over 10,000 but am reluctant to state the exact amount.
As for the POTM why not just make it 1 person 1 vote, same as evey other poll here
Use the share holding for Tie breaks
It is also their right not to have it discussed by others!!

Re: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

by kevinchess1 » Wed Jan 02 2013 2:52pm

If Imutualites want to keep their share amount private that is their right
I've never made any secret of my shareholding being over 10,000 but am reluctant to state the exact amount.
As for the POTM why not just make it 1 person 1 vote, same as evey other poll here
Use the share holding for Tie breaks

Re: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

by Richard Frost » Wed Jan 02 2013 9:37am

Strangely enough I was just about to post on this. I am not happy with the discussion by people on how many shares people have. Its a private matter and nothing to do with others. The shareholdings of individuals are a matter of public knowledge and available with the annual report. The information that people have via this forum is also skewed towards those who use the thanks button. ( I was considering not using thanks in future because of this) There are many who do not post and nobody has any idea how many shares those people have there are also many who do post but do not use the thanks button. Guesstimating is dangerous. I note that that one member in a post refereed to someone as lucky because they had over 10,000 shares they may be lucky but they have earned the shares by contributing to the company in some way or another. They were not given in a lottery. Luck does not come into it.
richard@imutual wrote:
expressman33 wrote:it is possible to work out the shareholdings of many members using the results :shock:
This is a problem actually, as these members may prefer to keep this private (hence I've removed the posts naming individuals). I suggest that we change the POTM voting in future so that the number of shares an individual member can contribute towards a vote is capped at 1000 rather than 10000. This would bring our voting system closer to one-person-one-vote while still giving 'established' members 10x the voting weight of newly-registered ones. It would also be fairer on those with lots of shares, who are unable to vote for themselves
I would be happy for it to be 500 shares...

Re: Post-of-the-month results - December 2012

by richard@imutual » Wed Jan 02 2013 9:19am

expressman33 wrote:it is possible to work out the shareholdings of many members using the results :shock:
This is a problem actually, as these members may prefer to keep this private (hence I've removed the posts naming individuals). I suggest that we change the POTM voting in future so that the number of shares an individual member can contribute towards a vote is capped at 1000 rather than 10000. This would bring our voting system closer to one-person-one-vote while still giving 'established' members 10x the voting weight of newly-registered ones. It would also be fairer on those with lots of shares, who are unable to vote for themselves

Top