Are the Days of Walking a DVC Reservation Numbered?

[tx911]

With walking, it’s simply an outcome of the rules that are in place.

Obviously people feel it’s unfair but as I said, we don’t have to justify our reason for booking…as long as the day we book is open for securing a room.

You can say that about any flexible entity. DAS used to be very flexible, and all the people qualifying for DAS were just using it based on the rules that were in place.

You wouldn't be wrong, but it wasn't the intended use of the product, it was done for personal gain at the expense of others, and the product ended up being made a lot less flexible.

 

[Sandisw]

Again, I agree that you don't have to want to physically stay in the room. Read the rules again. You have to want it as the single check in day for your reservation. They are again subtle yet different things. You are assuming they "mean" the first one, but the rules actually specifically state the second one.


If you already 100% plan to move the check in date, it is NOT your desired check in date and you should not be booking yet according to both rules as written and the spirit of the rules. End of story

If you were making a flow chart for specifically when someone can book:

Is the day you actually want as your single, final, only check-in date for this single reservation 11 months or sooner from today?
If yes -> you can book it!
If no -> you are not eligible for booking at this time

But yes, it does involve intent, which is why it is hard to enforce and why they may add even more specific wording to the rules or change how the booking or modification system works

Again, when a walker books a night, they desired it to be a check in day…plain and simple.

If they decide to change it the next day, they desired to change it….thst is only what matters.

And it’s not about being hard to enforce…it’s about DVC not legally having the right to stop any owner from booking any room at their home resort for whatever reason they want.

As I said, if I go in and book a room today with my points, and DVC asks me why, I can say “none of your business”. That sounds snarky but that is the truth.

So, we can agree to disagree. No matter what rules DVc puts in the place, even if they go back to day by day booking, they will never be allowed to stop an owner from booking any room when it’s open for booking and never be able to cancel it based on intent.

 

[pzw90]

Have been chewing on idea that would never get implemented but curious what others think.
Change the reservation system to where you can book at 11 months only, want the next day then modify the next day to include it, so on.
Want to guarantee past the 11 month window? Well, quarter/half of the available rooms can be bid on. From 8am to 9am, you can drive the prices of 11+1, 11+2,..., 11+7 up. When no more bidding is going on, those with the highest bids get those rooms, tiebreakers are determined by time. If you make any modifications to these rooms, you only get the base price (point chart rate) back, any premium if forfeited. I understand it favors those with more points. Might drive more sales for Disney. Might be a tax on those with more points and want to ease of walking. Might show better where the demand is for future point chart updates. Still leaves rooms at regular rate at 11m and before.

 

[tx911]

Have been chewing on idea that would never get implemented but curious what others think.
Change the reservation system to where you can book at 11 months only, want the next day then modify the next day to include it, so on.
Want to guarantee past the 11 month window? Well, quarter/half of the available rooms can be bid on. From 8am to 9am, you can drive the prices of 11+1, 11+2,..., 11+7 up. When no more bidding is going on, those with the highest bids get those rooms, tiebreakers are determined by time. If you make any modifications to these rooms, you only get the base price (point chart rate) back, any premium if forfeited. I understand it favors those with more points. Might drive more sales for Disney. Might be a tax on those with more points and want to ease of walking. Might show better where the demand is for future point chart updates. Still leaves rooms at regular rate at 11m and before.

I guess having everyone stop walking so there's nothing to fix is too much to ask?

 

[Leight19]

I'm certainly not intending to insult anyone, but I disagree that walking is "how the system is designed to work".

It's a very flexible booking and modification system, so it allows walking to occur. It is not, however, how it was intended to work.

This is no different than any other policies that allow for flexibility, and are then abused by some users for personal advantage, whether it be DAS, commercial renting, other non-Disney timeshares, or what have you. A few people take advantage of the very flexibility that makes the product great, and that flexibility gets neutered.

If DVC implements "fixes" that reduce the flexibility for all owners, that would be unfortunate.

I don’t want to belabor the point but again these situations are not analogous to walking.

The issue with DAS abuse came down a lot to people downright lying about needs. There were clear rules when signing up stating that lying was grounds for punishment. Commercial renting is expressedly stated as against rules with authority to prevent it clearly stated in the documents.

No such statement exists for walking and eveything walkers do is expressedly allowed within the rules. You can debate whether the rules should be that way but no one can honestly say walking is against any rule.

To put it another way, if some lied about needs to get das and got caught they would face punishment. If a commercial renter told Disney they were using contract for commercial purposes Disney would intervene. These two behaviors are against rules and would be stopped if detected but Disney errs on side of caution with detection effectively allowing people to break the rules.

For walking, I can walk every resevatjon I ever do, I could email dvc telling them I’m walking reservations, heck I could even call them and have them do it for me and they would not stop it because it’s not against the rules as they stand today.

 

[Tatebeck]

Again, when a walker books a night, they desired it to be a check in day…plain and simple.

If they decide to change it the next day, they desired to change it….thst is only what matters.

And it’s not about being hard to enforce…it’s about DVC not legally having the right to stop any owner from booking any room at their home resort for whatever reason they want.

As I said, if I go in and book a room today with my points, and DVC asks me why, I can say “none of your business”. That sounds snarky but that is the truth.

So, we can agree to disagree. No matter what rules DVc puts in the place, even if they go back to day by day booking, they will never be allowed to stop an owner from booking any room when it’s open for booking and never be able to cancel it based on intent.

If they decide to change it the next day that is within current rules.

If they had already decided that they would change it before booking it, then it is against the rules

The timing and reason for the decision is what matters. Which is why it is hard to police.

Similar to commercial activity. They currently have no definition for what exactly "commercial activity" actually is. So most of us assume it's probably what they had released before. But if Disney decides that your intent was for commercial activity, they can (and have I believe) cancelled reservations. Just like if they feel you have violated other parts of the rules, I believe they could cancel your reservations if they wished.

 

[Sandisw]

You can say that about any flexible entity. DAS used to be very flexible, and all the people qualifying for DAS were just using it based on the rules that were in place.

You wouldn't be wrong, but it wasn't the intended use of the product, it was done for personal gain at the expense of others, and the product ended up being made a lot less flexible.

It absolutely is allowed because the rules were set in a way it can be done.

And people are absolutely taking advantage of it and some owners don’t like that. And I think it’s very fair for owners to let DVC know that they don’t currently like that the rules in place allow this practice.

But that is much different than saying that people are violating the rules as written. They are not because if they were, it would be easy for DVC to stop.

They can’t stop it without changing the actual terms of the home resort rules and regulations. Which is what they said. They get to make them so they can change them.

DAS changed the rules because they realized they didn’t work.

In order to fix walking, rules need to be changed….and when a rule needs changing , it’s because it has loopholes that people are using outside the intent

The change for the annual dues is a prime example. The intent of monthly payments was to give owners 12 months interest free as long as you used auto debit.

People figured out that the system allowed partial payments is the gift cards to pay off the monthly payment ahead of time.

No one was breaking the rule because DVC allowed it to happen. Now, they fixed it so you can’t do that…but it required them to change it.

Same with this…it’s not against the current rules to book a reservation and modify it unlimited times…it’s just not.

But, the intent of the rule was that owners would be booking based on an actual trip they wanted to go on…however, because DVC allows owners to modify trips as much as they want with no penalty, walking was born.

Now, owners want to see DVC to change the rules to curb or even stop it. That is going to be hard because one of the big benefits of DVC is flexibility.

Even some of us who know walking exists are indifferent to it and don’t want to see DVC booking to become too restrictive.

Rules don’t need to be changed if they are working as intended…it just means they need to be enforced.

You can’t enforce the intent of the booking rule without limiting modifications…and that is what DVC will need to do if they think it’s better for the membership as a whole to do so.

 

[tx911]

I don’t want to belabor the point but again these situations are not analogous to walking.

The issue with DAS abuse came down a lot to people downright lying about needs. There were clear rules when signing up stating that lying was grounds for punishment. Commercial renting is expressedly stated as against rules with authority to prevent it clearly stated in the documents.

No such statement exists for walking and eveything walkers do is expressedly allowed within the rules. You can debate whether the rules should be that way but no one can honestly say walking is against any rule.

To put it another way, if some lied about needs to get das and got caught they would face punishment. If a commercial renter told Disney they were using contract for commercial purposes Disney would intervene. These two behaviors are against rules and would be stopped if detected but Disney errs on side of caution with detection effectively allowing people to break the rules.

For walking, I can walk every resevatjon I ever do, I could email dvc telling them I’m walking reservations, heck I could even call them and have them do it for me and they would not stop it because it’s not against the rules as they stand today.

I agree, they are not exactly the same situations.
Walking is, however, an unintended use of an inherently flexible system for personal advantage. Which could eventually result in DVC taking away some of that flexibility.

 

[Sandisw]

If they decide to change it the next day that is within current rules.

If they had already decided that they would change it before booking it, then it is against the rules

The timing and reason for the decision is what matters. Which is why it is hard to police.

Similar to commercial activity. They currently have no definition for what exactly "commercial activity" actually is. So most of us assume it's probably what they had released before. But if Disney decides that your intent was for commercial activity, they can (and have I believe) cancelled reservations. Just like if they feel you have violated other parts of the rules, I believe they could cancel your reservations if they wished.

What they decided before or after is irrelevant. When the booked, did they desire to book it? Yup.

That is all that is required. You don’t have to agree…but the contract guarantees us the right to book without a reason.

They absolutely can not legally cancel anyone’s reservation because they assumed intent especially when there is no rule that says you can’t modify a reservation as many times as you want.

 

[bdrex28]

It absolutely is allowed because the rules were set in a way it can be done.

And people are absolutely taking advantage of it and some owners don’t like that. And I think it’s very fair for owners to let DVC know that they don’t currently like that the rules in place allow this practice.

But that is much different than saying that people are violating the rules as written. They are not because if they were, it would be easy for DVC to stop.

They can’t stop it without changing the actual terms of the home resort rules and regulations. Which is what they said. They get to make them so they can change them.

DAS changed the rules because they realized they didn’t work.

In order to fix walking, rules need to be changed….and when a rule needs changing , it’s because it has loopholes that people are using outside the intent

The change for the annual dues is a prime example. The intent of monthly payments was to give owners 12 months interest free as long as you used auto debit.

People figured out that the system allowed partial payments is the gift cards to pay off the monthly payment ahead of time.

No one was breaking the rule because DVC allowed it to happen. Now, they fixed it so you can’t do that…but it required them to change it.

Same with this…it’s not against the current rules to book a reservation and modify it unlimited times…it’s just not.

But, the intent of the rule was that owners would be booking based on an actual trip they wanted to go on…however, because DVC allows owners to modify trips as much as they want with no penalty, walking was born.

Now, owners want to see DVC to change the rules to curb or even stop it. That is going to be hard because one of the big benefits of DVC is flexibility.

Even some of us who know walking exists are indifferent to it and don’t want to see DVC booking to become too restrictive.

Rules don’t need to be changed if they are working as intended…it just means they need to be enforced.

You can’t enforce the intent of the booking rule without limiting modifications…and that is what DVC will need to do if they think it’s better for the membership as a whole to do so.

They could add a caveat that "walking" is against the intent of the rules. They would need to define walking. IF they state that moving a reservation forward by modifying the dates to push them day by day and modifying that single reservation by moving it day by day with say more than 10 modifications in a 2 week period is against the rules then they could do that.

I've never walked so I can't speak to how often the reservation is typically modified and if it's moved a single day at a time or what, but they have the data to show that and see what would catch a good percentage of it.

I do understand that it limits flexibility, but if you had all the data in front of you like they do, I am pretty sure it wouldn't be overly hard to define a way to limit at least 50% of walking.

 

[Tatebeck]

What they decided before or after is irrelevant. When the booked, did they desire to book it? Yup.

That is all that is required. You don’t have to agree…but the contract guarantees us the right to book without a reason.

They absolutely can not legally cancel anyone’s reservation because they assumed intent especially when there is no rule that says you can’t modify a reservation as many times as you want.

Again, according to the rules, they specifically have to want it as the day that their reservation will start. That is literally what a check in day is. They wanted to book it, sure, but they did NOT want it to be the day that their reservation starts.

You don't have to agree... but the rules are very specific with that wording

It would be very hard for them do decide what to cancel because they would have to assume intent, yes. Which is why they may change the rules to be even more specific.

But doing all these mental gymnastics to try and say the rules definitely allow walking at any time for any reason is just silly.

 

[dvcsince93]

I agree with that. But, as owners, we don’t have to actually want to stay that day….and why booking any date when the window allows it…which is 11 months exactly within a plus/minues 7 days.

Exploiting a rule is not breaking it. And why DVC has to amend the rules if they want to stop people from exploiting it.

As I said, I can go in today and book any date that is currently eligible to be booked regardless if I want it. My reason could be as simple as I dont want Disney to have if for breakage.

You see “desired” check in day as the day you plan to go…and I am saying “desired” can mean any reason you have to want to book that room.

What they decided before or after is irrelevant. When the booked, did they desire to book it? Yup.

That is all that is required. You don’t have to agree…but the contract guarantees us the right to book without a reason.

Actually, that is not true.

In reading contracts, which this is, you can't pick out one word and try to define it in a way that is inconsistent with the rest of the document. Here, the POS states:

Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any purpose other than the personal use described herein is expressly prohibited

Your desired use of the unit is critical.

DVD limits reservations to those wanting to use the home for purposes desctibe in the POS. So, if your desire in making the reservation is anything but to use the unit on that day as defined in the contract, e.g., to block Disney from using it without using it yourself, it is not a valid purpose and you can only make reservations for valid purposes. (and the POS makes it clear that your purpose is clearly their business)

The system is not designed to allow walking, to the contrary, it subjectively precluded (since walkers are attempting to make reservations more than 11 months in the future and the intent of walkers in making their reservations is not the personal use of the facilities but as a place holder to make further reservation) but does not objectively preclude the activity (which is not surprising since it is not an intended manner of making reservations.)

The fact that the system doesn't stop you from walking doesn't make your misuse of the system for walking acceptable.

 

[Sandisw]

They could add a caveat that "walking" is against the intent of the rules. They would need to define walking. IF they state that moving a reservation forward by modifying the dates to push them day by day and modifying that single reservation by moving it day by day with say more than 10 modifications in a 2 week period is against the rules then they could do that.

I've never walked so I can't speak to how often the reservation is typically modified and if it's moved a single day at a time or what, but they have the data to show that and see what would catch a good percentage of it.

I do understand that it limits flexibility, but if you had all the data in front of you like they do, I am pretty sure it wouldn't be overly hard to define a way to limit at least 50% of walking.

They can absolutely do that by adding language to the rules that there are limits to the number of modifications that can be made.

The only thing they can’t do is make the enforcement selective….

They don’t need to even use the word walking. It’s irrelevant because walking is nothing more than an example of unlimited modifications

I don’t think anyone is saying that DVC can’t change the rules. But, those who are walking are simply not violating any rule.

The word desired is used…and when they booked the room they desired it to be a check in day.

Which is why even DVC stated people are breaking the spirit of the rule…they didn’t use that word if what is occurring was actually against them.

And, we know that because the discussion included the word “but”. They are open to exploring a change to the rules “but” also don’t want to end up with unintended consequences to a change.

It’s not the same as how they discussed commercial renting. They stated that is expressly against the rules and that changes are coming.

 

[tx911]

I don’t think anyone is saying that DVC can’t change the rules. But, those who are walking are simply not violating any rule.

What they are doing is taking advantage of the lack of rules in a very flexible system for personal gain. In a way that decreases the enjoyment of the product for other owners.

 

[Sandisw]

Again, according to the rules, they specifically have to want it as the day that their reservation will start. That is literally what a check in day is. They wanted to book it, sure, but they did NOT want it to be the day that their reservation starts.

You don't have to agree... but the rules are very specific with that wording

It would be very hard for them do decide what to cancel because they would have to assume intent, yes. Which is why they may change the rules to be even more specific.

But doing all these mental gymnastics to try and say the rules definitely allow walking at any time for any reason is just silly.

No, that is your interpretation of the word desired.

The boards comments at the meetings actually support thst it’s a violation only the spirit of the rule and not the actual rule.

But we agree…no sense in trying to keep going over it.

 

[Chili327]

I disagree as the other O14 resale owners have a chance to switch at 7 months to a different resort if there dates are not available during their preferred travel time. Resale Riviera owners can't and must book RIV so it will become much more competitive at the 11 month window as when it switches to 7 months others with qualifying points can book RIV and possible take that room away if they are not on it.

Only if you are direct will it be an issue at 7 months.

Lots of words to re-state the same FUD that people have been saying since Riviera opened with restrictions. At least you recognize it is all just fear, uncertainty, and doubt by constantly saying "may". I do agree that the more Riviera owners there are, the more difficult 7 month bookings will be - but that also isn't new in the DVC system, outside of popular sleep-around resorts like SSR.

All people have to do is book in the 11 month window. The way DVC has worked since day 1.

Agree, a lot of this is FUD, so many things just aren’t the problem or an issue.

I guess having everyone stop walking so there's nothing to fix is too much to ask?

How do you purpose to “stop people from walking” is the whole point ere. lol

 

[dvcsince93]

Walking is not an example of unlimited modifications since your intent in making the reservation is not to use the unit for an acceptable purpose.

If I use your rationale that the fact that the software doesn't preclude walking means that its acceptable, then any software hack is ok.

If I could get into their system and stop you from reserving then that would be ok since it is not excluded by the contracts and software doesn't prevent it.

 

[Sandisw]

What they are doing is taking advantage of the lack of rules in a very flexible system for personal gain. In a way that decreases the enjoyment of the product for other owners.

Absolutely! They are taking advantage of the current rules and why some want them changed.

That has been others points…it’s allowed because the rules don’t currently prohibit it.

 

[Leight19]

Focused on solution side of things to me I think it’s easiest to think of what are the “3 legs” of the walking stool. For a walk to happen you have to have the ability to book a room beyond 11 months (+7 today), you have to have the ability to modify rooms with flexibility, and you have to have a room with more demand then supply.

I’ve seen people make proposals on all 3 of these but I think all 3 are important parts of the dvc product which should not be broken just to stop walking. To me, you have to Venn diagram it and go after when these 3 overlap only. Changes to system should not impact ability to book multiple days or to modify freely and should not put burden on rooms that aren’t in high demand.

Lots of the proposals that recommend limits/charges for modifications or changing point charts would have impact well outside scope of just waking. That’s why to me the solution has to be narrowly tailored only to where all 3 overlap, modifications for reservations extending beyond 11Months where inventory limits.

I think my proposal to simply block modifications for reservations extending past 11 months unless additional inventory is available open to everyone meets all 3 criteria and end walking with minimal impact.

 

[Sandisw]

Walking is not an example of unlimited modifications since your intent in making the reservation is not to use the unit for an acceptable purpose.

If I use your rationale that the fact that the software doesn't preclude means that its acceptable, then any software hack is ok.

If I could get into their system and stop you from reserving then that would be ok since it is not excluded by the contracts and software doesn're prevent it.

It’s not the software that stops it…it’s the rules themselves.

Even when there was no online system, you could call DVC and modify your trip as much as you want.

With that, can’t explain it any better.