Post-of-the-month results - March 2014

[kevinchess1]

Kind of you to offer, but I'm not going to take back any awards already announced. Plus you deserve it for your general contributions

Agreed.

Ditto

[cccashbacklover]

No offence meant to Macliam,and not intending to be controversial - 4 ( four), second placed thanks came from registered users from outside of UK.

24 Hours on, My reasons/motives for my comments made within an hour of O/P appear to have been mis-understood.

I neither made the comment to/at Maclaim, it was made to I-Mutual admin

Wasn’t me that used the phrase “artificial votes”

I didn’t suggest or imply that Maclaims award should be voided, this thread like so many others seems to have become about 1 member, I ask the question openly what about the other active UK Imutual forum members who also contribute to the forum in their own time, those who post quietly, who “vote” via the thanks button including those who may/may not be part of what has been described on an other thread as “ in …… camp”


http://www.imutual.co.uk/terms

“Imutual is for the use of UK residents over 16 years of age”

Not wishing to be unkind to you Richard, you have had nearly 4 years to stop non UK residents from “using” the site, no other Cashback Site Forum have I have seen non Uk residents “using” such a site.

I am pretty sure their have been occurrences before on POM award thread where slip ups have been made, where the posted award has neither been voided and those who should have been awarded haven’t lost out either.

Loz68 had 5 “votes” from regular Imutual users who are most likely all UK residents, Why hasn’t Loz68 had his/her award uplifted to 25 shares?

I am absolutely certain that at least one other Imutual member had 5 “votes” from regular Imutual users who are also most likely all UK residents, Why hasn’t that member been awarded with 10 shares? - Edit If Non Uk factor was to be taken out unless their is a higher qualifying member then this member should also be awarded 25 shares.

Edit @ Blyth, to avoid me monopolising this thread, yesterday I didnt express a view, the comment I made was a matter of fact.

And If anyone else agrees why didnt they hit the reply button and say so yesterday.

[blythburgh]

Thanks for making your views plainer, CBL, and I do agree with a lot of what you say in the above post.

[Luke_PieStalker]

Let Macliam keep the shares, just remember to give your four wifes in Kazakhstan some extra attention when you go back.

[cccashbacklover]

I am absolutely certain that at least one other Imutual member had 5 “votes” from regular Imutual users who are also most likely all UK residents, Why hasn’t that member been awarded with 10 shares? - Edit If Non Uk factor was to be taken out unless their is a higher qualifying member then this member should also be awarded 25 shares.

For completeness this is the post I was referring to, it certainly cannot be fair for both regular Imutual users to lose out on a deserved/enhanced reward and 5 ( Five) regular Imutual users to have their apparent votes disregarded due to 4 (Four) residents of USA//Canada being able to firstly register and secondly over a week later return to the forum and "vote" for P.O.M.

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=27834&start=230#p97349

[Richard Frost]

Personally I do not feel that Macliam should have any votes taken away. However I do not feel others should lose out because of the irregularity in voting. So If there were others who should have been awarded then that should happen in addition to Macliam getting his award. Surely common sense should prevail in this.

Immediate steps should be taken to screen out all non UK members from the site, so this can not happen again. It seems to me that there has been a big mistake made in the ability of these people to join in the first place.

[Kelantan]

Immediate steps should be taken to screen out all non UK members from the site, so this can not happen again. It seems to me that there has been a big mistake made in the ability of these people to join in the first place.

I am amazed that in all the efforts Richard has made to stop spammers this has been overlooked. Immediate steps should of course be made to redress the situation. No one should lose out on shares because of this.

I also think CBL should be thanked for exposing what would seem to be a fundamental flaw in the voting system.

[macliam]

I agree that non-UK access should be screened out (even at potential cost to myself when I'm off enjoying the sun, whether or not with my 4 wives in Kazakhstan ).

I can't really see what non-UK members seek to achieve by using the site - this is a UK-centric site and although I dislike the "little Britain" mentality, maybe we need a banner on the splash screen to make that absolutely clear. (Yes mother, I know it's a .co.uk site, but you wouldn't expect your average septic to understand what that means, would you??? )

However, as the internet is international, I guess any screening process could only be done by IP address - and this seems to give "false positives" on occasion, barring genuine UK members. This may well be an inconvenience worth paying, as a refresh of the IP address usually cures the issue - but be prepared for some squawking from anyone barred from access to the whole site and not just from one click.

[expressman33]

Does it matter , it's only a few shares not exactly life or death

[Richard Frost]

Does it matter , it's only a few shares not exactly life or death

Yes it does matter, in one sense you are right, the shares are worthless so what is the point? However the principle that the voting system is rigged or can be manipulated is very important and all steps should be taken to eliminate that.