And as such, any complaints currently would be with DVC and not the members who use DVC within reason and within the guidelines told them by DVC and the guides. But those that feel this is a victimless crime are simply wrong. There are costs involved that affect each and every member. How much is somewhat irrelevant but I suspect it's larger than the additional fees will be at OKW for the pool. And while it's up to DVC to police, to say it's none of the membership's business is a bit selfish, not to mention wrong (another reference to previous thread's).
Not really. DVC sales staff are milk toast. You should hear some of the lies and tactics used by others, like Westgate and others. DVC will likely only police this issue of those who feel strongly about it complain. Unfortunately, some have mistaken my willingness to discuss the issues involved as evidence that I feel strongly about the topic, which I do not.
Milk toast is a term used to define, bland, mild or the like. In this context, it means they are nice, honest, and attempt to be honorable.
Unfortunatly, some proporting knowledge in these areas are spreading missinformation. For example, DVC resorts are certainly not similar to the cruise industry where meals are included and issues of life jackets, and lifeboat capacity come into play. The analogy is far fetched at best IMHO. In other cases legal issues are claimed that do not have a basis in fact although they are presented as such, these pseudo legal claims are used as a rationalizatoin to justify a position by those without legal expertise IMHO. No need to rehash those faulty approaches here, lets keep the thread open.
Agreed. I would submit those "certain people" are a larger audience and more inclusive than some would be willing to admit, and were observed from both sides of the issue.
No need to rehash those old approaches here.Exactly. Thank you for pointing out what seemed very obvious to me.
I agree doc. I don't think we'll see official documents rewritten. I also appreciate your comments about Judy, I'll give her a call soon and check in with her, and let her know she is being quoted so she is aware. I'll also reask her about this new policy.
I'd prefer her to be right where I can see her.
Doctor P, there are many facets to this question. The written rules are clear and straightforward. DVC has chosen to look the other way whether it be an extra under 3 or {possibly} 5 in a 1 BR. I don't think it's accurate to say MS doesn't care, but they don't appear to care enough to consistently enforce the rules at hand.
Well, let's say you read about it being allowed on these boards, were told it was allowed by a guide, got a letter saying it was allowed from management, were allowed to book it with MS, and then actually checked-in and stayed five to a one-bedroom with no repercussions.
I don't think there's any question how people can, and do, get the idea about this issue and a couple of others. I perfectly understand and anyone who is upset should be upset with DVC at this point, assuming "reasonable" use. OTOH, that does not preclude DVC from enforcing the written rules if they chose and while a member might have a valid argument to the contrary, they would not have a legal leg to stand on to force the issue. If push comes to shove, it will be what's in the contract, which is vividly clear. And everyone that bought directly from DVC signed a paper that says that they understand there are no oral representations outside the legal paperwork. Everyone that bought resale were then bound to the original written rules by nature of the deed and sale.
y'all behave!
