The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Jonty » 2 Dec 2010, 6:17pm

Edwards wrote:What is to stop each side putting up bigger and better prizes, only if they win the vote?


Edwards, you can't be serious!

Anyway as stated in a previous post, I already have a jacket (in fact 2, one light weight and one heavier). They are both Gills which enables me to returned to my wife if I get lost and can't remember my name.
My vote is up for graps to the highest bidder. A new jacket won't interest me in the slightest. If I'm going to sell my vote it's got to be worthwhile. I've already donated the jacket to meic's daughter.
I fancy a new Brompton - you know one with 6 speeds and the titanium bits and the well-designed front and rear luggage, with easy wheels, mudguards, rear rack and carrying bag.
Having assessed all the pros and cons thoroughly and left no stone unturned I've come to the decision that I'll vote either way one for a new Brompton as above.
Any takers?
Perhaps I should become an MP or a Lord?
On reflection, I think I'd better take legal advice before taking this further..... :wink:
jonty

User avatar
meic
Posts: 18493
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby meic » 2 Dec 2010, 6:54pm

Yorkshireman wrote:
meic wrote:I do not think that the way people have voted will have ANY bearing on who wins the jacket.
I am pretty certain it will be picked blind from a barrel or the electronic equivalent of that.

and the other goodies.


It's to be hoped that the 'picking of names' to go in the barrel goes a bit better than the than the 'putting names' etc on the voting forms seems to have gone :wink:


I appear to have hit lucky, I notice the draw is per vote form, so whole families only get one chance at the jacket and other goodies. By some fluke of luck from the way we have our membership and my wife being left off the form, we will get a form each. :D

We are going to have so many goodies this Christmas. :wink:
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
Yorkshireman
Posts: 352
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 6:59am
Location: North Hykeham, Lincoln.
Contact:

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Yorkshireman » 2 Dec 2010, 7:20pm

meic wrote:
Yorkshireman wrote:
meic wrote:I do not think that the way people have voted will have ANY bearing on who wins the jacket.
I am pretty certain it will be picked blind from a barrel or the electronic equivalent of that.

and the other goodies.


It's to be hoped that the 'picking of names' to go in the barrel goes a bit better than the than the 'putting names' etc on the voting forms seems to have gone :wink:


I appear to have hit lucky, I notice the draw is per vote form, so whole families only get one chance at the jacket and other goodies. By some fluke of luck from the way we have our membership and my wife being left off the form, we will get a form each. :D

We are going to have so many goodies this Christmas. :wink:


:lol:
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... but the wind is mostly in your face!
http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/

Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Jonty » 2 Dec 2010, 8:01pm

meic wrote:
Yorkshireman wrote:
meic wrote:I do not think that the way people have voted will have ANY bearing on who wins the jacket.
I am pretty certain it will be picked blind from a barrel or the electronic equivalent of that.

and the other goodies.


It's to be hoped that the 'picking of names' to go in the barrel goes a bit better than the than the 'putting names' etc on the voting forms seems to have gone :wink:


I appear to have hit lucky, I notice the draw is per vote form, so whole families only get one chance at the jacket and other goodies. By some fluke of luck from the way we have our membership and my wife being left off the form, we will get a form each. :D

We are going to have so many goodies this Christmas. :wink:


This is totally out of order. It discrimates against non-Welshmen. This blatant discrimination will make the results of the poll invalid. I'm a victim. I'm going to start "the CTC shouldn't discriminate against non-Welshman campaign".
I'm going to bring the matter up with my solicitor.
After all a free cycling jacket is after all ... a free cycling jacket.
jonty

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12838
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby gaz » 2 Dec 2010, 9:13pm

I understand that the names of the prize winners will be published tomorrow on wiki-leeks.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

thirdcrank
Posts: 26227
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby thirdcrank » 2 Dec 2010, 9:33pm

gaz wrote:...wiki-leeks.

:lol: - best I've seen for a while. :lol:

On a slightly more serious note - not at all serious except for anybody aspiring to the Goretex jacket (and possibly perspiring in the meantime) - has there been any explanation of how they will conduct the draw? If it's just a matter of putting all the voting papers in a bag and pulling out the winner, that would mean that the more members in a family, the smaller an individual family member's chance of winning would be.

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Regulator » 2 Dec 2010, 9:40pm

thirdcrank wrote:
gaz wrote:...wiki-leeks.

:lol: - best I've seen for a while. :lol:

On a slightly more serious note - not at all serious except for anybody aspiring to the Goretex jacket (and possibly perspiring in the meantime) - has there been any explanation of how they will conduct the draw? If it's just a matter of putting all the voting papers in a bag and pulling out the winner, that would mean that the more members in a family, the smaller an individual family member's chance of winning would be.


I'm not sure that it has been thought through to that level...

I have a feeling that someone may have had the bright idea of offering prizes to encourage people to vote - but that's about as far as it went.

Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Jonty » 2 Dec 2010, 9:53pm

thirdcrank wrote:
gaz wrote:...wiki-leeks.

:lol: - best I've seen for a while. :lol:

On a slightly more serious note - not at all serious except for anybody aspiring to the Goretex jacket (and possibly perspiring in the meantime) - has there been any explanation of how they will conduct the draw? If it's just a matter of putting all the voting papers in a bag and pulling out the winner, that would mean that the more members in a family, the smaller an individual family member's chance of winning would be.


+1 :lol:

As I understand it all the no votes will be destroyed, (I'm talking about members here not the votes). Then all the Yes votes will be put into a big pot. All votes from non-Welshmen will be abstracted and destroyed.
The the chairman will pick the winner - himself and his children (he's Welsh you know).
Now a serious point, I think. Are employees and officials of the CTC allowed to participate in the "raffle." This issue is of such importance that I consider we urgently need a legal opinion.
If they can participate then they could unfairly influence the outcome.
I suggest that the raffle only be for the potential benefit of "the rank and file" membership.
What do others think? :wink:
Afer all, a cycling jacket is ... a cycling jacket.
jonty

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14764
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Si » 3 Dec 2010, 10:03am

Jonty wrote:-snip-

It's not up to you to decide whether members are sheep or not and I suggest it's not something you should speculate upon. You seems to have a poor opinion of members and their motivation. If I win the cycling jersey I'll donate it to a good cause. :wink:

Democrary does have its shortcoming. For example everyone who's a member can vote irrespective of their educational attainment or intelligence. But generally I think it's the "least worst" system that's available. Perhaps voting should be resticted to "superior" types like you or even me? :wink:

Even if you got some feedback on this it would be anecodatal and fairly worthless. I'm surprised at the low regard some posters hold about other CTC members and their ability to understand simply voting arrangements. :wink:
jonty


1/ You asked about the potential problems with the voting system. Please don't get upset and start telling me what I can or can't do just because I supply you with an answer. Furthermore, I did not accuse anyone of being sheep - I merely pointed out that because the system might be accused of promoting a certain behavior, it is less than idea. It is a double edged sword - if everyone reads through all of the documentation and understands the issues as fully as possible, and then votes for the Charity Merger, the opposition might use this flaw in the voting procedure to criticise the whole process. Thus it helps no one.

2/ Please don't try to be funny if you haven't understood what I am saying properly - if in doubt, just ask for clarification. No where did I say that only "superior" people should be allowed to vote. I merely said that it would be better if people tried to understand the issues before voting, that it would be better to have as many people in the club voting on its (their) future as possible, and that if people were to vote randomly, then they shouldn't really complain afterwards.

3/ Given that the chair's votes have been raised as a major issue (whether he used them in the way that people who made him their proxy would have wanted) I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask how many of these people (who gave the chair their proxy) were unhappy with the way that it was used, or would not have given it if they knew how things would turn out. If this information was available then it would not be anecdotal, it would be a matter of fact, and it would also help to clear up one of the points of argument arising from the AGM.

Edwards
Posts: 5974
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Edwards » 3 Dec 2010, 10:59am

Si I think it was me that lowered to tone to the joking about the raffle and not others. I have attempted to show in a cynical and slightly humorous way that because of the incentive to vote, then the whole thing can be manipulated by those that want to.
The manipulation I was trying to show has now come out in the form of exaggerated humor.

I certainly was not suggesting any wrong doing is even being contemplated, but trying to show how things can be taken further with the correct incentives depending on the outcome you desire. Then the result is open to be questioned.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14764
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Si » 3 Dec 2010, 11:10am

don't worry Keith, I was replying specifically to Jonty's second point - using sarcasm to underline a point can be beneficial when used wisely, alas, when it's deployed based upon a misunderstanding of what the other person has said, it becomes a bit painful and is wont to derail debate.

In your particular case I thought that there ws nothing wrong (especially as you were using it to point out the flaws in a system rather than counter someone else's opinion (which wasn't actually that person's opinion to start with))!

Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Jonty » 3 Dec 2010, 11:46am

Si wrote:
Jonty wrote:-snip-

It's not up to you to decide whether members are sheep or not and I suggest it's not something you should speculate upon. You seems to have a poor opinion of members and their motivation. If I win the cycling jersey I'll donate it to a good cause. :wink:

Democrary does have its shortcoming. For example everyone who's a member can vote irrespective of their educational attainment or intelligence. But generally I think it's the "least worst" system that's available. Perhaps voting should be resticted to "superior" types like you or even me? :wink:

Even if you got some feedback on this it would be anecodatal and fairly worthless. I'm surprised at the low regard some posters hold about other CTC members and their ability to understand simply voting arrangements. :wink:
jonty


1/ You asked about the potential problems with the voting system. Please don't get upset and start telling me what I can or can't do just because I supply you with an answer. Furthermore, I did not accuse anyone of being sheep - I merely pointed out that because the system might be accused of promoting a certain behavior, it is less than idea. It is a double edged sword - if everyone reads through all of the documentation and understands the issues as fully as possible, and then votes for the Charity Merger, the opposition might use this flaw in the voting procedure to criticise the whole process. Thus it helps no one.

2/ Please don't try to be funny if you haven't understood what I am saying properly - if in doubt, just ask for clarification. No where did I say that only "superior" people should be allowed to vote. I merely said that it would be better if people tried to understand the issues before voting, that it would be better to have as many people in the club voting on its (their) future as possible, and that if people were to vote randomly, then they shouldn't really complain afterwards.

3/ Given that the chair's votes have been raised as a major issue (whether he used them in the way that people who made him their proxy would have wanted) I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask how many of these people (who gave the chair their proxy) were unhappy with the way that it was used, or would not have given it if they knew how things would turn out. If this information was available then it would not be anecdotal, it would be a matter of fact, and it would also help to clear up one of the points of argument arising from the AGM.


Si - apologies if I've upset you.
As stated on posts above, I and others would also prefer that people voted having regard to all relevant information and thereby made an informed decision. That is why I have sought and obtained information from members of this Forum. But no one can insist on this. All members have the vote whether or not they are informed or not. That is their prerogative. Polls of this nature are governed by law.
Frankly I think to say something along the lines "this depends on whether or not you think members are sheep" is IMO unfortunate and unnecessary.
It is standard practice as set out in law that members can elect for the Chairman to vote on their behalf. They may do this because they may think the Chairman knows more about it than they do, or indeed they agree with the proposal. As I say this is standard practice under Company Law.
To assume this process was flawed because the Chairmane exercised his right to cast the votes elected to him my members is simply nonsense and grossly misleading.
Also to come to the view that CTC members are incapable of working out what they were voting for is in my view judgemental and demeaning. As I said previously I detect a sense of elitism on this forum which I find surprising.
Anyway, why don't we look forward to the new poll rather than looking backwards?
jonty

toontra
Posts: 499
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby toontra » 4 Dec 2010, 8:01pm

Jonty wrote:Frankly I think to say something along the lines "this depends on whether or not you think members are sheep" is IMO unfortunate and unnecessary.


Where did anyone say anything remotely corresponding to that? Your posts are becoming increasingly condescending and patronising in equal measure. Peppering them with smily emoticons doesn't alleviate the effect, I'm afraid :roll:

You appear to have made your mind up based on your own interpretation of the information you have gleaned - fine. That's what this whole process should be about. However I'm sure you would agree that others may reach a quite different conclusion based on examining the same data. It's not helpful to personalise this issue and talk down to those who disagree with you.

drossall
Posts: 4127
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby drossall » 4 Dec 2010, 8:25pm

Si on Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:21 am wrote:I guess it depends on whether you believe that the majority of the membership are sheep?

I'm somewhat unsure how to vote this time. However, I have not been impressed by the line of argument that says that the last vote was not proper because of the way the chair used his proxy votes. Members are entitled to give the chair their votes, it's normal practice, and it should not be assumed that they did not know what they are doing, just because their actions did not suit one side or the other.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 18493
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby meic » 4 Dec 2010, 10:03pm

I would not have challenged the outcome on those grounds either, not because I believe that the membership are infallible but because that was within the rules.
As there are no proxy votes this time it will not be an issue.

I guess the single most likely reason for granting the Chairman an unconditional proxy is that you want the merger to go ahead but trust the Chairman enough that if he suddenly sees it is the wrong decision, he can use your vote against.
Not surprisingly he didnt have a conversion on the day.
Yma o Hyd