imutual.co.uk

[quote="Squire"]and open to abuse by the voting system for and against, based on perceived popularity, or not, of the member.

/quote]


That could be avoided by the member ids not being visible before the vote has occured, i,e just called A, B,C with the sequence being carried on as an example AA, BB,


Edit of post was an error I intended to quote the post with a new reply which is now showing as an edited post

I should just clarify something. We do already award some claims even though we haven't received payment from the merchant. We do this when, in our judgement, it would be clearly unfair to reject the claim and/or harmful to imutual's image.

The 'appeals' process is for those where it's not so clear. Perhaps because the amounts involved are quite large and we don't feel we can just 'pay out' at the company's expense without some kind of authority from shareholders. Or where the merchant has given what we believe to be justified reasons for rejecting a claim, but we want to give the member the chance to appeal to his or her 'peers' - who might have a different (and better) perspective on the matter than we do.

So it won't save any money, it will probably cost us a bit. But I believe it will pay for itself many times over by reinforcing imutual's reputation as a trustworthy site

BTW The idea of allowing restrospective appeals (for the 16 rejected claims to date) is a good one. I'll notify those affected

cashbacklover wrote:Surely this would have to be operated on a 1 member 1 vote principle as otherwise someone with a very high number of shares can veto the apparent valid and correct opinion of several members.

My concern is that someone could easily 'engineer' several registrations, each of which can vote in their favour. And by taking shareholdings into account, it means that the decision is made by people who are likely to take the company's interests into account. I'm open to suggestions though.

cashbacklover wrote:I have to say Richard this is the best idea/proposal that I have ever read you make.

LOL. Not much competition though, eh?

richard@imutual wrote:

cashbacklover wrote:Surely this would have to be operated on a 1 member 1 vote principle as otherwise someone with a very high number of shares can veto the apparent valid and correct opinion of several members.

My concern is that someone could easily 'engineer' several registrations,.

Is it that easy ??? I would be very suprised if on receipt of Shareholder registration completion you dont carry out similar electronic ID checks as was carried out by old R-Points/CBK

I am certain you can build a safeguard into that, Previous posts on forum where IP can be logged etc

Even if votes were based on total number of shares your same concern would apply as such registrations would more than likely have built up a relatively high Shareholding by virtue of No spend offers

Worth pointing out that I probably currently fall into one of the biggest member shareholding category - I believe 1 member 1 vote is both fairer and more representative of member views

The appeal process is based on :number of shares not votes. Ie the share holder with the biggest holding hav more to lose so therefore hav a greater influence.

[quote="kevinchess1 Ie the share holder with the biggest holding hav more to lose so therefore hav a greater influence.[/quote


What does the Share holder with the biggest holding have to lose

Had you used the word "potentially" I wouldnt have asked the as "potentially" covers all eventualities

Will who voted for and against be visible in the same way as Thanks Button clicking members are visible

cashbacklover wrote:Will who voted for and against be visible in the same way as Thanks Button clicking members are visible

Gosh I hop not
Mite get beaten up

I disagree with the '1member 1 vote'
The people with the most shares Potently hav the most to lose and therefore should hav a bigger say
Also it gives a'Value' to the shares, not a fiscal value but a 'responsibilty' value
Of course with responsability come power and if poster think they can influence me with bribes or vouchers or sexual favour then yes please