Perhaps to avoid the risk of any prejudice the id of the member whose claim is presented to the members for their approval should be anoymous?kevinchess1 wrote: Hopfully I'll judge everyone one on it's merits
OR
Just horse trade for them
Would encourage mutiple/fradulent claimsMel wrote: Perhaps to avoid the risk of any prejudice the id of the member whose claim is presented to the members for their approval should be anoymous?
kevinchess1 wrote:Would encourage mutiple/fradulent claimsMel wrote: Perhaps to avoid the risk of any prejudice the id of the member whose claim is presented to the members for their approval should be anoymous?
My thoughts entirely, how could it encourage multiple/fraudulent claims. However the member concerned is supposed to be able to put the case for the claim being paid. Therefore it cannot be anonymous unless they make the case and Richard posts on their behalf.cashbacklover wrote:kevinchess1 wrote:
Would encourage mutiple/fradulent claims
Why would it - I-Mutual/Richard Yendall would be aware of both the identity of the Ids and transaction/claim history of the Ids
Yes of course he doescashbacklover wrote:kevinchess1 wrote:Would encourage mutiple/fradulent claimsMel wrote: Perhaps to avoid the risk of any prejudice the id of the member whose claim is presented to the members for their approval should be anoymous?
Why would it - I-Mutual/Richard Yendall would be aware of both the identity of the Ids and transaction/claim history of the Ids
kevinchess1 wrote:[Yes of course he does
But for it too be completly above board he would hav to let every claim go to appeal, even ones he is convinced are fraudulent.
Of course people are gonna vote based on their perception of the person whose making the claim, as they do in elections all the time.
I'm against annomous appeals being presented
It's human nature to form opinions about people. There will be goodies and baddies even on Internet forums where all have never met. There needs to an element of anonymity IMO.cashbacklover wrote:kevinchess1 wrote:[Yes of course he does
But for it too be completly above board he would hav to let every claim go to appeal, even ones he is convinced are fraudulent.
Of course people are gonna vote based on their perception of the person whose making the claim, as they do in elections all the time.
I'm against annomous appeals being presented
Surely those who make claims that R.Y is convinced are fraudulent should have there accounts suspended
"Of course people are gonna vote based on their perception of the person whose making the claim"
We are just names on a screen, bar odd instances where we form in person offline friendships nobody knows anything about us or what we are really like as people. Surely each claim should be judged in its merits and the evidence put forward by both the member and where applicable the merchant, what name member ID the claim relates to is irrelevant, what about the member claims where the member(s) never posts on the forum should they receive different treatment just cos they get on with cashback business without forum involvement.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests