Are the Days of Walking a DVC Reservation Numbered?

[Sandisw]

That and the quarterly/annual association meetings where they actually acknowledged renting and walking as a problem. Anyone seeing stories about or checking in on the association meeting stuff now is aware of it as well

I do want to say that at the meetings I was at, while the topic of walking came up, I would not say that they said it’s a problem.

They stated that it is a result of the change of the old booking system which owners felt forced to book day by day..

They said they are open to looking at changes but did state that those would have to be weighed carefully against the consequences of those changes.

So, I didn’t get the sense that this is the same with commercial renting which their statements made it clear it is a priority.

 

[Tatebeck]

Every owner is on equal footing to book a room 11 months from the check in date…you can go in every day and book rooms available every day of the year…nothing is stopping any owner from doing that.

Whether I book a room I want or not doesn’t make the system unequal or even unfair. Any owners reason or intent for booking a room isn’t really relevant.

Not everyone knows stalking works…not everyone knows you can call and make a fake night with OTU points so you can cancel it and then have them to use at 8 am online to get a jump on a 7 month trip.

Not everyone knows you can reallocate points or that holding points occur even if you change trip to use less points and not cancel.

There will simply always be some things that others have figured out that do give them an advantage.

One can advocate for a change but it’s not because it’s unfair it’s because people don’t like others peoples reasons for booking a room.

Members all have the same options, true, but by rule they are SUPPOSED to be on equal footing exactly at 11 months, but in actuality they aren't. Walking allows rooms to be taken out before 11 months. Walking allows some members, if they are willing, to start booking more than 11 months from their intended date, which is not supposed to be allowed.

If there were 100 rooms available and 200 members wanting the rooms on that date, with half of them walking weeks ahead of time and half of them not, all 100 would go to the walking members and 0 to the members who waited until 11 months to book.

Even if walking is stopped, all the people who want those rooms will not get them.

But if walking is stopped, all members will now actually have the exact same opportunity at 11 months, which is what the system is designed to have.

Basically in a worst case scenario, one system can have a 0% chance for a member at 11 months for a room, and the other would just have a very low and equal chance, but never 0.

I do want to say that at the meetings I was at, while the topic of walking came up, I would not say that they said it’s a problem.

They stated that it is a result of the change of the old booking system which owners felt forced to book day by day..

They said they are open to looking at changes but did state that those would have to be weighed carefully against the consequences of those changes.

So, I didn’t get the sense that this is the same with commercial renting which their statements made it clear it is a priority.

They specifically called it an "unintended consequence." Which means they messed up and it is not something they ever intended to let you do.
IE: You aren't supposed to be able to walk

 

[Sandisw]

Would be in same booking field as everyone else. Can extended up to 7 more days but not until the check out date lands 7/11 months out. If another room category opens up second, third, sixth day later after your booking..modify it. Can’t modify past the original reservation check out day (the up to 7 slide wouldn’t apply). You could modify moving the check in day but that reservation will be 6 days until that original booked check out days hits the 7/11 month mark to modify the up to 7 more night. You are now extending days in real time with everyone else attempting a reservation that day, to get your reservation room category.

I’d rather see them increase the rule to 11 plus 14, but with the limitation that once you make that reservation, it can’t be extended, only shortened until you are 10 months from check in date.

It won’t completely stop it but it would cut it down. And, the plus 14 is only at the time of original booking. Those that truly go longer than 7 would be able to do that.

If you realize you need more, then you make a new one to merge later. You don’t get to extend up to 14 after the fact.

Shortening would be fine because it releases rooms back to others but the extension just can’t happen until 10 months from the check in date.

Obviously it could benefit larger point owners who can hold a full 14 days, but at least it curbs walking because no one can achieve a walk more than that.

 

[Leight19]

The issue with this is you would have an advantage already holding the room past the booking date. It’s really not a fresh 7 night booking reservation, it’s still a modification to the original booking. If that category if fully booked that date..nobody else trying to get the week will have availability that day. You get the future 8th night only because your original reservation has it locked into the future 6 nights. Only battling with yourself. (becomes walking if modify this way). That’s why original booking of a reservation, up to 7 nights is currently booked on same fair booking terms. Having to wait to extended by modifying on the 7/11 mark of check out day is a clean and fair booking process. (Palm sweating, nervous frenzy perhaps)..You are attempting the extension as others are trying to book a fresh check in day reservation. All battling for the same rooms. Yes is a hassle to extend this way. (A result caused by walking..in perfect world we all only book what we want..but we are competitors lol). This may stop the ability to “walk”. (Brilliant minds usually figure some ways to get the advantage back). My way would become..you hold what you obtained and hope to “hop” on more availability days to extend the stay.

I agree that’s how it works today, my proposal is to change the booking so that searches on 11Months and beyond for modifications only includes inventory open to everyone. As others say if there’s room A and B and I have room A 11 months plus 7 I can only modify that the next day to walk if room B is available. If I succeed I pick up the new day but me having room A does not allow me to modify without contention.

 

[Chili327]

so if there are 2 rooms in 1 category. lets say 11m is 12/17/24
Room A is rented 12/15-12/24
Room B you have 12/17-12/19

for someone to book 12/19-12/20 they would also need the days prior but since the 11month window is 12/17 and you and room A already have those days booked they can not book past you.

now if you dont modify your reservation on 12/18 someone can book 12/19 for room B and your walk is wasted.

The person who has 7 booked vs the person who could only do two is only ahead in that they don’t have to move as often.

Think of it this way. You book room A at 11 months for two nights. The other person is booking Room B for 7 nights.

You are no longer competing against each other. You are moving Room A and they are moving Room B.

You just need to move daily to keep your room where they can wait 5 days to move it forward.

But, once you have locked in your room, no one can take it from you, except DVc if they remove rooms for service or it’s a rooms with a lot of fixed week

Gotcha... so my issue is actually that they may have already booked my room before i even got the chance to start walking, not that the amount of points makes any difference? But isn't their ability to book 7 nights what actually takes away my room before I get the chance to get it?

Not sure if the examples fits or not, but lets say...
Rooms are ALL booked 12/15-12/24
So there is no Room B on the 17th (to book 12/17-12/19)

Is that not a factor of having enough points? (In the end all i can do is stalk and hope the 17th gets walked past)


Side note, I've never walked, I'm just trying to understand, because it definitely seems like more points has an advantage, but it probably should, that's how the world works.

 

[Leight19]

Members all have the same options, true, but by rule they are SUPPOSED to be on equal footing exactly at 11 months, but in actuality they aren't. Walking allows rooms to be taken out before 11 months. Walking allows some members, if they are willing, to start booking more than 11 months from their intended date, which is not supposed to be allowed.

If there were 100 rooms available and 200 members wanting the rooms on that date, with half of them walking weeks ahead of time and half of them not, all 100 would go to the walking members and 0 to the members who waited until 11 months to book.

But if walking is stopped, all members will now actually have the exact same opportunity at 11 months, which is what the system is designed to have.

Basically in a worst case scenario, one system can have a 0% chance for a member at 11 months for a room, and the other would just have a very low and equal chance, but never 0.


They specifically called it an "unintended consequence." Which means they messed up and it is not something they ever intended to let you do.
IE: You aren't supposed to be able to walk

This argument is flawed because the exact argument can be made against any booking. I can log in at 11Months and not have same chance to book room since someone previously booked it at 11Months +7 even if it’s not a walked reservation. In fact they could technically block out to +30 days or whatever max length stay is and block me without being a walk of any kind.

 

[Tatebeck]

Gotcha... so my issue is actually that they may have already booked my room before i even got the chance to start walking, not that the amount of points makes any difference? But isn't their ability to book 7 nights what actually takes away my room before I get the chance to get it?

Not sure if the examples fits or not, but lets say...
Rooms are ALL booked 12/15-12/24
So there is no Room B on the 17th (to book 12/17-12/19)

Is that not a factor of having enough points? (In the end all i can do is stalk and hope the 17th gets walked past)


Side note, I've never walked, I'm just trying to understand, because it definitely seems like more points has an advantage, but it probably should, that's how the world works.

You still could have started walking the same time as they did with only at least 2 nights of points, but the real issue is that puts the point of competition BEFORE 11 months, which the system is not supposed to do by rule

 

[Sandisw]

Members all have the same options, true, but by rule they are SUPPOSED to be on equal footing exactly at 11 months, but in actuality they aren't. Walking allows rooms to be taken out before 11 months. Walking allows some members, if they are willing, to start booking more than 11 months from their intended date, which is not supposed to be allowed.

If there were 100 rooms available and 200 members wanting the rooms on that date, with half of them walking weeks ahead of time and half of them not, all 100 would go to the walking members and 0 to the members who waited until 11 months to book.

But if walking is stopped, all members will now actually have the exact same opportunity at 11 months, which is what the system is designed to have.

Basically in a worst case scenario, one system can have a 0% chance for a member at 11 months for a room, and the other would just have a very low and equal chance, but never 0.


They actually called it an "unintended consequence." Which means they messed up and it is not something they ever intended to let you do.
IE: You aren't supposed to be able to walk

Because DVC has the 11 months plus 7, the booking window is not just one day…it’s a range of dates.

So, you can’t count days taken out under the “plus 7” because those are part of the window.

Today, the window opens for November 17th to 24th, so any of those days opened today… not just the 17th, which means some of the rooms will already be gone for the person starting a trip tomorrow on the 18th.

That to me is the difference and why we are all on equal footing.

If I am going November 12 to 19th for real and you are going November 15th to 22nd for real, the days of your trip that overlap mine will already have a room booked….not because of walking because of the plus 7 rule.

Day by day booking is the only way you can say every room should be available when 8 am arrives.

 

[Tatebeck]

This argument is flawed because the exact argument can be made against any booking. I can log in at 11Months and not have same chance to book room since someone previously booked it at 11Months +7 even if it’s not a walked reservation. In fact they could technically block out to +30 days or whatever max length stay is and block me without being a walk of any kind.

If it is blocked by a member actually booking their trip that is within the rules though as long as they themselves booked their desired stay at 11 months. Walking a reservation is not.

 

[Tatebeck]

Because DVC has the 11 months plus 7, the booking window is not just one day…it’s a range of dates.

So, you can’t count days taken out under the “plus 7” because those are part of the window.

Today, the window opens for November 17th to 24th, so any of those days opened today… not just the 17th.

That to me is the difference and why we are all on equal footing.

If I am going November 12 to 19th for real and you are going November 15th to 22nd for real, the days of your trip that overlap mine will already have a room booked….not because of walking because of the plus 7 rule.

Day by day booking is the only way you can say every room should be available when 8 am arrives.

But if your trip was booked and used, and not walked, it at least falls within their normal rules! Walking does not. So that really doesn't change anything. Every single room could also be gone at 11+7 by walkers without ever having been under competition under 11 or 11+7 rules as they were intended to be.

In your example we both could have been completely blocked out by walking users with 0% chance at ever having an opportunity when either of us booked

 

[Wedgeout]

I agree that’s how it works today, my proposal is to change the booking so that searches on 11Months and beyond for modifications only includes inventory open to everyone. As others say if there’s room A and B and I have room A 11 months plus 7 I can only modify that the next day to walk if room B is available. If I succeed I pick up the new day but me having room A does not allow me to modify without contention.

Yes..that concept would work. Just not sure their ability to code the process can be accomplished. We won’t really know if it’s working correctly. Having to fresh modify extend..we know at least one room is available that day..the A room.

 

[dvcsince93]

But walkers only take it for no more than 6 days and on most cases, rooms are there the next day.

If it’s not coming back then those owners did want it.

Sure, others walking might mean owners who really want those rooms have to do a little extra work, but let’s not pretend that if a walker takes a room and doesn’t want it it is gone for goid.

Sometimes getting what you want, if it’s popular does take some work.

Some of us who have chosen not to walk, and indifferent to it have simply decided that there are still ways to get what we want, even if it’s not first try because we have never been guaranteed that.

It's funny that you point that we have never been guaranteed reservations. Walking is an attempt to do that, guarantee a reservation, and in fact, an attempt to guarantee a reservation that more than 11 months and 7 days from now. So, those of us that don't walk, are suppose to accept the actions of people who are trying to circumvent the system in their favor.

Also, DVC is set up to allow you to try and make reservations 11 months from the check in date. Walkers clearly keep non-walkers from doing that. Dates that are taken up by walkers may be held anywhere from 1 to 6 days. So, non-walkers have no idea what day or what time of day, the room may open. If you think making a reservation at 8am is hard, imagine trying to make a reservations at anytime during the next 144 hrs. Also, the unit may be gone for good since there are other reasons, like waitlists, that may preclude you getting the room. Once again, we are left to accept the actions of people who are rigging the system in their favor at our expense.

You are right that getting some reservations may take some work, but that work should be at the 11 month mark-not at the whim of walkers.

 

[Sandisw]

But if your trip was booked and not walked it at least falls within their normal rules! Walking does not. That doesn't change anything. Every single room could also be gone at 11+7 by walkers without ever having been under competition under 11 or 11+7 rules as they were intended to be.

What you are taking about though is intent of the owner booking and not the reality of booking under an 11 plus 7 rule.

One can certainly say that the assumption is that when you book you are booking a real check in day, but that is different than saying that the rooms are taking out of the system by walkers differently than if it’s someone booking for real.

If there are 10 rooms and 10 owners book them, some walkers some not, the result is the same. What is not the same is that the walker took a room they will most likely cancel and the other owner did not.

IMO, its the intent of the owner who walks that makes the situation different, and not the actual booking process.

 

[Leight19]

If it is blocked by a member actually booking their trip that is within the rules though as long as they themselves booked their desired stay at 11 months. Walking a reservation is not.

You keep repeating this but you’ve shown nothing I’ve seen that indicates walking is disallowed by any rule. Your strongest argument is the statement that you can book starting 11Months from your “desired” check in date as though this is definitive proof you’re not allowed to walk. To me this is just a statement saying you can start booking 11 months out and has no implication that bookers are some how agreeing this is their final check in date with any degree of certainty. Walking is a known phenomena and if it was against the rules as they stand today I’d expect an explicit statement saying it’s discouraged. As it stands today the clearest evidence we have about whether there is a rule against it is that the system is hard coded to allow it.

 

[Tatebeck]

You keep repeating this but you’ve shown nothing I’ve seen that indicates walking is disallowed by any rule. Your strongest argument is the statement that you can book starting 11Months from your “desired” check in date as though this is definitive proof you’re not allowed to walk. To me this is just a statement saying you can start booking 11 months out and has no implication that bookers are some how agreeing this is their final check in date with any degree of certainty. Walking is a known phenomena and if it was against the rules as they stand today I’d expect an explicit statement saying it’s discouraged. As it stands today the clearest evidence we have about whether there is a rule against it is that the system is hard coded to allow it.

I have posted the rules AND DVC's comments from the recent meetings.

DVC literally called walking "unintended" during the meetings. That literally means you weren't ever meant to be able to walk a reservation ahead of the 11 month window.

It happened because of the switch from booking by check out day to check in day and was never fixed. In the old system you couldn't walk days ahead of the 11 month window, so they had no stop for it

 

[Sandisw]

It's funny that you point that we have never been guaranteed reservations. Walking is an attempt to do that, guarantee a reservation, and in fact, an attempt to guarantee a reservation that more than 11 months and 7 days from now. So, those of us that don't walk, are suppose to accept the actions of people who are trying to circumvent the system in their favor.

Also, DVC is set up to allow you to try and make reservations 11 months from the check in date. Walkers clearly keep non-walkers from doing that. Dates that are taken up by walkers may be held anywhere from 1 to 6 days. So, non-walkers have no idea what day or what time of day, the room may open. If you think making a reservation at 8am is hard, imagine trying to make a reservations at anytime during the next 144 hrs. Also, the unit may be gone for good since there are other reasons, like waitlists, that may preclude you getting the room. Once again, we are left to accept the actions of people who are rigging the system in their favor at our expense.

You are right that getting some reservations may take some work, but that work should be at the 11 month mark-not at the whim of walkers.

And if someone wants to put in the work to walk while it’s still allowed under the unlimited modification rules I can support that because I don’t think DVC should have rules that consider intent or question why someone books a room.

I choose not to do it…but I still have to put in work to get what I want and I am fine with that. I follow behind a walker, I stalk, I waitlist, and I book other rooms as back up.

Now, if DVC feels that this tactic, because it goes against the spirit of the rule…which is the word used last week…should be curbed or stopped then they get to change the rules.

 

[Leight19]

I have posted the rules AND DVC's comments from the recent meetings.

DVC literally called walking "unintended" during the meetings. That literally means you weren't ever meant to be able to walk a reservation ahead of the 11 month window.

It happened because of the switch from booking by check out day to check in day and was never fixed. In the old system you couldn't walk days ahead of the 11 month window, so they had no stop for it

You’ve posted the rules and dvc comments but neither is a statement that walking is against the rules. In fact, the comments about it being unintended consequence of the rules is an admission it is allowable practice within the bounds of the rules; just one they may change rules in the future to disallow.

 

[Tatebeck]

You’ve posted the rules and dvc comments but neither is a statement that walking is against the rules. In fact, the comments about it being unintended consequence of the rules is an admission it is allowable practice within the bounds of the rules; just one they may change rules in the future to disallow.

It is a statement that the system doesn't stop you from doing it, not that it is within the rules. A very important distinction.

Your car doesn't stop you from going over the speed limit or running a red light, but that doesn't mean it's magically allowed now lol

And yes, the rules do indicate it is against the rules, depending on your actual check-in date.

 

[Sandisw]

I have posted the rules AND DVC's comments from the recent meetings.

DVC literally called walking "unintended" during the meetings. That literally means you weren't ever meant to be able to walk a reservation ahead of the 11 month window.

It happened because of the switch from booking by check out day to check in day and was never fixed. In the old system you couldn't walk days ahead of the 11 month window, so they had no stop for it

That is correct…they said it violates the spirit of the rule…which implies it is not against the actual rules.

The intent of the 11 plus 7 was people would book from start of a real trip…and be able to book a complete stay but since rules can’t measure intent behind a booking, this practice is not a violation. .

And that is why they said they would be open to changes but they made the statements that they also want to ensure that they don’t end up in the same situation with more unintentional consequences especially when it comes to flexibility.

 

[Leight19]

It is a statement that the system doesn't stop you from doing it, not that it is within the rules. A very important distinction.

I’ll make an analogy here to commercial renting. Commercial renting is against the rules. Do you know how I know? It’s not because the language says “members” can book and I say that implies only members can stay. It’s not that it allows rentals for “personal” reasons and then I make a logical jump to say that proves commercial is against rules because it only says personal. It’s also not becusse they made a comment about stopping it at the members meeting. I know it’s against the rules because it explicitly states so in the rules. It does not have similar statements in any capacity about walking so walking is not against the rules.