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

[SueDonJ]

Ditto to you too Sue.

I'll be sure to raise my hand before I can go to the bathroom.

You think it's "silly," Modo, but it appears there are real concerns here that Allan and/or Mark have taken some legal risks with the contact information of MAOC owners, by virtue of Allan's former status as a member of the BOD.

If I was an owner who was considering joining an effort that may result in any legal proceeding against my resort/management company, the actions of the people who would be spearheading those efforts would be very important to me. And I wouldn't consider it "silly" to think twice about following the lead of those who have no problem with trying to circumvent the bylaws/governing documents of my resort.

 

[modoaruba]

You think it's "silly," Modo, but it appears there are real concerns here that Allan and/or Mark have taken some legal risks with the contact information of MAOC owners, by virtue of Allan's former status as a member of the BOD.

If I was an owner who was considering joining an effort that may result in any legal proceeding against my resort/management company, the actions of the people who would be spearheading those efforts would be very important to me. And I wouldn't consider it "silly" to think twice about following the lead of those who have no problem with trying to circumvent the bylaws/governing documents of my resort.

IMO I don't think it "silly",I know it's "silly".:whoopie:

 

[SueDonJ]

... The more reason for owners to check out the owner's site.
See what others are trying to prevent you from seeing...

Actually, the contradiction here is what I do find "silly."

Do you realize that you're advising owners to join (because you can't "check out" anything there until you've registered) a site which admittedly censors the participants as well as the information contained therein? I'm curious - which websites do you suggest those owners might want to check out if they're interested in a more unbiased view?

 

[ecwinch]

Ditto to you too Sue.

I'll be sure to raise my hand before I can go to the bathroom.

Modo,

As much as I want to help you "crusaders" keep this thread alive to promote the owner site, I notice your rebuttals have gotten more and more infantile, so maybe you should start raising your hand before you post.

On a serious note, in the interest of keeping the thread productive, could you at least try to offer an well-reasoned reply to the issue being discussed?

I do not mind helping you attract owners, but there has to be some value in it for us. If I was a crusader, I would be concerned that potential supporters will judge the crusade on the quality of the posts you make.

I mean Sue asks a legitimate question, and you post "ditto" and make a bathroom analogy. I am not even sure you read her question, with your post being so off-topic. Just seems to be more mis-direction to avoid a real issue.

 

[ecwinch]

The more reason for owners to check out the owner's site.
See what others are trying to prevent you from seeing.

Ever wanted to see what's behind the curtain?

Eric,I am always right and you are not. So there.

This is what I am talking about in my previous post. Am I supposed to come back with:

"I am rubber, you are glue, what bounces off me, sticks to you".

And in addition to Sue's point, I think there is a lack of consistency in your message.

Are we helping you promote the site as you have previously indicated, or are we trying to "prevent" owners from seeing it?

Again - I think you are inferring that we do not like the owner site or do not want people to go there. No one has ever said either of those things. So how are we "preventing" owners from seeing anything?

 

[modoaruba]

What is the big deal if owners join in order to get information which otherwise they would not have.
They can at any time delist if not satisfied or got frightened through your posts.
Registering and viewing does not place the owner in a compromising situation as far as I can see.There is always a way out and the info given to register would disappear.
The information that I got on the site is very enlightening.I can use that info to conduct my own research and so far it looks legitimate to me.

 

[ecwinch]

What is the big deal if owners join in order to get information which otherwise they would not have.
They can at any time delist if not satisfied or got frightened through your posts.
Registering and viewing does not place the owner in a compromising situation as far as I can see.There is always a way out and the info given to register would disappear.
The information that I got on the site is very enlightening.I can use that info to conduct my own research and so far it looks legitimate to me.

Again, you keep trying to "create" this issue that we take exception with the owner site existing. Again - I fail to understand why you keep trying to make this the issue - when no one has raised it.

If owners go there and there is "owner" only information that is valuable and they use it as you indicate, that is a good thing. I am glad that I can help in that regard.

But I would hope that some of the more reasonable owners would then come back to this thread, and ask questions about the information that is likely missing from that site. i.e. the information that does not support the crusade - like Allan providing e-mail addresses to Mark. And others.

 

[SueDonJ]

What is the big deal if owners join in order to get information which otherwise they would not have.
They can at any time delist if not satisfied or got frightened through your posts.
Registering and viewing does not place the owner in a compromising situation as far as I can see.There is always a way out and the info given to register would disappear.
The information that I got on the site is very enlightening.I can use that info to conduct my own research and so far it looks legitimate to me.

Honestly, as I've been looking at everything that's been related throughout this thread, I've tried to base my opinion as if it was happening at one of my resorts. That's my starting point.

Reading here has led me to these conclusions:
- Most of the info herein has been biased without the supporting documentation;

-the statements and/or actions of Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD have been completely discounted without basis;

- the few attempts at securing owner's rights as provided in the governing documents have been legally inept;

- there is the appearance of illegalities performed by a former member of the BOD who is a principal of these efforts, with respect to his suggestion while he was a member that owners consider a lawsuit against Marriott et al as well as the use of privileged owner contact information obtained in his official member capacity;

- an open-minded discussion of the issues is not what the leaders of this "concerned owners" group want, as evidenced by the ridicule and discounting of anyone - MAOC owners and non-owners alike - who question anything in this thread;

- there is the appearance that owners' names and contact information have been solicited at the resort and through e-mail in a deceptive manner, with the intended usage of that info not being clearly defined.

I'm sure I could think of more but you get the point. Because of the questionable items above that this thread has raised, if I was an MAOC owner I would not participate in any website that the principals of this thread developed. That decision is further cemented by the demands for contact information and support that the website requires upon registration. It just wouldn't be possible for me to review any information that may be contained there, in any different light than the one here.

[Edit] Just to be clear, I couldn't care less that the site exists or if any MAOC owner decides to review it. I just don't think it can be any more trusted than this thread to provide ALL of the information that is necessary for an MAOC owner to form an educated opinion about the issues concerning the resort, and more importantly, to blindly support any actions that the self-appointed leaders of this "concerned owners" group may take in the future against Marriott et al.

 

[ecwinch]

I am in agreement with Sue.

There is another owner advocacy group at one of my resorts, and I have distanced myself from that group because they want to use innuendo and speculation to solicit support from owners.

They are a dedicated group of passionate owners, and feel strongly about a number of issues. I believe they are good people with good intentions. On some issues they have legitimate concerns. But rather than focus on the issues that are well-supported by the facts, they chose to adopt the "shotgun" approach. IMO - they diminish their cause by bringing in issues that are not well-supported by the facts. But those issues cater to the extremists and they want owner support. But what happens if the extremists take control of the direction?

I think you are judged by the company you keep. So while I support their objectives on the issues that are legitimate, I cannot support their policy of adopting the issues that are based on "maybe" and "what-if" speculation.

I see this discussion the same way. AOC owners have some legitimate concerns that I have acknowledged here. But I fear that the net effect will be the support of private agenda's more than improving the owner experience at the resort. I think Mark's tactics demonstrate that point. JMO.

 

[Luckybee]

To other owners still reading this....Perhaps I was mistaken but I have always thought the whole point of the owners site was to no longer engage in futile debates with non owners about a resort that has absolutely nothing to do with them. If I am correct shouldnt Tug simply be used at various times to point out that there is in fact an "owners" site available, and when new information is available on that site.
Otherwise aren't we as owners simply falling back into the same habit of needlessly wasting our time debating with those who ....well....you know

 

[ecwinch]

But we need to have something to do until Mark comes back with another non-specific answer to the question asked.

And unfortunately when you do such a poor job of defending your position, I can fully understand why want the discussion to stop. No sense in having people realize that their is more to the story than what you publish in your controlled environment. It is was what all censors try to do - control the discussion while creating the illusion of open discussion.

It is the reason the crusaders fled TUG for the safe confines of an environment where they could banish the dissenting opinion. Why else have a Term and Condition that allows you to banish anyone who you feel is not "supporting" the crusade?

But TUG gives you the opportunity to reach more owners. It now is only problematic when you return with your propaganda and tough questions that you would rather not answer - like the one at hand.

And rather than answering the question, you would rather avoid it, and see this thread fall off the front page. You are so transparent.

 

[SueDonJ]

To other owners still reading this....Perhaps I was mistaken but I have always thought the whole point of the owners site was to no longer engage in frutile debates with non owners about a resort that has absolutely nothing to do with them. If I am correct shouldnt Tug simply be used at various times to point out that there is in fact an "owners" site available, and when new information is available on that site.
Otherwise aren't we as owners simply falling back into the same habit of needlessly wasting our time debating with those who ....well....you know

Well. I'm hurt. This is quite insulting, considering that all of the recommendations that non-owners have made throughout this thread to help your efforts have been taken:

Moderate your position, don't scream "lawsuit" from the get-go? Check.

Review the governing documents of your resort to determine owners' rights? Check.

Demand that your resort's BOD respond in some fashion to your concerns? Check.

Develop a concrete plan step-by-step to address and/or change your concerns in accordance with the governing documents? Check.

Hire a qualified attorney? Check. (Maybe. The jury's still out on this one.)

Develop a website for owners to discuss the issues? Check.

It appears to me that you folks need the non-owners to continue posting their opinions of your responses to Marriott's actions to this thread. It's our input that's given you direction, whether you take our advice or not and whether you make a complete effort or not.

<Hey look! Is that Elvis?>

 

[timeos2]

So far Marriott 5 - Upstarts 0 Anyone see any change soon?

While I'm certainly not familiar with every site I don't recall a successful owners only site that REQUIRED the people taking part to agree to a party line simply to participate. Every one I've seen allowed anyone who was an owner to join and express any opinion they wished. Then there were one or more groups that were acting in the ways they decided were best and those actions would also be debated by the owners group. But none required that a philosophy or certain approach to the situation be embraced by every owner who simply wanted to join & read what was being proposed or the groups view of the latest news. That seems rather self serving for the group "with the answers" and effectively shuts out a group of owners who may be equally concerned, but does not support that specific approach.

If it were my group I'd want every owner to feel free to take part, separate from any pledge of support for a particular path to be followed. That's just me and of course anyone can set up a group anyway they see fit. The value of a closed minded group limited to those willing to "take the pledge" may be extremely limited however. I guess we'll see how it turns out.

 

[Luckybee]

Eric...Im going to follow my own advice and not engage with you . I have always felt from the very beginning and have consistently said that non owners have no place in this discussion, and I wont be baited into debating with the few non owners who wish to do so . On this we have always agreed to disagree....your little non owner group of 3 or 4 Marriott can do no wrong cheerleaders have always defended your "right" to jump in and given your reasons for so doing. You're entitled to your opinion as to why you have a place in this discussion . I just dont agree with it ! Have a great evening

 

[ecwinch]

Great. Well let me take this opportunity to take a free shot then.

See, the problem is that your original post was disingenuous. You said that the reason the other site was created was to "not debate with non-owners".

But it was not. It was created so that you could control the conversation. That is the core issue and why it took you almost a year to follow the suggestion made numerous times.

You attempted to control the conversation here on TUG but were thwarted. It was thwarted by non-owners who had an objective view of the issues, and attempted to point out the shortcomings in your emotional appeal to owners. It was thwarted by facts, logic, and well-reasoned opposition. So after suffering the "nit-picking" of non-owners you fled for a safer environment where you could control the discussion. That is all you did. Just like the lawyer with a weak case and questionable law that seeks out a favorable venue. As you just admitted in your post.

For I really doubt that there is well-reasoned and balanced discussion of the issues on the owner site. Which is your objective. To control the conversation, something that you were unable to do on TUG. Hopefully some reasonable owner will raise the same issues on that site, and I wonder how long it will take before the "Terms and Conditions" come into play.

Time will tell.

And in the meantime we will await Mark's reply to the question asked. I wonder which will occur first.

 

[Luckybee]

Im always amazed by those who give their opinions as though they are facts. I hope that you are awaiting Marks repsonse for a very long time but of course it is his choice to make. Part of not debating with non owners includes not providing them with any information that they are not entitled to

 

[ecwinch]

No, Luckybee, I do not think that Mark has the courage to answer the call. I think the answer would be far too damning.

I am sure that you have shared that advice with him.

And your observation is humorous at best. Who on this board does not state their opinion with conviction? Am I the only party that stands accused in that regard? Is it time for a reality check? Something about a kettle, pot, and the color black?

And was that really your last post or your second to the last post? Or would your reply involve "information that I am not entitled too?".

Extremists always follow that logic: "sorry for your un-educated opinion. There is critical information that you not entitled too.". I can only hope that reasonable owners will see through the facade.

For even from this short dialog, I think reasonable owners can see why the crusaders chose not to continue to debate the issues with non-owners on TUG. That you cannot control the discussion and the merits of your case are weak.

And just for clarity - this is my opinion.

 

[SueDonJ]

Im always amazed by those who give their opinions as though they are facts.

Great, we're in agreement, because I've thought the same thing every time Marksue has posted his opinions throughout this thread.

I hope that you are awaiting Marks repsonse for a very long time but of course it is his choice to make. Part of not debating with non owners includes not providing them with any information that they are not entitled to

I don't know how it could have escaped your notice that the non-owners who have been involved throughout this thread have helped your efforts. Or maybe, that's too bitter a pill to swallow? In any event, none of us has said that we are "entitled" to any information, but we're certainly able to dissect the limited information that has been made available and it does not paint a pleasing picture for owners. We non-owners certainly do not have a vested interest in MAOC's issues, but that's all the more reason for the owners to keep the communication open to all timeshare owners.

Have you considered that it's all of the MAOC owners (and especially those who choose to align themselves with Mark and/or Allan against Marriott/MVCI/the MAOC BOD) who stand to suffer if Mark and Allan continue to dodge the difficult questions? We non-owners are certainly not taking the risks that Marriott may be driven away from management of our resort, or that Marriott may renege on certain concessions that they've made to this point because their legal culpability is being challenged, or that our collusion with leaders who may be acting inappropriately may impact our future usage at our resort, or that our continued support of those leaders' questionable actions may ultimately lead to our resort's BOD requiring a legal defense which will cost every owner additional fees ...

I really think that the big picture has been overlooked here in the quest to gain whatever small victories this "concerned owners" group may continue to futilely demand in order to save face, and if I was an MAOC owner that would concern me greatly.

 

[Luckybee]

OMG....just as a matter of FACT(as opposed to opinion) and for the benefit of others reading and once again to clarify that I am NOT involved in the concerned owners group other than as an interested and concerned owner(obviously Eric has difficulty with comprehension since Im repeating myself)...I have never spoken with Mark, I have received emails from him , the same emails as those designed for the membership at large...I do not know Mark I have never had the opportunity to give him an opinion/advice on anything . The only other emails we have shared was recently that we both found out as a result of the new website that we're both going to be in Aruba at the same time and plan to meet with our families and share a drink. The only advice I may share is what type of Chardonnay I like !
LOL...I havent changed my opinion on this issue .....from the very beginnig I felt that non owners had no place in this discussion....what Eric are you getting annoyed that no one will play with you anymore ? Perhaps you should buy in to the O.C....maybe the members will let you into the site then....nah....somehow I doubt it....nighty night !

 

[london]

Thread Was For Aruba Owners

The initial opening thread was meant for "owners" at this resort, and stated so in the title.

Owners at this resort should have their own website for communicating.

In the end the resort Board of Directors, and Marriott will have a meeting of the minds on how the resort is run, and how to set a budget and maintenance fees.

Unhappy owners, have choices to make, as to whether to remain on owner etc.

The saga will continue for many months to come.

 

[ecwinch]

LOL...I havent changed my opinion on this issue .....from the very beginnig I felt that non owners had no place in this discussion....what Eric are you getting annoyed that no one will play with you anymore ? Perhaps you should buy in to the O.C....maybe the members will let you into the site then....nah....somehow I doubt it....nighty night !

Only confirming what I have said. The point is to control the conversation and not share all the information with the owners. Only the information that the "crusaders" approve of. That sounds like a great site to obtain unbiased information from that can be counted on.

And if someone dissents - bye bye. And if I was to become an owner - as you admit - I would not be free to express my opinion on the site. So it is not about discussing the issues with non-owners - it is about controlling the conversation.

If reasonable owners are comfortable with that environment - I can only say then you reap what you sow.

 

[modoaruba]

I still don't get it as to the harsh criticism the group is getting.
The passion that goes into the posts of Eric and Sue surprises me especially since they are non owners.I see your views clearer than you attribute me to.
But also a lot of your statements are unfounded based on your interpretations of the posts you read as opposed to fact.
My passion is not so much for siding with the group as it is for wanting owners to be able to get a perspective as to what co-owners are saying on the site without outsiders trying to sway them away.
Eric,when you say that you are not,it's the tone one reads in your posts sorry to say.
Sue,I understand whole heartedly as to what you are saying but your passion is above and beyond my comprehension-IMO
The posts of Eric and Sue comes off as- be carefull signing into the group because of what MIGHT happen with their personal info,how did they get your info to notify you, and if you do sign on and agree with the group then you MAY get in trouble.Who cares?Let it be.
I understand that there are rules as you guys state, but I myself have always been idealistic.A trait that is my own downfall.

The point is that sometimes you got to follow your gut and stand up to what you feel is right regardless.If there are consequences,oh well.

We will always disagree and that's OK.
We are going to get ready in a short while to go back to Aruba.This trip will be very interesting since more owners are aware of all this.
We will still have a great time ,I know it.
I'll be the one with the Yankees T-shirt.

 

[ecwinch]

Modo - I just do not like to see honest people mislead in supporting the personal agendas of a few. I see no need to repeat verbatim the specific issues in that regard.

The crusaders have their own site now. I would encourage them to follow LuckyBee's advice. When the crusaders have strengthened their argument to the point that it withstand the critique of the dreaded "non-owners", I will be here. Or when that special "owner" only info we have been hearing about for a year now ripens.

Because that is the only response that has been raised in regard to the questions asked. Ignore those questions from the infidels. It is the ostrich effect.

I am sure at some point in time a reasonable owner that has participated in the site will seek a more balanced discussion of the issues. I will be here to help them when they arrive. Toward that end I would recommend that every AOC owner should register for this site. Do not worry about the registration or T&C. I am sure that an open discussion of the issues is possible for all that are interested. No need to speculate on that which can be easily proven.

Until then we will await Mark to clear up the e-mail issue as LoveAruba suggested.

 

[SueDonJ]

I still don't get it as to the harsh criticism the group is getting.
The passion that goes into the posts of Eric and Sue surprises me especially since they are non owners.I see your views clearer than you attribute me to.
But also a lot of your statements are unfounded based on your interpretations of the posts you read as opposed to fact.
My passion is not so much for siding with the group as it is for wanting owners to be able to get a perspective as to what co-owners are saying on the site without outsiders trying to sway them away.
Eric,when you say that you are not,it's the tone one reads in your posts sorry to say.
Sue,I understand whole heartedly as to what you are saying but your passion is above and beyond my comprehension-IMO
The posts of Eric and Sue comes off as- be carefull signing into the group because of what MIGHT happen with their personal info,how did they get your info to notify you, and if you do sign on and agree with the group then you MAY get in trouble.Who cares?Let it be.
I understand that there are rules as you guys state, but I myself have always been idealistic.A trait that is my own downfall.

The point is that sometimes you got to follow your gut and stand up to what you feel is right regardless.If there are consequences,oh well.

We will always disagree and that's OK.

Yep, OK by me as well that we disagree. Life would be boring if everybody always agreed.

Sometimes it's okay to take a chance and say oh well to the consequences, Modo, but I just wouldn't be comfortable taking chances on future usage of a timeshare that we worked hard to be able to afford and want to continue enjoying for a good many years. The fact that this thread began with a rallying cry for a lawsuit and has continued with the theme of protecting owners' rights, only reinforces the thought that there is more than enough incentive to make sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed. On all sides.

I don't know that I'm any more "passionate" about what I've written here than anyone else is about what they've written. Some of us like to use more words than others do, that's all. Plus, just as MAOC owners have read this thread and joined the "concerned owners" group, there have been a number of MAOC owners who have read here and are grateful that the opposing views are also being made public. I know it's true because I've received private messages saying so.

I'm not worried about which side is right and which is wrong - what concerns me most is that any owner should be able to find the concrete information as well as the educated opinions that will help him/her reach an informed decision about all aspects of an MAOC ownership. I believe this thread serves that purpose to a greater extent than the group's website, because this is an open forum that does not require a statement of support either way.

Online communication is sometimes so difficult, but I do appreciate, Modo, that you eventually attempt to at least understand the meaning in the words you read even when you recognize that the screen name is of someone who usually disagrees with your view. That's commendable.

We are going to get ready in a short while to go back to Aruba.This trip will be very interesting since more owners are aware of all this.
We will still have a great time ,I know it.
I'll be the one with the Yankees T-shirt.

Enjoy your trip, safe travels, and wear that shirt proudly. Heck, get a hat too. Your team certainly deserves the respect. (This year. Don't forget there is always next year.)

 

[oldone]

i am an owner and i've now tried to read through most of these posts. i do not want to put all my personal information into the new private web site but would like to know if there is really anything more than what is already mentioned here. i've seen the renovations and they are good- the money was well spent and the resort is looking great. of course i don't want to have lots of large extra payments but i feel that marriott has explained where all the money went. can anyone who has been on the owners site tell me what more there could possibly be that could make me want to put in all the personal info that they are asking for? i'm afraid that they will just cause the fees to go up more because of all the legal costs. i don't see what the concerned group is trying to do- they talk about transparency but i can't even get onto their site unless i'm willing to go along with them and support what they are saying which may cost me more in maintenance fees in the long run. i don't use the internet much but when i heard about this down in aruba i was curious. the feeling that i got from the owner who told me about this was a fear of legal costs and that is my concern too. good money after bad.