WorldMark Who to vote for, and why?

Welcome back to the old Perry. That is the best post of yours I have read in months. You really want a CEO and a bunch of worldmark employees. How is that going to happen? The status Quo BOD will NEVER do anything like that. However, a single member can, at a minimum help to inform ownership and people can see an occasional opposing vote. Also, with the proxies maybe we could get another vote independent next year. Heck maybe you could run for the BOD with you campaign centered on employees and internal management. NOTHING will change until owners get a foot in the door and a seat at the table. We may barely even get scraps but we will have a voice.

Assign your Proxy to Phillip Abdouch

Points Dilution – big deal!

I’m going to give you guys an example of how obsession can cloud what you should be doing:


Many involved WM owners are all bent out of shape about “Cornfield condos” and “Bloated credit values for new resorts” they think that WM credits are getting diluted. They are but so what? (I used to be worried, then sat back and found a great work around)

WN gave us owners the biggest gift any developer has EVER given ANY owner – we don’t need to buy WM credits, we can rent unlimited WM credits from other owners.

So instead of paying $1.90 a WM credit from WN or buying the credits resale for 70¢ you can rent them for just 5¢ to 7¢ as you need them.

Good grief, those of you so consumed with dilution of credits should just rent the credits and enjoy the fantastic set of rules WN has left us. Instead, some WM owners consumed with changing the rules have pleaded with WN to change those wonderful rules to prevent “Commercial Use” of those credits(That would be renting to the rest of us).

Well while WN was begged to change the existing 20 year old rules they decided to screw around with reservations more than 14 days long. One of the fantastic abilities of WM is that you could plan 30 – 360 days in advance and spend a month or so by booking back to back WM reservations.

Let’s say that you wanted to spend a month traveling from just south of the US boarder to just north of it. WM has resorts all along the way – stay 3 days here, 4 days there, 2 days there, 12 days somewhere else. You get the idea.

Well the busybody owners who stuck their collective noses into preventing “Commercial use” allowed WN to kill the practice I just described.

Thanks a lot busybodies.


This is just one example of how some WM owners want to stick their nose in areas that they deem “Unfair” and cause WN to make unintended consequences.

WN seems to be happy with the ability to rent unlimited WM credits from fellow owners and not force you to be limited to what you own (it used to be 2x the amount, but their new program couldn't handle it so it went to unlimited credits). Have WN screw around with the rules more and they will yank that great rule; then you will have a points dilution problem caused by busybodies.


Each WM owner will have to decide if these are the kinds of things you want happening on a more frequent basis. I sure don’t want this intrusion.

The simple answer to many of these things that cause some WM owners to go bonkers are just common sense and a willingness to work around “problems” and not throw out 20 year old rules that give the sharp WM owner such latitude.

Be careful what you wish for - you might actually get it.

Why did you buy those WM credits? To fight wars?

P.S.
All those WN employees in our 60+ resorts are paid for by our dues - and to top it off we throw in a profit for WN to pay their salaries instead of WN - get rid of that profit and let those WN employees become WM employees

Just for clarification, those "busybodies" that Perry is speaking of are not candidates for the board. No candidates that I am aware of agreed with the changes in the guidelines. One that I'm aware of, Jim Pappas, attended several Board meetings and argued against those changes.

The way your post is written could leave some to think that voting independent will cause rules to be changed, while the opposite is more likely true. The incumbents are changing the rules and allowing our rights to be eroded. It's the job of the board to enforce the bylaws, not provide workarounds or changes to force owners to buy more credits to get the same usage they had before.

Your position, to simply adapt to the abuses and not fight them, is certainly valid. Most owners will choose your method, and simply vote with their feet or their pocketbook. It doesn't make the alternative wrong. Look at it this way; it costs little to vote. You might as well vote for the side that will represent the owner's interests exclusively.

We need the current 400+ employees who now work for WN to work for WM (I’m the one calling for this, I don’t know of anyone else)

Click to expand...

All those WN employees in our 60+ resorts are paid for by our dues - and to top it off we throw in a profit for WN to pay their salaries instead of WN - get rid of that profit and let those WN employees become WM employees

Click to expand...

Good Lord...
What you are recommending is financially insane. It would cost millions and is not anywhere near as easy as you present it. (that's why they have companies that specialize in hospitality management...and they mostly rescue the poor oafs that try to jump into a pre-existing multi property companies and try to do it themselves...with disastrous results).

You go on and on about others wanting to make changes and yet your "lets get WM employees" idea is far more frightening in my book. (although not really.... because you may talk alot but, to my knowledge, have never actually made an effort to affect a real change through any action on your own part.) The board could change the mgt company...but those employees still wouldnt work for WM. Personally, there are things I would see our mgt company change/improve...but I've been satisfied for the most part.

Let’s say that you wanted to spend a month traveling from just south of the US boarder to just north of it. WM has resorts all along the way – stay 3 days here, 4 days there, 2 days there, 12 days somewhere else. You get the idea.

Well the busybody owners who stuck their collective noses into preventing “Commercial use” allowed WN to kill the practice I just described.

Click to expand...

The ability for owners to take those trips is still there and you know it. It simply requires an extra step (or two...depending on the length of your trip). I've heard only one or two owners who were upset/unhappy about this change...and those were people who did commercial renting. (go figure) The rest of us know that we can still take those trips and can plan them over a year in advance.

One that I'm aware of, Jim Pappas, attended several Board meetings and argued against those changes.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true Philip...we'd have to ask Jim. I know he fought to make the rule 14 days instead of 7...but I'm not sure he argued making the change itself...

ladycody said:

I'm not sure that's true Philip...we'd have to ask Jim. I know he fought to make the rule 14 days instead of 7...but I'm not sure he argued making the change itself...

Click to expand...

Yes, it's true. He was opposed to the change, as it definately affected him personally. But he did argue that, if they needed to make the change, to at least allow for 2 week vacations instead of 9 or whatever they eventually decided on. There are many owners who take 14 day trips, and want to plan far in advance to take these "once in a lifetime" trips.

He/she who controls the purse strings...

ladycody said:

Good Lord...
What you are recommending is financially insane. It would cost millions and is not anywhere near as easy as you present it. (that's why they have companies that specialize in hospitality management...and they mostly rescue the poor oafs that try to jump into a pre-existing multi property companies and try to do it themselves...with disastrous results).

You go on and on about others wanting to make changes and yet your "lets get WM employees" idea is far more frightening in my book. (although not really.... because you may talk alot but, to my knowledge, have never actually made an effort to affect a real change through any action on your own part.) The board could change the mgt company...but those employees still wouldnt work for WM. Personally, there are things I would see our mgt company change/improve...but I've been satisfied for the most part.

The ability for owners to take those trips is still there and you know it. It simply requires an extra step (or two...depending on the length of your trip). I've heard only one or two owners who were upset/unhappy about this change...and those were people who did commercial renting. (go figure) The rest of us know that we can still take those trips and can plan them over a year in advance.

Click to expand...

It's fine for a single timeshare resort to have a HOA and management company who does the bookings and arranges for the cleaning staff.

However, with 60+ resorts worldwide, 5,000 condos owned, this is insanity. WM is a Billion Dollar entity but acts like a little independent timeshare resort in North Dakota.

That $190 M annual operating budget pays for ALL the employees that wear the WN uniforms. That same money should NOT be turned over to WN but to WM's operations.

This is the problem I have with the current crop of candidates - they are heading down the wrong path. I want a WM CEO and hundreds of employees that work for us.

Right now every penny of the annual MF's, all $190 M, is turned over to WN and they control those purse strings.

Until I see a candidate who understands this fundamental difference I'll stick with the status quo - I don't think they add anything but monkey business to the situation.


I'm guessing that 90% - 95% of the WM owners just don't think of renting WM credits to overcome these obstacles - that's fine with me. Don't lump me into those folks who haven't a clue how this works.

T_R_Oglodyte said:

sounds to me as if ladycody could equally say that "cotraveller can remove all of the stuff he wants, there is still a legally binding document that says the Club is not required to accept whatever Wyndham decides to add".

Click to expand...

I my opinion the problem is that 4 of the 5 BOD members either are now getting their paycheck from Wyndham or have in the past, and no doubt have a large chunk of Wyndham stock. It is in their best interest to put the interests of Wyndham stock holder ahead of WM owners.

I see this as a serious conflict of interests.

I am not anti Wyndham but feel we need an independiant BOD to look out for our interets first.

Cronies are important - get the right ones...

melschey said:

I my opinion the problem is that 4 of the 5 BOD members either are now getting their paycheck from Wyndham or have in the past, and no doubt have a large chunk of Wyndham stock. It is in their best interest to put the interests of Wyndham stock holder ahead of WM owners.

I see this as a serious conflict of interests.

I am not anti Wyndham but feel we need an independiant BOD to look out for our interets first.

Click to expand...

I don't think it matters one bit; who those 5 folks are - they are ALL WM owners.

This is like worrying about who is on the BOD of GM - they are all cronies of the management team. You as a stockholder never deal with these guys you deal with the management team of GM who reports to the CEO who reports to the BOD.

That's the problem, we have the wrong cronies - they are cronies of the developer Wyndham instead of cronies of WorldMark's management team.

These folks should not be the folks we bow down and pray to on a daily basis.

You should be able to pick up that phone and talk to a member of the management team of WorldMark and NOT Wyndham.


Let's get it right here folks - we want OUR cronies running the WM BOD; OUR CEO should be answering to them and NOT another companies.

T_R_Oglodyte said:

sounds to me as if ladycody could equally say that "cotraveller can remove all of the stuff he wants, there is still a legally binding document that says the Club is not required to accept whatever Wyndham decides to add".

Click to expand...

She might say that, and to a certain extent the part about removing all the stuff I want has some validity. We all phrase our comments in a manner designed to emphasize the point we are trying to make.

However, the quote I listed from the Vacation Program Agreement does state that WorldMark “agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program” for new resorts added to the system by Wyndham. I have not yet found a statement anywhere in the governing documents, or in any other legally binding document, that says the “Club is not required to accept whatever Wyndham decides to add”. The most often referenced qualifier is the “Subject to Section 8” qualifier that I did not include in my original quote. That is a reference to the Declaration of Vacation Owner Program. Of particular note is the statement in that section, in Paragraph 8.1 referring to the Declaration for additional units or resorts, that states: ”Any such Declaration may contain such additions and modifications of the Restrictions herein as may be necessary to reflect the different character, if any, of the property;” (Another incomplete quote, the entire section is over a full page long.) That provides a fairly wide latitude for differences in the Declarations for individual properties.

It is often said that the governing documents provide protections for the owners. What is not mentioned, either intentionally or unintentionally, is that those same documents also provide some very solid protections for the developer. Like it or not, it is WorldMark by Wyndham. The normal response is that those developer protections would not hold up in a court of law. That brings us full circle to the questions of lawsuits. I do not feel it is necessary to repeat my opinions of those for a third time within this thread.

After I pressed the point about Worldmark having the right to refuse resorts for years, the Board finally agreed to get a legal opinion on the issue. While they haven't released that opinion to anyone, as far as I know, I've been told by a good source that I was right. About the time the Board received that legal opinion, Gene Hensley did a complete 180 degree on the issue, and started saying, "Of course we have the right to refuse resorts, in fact we've done so". After years of him saying exactly the opposite, do you think that might indicate my source was correct?

Perry-
I asked Stephaine Aardal and Peggy Fry when the last bid for management was reviewed by the BOD. I was told that no one had ever asked for a bid.
I agree that it is odd that WM has no employees. It would be a simple task to employ people. We could even hire all of the current WYN managers and staff to start and then move to replacing those people over time. Not ideal, but doable.
One independent owner WILL be elected this year. The 2 incumbants will also be re-elected most likely. The question is really: Who is the most qualified owner to present a rational argument to the BOD, not simply argue with the BOD. Simply saying "you're wrong" is not effective. Understanding the issues and providing constructive criticism is effective. Not all candidates want to tear the system down and replace it.
Guy

Numbers, numbers, where are the numbers...

drguy said:

Perry-
I asked Stephaine Aardal and Peggy Fry when the last bid for management was reviewed by the BOD. I was told that no one had ever asked for a bid.

I agree that it is odd that WM has no employees. It would be a simple task to employ people. We could even hire all of the current WYN managers and staff to start and then move to replacing those people over time. Not ideal, but doable.

One independent owner WILL be elected this year. The 2 incumbants will also be re-elected most likely. The question is really: Who is the most qualified owner to present a rational argument to the BOD, not simply argue with the BOD. Simply saying "you're wrong" is not effective. Understanding the issues and providing constructive criticism is effective. Not all candidates want to tear the system down and replace it.
Guy

Click to expand...

Well, how many WN employees work 100% of the time for WM?

I don’t ever remember seeing that number. Could be 400, could be 1,000; who knows? Well the WM BOD should know this stat and see if we are spending the hard earned MFs of the members correctly.

There are a lot of simple numbers that the WM BOD should have at it’s finger tips to decide if the current, NO BIDDER, maintenance company is doing a great job or not.

I just don’t see any candidate asking for these numbers in a very public forum.

If candidates care so little about the fundamental numbers why should they be assumed to do a better job than the existing cronies or new cronies of WN?

All I hear about is an “Independent WM BOD”, that’s kind of like Independent Suspension on a car – whoop-d-do; all going different directions as the same time.

Another fundamental number that is needed to run WM correctly is a current real estate appreciation of all 5,000 condos – what are they worth?

I guess I’m looking for an MBA who knows how to get a handle on the numbers and hold the BOD accountable – I see no such candidate. But, I must admit, I gave up looking months ago and have decided to vote incumbents and those that I don’t think will cause me any harm.


Just because a candidate utters the mantra "Vote for an independent WM BOD" does not mean anything unless they want to apply some business principles like all those employees work for WM.

In the past 5 years poor old WM has had 3 management companies and all those folks get their check from a new company - they should get it from WM and no one else.

So tell me you want WM employees manning our 60+ resorts, 5,000 condos, and in charge of the $190,000,000 yearly operating budget and you have my vote.



P.S.
It’s so easy to get used to big numbers - $190,000,000 in $1 bills would be a stack 68,083 feet high or 12.9 miles high. This is no small amount of money to just give to a company who never submitted a bid.

Those same dollar bills, laid end to end, would circle the earth at Washington state's latitude. Not one of those dollars was ever put up for bid.

ladycody said:

I'm not sure that's true Philip...we'd have to ask Jim. I know he fought to make the rule 14 days instead of 7...but I'm not sure he argued making the change itself...

Click to expand...

When I got involved... the existing BOD had ALREADY made changes to the regulations that limited an owners right to make grouped reservations beyond seven days... I.E. the final segment had to start within 7 days of the initial segment.

The BOD had failed to realize that this put an extreme hardship on the owner base. This is especially true since the vast majority of working folks take a full week off of work, and then combine it with 2 weekends giving 9 days of total vacation time (10 if combined with a long weekend). Hence... if someone from Seattle (for example) wanted to take the following 9-day driving vacation during red season they would be unable:

1) 2 days in Vancouver
2) 5 days in Whister
3) 2 days at the beach in Birch Bay

The obvious issue is that the 3rd and final segment could not be added to the reservation since the 7 day limit had already been reached. Also... since it is red season... it could never be made until within 60 days (at the time)... and of course the resort would likely be fully booked by then... not to mention that reasonable vacation planning would be impossible.

When I presented this flaw to the BOD, they quickly realized the error... and modified their existing restriction to allow grouped reservations to be made up to 14 days. The number "14" is significant because it means that any arbitrary length reservation could be broken up into 7 day segments and booked (weekly). This fixes the problem listed in the example above which would essentially disqualify "normal 9 day vacations" from the vast majority of owners. My goal was especially important to protect the rights of small account size owners who could not afford wasteful throw-away days.

I also worked hard to turn around another restriction that the BOD had already imposed on owners ability to rent credits. This rule would affect all owners... and even though I personally do not like having owners like Perry using his large account to rent prime weeks to sell on Ebay or whatever... I made sure that his rights were protected for every single credit that he personally owns. Once again... the BOD followed my advice and reversed their previously voted, and approved restrictions... which increased his rights... rather than take away rights as he is insinuating.

/Jim

I wish WM owners would stop poking that hornet's nest

FLYNZ4 said:

When I got involved... the existing BOD had ALREADY made changes to the regulations that limited an owers right to make grouped reservations beyond seven days... I.E. the final segment had to start within 7 days of the intitial segment.

The BOD had failed to realize that this put an extreme hardship on the owner base. This is especially true since the vast majority of working americans take a full week off of work, and then combine it with 2 weekends giving 9 days of total vacation time (10 if combined with a long weekend). Hence... if someone from Seattle (for example) wanted to take the following vacation during red season they would be unable:

1) 2 days in Vancouver
2) 5 days in Whister
3) 2 days at the beach in Birch Bay

The obvious issue is that the 3rd and final segment could not be added to the reservation since the 7 day limit had already been reached. Also... since it is red season... it could not ever be made until within 60 days (at the time)... and of course the resort would likely be fully booked by then.

When I presented this flaw to the BOD, they quickly realized the error... and modified their existing restriction to allow grouped reservations to be made up to 14 days. The number "14" is important because it means that any string of reservations could be broken up into 7 day segments and booked... unlike the example above which would essentially disqualify "normal 9 day vacations" from the vast majority of owners. My goal was especially important to protect the rights of small owners.

I also worked hard to turn around another restriction that the BOD had already imposed on owners ability to rent credits. This rule would affect all owerns... and even though I personally do not like having owners like Perry renting prime weeks to sell on ebay or whatever... I made sure that his rights were protected for every single credit that he personally owns. Once again... the BOD followed my advice and reveresed their previously voted, and approved restrictions.

/Jim

Click to expand...

And all of this tinkering started when a number of WM owners went bellyaching to WN over 1 or 2 owners. This is what scares the hell out of me with the independent WM owner. The door has already been opened for willy-nilly changes to 20 year old rules thanks to those same folks chanting "Intendant WM BOD".

I am hoping that with WN cronies ensconced back in the WM BOD they will leave us alone. Poke a hornet's nest and you will get stung. If an independent WM owner gets in we can look for more retaliation. If one does get in I want one to fight for the right principles - make WM autonomous. It will take years of work and much research.

Giving more power to the WM BOD is NOT the correct answer, it is the wrong answer. We need to bleed it from them with our own CEO and management team.

Perry, you make no sense at all. The current directors had made decisions that you don't like, not the candidates. Wake up and smell the coffee. They want owners to buy more credits, plain and simple. And as long as Wyndham is the board, they will do whatever then can to accomplish that goal. I, for one, am thankful that Jim got involved and helped to mitigate the harm.

Your idea of having WM have its own employees may be a very good idea, but the current board will never consider it. It's beyond their imagination to even think about it. Why would they? They are Wyndham. It would not be profitable to Wyndham.

Your idea about having the properties appraised and establishing a value on credits and requiring that all new resorts conform to that value is a great idea. Nobody in their right mind thinks that the current directors would ever consider that. Again, why would they? They are Wyndham. It would not be profitable to Wyndham.

SleepinIn said:

Perry, you make no sense at all. The current directors had made decisions that you don't like, not the candidates. Wake up and smell the coffee. They want owners to buy more credits, plain and simple. And as long as Wyndham is the board, they will do whatever then can to accomplish that goal. I, for one, am thankful that Jim got involved and helped to mitigate the harm.

Your idea of having WM have its own employees may be a very good idea, but the current board will never consider it. It's beyond their imagination to even think about it. Why would they? They are Wyndham. It would not be profitable to Wyndham.

Your idea about having the properties appraised and establishing a value on credits and requiring that all new resorts conform to that value is a great idea. Nobody in their right mind thinks that the current directors would ever consider that. Again, why would they? They are Wyndham. It would not be profitable to Wyndham.

Click to expand...

Sadly, I am the one who first proposed all these ideas and none of the candidates running have ever mentioned that this is the correct avenue to pursue. I'd rather stick with the current crop of board members and have them fall back into a stupor and leave the members alone.

That's what I am proposing - stop beating the wasp nest with sticks and leave what we have had for 20 years alone. If I thought for a second that any of the candidates was on the right course I'd endorse them.

PerryM said:

Sadly, I am the one who first proposed all these ideas and none of the candidates running have ever mentioned that this is the correct avenue to pursue. I'd rather stick with the current crop of board members and have them fall back into a stupor and leave the members alone.

That's what I am proposing - stop beating the wasp nest with sticks and leave what we have had for 20 years alone. If I thought for a second that any of the candidates was on the right course I'd endorse them.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I just wanted to point out that since John Walker, our lone independent on the board, is NOT running for re-election, a NEW independent WILL get elected into the third position, even if you give all of your votes for the 3 positions to Hensley and Fry, the 2 Wyndham directors who are running as incumbents. You CANNOT "stick with the current crop." Changes are coming.

Secondly, if the "current crop of board members" has changed Worldmark for the worse in your opinion, what makes you think that they will not continue to do so in the future? Isn't it illogical to think that they will suddenly "fall back into a stupor" ?

Thirdly, with or without your approval, Hensley and Fry are going to be re-elected, simply because the majority of owners who do vote (which is a low %) think status quo (like you do), stupor or not.

Benign is better for now...

LLW said:

Firstly, I just wanted to point out that since John Walker, our lone independent on the board, is NOT running for re-election, a NEW independent WILL get elected into the third position, even if you give all of your votes for the 3 positions to Hensley and Fry, the 2 Wyndham directors who are running as incumbents. You CANNOT "stick with the current crop." Changes are coming.

Secondly, if the "current crop of board members" has changed Worldmark for the worse in your opinion, what makes you think that they will not continue to do so in the future? Isn't it illogical to think that they will suddenly "fall back into a stupor" ?

Thirdly, with or without your approval, Hensley and Fry are going to be re-elected, simply because the majority of owners who do vote (which is a low %) think status quo (like you do), stupor or not.

Click to expand...

Then all I need to do is find a benign WM owner who wants to keep a low profile and not whack the hornet's nest and stir up things.

If the folks running for the WM BOD haven't a clue how WM should be run I'd rather have them be the person who takes the lunch orders and while out the rest of the members vote for what's best for Wyndham and not rabble rousers who want to take over the world.

This is just my way of insuring that WM owners, who ever they are, keep their busybody nose out of grown up business. None of the candidates seem to understand what needs to be done in what order.

This is just the opinion of one WM owner who has already been stung by those hornets twice now.

Hornets in the treehouse?

Yes, Perry, if you mess with a hornet's nest you might get stung. But if there is a hornet's nest in my children's treehouse, you bet I'm going to get rid of it. I am going to very carefully, with proper preparation and knowledge, remove that nest. I realize that the chance of getting stung during the process is high. But I am more than willing to take the risk of getting a sting or two myself in order to protect my children, my grandchildren, and their guests from getting stung over and over, and having to give up their treehouse entirely.

-Marci (Mike also uses this username; the posts earlier in this thread are his)

And all of this tinkering started when a number of WM owners went bellyaching to WN over 1 or 2 owners. This is what scares the hell out of me with the independent WM owner. The door has already been opened for willy-nilly changes to 20 year old rules thanks to those same folks chanting "Intendant WM BOD".

I am hoping that with WN cronies ensconced back in the WM BOD they will leave us alone. Poke a hornet's nest and you will get stung. If an independent WM owner gets in we can look for more retaliation. If one does get in I want one to fight for the right principles - make WM autonomous. It will take years of work and much research.

Giving more power to the WM BOD is NOT the correct answer, it is the wrong answer. We need to bleed it from them with our own CEO and management team.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear here Perry (Which I am fairly certain that you are intentionally trying NOT TO BE). The people who raised this complaint are not only not actively affiliated with WMOWNERS.COM but they are pretty hostile toward that site and those associated with it. It was WMOWNERS who found out about the rule change and with Jim's help and others lobbied hard to try and salvage a bad situation.

Any time anyone anywhere does something you do not like you say WM Owners are trying to mess with the system. Instead of simply saying some ill advised owners or mis informed owners and belly aching to the BOD. You intentionally try to associate and incriminate WMOWNERS.COM. Regardless of whether they agree with the complaint or fight against the proposals recommended. You have mentioned many many times that wmowners has instigated rules changes because of our complaining and I have challenged you to mention one single instance where something brought up by that site initiated a negative impact on the club. I have mentioned many many specific positives but I have yet to hear one specific negative.

Mike

Just a replacement for the old developer site...

mtribe said:

Just to be clear here Perry (Which I am fairly certain that you are intentionally trying NOT TO BE). The people who raised this complaint are not only not actively affiliated with WMOWNERS.COM but they are pretty hostile toward that site and those associated with it. It was WMOWNERS who found out about the rule change and with Jim's help and others lobbied hard to try and salvage a bad situation.

Any time anyone anywhere does something you do not like you say WM Owners are trying to mess with the system. Instead of simply saying some ill advised owners or mis informed owners and belly aching to the BOD. You intentionally try to associate and incriminate WMOWNERS.COM. Regardless of whether they agree with the complaint or fight against the proposals recommended. You have mentioned many many times that wmowners has instigated rules changes because of our complaining and I have challenged you to mention one single instance where something brought up by that site initiated a negative impact on the club. I have mentioned many many specific positives but I have yet to hear one specific negative.

Mike

Click to expand...

WMowners.com has morphed from a benign chat room into a raging site of folks hell bent on taking over the WM BOD. Good grief in just the past 2 weeks all kinds of squirrely ideas have been bantered about on how to react to yet another WM owner and his kind efforts to improve their lot over there.

I’m talking about one owner who wrote a program to alert WM owners when Bonus Time was available and alert them via eMail. This kind offer was then met with they typical lynch mob mentality on how to punish this one WM owner by suggesting to Wyndham, via their web site, how to defeat his program.

This is but one example where their chat room has singled out individual WM owners for shoddy treatment – its kind of a sport over there. They used to bitch and moan how the official developer site would do the same – they have just replaced it.

They have all kinds of political wars raging all the time with various camps lobbing insults and innuendos at each other all the time. They have lost their way.

P.S.
I remember when my posts would be edited by administrates and things I never said and animations I never use were routinely added - I would have to go back and delete them. This is not some little helpless innocent chat room - it is a bare knuckle political witch brew of folks who delight in name calling, innuendos, and character assassination - use it at your own risk.

P.P.S.
It helps to have a real thick skin if you plan to visit WMowners.com - a real thick skin.

Oh fer cryin' out loud....:hysterical:

For those reading:

Most of the innuendos and insults I've ever seen in any discussion involving Perry were lobbed by and/or instigated by Perry. They can be uncomfortable threads to read...but mostly because of references to owners as being ignorant, blind, foolish, stupid, pathetic, etc (all terms used by Perry). Honestly... I generally find the folks at wmowners to be very nice...but many dont respond well to name-calling...even if it's just directed at a group and not pointing at a specific individual. There are many who believe there are other ways to communicate without being insulting and verbally abusive and some simply dont respond well when confronted with rude disrespect....

Nobody at WMowners instigated the rule changes that Perry has been referencing. They were already being discussed by the BOD when wmowners first heard about the changes...

Nobody from wmowners contacted Wyndham regarding Alertie either...matter of fact, my first inkling that it was against the WorldMark website use restrictions was because of a post made by Perry who recommended that the Joajay(i think that's the name...anyway...the developer of Alertie) Perry recommended that he/she go to Wyndham and ask for permission to use it because it seemed to be firmly against the rules. WMowners didnt even need to worry about notifying WVO about alertie...Perry had it covered. :rofl:

As for wmowners being full of radicals who are always trying to change things instead of leaving 20 year old rules alone...the following quote was by Perry himself in June of 06 and is far more radical than ANYTHING else I've ever heard on that site...so go figure...

The name of the game is using every day at every WM resort. To me, there seems to be 2 types of vacations involved here:

7-day Red season vacations (Or more)
This is our 13 month out one that we all fight for and even place phony reservations in front of to get. From my watching of the inventory, this is immediately snapped up within a few days of the 13 months. After that, the same inventory languishes around until 60 days.

I guess WM has some statistics that would help the BOD here but from my observations 7 months should be enough time for folks to get vacation time reserved at work and book WM reservations. This would bring us to 6 months before check-in day. At that time, WM should actively work at “Selling” the time to owners and others.

Hotel usage
6 months before check-in WM should become a hotel (1 day minimum) and if you want just weekend usage this should be allowed – at a premium. WM should charge the daily rates but add a hotel fee:

6 months – charge 1,000 WM credits extra for less than 7 day stay
5 months – 750 extra
4 months - 500 extra
3 months – 0
2 months – minus 500 WM credits (WM pays you)
1 months – minus 750

This scheme is handled by the computer booking screen and a “Hotel usage” sign lights up at the 6 month mark. This chart is flexible and could change for each resort if need be. Certainly the credits charged/given are flexible.

Negative fees would, of course, encourage some of us to abuse the system (who would ever do that?) and have some additional restrictions.

To me it would encourage WM owners to be creative and use our resorts.

P.S.
For us in St. Louis, I might actually use LOTO if we could book Friday, Saturday, and Sunday usage (we stay till 6 PM and then drive home – 2 hours away) for a few weeks during the summer – I’d gladly pay 1,000 credits extra for that type of usage. Right now I lose track of the 60 days and when I look the summer weekends are gone.

P.P.S.
The current booking screen should vividly show the 60 day barrier and a blinking box should indicate the end of 7-day minimums in Red Week - if this is pointed out the members will begin thinking this way and snarf up the inventory.

Click to expand...

(and Perry pleease dont yell at me for giving WVO ideas with this...cause these were already publically posted and were all yours.) For those who have no idea what he's talking about here...trust me...it's about making major changes to WM rules and guidelines for owner usage.

My only point here is that I personally would take anything you hear from this particular source with a very large grain of salt and read on your own to discover what's what. JMO

PerryM said:

WMowners.com has morphed from a benign chat room into a raging site of folks hell bent on taking over the WM BOD..........
This is but one example where their chat room has singled out individual WM owners for shoddy treatment – its kind of a sport over there. They used to bitch and moan how the official developer site would do the same – they have just replaced it.

Click to expand...

PerryM said:

They have all kinds of political wars raging all the time with various camps lobbing insults and innuendos at each other all the time. They have lost their way.

Click to expand...

You can only say the site has complete control over what individuals post, or not. You can't say both, Perry.

Maybe the above onflicting opinion comes from mis-taking individually-posted opinions as site editorial (ModSquad) opinions? Like saying that since certain opinions have been posted by Perry on TUG and on WMO, that they have been said by the sites?

PerryM said:

I remember when my posts would be edited by administrates and things I never said and animations I never use were routinely added - I would have to go back and delete them.

Click to expand...

Why would they do that if they know you can go back and change them yourself? They don't have enough to do?

ladycody said:

Oh fer cryin' out loud....:hysterical:

For those reading:

Most of the innuendos and insults I've ever seen in any discussion involving Perry were lobbed by and/or instigated by Perry. They can be uncomfortable threads to read...but mostly because of references to owners as being ignorant, blind, foolish, stupid, pathetic, etc (all terms used by Perry). Honestly... I generally find the folks at wmowners to be very nice...but many dont respond well to name-calling...even if it's just directed at a group and not pointing at a specific individual. There are many who believe there are other ways to communicate without being insulting and verbally abusive and some simply dont respond well when confronted with rude disrespect....

Nobody at WMowners instigated the rule changes that Perry has been referencing. They were already being discussed by the BOD when wmowners first heard about the changes...

Nobody from wmowners contacted Wyndham regarding Alertie either...matter of fact, my first inkling that it was against the WorldMark website use restrictions was because of a post made by Perry who recommended that the Joajay(i think that's the name...anyway...the developer of Alertie) Perry recommended that he/she go to Wyndham and ask for permission to use it because it seemed to be firmly against the rules. WMowners didnt even need to worry about notifying WVO about alertie...Perry had it covered. :rofl:

As for wmowners being full of radicals who are always trying to change things instead of leaving 20 year old rules alone...the following quote was by Perry himself in June of 06 and is far more radical than ANYTHING else I've ever heard on that site...so go figure...
(and Perry pleease dont yell at me for giving WVO ideas with this...cause these were already publically posted and were all yours.) For those who have no idea what he's talking about here...trust me...it's about making major changes to WM rules and guidelines for owner usage.

My only point here is that I personally would take anything you hear from this particular source with a very large grain of salt and read on your own to discover what's what. JMO

Click to expand...

Q.E.D. ....