This seems a little silly as a criteria for a conflict of interest in a forum designed for Wyndham owners. Yep, none of us can be trusted because we're all owners. And yet our opinions span the entire spectrum of Wyndham love to Wyndham disgust. So maybe we can eliminate that criteria.
So by Wyndies do you mean anything other than ownership with Wyndham? I mean, outside of a direct employment relationship (past or present) there could be paid contractors (past or present), or owners of Travel + Leisure stock, and spouses or family members of all of the above. We probably do have some shareholders here. (I hold some funds in a total US stock market index fund, so technically I guess I'm one - along with essentially every other viable public company.) What else? Some owners are still making some money through rentals, I'm sure - in the current environment, how much beyond "offsetting maintenance fees" I really have no idea. (Rentals never really bothered me so how much people make from them is also not really within my realm of concern.) But many of the previous renters are pretty mad at Wyndham right now, or pretty quiet about it and playing their cards close to their vest - so I'm not sure they would have come across to you as "Wyndies."
Regardless if someone comes across as a rah rah "Wyndie," I still don't believe there's anyone who posts here for "no other objective than support Wyndham." Owners are here to learn and share with other owners. Even the ones who seem to have significant disdain for many of the rest here stick around, I would guess, because we share and analyze breaking Club Wyndham news before anyone else. (I would posit that even if Facebook sometimes gets the news first, TUG breaks it down and understands it better.)
So who might come across as the most Wyndham-positive? Right now, I'd say anyone who believes (correctly or not) that large amounts of renting had been hurting "regular owners" and now believe Wyndham has helped them by making it harder for renters to rent. Also, anyone who didn't invest a lot upfront and therefore isn't as attached to the rules that they bought in under - this could include resale owners, as well as some longtime owners who bought in cheap or under loopholes that no longer exist (and haven't closed on them, like the biennial loophole), or with favorable grandfathered VIP levels. And owners who bought in even at retail in recent years with eyes wide open, knowing the current rules and the provisions that allow Wyndham to change them, and deciding in advance that they're okay taking that risk. Of course, each of these scenarios has other owners on the other side that are probably less happy. And plenty of owners in the middle somewhere.
So I guess that's the answer - all of these owners' ulterior motive is having a contract with Wyndham. Guilty as charged.