What can we do to improve The Former Company Mk II

daveandmaureen · « **on:** February 22, 2006, 08:30:01 »

Hi again Tom (and anyone else reading this),

Please accept my apologies for posting in the wrong section, I do like the idea of sections it would improve other similar online products as you can simply go to the bits that interest you. I will try to cope with the geography better in future.

I had hoped to post my reply with the original thread moved or otherwise and was shocked to find it locked, is this TST's way of dealing with matters problematic, if so then it mirrors the way The Former Company behaves to some extent.

Thank you for dealing with my questions so fully and promptly and please forgive me if I gave you a title (leading campaigner for The Former Company change) which you do not want or in fact dislike. I bet I am not the only person who sees you in this light. Perhaps we need more campaigners for change then one will not appear to be the "leader".

Two more questions serious if you can bare them

1. Why did you have someone else put a question on your behalf? Did you feel this was tactically the right move, were they thought to be more eloquent or firm with the opposition than you. Is this not a bad move as you (personally) can't have the right of reply to someone else's question. Please be assured that I am not mischief making, I was NOT at the meeting and nobody who was has asked me to ask these questions on their behalf.

2. Are you always so defensive when being asked questions on this forum? Locking a thread after one post and one reply is in my opinion a little heavy handed and I made no mention of limbs up jacksies at all. I can see I will have to be careful or I will be banished from this site. When in a position of authority on an online media such as TST it is likely that other members will occasionally ask awkward questions, that's what happens in the real world and you should know that better than many.

None of this, or my previous effort has been discussed with or motivated by any other person. I just like to see a little fairness from time to time be it from The Former Company Corporation or a leading campaigner for fairness in the holiday industry. I look forward to this thread being locked once you have had your say.

Now I am going to be mischievious (and I will admit it). Tom are you beginning to feel just a little tinsey winsey little bit like TP felt a few months ago? (and still no metion of Jacksies or worse).

Best Regards

Dave K

Jeff · « **Reply #1 on:** February 22, 2006, 08:46:05 »

Hi Dave
I will answer the first question for you. We (several attendees of the AGM) fully expected to be ignored at the AGM, and with that in mind we printed off quite a few copies of the question we wanted answering, and distributed them to people we could trust to try to get at least one of us called, so the same question could have been asked by any one of a dozen or so members.

Jeff.

CORNERWAYS · « **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2006, 11:44:40 »

I regret to feel the need to concur, Tom purports admirably to favour debate, and his stated motivation is to see The Former Company's operation to become more member friendly [I got told by the rep @ sales presentation "It's YOUR club, we exist to serve YOU"[

][

]
Having witnessed the moderator in fighting to the point where one protagonist conceded being ashamed to the point of apologising, then locking the thread, and a thread started to invite constructive suggestions also gets locked, I ask how are we the rank and file EVER going to be taken seriously by The Former Company whilst so whimsical in our operation? I generally speaking support Tom I attempted to continuehis thread on the topic "13 months"on the othersite whilst Tom was on Hol last autumn, and TP was evasive.My opinion is thatso long as two sites with diverging methods,and run round and round and round again mimicking a headless chicken, then The Former Company will be laughing all the way to the offshore bankaccount,
hving witnessed a 'divide and conqueor'scenario without getting their hands dirty @ it's creation. WE NEED TO BECOME A UNITED FRONT WITH COMMON OPINION BETTER ACTIONS FROM The Former Company DRIVEN BY US, & FOR US

Mavo · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2006, 14:52:41 »

Hi Dave and Ian (cornerways)
I hope that you are happy with the response given by Jeff to your first question. Everybody raised their hands who had a copy of the question and it was just a matter of who was selected first.

No I am not usually so defensive but given recent events on this occasion I was. I have never locked a topic before and did so after agreeing with Jeff. I would under normal circumstances have also consulted Helen but as she had been heavily involved in the thread that had become personal, I did not feel this appropriate. The thread was locked as it was simply a set of questions addressed specifically to me and having answered them as fully as possible. I considered the matter to be then closed. You had not invited comment from others and neither had I. So I did not feel there was a need to keep the topic open.
To the final sentence of yours.
I am fully aware of how some people view me and am prepared to take a certain amount of flak on that but when it is just purely personal attack, the real important issues being totally ignored within the thread for the sake of a few cheap points scoring then I find this very dissapointing.

There has been very little meaningful debate on here in nearly 4 months despite many debatable topics being in place. So little debate in fact that I am accused of dominating the site. Of course I am making the largest percentage of posts. Jeff and I are still building the site which is only at an early stage in it`s development. Jeff would have been more visible but he has had another project on the go for the last few months which has taken up much of his time. My seen domination of the site is out of perspective not just because of the building of the site but also because of the reluctance of others to post and I simply have no real control over either of these situations. We have asked for help by inviting people to apply to become moderators but nobody has responded so far.

If there are those out there who are genuinely interested in the welfare of the membership as they say they are then I agree with "cornerways" in that why not form a united front. Why does not a group of like minded people get together and collate and compile views thoughts and ideas and discuss all the information which can be now gleaned from the 3 or 4 different places we have access to (well most of us)[

]. They can lay out a list of ideas which they can then reject, adopt, refine, amalgamate until finally they have a working plan. It can be done in some appropriate virtual place, which includes the Yahoo Group, chatrooms, even here if it is so wished or a group could be set up specifically for the purpose of the task via Yahoo. Once a plan of action has been agreed then I am sure that there are those amongst you who have the necessary skills to act as a negotiator, on behalf of the members, with The Former Company.
My services would be available if they were needed but I accept that the perceived nature of my personality would and rightly should disqualify me from any major front end role.

daveandmaureen · « **Reply #4 on:** February 22, 2006, 17:40:13 »

Thank you Tom (and Jeff) for the explanation of the methodology in getting others to ask ones' questions. I can now see the point and why the question was asked by the first person with a copy of it who caught the chairman's eye.

I am also grateful that this post didn't end up locked!

You should have gathered by now that I am "fairly" happy with my The Former Company Points.

Had I paid full whack for them and certainly if I were somewhat younger and tied by children to school holidays for flights, level of points per week etc I would be doing the maths and wondering if Club The Former Company was really the answer to my holiday prayers.

I must away for my tea and will post again shortly with my further comments if anyone could care a fig what they may be.

I am pleased we have returned to discussion rather than padlocks!

Regards
Dave K

daveandmaureen · « **Reply #5 on:** February 22, 2006, 18:37:16 »

Thank you Tom (and Jeff) for the explanation of the methodology in getting others to ask ones' questions. I can now see the point and why the question was asked by the first person with a copy of it who caught the chairman's eye.

I am also grateful that this post didn't end up locked!

You should have gathered by now that I am "fairly" happy with my The Former Company Points.

Had I paid full whack for them and certainly if I were somewhat younger and tied by children to school holidays for flights, level of points per week etc I would be doing the maths and wondering if Club The Former Company was really the answer to my holiday prayers.

I must away for my tea and will post again shortly with my further comments if anyone could care a fig what they may be.

I am pleased we have returned to discussion rather than padlocks!

Regards
Dave K

Mavo · « **Reply #6 on:** February 22, 2006, 19:06:36 »

Hi Dave
It wasn`t that good that you needed to post twice.[

]

Boss Man · « **Reply #7 on:** February 22, 2006, 19:17:56 »

daveandmaureen,

I would just like to point out that topics will either be locked out either by myself or any of the forum moderators if either of us feel that a discussion is getting out of hand.

I will not have this site turned into another slaying pit for disgruntled members or management. The goal of the site is for timeshare owners to come together, meet, exchange ideas / information, ask questions, give answers, and to promote Timeshare. It is also to educate the public on the scams in timeshare, something that the government and law enforcement agencies are failing badly at, and as I see it, the only way to help put a stop to the $"£!%"^£$ that give this industry a bad name.

Mavo · « **Reply #8 on:** February 22, 2006, 22:09:02 »

Hi Paul
Dave has conversed with me off site and explained why he was seeking info on the subject of the AGM and while it may have seemed leading because of events in other areas he assures me that it was quite innocently posted. I accept this assurance in all good faith and have given him my reasons for feeling why I felt it best to lock the topic when I did. Dave seems to have accepted my reasoning on this (which incidentally you I and Jeff all agree on) and so, that part of the matter is now closed as far as I am concerned. I am happy to leave the situation as it is at present and perhaps after a short period of time we could unlock and link the currently 2 seperated topics?
I feel that we have to take all things at face value until and unless something else disruptive occurs, when we can then re-assess the situation.

The Former Company is probably the most controversial company on the forums at the moment because of their precarious position in Europe and so we must expect and accept widely opposing views, as those such as myself try to highlight problems while others are so afraid to accept that problems exist, that they will become vociferous in defence of the company.

It is a little bit of a limbo situation at present and we The Former Company members must accept that until such times as something happens we just have to ride with the tide and accept that tensions will ebb and flow and a bubbling over will occur from time to time.
We must hope for some response to the call from Dave, Ian, (cornerways) and myself for some sort of unified plan of pressurised action to be constructed. This would at least channel energies into a team effort as opposed to destructive bickering among ourselves. The door has been opened and we must wait and see if any are brave enough to walk through it.

CORNERWAYS · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2006, 02:35:20 »

I apreciate the acknowledgement to my earlier post,as a suggestion can moderators contact existing AND PAST [assuming archives provide details] members to ask what they would perceive to be POSITIVE steps to ensure existing and lapsed members might remain within/rejoin a PRO-ACTIVE forum.[?]
mention is made of the need to achieve 10% to be then able to be an effective voice, pointless having a welcoming front door whilst the back door exit is wide open, accepting POSITIVE critics, and learning of their needs is essential to achieve this goal.
Perhaps a 'statement of intent' listing, perhaps 6 bullet point, actions to be utilized, and anticipated/hoped for responses from The Former Company,then inviting as many as concur to copy, and on an agreed date [e.g. 3 weeks prior to AGM] en masse submit same. If 'loud enough' we might get heard!

Mavo · « **Reply #10 on:** March 16, 2006, 14:24:19 »

Hi Ian
I have left this topic alone just to see if anyone did take up the call.[

]

We on here as moderators do not have the ability to contact many members as quite a few use different names on here to the names they use elsewhere. I have also indicated to you by PM that I do not believe it would be constructive for me to have any personal involvement with an action group at this stage. If any group is capable of getting a few members together then it would be the yahoo group whose moderator has the ability to send out special notice emails to every member of that group. Whether he would be prepared to send out a special notice with a call for such activity may well be a bit of a strain on his true loyalties but you would be within your rights to ask the question of him.

krazykats · « **Reply #11 on:** March 16, 2006, 15:05:48 »

Hi all
I obviously missed the topic & have know way of judging whether this is the equivalent to censoreship on the other The Former Company site. Any who know me are aware I am against censoreship & feel that members can effect thier own censorship. However It is not my site and I am not the moderator of the The Former Company forums.
However I felt the need to comment on the thread. I really would not like this to be an anti The Former Company campaigning forum or appear to be one . I think there is a great danger of the latter & unfortunately this can result in it being largely dismissed as of no importance. I believe that Tom, Jeff & Helen do intend this to be a totally campaigning forum. However we don't have enough postive inputs. We need some other points to debate .

Mavo · « **Reply #12 on:** March 16, 2006, 15:45:39 »

Hi Kathy
The original topic was locked and is still locked simply because it was some questions Dave King asked of me and having answered them then it was considered concluded and so that topic was locked.
Dave wanted to expand further which I did not expect and so started this thread. I would have joined the two up by now but because Dave put it out of place I could not find it again and since then it has just gone out of my head. I will at some stage find the original and join them up.
Not too sure how you are reading this thread Kathy but the call, as I understand it, was for some positive activity via the forming of a group who could agree on specific topics and take their ideas, views, concerns to The Former Company. In any event after about 3 weeks there have been no takers so I have now suggested another way for others to try and contact like minded people.

krazykats · « **Reply #13 on:** March 16, 2006, 16:28:34 »

quote:
Originally posted by Mavo

Hi Kathy
Not too sure how you are reading this thread Kathy but the call, as I understand it, was for some positive activity via the forming of a group who could agree on specific topics and take their ideas, views, concerns to The Former Company. In any event after about 3 weeks there have been no takers so I have now suggested another way for others to try and contact like minded people.

Sorry Tom
I think I misunderstood the original idea. A bit like jumping in after only hearing part of a conversation.
Kathy