The Boat may have sailed, but I continue to let Member Services know....

[supersnoop]

I strongly disagree, its not cheating as long as you follow the rules. Its not like you are "hacking" the system to get your reservation. You may not like the fact that it is possible to walk but cheating it is not.




Can you find anywhere in the rules that "walking" is not allowed?, if you can then I would agree with you its not allowed.

IMHO "walking" is just another way to use the booking system even though that it wasn't the intended use.

The “rule” is that you can book a day at 11 months. I’m sure some folks were calling day by day to book their vacation and getting upset if they missed a day (rather than waiting for their entire trip to be wishing the booking window. That’s where the +7 (and ability to walk) was introduced. It added flexibility, but it also operates in conflict with the original rule. When used to book a single reservation, it solves a problem. When misused, it creates a larger problem.

 

[Dean]

I strongly disagree, its not cheating as long as you follow the rules. Its not like you are "hacking" the system to get your reservation. You may not like the fact that it is possible to walk but cheating it is not.




Can you find anywhere in the rules that "walking" is not allowed?, if you can then I would agree with you its not allowed.

IMHO "walking" is just another way to use the booking system even though that it wasn't the intended use.

It's not necessary for the POS to say it can't be done but rather thtn for it to happen is allowed within the rules. The POS doesn't address the specifics of changing reservations at all so it'd come under the reservation autonomy clause which is why I said it's not a technical violation but it is, IMO, against the spirit of the rules. Ultimately for me it comes down to philosophy and my philosophy with timeshares is that purposefully hold rooms that one has no intention of using is inappropriate.

 

[Cyberc1978]

It's not necessary for the POS to say it can't be done but rather thtn for it to happen is allowed within the rules. The POS doesn't address the specifics of changing reservations at all so it'd come under the reservation autonomy clause which is why I said it's not a technical violation but it is, IMO, against the spirit of the rules. Ultimately for me it comes down to philosophy and my philosophy with timeshares is that purposefully hold rooms that one has no intention of using is inappropriate.

I don’t share your opinion. Every system has it pros and cons and as long as you stay within those boundaries you are good. Ethical or not I don’t think there is such thing in the timeshare world.

In the timeshare world there is no inappropriate or appropriate. You either learn the ins and outs of the systems or get left behind.

Those who bought a timeshare bought it to get the best use of it not so they should feel sorry for those who use the systems differently.

Personally I haven’t had the need to walk, as I don’t go during the fall frenzy but I don’t feel bad about those who does.

 

[ziravan]

It's not necessary for the POS to say it can't be done but rather thtn for it to happen is allowed within the rules. The POS doesn't address the specifics of changing reservations at all so it'd come under the reservation autonomy clause which is why I said it's not a technical violation but it is, IMO, against the spirit of the rules. Ultimately for me it comes down to philosophy and my philosophy with timeshares is that purposefully hold rooms that one has no intention of using is inappropriate.

Any set of rules create unintended consequences. That’s the definition of a loophole.

While I agree that booking rooms with no intention of using them is marginally uncool, sombody is going to use those rooms, probably very near the 11 month window, so I find it hard to get too worked up about it.

Until very recently, Wyndham, for example, allowed cancel/rebook strategies for VIP customers to book all the prime rooms and then cancel and immediately rebook them within 60 days to drop the point cost to 25% of value (a VIP perk for rooms rented within 60 days). The megarenters had a field day with that loophole for years, using it to exploit millions of points annually. Enough so that it eventually broke their points system, and now there are very restrictive banking/borrowing rules as a result; it killed the credit pool.

Loopholes are natural byproducts of a rules based system. You tolerate them until they’re over onerous and then you make rule changes ... that create different loopholes. (Walking itself was created by a rule change designed to eliminate what was widely considered to be an over onerous method of 11 month window booking.)

 

[Dean]

I don’t share your opinion. Every system has it pros and cons and as long as you stay within those boundaries you are good. Ethical or not I don’t think there is such thing in the timeshare world.

In the timeshare world there is no inappropriate or appropriate. You either learn the ins and outs of the systems or get left behind.

Those who bought a timeshare bought it to get the best use of it not so they should feel sorry for those who use the systems differently.

Personally I haven’t had the need to walk, as I don’t go during the fall frenzy but I don’t feel bad about those who does.

I didn't use the word unethical but I do feel it's inappropriate for DVC to allow it and outside the spirit of the rules. It's certainly unusual where the word unethical can be used in the use of timeshares.

Any set of rules create unintended consequences. That’s the definition of a loophole.

While I agree that booking rooms with no intention of using them is marginally uncool, sombody is going to use those rooms, probably very near the 11 month window, so I find it hard to get too worked up about it.

Until very recently, Wyndham, for example, allowed cancel/rebook strategies for VIP customers to book all the prime rooms and then cancel and immediately rebook them within 60 days to drop the point cost to 25% of value (a VIP perk for rooms rented within 60 days). The megarenters had a field day with that loophole for years, using it to exploit millions of points annually. Enough so that it eventually broke their points system, and now there are very restrictive banking/borrowing rules as a result; it killed the credit pool.

Loopholes are natural byproducts of a rules based system. You tolerate them until they’re over onerous and then you make rule changes ... that create different loopholes. (Walking itself was created by a rule change designed to eliminate what was widely considered to be an over onerous method of 11 month window booking.)

Certainly there is no perfect system but walking is both inappropriate and easily fixable IMO.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

I also think people get panicky because the online booking system clearly sucks. I get "system error" nearly every time I try to book. I am a new member and just wanted to see how it works, what's on the next screen, how fast the rooms really go, etc. I have been trying since early October!!! I have "had a room" at least 10 times and when I try to go to the next screen I get "system error" and I lose it. The one time it let me get to the 2nd screen, I just released the room as I wasn't really wanting to walk a res all the way to December. Now, I'm sorry I let it go. So, now I continue to try and if I get it, I will keep it and I will walk it.

I've cleared my history, tried different browsers, etc. I have tried on 4 different devices now. I will try my D's lightening fast Mac tomorrow morning because she will be home with it. I do think our internet speed kind of sucks. Nothing I can do about that right now. I've even started sitting right next to the box when I try. I guess my next approach will be to drive into work at 6:30 am and try from there.

This morning I had a room, got the error message, resubmitted, had room again, got error message again, 3rd time submitted room was gone. This is crap. I mean, the fact that I got the room the 2nd time means that most likely the 1st error message was NOT because the room was actually gone (like they let too many people have one) which is what I originally thought.

 

[jarestel]

I'm not judging anyone who takes advantage of the rules, but ultimately if you are making a reservation for a room on a certain date that you have no intention of keeping, I do think that hurts other members who are trying to make legitimate bookings.

 

[Sammie]

The thing is the changes that would be needed to stop this, are you in favor of those changes being implemented year round?

 

[robinb]

I didn't use the word unethical but I do feel it's inappropriate for DVC to allow it and outside the spirit of the rules. It's certainly unusual where the word unethical can be used in the use of timeshares.

Oh, come on. How much of a difference is there between "unethical" and "inappropriate"? Not a whole lot.

unethical: lacking moral principles; unwilling to adhere to proper rules of conduct.

inappropriate: not fitting or appropriate; unsuitable or untimely

It's well known that you don't agree with "walking" and you don't like member who do it. You're splitting hairs. From my reading of your previous posts on the matter "unethical" pretty much covers it.

 

[Dean]

Oh, come on. How much of a difference is there between "unethical" and "inappropriate"? Not a whole lot.




It's well known that you don't agree with "walking" and you don't like member who do it. You're splitting hairs. From my reading of your previous posts on the matter "unethical" pretty much covers it.

IMO there's a big difference but regardless it's on DVD, not the members given the setup IMO. The big difference is intent. DVD allows it currently though I don't think it was intentional and that's where the difference lies. It's accurate I don't think walking is appropriate but it's completely inaccurate that I have any ill feelings to members who use it.

 

[jarestel]

The thing is the changes that would be needed to stop this, are you in favor of those changes being implemented year round?

I'd have to know what the changes were of course, but in a general sense I think I would be be fine with tweaking the system. However, if DVC "fine-tunes" one area, it's possible to create unintended consequences in another. So I understand why some might have cause for concern.

 

[tjkraz]

While I agree that booking rooms with no intention of using them is marginally uncool, sombody is going to use those rooms, probably very near the 11 month window, so I find it hard to get too worked up about it.

The sad part is that it dilutes the concept of "first come, first served." Instead rooms are going to "first come...immediately after a 'walker' has dropped the nights they never planned to use in the first place."

 

[ziravan]

The sad part is that it dilutes the concept of "first come, first served." Instead rooms are going to "first come...immediately after a 'walker' has dropped the nights they never planned to use in the first place."

A real time wait list would fix that. In that case, the first person intent on using the room that reserved it would ultimately be first served. So. That to me is an IT problem more than a walking problem.

 

[tjkraz]

A real time wait list would fix that. In that case, the first person intent on using the room that reserved it would ultimately be first served. So. That to me is an IT problem more than a walking problem.

Even with an instant match waitlist system, you can't replicate a prior moment in time. Too much fluidity in the system. Other members will book other surrounding nights, which impacts the full availability picture when that room is finally released.

Besides, shortcomings in one aspect of the reservation system shouldn't be used as justification for not plugging holes in another.

 

[ziravan]

Even with an instant match waitlist system, you can't replicate a prior moment in time. Too much fluidity in the system. Other members will book other surrounding nights, which impacts the full availability picture when that room is finally released.

Besides, shortcomings in one aspect of the reservation system shouldn't be used as justification for not plugging holes in another.

I don’t think that’s the justification.

It’s hard for me to get worked up about fluidity at the 11 month window because to the extent someone gets left standing in the game of musical chairs, there’s at least as much luck as skill to getting a chair. And to the extent someone is left standing at the 11 month window, all the seekers were essentially real time players. One succeeding over another to me is more or less random anyway.

If there’s not enough to go around, somebody is going to get left out. I find it hard to get too worked up about whether it’s someone 3/10ths of a second slow clicking the reserve button vs picking it up after a walker. To me, each event is equally random, and each has its own element of ‘skill’.

No. The justification for not wanting to plug the hole is the other holes that will likely be created as a result. In any complicated rules system, loopholes are inevitable.

As I said before, this particular loophole was created in an attempt to plug a different 11 month booking window hole.

What loophole will be created if DVC decides to “plug” walking, and for how many years will DVC ignore that loophole?

 

[ziravan]

To finish the thought, Wyndham just plugged it’s VIP book/rebook hole by eliminating the credit pool.

The fix to one legitimate problem (megarenters taking all the prime reservations at 25% point value) has created a new and huge inflexibility in the system.

Everything’s a trade off. And walking doesn’t bother me enough to trade for the potential problems caused by its fix. (Not that any of us have a say anyway.)

 

[zavandor]

Certainly there is no perfect system but walking is both inappropriate and easily fixable IMO.

Is it?
An easy fix is something that fixes the problem without creating more problems.

For example, let's say that DVC removes completely the possibility to cancel reservations. All transactions are final, if you cancel you loos every point. This would fix compeltely the problem with walkers! An easy fix! Well not, because it would cause great damage to DVC members. Any solution I've read so far doesn't fix the problem without creating other problems to other members. I haven't seen an easy fix proposed. I've seen ideas that would create other kind of problems to all members just to remove an issue that, in my opinion, causes less problems than the proposed fixes.

I'm not judging anyone who takes advantage of the rules, but ultimately if you are making a reservation for a room on a certain date that you have no intention of keeping, I do think that hurts other members who are trying to make legitimate bookings.

What about people booking a couple of days more at each end of a reservation waiting for the flights to come out and canceling un-needed days when they find a cheap one? Is this "half unhetical"?
People booking a room for friends or family who are not sure to come?
People booking a room but not sure if they can get the time off work until a later date?

I think everything listed happens more frequently than walking.

 

[jarestel]

What about people booking a couple of days more at each end of a reservation waiting for the flights to come out and canceling un-needed days when they find a cheap one? Is this "half unhetical"?
People booking a room for friends or family who are not sure to come?
People booking a room but not sure if they can get the time off work until a later date?

I think everything listed happens more frequently than walking.

Absolutely these things happen. The main difference is the reservations aren't being modified on a daily basis. There's a huge difference, IMO, between a case where plans change and reservations need to be modified and someone using the easily identifiable strategy of "walking" a reservation. For the record, I never used terms like half-unethical, or any other judgements regarding people who use the rules to their advantage.

 

[Ben E N]

Absolutely these things happen. The main difference is the reservations aren't being modified on a daily basis. There's a huge difference, IMO, between a case where plans change and reservations need to be modified and someone using the easily identifiable strategy of "walking" a reservation. For the record, I never used terms like half-unethical, or any other judgements regarding people who use the rules to their advantage.

I don't have a lot to gain or lose by any changes, as I typically go to Disney in the summer, when walking is not necessary. Just thinking about logistics.
Why not limit modifications to reservations made at 11 months to only being able to happen at 10 months or sooner? This would come with the exception of adding on days without removing any on the front end. People with legitimate travel plan changes still have a 3 month head start on non-home resort individuals. Flights are rarely released that early so there would not be much of an issue there. If someone needed to change badly, they could always cancel and rebook as long as the room is still available, they just cannot hold multiple days that they have no intention of using.

 

[zavandor]

Absolutely these things happen. The main difference is the reservations aren't being modified on a daily basis. There's a huge difference, IMO, between a case where plans change and reservations need to be modified and someone using the easily identifiable strategy of "walking" a reservation. For the record, I never used terms like half-unethical, or any other judgements regarding people who use the rules to their advantage.

If people calling to edit reservations were a problem, Disney would have changed the online reservation system to allow editing reservations. Walking is evidently a very marginal problem, changing the rules (or asking to change the rules) causing damage to all members just to close a loophole used by just a few people for a handful of rooms will cause more harm than benefit.