Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER

[modoaruba]

The "problem" as I see it is that any owners who want to join the site in order to gain access to whatever information is there that will enable them to determine if they agree with the cause, are forced by the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy to support the cause before they know what information might be available or what that support entails. The contradictory statements contained on the website's home and registration pages, and here on TUG in posts about the website from owners who have joined, make it all very confusing for the folks you're trying to reach. That's all.

The site also states that anyone with questions can call or email with questions prior to signing up to AVOID confusion.

 

[SueDonJ]

The site also states that anyone with questions can call or email with questions prior to signing up to AVOID confusion.

That's true. But what they'll hear is Mark or Allen's version of what's transpired at their resort, as opposed to an unbiased, unembellished "just the facts, ma'am" accounting.

You're all entirely correct that it's your website and you're entitled to do with it whatever you choose. That's all fine and dandy, if your intent is to be able to discuss your resort's issues without influence and dissent from people who do not own there. But I think that the intent of the website is also to garner support and increase the numbers of MAOC owners who have not joined in the efforts to this point, and I think that the purpose of including the link to the website in posts here on TUG is to convince those owners who may stumble upon this humongous thread through a google search or something similar to join the efforts. IMO, both of those intents are thwarted by the contradictory statements and the demand for support prior to registration, all of which is contained on the website's home and registration pages and in posts here on TUG.

As well, I believe that the agreement of support as a prerequisite for registration on the website is an attempt to satisfy in advance any owner inclusion requirement(s) that Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD may demand in any future legal proceeding. But I think that the lack of an electronic signature software and the contradictory registration statements on the website are not enough to satisfy any such demands.

 

[modoaruba]

That post represents statements issued by the board without the ability of owners being able to openly debate any issues.It is what it is.
Why don't you and others who are downplaying the dissention group's site as being faulty find fault with the board's site as having it's own agenda?
I am not saying one group is right and the other wrong in their views.It is clear that both groups have a mission.One is trying to preserve the status quo,the other trying to challenge it.
Each has a right to be able to address the issues as they see fit is all I am saying.

 

[SueDonJ]

That post represents statements issued by the board without the ability of owners being able to openly debate any issues.It is what it is.
Why don't you and others who are downplaying the dissention group's site as being faulty find fault with the board's site as having it's own agenda?
I am not saying one group is right and the other wrong in their views.It is clear that both groups have a mission.One is trying to preserve the status quo,the other trying to challenge it.
Each has a right to be able to address the issues as they see fit is all I am saying.

I don't have any problem with either MVCI/the MAOC BOD or this minority group having their own agenda - it's why each expects that their agenda is correct that interests me.

Based on the myriad communications issued by MVCI/the MAOC BOD including the one that David reprinted above, it's obvious that MVCI/the MAOC BOD believes that their positions are supported by the governing documents of MAOC and/or Aruban law. If this dissenting group can furnish proof of falsehoods or cite legal objections to what's been related in any of the communications, then they'll be able to discount that agenda.

Conversely, based on the information and opinions that have been related throughout this thread for the last year by members of this minority ownership group, it appears that their agenda is to circumvent the governing documents of MAOC and/or the legal requirements to challenge those documents, in order to further their aim of a resort which runs in some ways contrary to the brand standard of an MVCI resort (i.e. a "transparent" BOD which allows personal contact with members, resort refurbishment not quite up to par in an effort to save costs, fees collected from MVCI in addition to those imposed by its "B" share ownership for leased space, etc.) So far they've not been able to do so; it remains to be seen whether they will achieve success in the future.

 

[lovearuba]

HMM

I don't have any problem with either MVCI/the MAOC BOD or this minority group having their own agenda - it's why each expects that their agenda is correct that interests me.

Based on the myriad communications issued by MVCI/the MAOC BOD including the one that David reprinted above, it's obvious that MVCI/the MAOC BOD believes that their positions are supported by the governing documents of MAOC and/or Aruban law. If this dissenting group can furnish proof of falsehoods or cite legal objections to what's been related in any of the communications, then they'll be able to discount that agenda.

Conversely, based on the information and opinions that have been related throughout this thread for the last year by members of this minority ownership group, it appears that their agenda is to circumvent the governing documents of MAOC and/or the legal requirements to challenge those documents, in order to further their aim of a resort which runs in some ways contrary to the brand standard of an MVCI resort (i.e. a "transparent" BOD which allows personal contact with members, resort refurbishment not quite up to par in an effort to save costs, fees collected from MVCI in addition to those imposed by its "B" share ownership for leased space, etc.) So far they've not been able to do so; it remains to be seen whether they will achieve success in the future.

I am so happy to see the thread remains alive. Have we made the record yet or is it the the threads related to RCI or Starwoods concerns with timeshares, just curious??

 

[Dean]

And the problem is-------?????

I can start a site inviting only blue eyed people who believe the sky is blue.
They have a right to opt out once they believe the sky is another color or opt out for any reason.
My site,my rules.
If I do not want brown eyed people on my site I do not have to accept them.If I do not want blue eyed people that think the sky is a color other than blue,I do not have to accept them.
We are all grown ups and can either sign up or not without having to dissect the issue to death.

No argument on the ability to do so, it's the appropriateness and reasonableness of such an act that I am responding to. It is, IMO, unreasonable to require such members to agree with you as part of the ability to share information. Simply being an owner at that resort and wishing to be better informed should be enough to be included with any reasonable group.

 

[Luckybee]

Hello all

As an aside Im more curious about who Tug's "davidberg" is ? Given that he's come on here and made false accusations against "lovearuba" (who Ive spoken with and she is female ) and Allen Cohen, who I have also spoken with and he's male ) , and I've further been told that there is a real David Berg who is an owner and is none to happy that this individual is actually using his name falsely, I cant help but wonder how this person knew there was a David Berg who was actually an owner(and supportive of the efforts of the concerned owners group) unless they had access to an owners list somehow? Im also curious that if what I have indicated is correct(and I say this because what I have been told is heresay at this point and it would be for others to follow up on), what position would TUG take if it turns out that someone is actually commiting the crime of personation(or impersonation depending upon the law in various locales). It is one thing to make up a name and pretend to be someone your not, and quite another to commit what in many places is a criminal offence and pretend to be a person who does in fact exsist .

 

[lovearuba]

what about green eyes

No argument on the ability to do so, it's the appropriateness and reasonableness of such an act that I am responding to. It is, IMO, unreasonable to require such members to agree with you as part of the ability to share information. Simply being an owner at that resort and wishing to be better informed should be enough to be included with any reasonable group.

The issue is that if folks are not concerned with whats happened with the board and issues around transparency, they should not try to sign up. These folks may be happy with the status quo and that is their right. The site is for "concerned" members. It is not "simply" for all owners wishing to get information, the website title should make that clear and the opening page should also be enough to make an owner determine if they are interested. Again, an owner can register, read through the documents, visit the forum and then decide its not something they want to be involved in. They can delete their account. By the way what does IMO mean?

 

[Dean]

Hello all

As an aside Im more curious about who Tug's "davidberg" is ? Given that he's come on here and made false accusations against "lovearuba" (who Ive spoken with and she is female ) and Allen Cohen, who I have also spoken with and he's male ) , and I've further been told that there is a real David Berg who is an owner and is none to happy that this individual is actually using his name falsely, I cant help but wonder how this person knew there was a David Berg who was actually an owner(and supportive of the efforts of the concerned owners group) unless they had access to an owners list somehow? Im also curious that if what I have indicated is correct(and I say this because what I have been told is heresay at this point and it would be for others to follow up on), what position would TUG take if it turns out that someone is actually commiting the crime of personation(or impersonation depending upon the law in various locales). It is one thing to make up a name and pretend to be someone your not, and quite another to commit what in many places is a criminal offence and pretend to be a person who does in fact exsist .

I would seriously doubt any laws have been broken by using a sign on that happens to be someone's name, whether it's them or not. It would certainly be in bad taste and may or may not be against the rules for TUG depending on the specifics. I'm sure there are many on TUG who have more than one sign on for various reasons. You may want to inquire of the moderators directly to ask they look to see if any TUG rules have been broken.

 

[Dean]

The issue is that if folks are not concerned with whats happened with the board and issues around transparency, they should not try to sign up. These folks may be happy with the status quo and that is their right. The site is for "concerned" members. It is not "simply" for all owners wishing to get information, the website title should make that clear and the opening page should also be enough to make an owner determine if they are interested. Again, an owner can register, read through the documents, visit the forum and then decide its not something they want to be involved in. They can delete their account. By the way what does IMO mean?

IMO is "in my opinion". One can be concerned without agreeing with you in all areas. As I stated, I was addressing the question of reasonableness but I think you've answered that question as well.

 

[Luckybee]

I would seriously doubt any laws have been broken by using a sign on that happens to be someone's name, whether it's them or not. It would certainly be in bad taste and may or may not be against the rules for TUG depending on the specifics. I'm sure there are many on TUG who have more than one sign on for various reasons. You may want to inquire of the moderators directly to ask they look to see if any TUG rules have been broken.

Dont know about the U.S but there has been at least one person prosecuted in Canada for the very example I've given , that is, using someone else's name participating on a public forum...but not for me to decide what to do...Im sure someone else who is reading here will pass the info on to the real David Berg !

 

[modoaruba]

I don't have any problem with either MVCI/the MAOC BOD or this minority group having their own agenda - it's why each expects that their agenda is correct that interests me.

Based on the myriad communications issued by MVCI/the MAOC BOD including the one that David reprinted above, it's obvious that MVCI/the MAOC BOD believes that their positions are supported by the governing documents of MAOC and/or Aruban law. If this dissenting group can furnish proof of falsehoods or cite legal objections to what's been related in any of the communications, then they'll be able to discount that agenda.

Conversely, based on the information and opinions that have been related throughout this thread for the last year by members of this minority ownership group, it appears that their agenda is to circumvent the governing documents of MAOC and/or the legal requirements to challenge those documents, in order to further their aim of a resort which runs in some ways contrary to the brand standard of an MVCI resort (i.e. a "transparent" BOD which allows personal contact with members, resort refurbishment not quite up to par in an effort to save costs, fees collected from MVCI in addition to those imposed by its "B" share ownership for leased space, etc.) So far they've not been able to do so; it remains to be seen whether they will achieve success in the future.

I do not agree when you state the the "minority" group is trying to do away or harm the relationship of the Marriott brand.On the contrary,I believe that the Marriott brand is very important to all.
The issue is honesty and transparancy by Marriott and the board to the owners.
It's posts like yours that causes embattlements to continue and cause a division between the owners(a house divided---).Very clever.IMO!There,I get to use it now.

 

[SueDonJ]

As an aside Im more curious ... I cant help but wonder how this person knew there was a David Berg who was actually an owner(and supportive of the efforts of the concerned owners group) unless they had access to an owners list somehow? ...

Coincidentally, that's similar to another thought I had while reading the Disclaimer on the registration page of that website. This is the quote:

Administrator’s Role: The role of the administrator is to review registration requests and to grant access to the site based on the information you provide on your registration form.

What I wonder is, does the Administrator have access to the MAOC ownership list in order to verify the information provided by the folks who try to register? And if so, how did s/he get access to it and why can't it be used for contacting the overall membership? If not, does the Administrator "grant access" to anyone and everyone whose unverifiable registration information does not include glaring inconsistencies (such as a claim of a 4BR Penthouse, I guess) or cause identity problems (such as that occurring between the davidbergs here?)

Speaking of the davidbergs, Dean has the proper solution. The real David Berg should contact a TUG moderator with his concerns. I would if someone showed up using my name - wouldn't anyone?

 

[modoaruba]

The spear chucking continues

I would think that the moderator has access to the list of owners which was obtained legally.
By the way,I always thought before Dean made it clear that IMO meant Ignorant Marriott Owner Sorry , Couldn't help that one.

 

[SueDonJ]

I do not agree when you state the the "minority" group is trying to do away or harm the relationship of the Marriott brand.On the contrary,I believe that the Marriott brand is very important to all.
The issue is honesty and transparancy by Marriott and the board to the owners.

We'll forever disagree about these things, Modo, but I think we're similar in that we can each respect the other's difference of opinion.

It's posts like yours that causes embattlements to continue and cause a division between the owners(a house divided---).Very clever.IMO!There,I get to use it now.

I'm not looking for embattlements or divided houses, Modo - I'm just doing what everyone else in this thread is doing. That is, writing down my opinions about what's happened at your resort and the steps this group and Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD have taken during the process. If there's a division between owners, it's not due to any one person's stated opinion but rather it's because there are extreme differences of opinion and the possibility exists for any individual owner to dissect the available information from all sources in order to form his/her own opinion. That's a good thing, whether or not an owner is more in agreement with you and those who think like you or with me and those who think like me. Dissent isn't unhealthy, stifling opinions is.

 

[Dean]

By the way,I always thought before Dean made it clear that IMO meant Ignorant Marriott Owner Sorry , Couldn't help that one.

Depends on which resort you own and how much you paid I guess.

 

[SueDonJ]

I would think that the moderator has access to the list of owners which was obtained legally. ...

Really? That would contradict Marksue's recent post that it was necessary to file a lawsuit to gain access to the ownership list. If it can be (and was) obtained legally, why the lawsuit necessity? If it can't be obtained without a lawsuit (and wasn't,) how is the Moderator verifying the ownership information of those website registrations?

 

[modoaruba]

Really? That would contradict Marksue's recent post that it was necessary to file a lawsuit to gain access to the ownership list. If it can be (and was) obtained legally, why the lawsuit necessity? If it can't be obtained without a lawsuit (and wasn't,) how is the Moderator verifying the ownership information of those website registrations?

Just making an educated guess that some form of confirmation is available.
You have to ask the moderator for specifics. I am not privi to it nor do I care.
To me that's not the issue.

 

[modoaruba]

Depends on which resort you own and how much you paid I guess.

It seems that since I own at the "chosen" resort I was, admittedly, "IMO"
when I bought.
Since I bought over 10 years ago and have been using it every year,and have been learning about the ins and outs,I graduated to or headed for an "EMO".An Educated Marriott Owner.

 

[Dean]

It seems that since I own at the "chosen" resort I was, admittedly, "IMO"
when I bought.
Since I bought over 10 years ago and have been using it every year,and have been learning about the ins and outs,I graduated to or headed for an "EMO".An Educated Marriott Owner.

LOL, do we get a certificate with that education?

 

[SueDonJ]

Just making an educated guess that some form of confirmation is available.
You have to ask the moderator for specifics. I am not privi to it nor do I care.
To me that's not the issue.

Well, if the Administrator wants to offer an answer here I'm sure it will be appreciated, but I'm guessing that it won't be made available to those who are not eligible to register at the website (if it's made available at all.)

The reason the thought occurred to me in the first place was that the possibility that an MAOC owners list is available to the Administrator of the website conflicted with Marksue's recent post that is linked above. But the continuation of the thought is that if I was going to be involved in a group whose stated aim is to challenge the legality of actions that Marriott/MVCI/my resorts' BOD have taken, I would want to be certain that the figureheads of that group are not doing anything illegal themselves. That old "guilty by association" can bite if a person's not careful.

 

[modoaruba]

LOL, do we get a certificate with that education?

No,just an extra fee.

 

[modoaruba]

Well, if the Administrator wants to offer an answer here I'm sure it will be appreciated, but I'm guessing that it won't be made available to those who are not eligible to register at the website (if it's made available at all.)

The reason the thought occurred to me in the first place was that the possibility that an MAOC owners list is available to the Administrator of the website conflicted with Marksue's recent post that is linked above. But the continuation of the thought is that if I was going to be involved in a group whose stated aim is to challenge the legality of actions that Marriott/MVCI/my resorts' BOD have taken, I would want to be certain that the figureheads of that group are not doing anything illegal themselves. That old "guilty by association" can bite if a person's not careful.

Very scary!!! Holloween is in 2 days.

 

[lovearuba]

I'm not scared

Very scary!!! Holloween is in 2 days.

People should be no more worried about signing up for tug signing up for the concerned owners site. These threats are exactly the methods that Marriott uses to scare people from joining the cause and from buying resale. Wish I had a ghost icon to add to the end of this.

 

[ecwinch]

Hello all

As an aside Im more curious about who Tug's "davidberg" is ? Given that he's come on here and made false accusations against "lovearuba" (who Ive spoken with and she is female ) and Allen Cohen, who I have also spoken with and he's male ) , and I've further been told that there is a real David Berg who is an owner and is none to happy that this individual is actually using his name falsely, I cant help but wonder how this person knew there was a David Berg who was actually an owner(and supportive of the efforts of the concerned owners group) unless they had access to an owners list somehow? Im also curious that if what I have indicated is correct(and I say this because what I have been told is heresay at this point and it would be for others to follow up on), what position would TUG take if it turns out that someone is actually commiting the crime of personation(or impersonation depending upon the law in various locales). It is one thing to make up a name and pretend to be someone your not, and quite another to commit what in many places is a criminal offence and pretend to be a person who does in fact exsist .

Why does it seem like there always is one of two reoccurring themes when someone does not agree with the crusade:

1) If they might be an owner, they must be a mole, agent of the board, or Marriott employee
2) If they do not own, they are just stirring up trouble or like to debate

Why cannot it just be reasonable people who see the facts differently then you do.

Why always the need to marginalize other posters?