New claims "appeals" process

blythburgh
Posts: 16449
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 7:14pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 31230 times
Been thanked: 5937 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by blythburgh » Tue Apr 10 2012 11:11am

I think Peaches and CBL have a valid point but after thinking it through I am on Kevin''s side. Off that wretched fence again :lol:
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

moi
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Jul 17 2010 2:01pm
Has thanked: 202 times
Been thanked: 185 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by moi » Tue Apr 10 2012 11:45am

It's an interesting idea & is certainly different to what you'd see on Topcashback back et al. Quite honestly I think the success or lack of it will only become evident once it's actually tried out for real.

cccashbacklover
Posts: 2069
Joined: Mon Jul 05 2010 9:55pm
Has thanked: 1190 times
Been thanked: 1260 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by cccashbacklover » Tue Apr 10 2012 12:58pm

richard@imutual wrote:[
Well, in my experience, 'dodgy' members don't post much on forums. The mere fact that they have opted to use the appeals process will, I believe, be a pretty good sign of their trustworthiness. :)
When money is involved I am sure they would post on a forum ( Most Cashback site users on all sites are not the slightest bit interested in its forun so they and others may not appeal by that route for that sole reason) ) or meet in person for lunch ;)


Back to the 1 member 1 vote/awarded shares issue :think:


I fully understand what you are trying to convey, other side of the coin is that I-Mutual has a number of regular forum contributors who are loyal to the company whose shareholding is miniscule compared with I-Mutuals top few members shareholders mainly but not wholly due to fact that they don’t hammer the no spend Cashback offers, do you really want I-Mutual votes to be mainly determined by those who hammer the no spend Cashback offers the most :?:

Currently should I-Mutuals top two members shareholders both vote the same way at any given time then the views of I-Mutual regular forum contributors who are loyal to the company would effectively be of no consequence even if 8 or more as an example expressed same opinion via a vote albeit differing from the top 2 –

Someone will say that’s how it works in any company, but as K.C has kindly pointed out in most companies

“They buy them or get them as part of their job benefits”


And as Peaches40 has pointed out

“At the end of the day we are all equal, doesn't really matter if you've millions of shares they're all currently worth the same – Zero"


I would like to suggest that if you were ever to go back to awarded share principle for votes that you demonstrate that you value all members opinions as equally as you can reasonably be expected to do by capping the maximum awarded share vote by any individual to a nominal amount say 2000 or 3000 shares which should in-itself address your fears of vote manipulation by multiple accounts although my opinion is that mutiple accounts get created for cashback/money reasons not for voting reasons which lets face reality the overwhelming majority of I-Mutual membership base are not the slightest bit interested in. ;)


Awarded 11723 - I am not interested in monopoly board style "power" merely how much cashback I have to redeem and site membership fairness :P
Thanked by: blythburgh, moi, dmchallam
There are those who agree with and those who are convinced to agree with and I fall into neither of those categories ....

1960mackem
Posts: 2538
Joined: Sun Jul 11 2010 2:53am
Has thanked: 1219 times
Been thanked: 1755 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by 1960mackem » Tue Apr 10 2012 2:07pm

expressman33 wrote:
kevinchess1 wrote:
peaches40 wrote:I have been watching this thread with interest and just thought I'd express my two pennies worth ;)
It is my belief that the whole idea of a "mutual" or "co-operative"is operated on the basis of one member, one vote system. ;)

We are a Mutual company With Share holders
We are all encourage to earn shares.
The people who earn the most shares should have a bigger say than the people who shop around for thye best cashback

What is the point of me focusin on IMUTual only to be told I have the same vote as JBloggs who join yesterday cause he wanted to buy a DVD from play.com and make himself an extra penny casbac and has no interest in Imutual beyond that extra penny?
I agree with Kev :thumbup:


but I disagree with Richard
richard@imutual wrote: Ultimately, it's your profits that we pay these claims out of
It's not our profits until Imutual starts paying a dividend

My thoughts on this issue (please feel free to comment)

Voting rights could be on a tiered system based on the same way banks/building societies pay interest e.g.
1-999 = x votes
1000-1999 = 2x votes
2000-2999 = 3x votes etc

this rewards loyalty but also takes away the monopoly power if the top 2 or 3 shareholders owned more than 51% of the shares, but gives them a bigger say in the voting system
Thanked by: blythburgh

Richard Frost
Posts: 11940
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 8:14pm
Location: The Isle of Dreams
Has thanked: 2635 times
Been thanked: 6160 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by Richard Frost » Tue Apr 10 2012 2:27pm

kevinchess1 wrote:
peaches40 wrote:I have been watching this thread with interest and just thought I'd express my two pennies worth ;)
It is my belief that the whole idea of a "mutual" or "co-operative"is operated on the basis of one member, one vote system. ;)
We are a Mutual company With Share holders
We are all encourage to earn shares.
The people who earn the most shares should have a bigger say than the people who shop around for thye best cashback

What is the point of me focusin on IMUTual only to be told I have the same vote as JBloggs who join yesterday cause he wanted to buy a DVD from play.com and make himself an extra penny casbac and has no interest in Imutual beyond that extra penny?
Thank you kevinchess1 for making this post readable. For once I actually read one of your posts and found it understandable. Normally being naturally lazy I do not even bother to try reading them.

You make a good point and one I can identify with. "The people who earn the most shares should have a bigger say than the people who shop around for thye best cashback"

I think what I would say is that you reap what you sow. We have been given a unique opportunity to be in at the beginning of something that has great potential. It will only reach that potential if those who are committed work to help it achieve. Inevitably there are those who will be in for the ride. That is life. But as an organisation we need those people as much as we need the committed individuals.

Maybe it is right that the more shares people have the more votes they should have, or maybe it should be one member one vote. We are children learning and growing and in time a level will be found.
Last edited by Richard Frost on Tue Apr 10 2012 2:31pm, edited 1 time in total.

cccashbacklover
Posts: 2069
Joined: Mon Jul 05 2010 9:55pm
Has thanked: 1190 times
Been thanked: 1260 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by cccashbacklover » Tue Apr 10 2012 2:29pm

1960mackem wrote:[My thoughts on this issue (please feel free to comment)

Voting rights could be on a tiered system based on the same way banks/building societies pay interest e.g.
1-999 = x votes
1000-1999 = 2x votes
2000-2999 = 3x votes etc

this rewards loyalty but also takes away the monopoly power if the top 2 or 3 shareholders owned more than 51% of the shares, but gives them a bigger say in the voting system
Excellent idea in principle, however the tiers example still means voting is likely to be decided by those who hammer the no spend offers as opposed to giving a much more equal say to site/forum loyalists who spend more time contributing to the forum for significantly less share rewards

This is what K,C said has gained him his current perceived "power" - Possibly 12000 + awarded shares, no referrals and no spreading the word :shock:

"Some of it from POTM prizes, Probably less than a 1000 shares
None at all from Referals
I taken full advantage of the Shares for posting, offers, Daily clicks
as can any/everyone else"
Thanked by: blythburgh, dmchallam
There are those who agree with and those who are convinced to agree with and I fall into neither of those categories ....

xrppzi
Posts: 913
Joined: Wed Oct 26 2011 10:39am
Location: North Yorkshire
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 490 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by xrppzi » Tue Apr 10 2012 2:37pm

cashbacklover wrote:
peaches40 wrote:I have been watching this thread with interest and just thought I'd express my two pennies worth ;)

It is my belief that the whole idea of a "mutual" or "co-operative"is operated on the basis of one member, one vote system.

States here in "vision" that "we aim to create the UK's largest "consumer co-operative"; http://www.imutual.co.uk/aboutus

At the end of the day we are all equal, doesn't really matter if you've millions of shares they're all currently worth the same - Zero ;)

I agree with Peaches40 :thumbup:
So do I - if we have to have this voting process, than obviously one person has one vote.

expressman33
Posts: 11501
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 10:36pm
Location: stockport
Has thanked: 2841 times
Been thanked: 10389 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by expressman33 » Tue Apr 10 2012 3:10pm

1960mackem wrote:
my thoughts on this issue (please feel free to comment)

Voting rights could be on a tiered system based on the same way banks/building societies pay interest e.g.
1-999 = x votes
1000-1999 = 2x votes
2000-2999 = 3x votes etc

this rewards loyalty but also takes away the monopoly power if the top 2 or 3 shareholders owned more than 51% of the shares, but gives them a bigger say in the voting system
probably wouldn't work in that format

maybe
1-99 =1 vote
100-999=2 votes
1,000-4,999=3 votes
5,000-9,999=4 votes
over 10,000= 5 votes
then 1 extra vote for each 10,000
Thanked by: blythburgh

blythburgh
Posts: 16449
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 7:14pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 31230 times
Been thanked: 5937 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by blythburgh » Tue Apr 10 2012 5:02pm

I do like the points raised by Mackem and Expresso
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

moi
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Jul 17 2010 2:01pm
Has thanked: 202 times
Been thanked: 185 times
Contact:

Re: New claims "appeals" process

Post by moi » Tue Apr 10 2012 5:54pm

All these tiers sound like a bit of an administrative pain for whoever's overseeing this. :? [Richard] (and it could still end up seeming very cliquey if the select few dominate any outcome.)
With the 1 member-1 vote option, surely a simple condition on voting could be made to avoid accusations of 'made-up accounts' e.g. only members who joined 3+? months ago or only members who earnt £10+? or something similarly simple.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests