New claims "appeals" process

AAAlphaThunder
Posts: 26377
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:23 pm
Location: [The Finest City in the World: London]
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 3615 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by AAAlphaThunder » Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:41 pm

Above all else I believe it will give us integrity which as newbies we lack. Worse case scenario:

16 X £20 = £320

TCB guarantee to match any sites cashback. That's what helped them to match Qs dominance. Eg recently Q was offering £125 cashback. TCB offered £126 just to beat them from the normal £85 (which it's gone back to now). That's a straight £41 loss.

In business you must sometimes make a loss to get ahead. This is what supermarkets do very well. They sell goods at a loss just to kill the competition and then charge as they please. Just look what Tesco has done to Joe Blog trader trying to support his family. I'm not saying we kill the competition but yes we must take a small hit for the long run. We are in this for the long run after all.
[Secretary] imutual Cashback Investment Club

kevinchess1
Posts: 23123
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:02 pm
Location: Miles away from the sea
Has thanked: 12030 times
Been thanked: 16316 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by kevinchess1 » Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:44 pm

I doubt that the 16 clams will amount to £320
One of them mine and it's less than £10 and I'm not sure I'll appeal it
maybe
But if they are all claimed/appealed/ paid i still think it's worth it
Hopfully I'll judge everyone one on it's merits
OR
Just horse trade for them :lol:
Politically incorrect since 69

Mel
Posts: 1855
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:56 am
Has thanked: 2000 times
Been thanked: 1210 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by Mel » Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:48 pm

kevinchess1 wrote: Hopfully I'll judge everyone one on it's merits
OR
Just horse trade for them :lol:
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
Posts: 23123
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:02 pm
Location: Miles away from the sea
Has thanked: 12030 times
Been thanked: 16316 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by kevinchess1 » Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:06 pm

Mel 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?
Would encourage mutiple/fradulent claims
Thanked by: Richard Frost
Politically incorrect since 69

cccashbacklover
Posts: 2047
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:55 pm
Has thanked: 1183 times
Been thanked: 1246 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by cccashbacklover » Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:19 pm

kevinchess1 wrote:
Mel 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?
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 ;)
Thanked by: Mel, Richard Frost

Richard Frost
Posts: 11302
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:14 pm
Location: The Isle of Dreams
Has thanked: 2434 times
Been thanked: 5459 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by Richard Frost » Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:08 pm

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 ;)
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.
Thanked by: cccashbacklover, Dream on

cccashbacklover
Posts: 2047
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:55 pm
Has thanked: 1183 times
Been thanked: 1246 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by cccashbacklover » Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:12 pm

[quote="Drahcir. Therefore it cannot be anonymous unless they make the case and Richard posts on their behalf.[/quote]

For the purposes of the case and vote they could be called as an example IM1. IM2. IM3 etc

kevinchess1
Posts: 23123
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:02 pm
Location: Miles away from the sea
Has thanked: 12030 times
Been thanked: 16316 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by kevinchess1 » Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:10 pm

cashbacklover wrote:
kevinchess1 wrote:
Mel 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?
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 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
Politically incorrect since 69

cccashbacklover
Posts: 2047
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:55 pm
Has thanked: 1183 times
Been thanked: 1246 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by cccashbacklover » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:12 am

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. :?:
Thanked by: Richard Frost

superman
Posts: 7377
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 354 times

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by superman » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:23 am

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. :?:
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.
Thanked by: Mel, Richard Frost, mark_r_abcd

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests