BWV Standard view

[Tatebeck]

DVC already gave us a hard definition of what they sees as commercial activity. Its 20 rental reservations per year per membership, on a rolling basis.

I believe that was an older definition that was at one point in some of their paperwork but is not there any longer (so they may have no current definition). Others may know more about it but that's what I remember from a previous discussion.

 

[zavandor]

Every time walking is discussed, we end up with "every modification requires a cancellation", which would actually be the easiest and most effective solution.
Eliminating walking is definitely in "Beware what you wish for" territory. I don't want to lose the flexibility I enjoy to stop a few people walking just a few very hard to get rooms (that wouldn't be much easier to get anyway).

 

[Sandisw]

I believe that was an older definition that was at one point in some of their paperwork but is not there any longer (so they may have no current definition). Others may know more about it but that's what I remember from a previous discussion.

I believe it is still there as the trigger the system uses to flag a membership for review.

But the language itself is removed…now, the rules are simply….you can’t use a memberhsip for commercial purposes, we won’t let you be an owner on contracts totaling more than 8000 points to encourage personal use and that DVC can, at any time, review your memberhsip if they see a pattern of reservations that they believe might have shifted a membership to a commercial one.

It’s up to each individual owner to evaluate their practices against those rules.

Owners of resorts prior to CFW, have the right to have enforcement reasonable and if they feel that DVC has penalized them in an unreasonable way, they have the right to appeal it.

 

[tx911]

Obviously, any measure to curtail walking would involve some kind of restriction to the ability to modify. Personally, I think the plan put forward by @Tatebeck would cause extremely minimal to no inconvenience to the typical member.

But, if you’re coming from a place that any restrictions to modification are undesirable, then you simply don’t feel strongly about limiting the walking of reservations.

 

[Sandisw]

Obviously, any measure to curtail walking would involve some kind of restriction to the ability to modify. Personally, I think the plan put forward by @Tatebeck would cause extremely minimal to no inconvenience to the typical member.

But, if you’re coming from a place that any restrictions to modification are undesirable, then you simply don’t feel strongly about limiting the walking of reservations.

For the record I am indifferent to walking. . I simply believe the plan suggested would violate the contracts FCFS rule.

It’s also not about impact to other owners it’s about whether the rules DVC choose for the home resort rules and regulations booking align woth the contract.

The only guarantee we have is to be allowed a one month advantage over non home resort owner and the guaranteed right to try to book a room if it is open….no owner can be told that they aren’t eligible yet to try for a open room if another owner is eligible if the riooms open date meets the booking rule.


And when I say the contract I am talking the POS and not the current homes resort rules document. Thst can be changed. The POS can’t.

With that, I don’t need to keep sharing the whys.

 

[Tatebeck]

no owner can be told that they aren’t eligible yet to try for a open room if another owner is eligible

Unless that room is being held by a member walking a reservation. Then most owners are being told they aren't eligible because the possibility for that room is being held until the person modifies their walk to include it or decides not to and it is grabbed by someone else once they are able to under current booking rules.

For the second, I am indifferent to walking. . I simply believe the plan suggested would violate the contracts FCFS rule.

It’s also not about impact to other owners it’s about whether the rules DVC choose for the home resort rules and regulations booking align woth the contract.

The only guarantee we have is to be allowed a one month advantage over non home resort owner and the guaranteed right to try to book a room if it is open….no owner can be told that they aren’t eligible yet to try for a open room if another owner is eligible

And when I say the contract I am talking the POS and not the current homes resort rules document. Thst can be changed. The POS can’t.

Yeah that's where we just disagree on what the FCFS rule allows. I still think my plan would 100% be compliant with rules and regulations as written

 

[Sandisw]

Unless that room is being held by a member walking a reservation. Then most owners are being told they aren't eligible because the possibility for that room is being held until the person modifies their walk to include it or decides not to and it is grabbed by someone else once they are able to under current booking rules.

Yeah that's where we just disagree on what the FCFS rule allows. I still think my plan would 100% be compliant with rules and regulations as written

Huh? If an owner has already booked a room, then the reason another owner isn’t allowed to book it is because it’s booked. No other owner is eligible to book that room until is released and then it’s back into the FCFS situation.

Obviously owners booking a room with the intention of canceling because they are walking is frustrating, but the reason someone books and cancels has to be irrelevant when it comes to rules.

DVC can’t be put rules in place that are subjective and based on an individual situation.

Eliminating modifications and forcing owners into cancel and rebook is the only fair and consistent way to ensure FCFS availability rule is followed.

Just arrived at the VGF for two nights so others can keep it going!

 

[Tatebeck]

Huh? If an owner has already booked a room, then the reason another owner isn’t allow to book it is because it’s booked.

Reason for booking and changing can’t play a role in the rules.

The dates it is booked is fine, but It also greys out for future dates for all other members except for the member who is walking it.

If you book a 7 night reservation at the 11 month window, wait 5 days and modify, there are now 5 days which you have access to that nobody else in the system does, even though they are in the 11+7

All other members are told they cannot book it because it is waiting for either you to modify it or for the first date to be eligible for a check in date.

 

[tx911]

For the record I am indifferent to walking. . I simply believe the plan suggested would violate the contracts FCFS rule.

I fully understand that you are indifferent to walking.

I think it is an exploitation of the rules to gain advantage over others. Obviously, if everyone did it, no advantage would be conferred. But the fact is most people don't do it, and that fact is exploited. Therefore, 11 month bookings are not on a level playing field currently. Life is full of examples of some people being willing to do this to get ahead without consideration for others.

 

[Sandisw]

The dates it is booked is fine, but It also greys out for future dates for all other members except for the member who is walking it.

If you book a 7 night reservation at the 11 month window, wait 5 days and modify, there are now 5 days which you have access to that nobody else in the system does, even though they are in the 11+7

All other members are told they cannot book it because it is waiting for either you to modify it or for the first date to be eligible for a check in date.

And how is that any different than if I book a 7 night trip and hold it for months? Am I not shutting an owner out of that room until I cancel those nights?

Walking is an issue because of the intent of the owner when they change their bookings.

But the end the result is the same,,if an owner booked a room within the booking window, then it prevents any other iwber who also wants those same nights from booking them.

That is the big difference I think in our thinking. Walking is nothing more than making and changing a reservation.

It’s simply a unique reason that some owners choose to make and change reservations.

 

[Tatebeck]

And how is that any different than if I book a 7 night trip and hold it for months? Am I not shutting an owner out of that room until I cancel those nights?

Walking is an issue because of the intent of the owner when they change their bookings.

But the end the result is the same,,if an owner booked a room within the booking window, then it prevents any other iwber who also wants those same nights from booking them.

That is the big difference I think in our thinking. Walking is nothing more than making and changing a reservation.

It’s simply a unique reason that some owners choose to make and change reservations.

It's different because if you don't modify that reservation, you never have access to book any rooms that the rest of the member base do not have access to. If you modify and walk, you do have extra access.

Simply holding the reservation and modifying the reservation to include dates that only you have access to are very different things

 

[Sandisw]

I fully understand that you are indifferent to walking.

I think it is an exploitation of the rules to gain advantage over others. Obviously, if everyone did it, no advantage would be conferred. But the fact is most people don't do it, and that fact is exploited. Therefore, 11 month bookings are not on a level playing field currently. Life is full of examples of some people being willing to do this to get ahead without consideration for others.

And if owners want to see changes to the rules to curb walking, they should absolutely tell DVC that.

But. DVC can’t put rules in place for booking that do not apply consistently to every situation.

They simply can’t decide that make changing because you have the intention of walking not okay, but then say if you want to change a trip because your flights changed you can.

Thst is the point I have tried to make. Rules must treat all situations the same…

The absolutely can change the modification rules because that is actually all walking is…the ability to modify your dates an unlimited number of times.

But any change made has to apply the same way to all other changes.

They can’t become the deciders of what is and is not a good enough reason to allow an owners to change a trips dates.

Which is why the easiest rule is no modifications allowed….especially if the reason owners are asking for the change is to stop walkers.

 

[Sandisw]

It's different because if you don't modify that reservation, you never have access to rooms that the rest of the member base so not have access to.

Sorry, but I really don’t understand that but that’s okay.

I think we keep repeating ourselves and don’t want this to be seen by others as arguing.

I just don’t believe your plan would be allowed and you do! The good news is that it doesn’t matter what either of us think…it only matters to DVC.

If they change rules, then owners will get to evaluate them for themselves!!

 

[drusba]

Technically, walking could be considered improper, as one doing a walk does not, at the time of making an original reservation, have any intent to actually arrive on the arrival date specified. As I have noted the easiest way for DVC to greatly reduce walking would be to return to the original reservation rule: being able to reserve 11/7 months out from date of departure from a DVC resort. Yes, that rule would not solve the problem of being able to reserve some categoroies of rooms at 11-months out, but it would resolve DVC's problem of having members complaining about walking. Asking DVC to resolve the problem by adopting something that is complex, as has been suggested in this post, will likely result in disappointment as DVC would probably just adopt the change it believes to be the easiest to do, and which cannot be challenged by members.

There is another modification rule DVC could adopt, that would actually be valid, would not limit the right a member currently has to modify a reservation, would allow modifications upon request, but would likely greatly reduce members from trying to modify reservations, except when they actually have a real issue that results in their needing to change the dates.

I call it the Phone Rule. DVC could create a phone extension number to attach to, when calling the DVC main number, when someone needs to modify a reservation. The phone system would not be avaialble before 9 a.m. because that is when MS opens, and thus no one could modify online at 8 a.m., except to cancel a reservation. The member would be permitted to change only one or two same-time reservations per phone call (many members get two rooms to add relatives or friends going at the same time). The phone would have a small number of employees to answer it, which would assure a member would often have a long wait time.

The result would be that it would become much harder to walk. Professional renters could not do multiple "walking" changes of several reservations online at about the same time, bots would not help with the phone system, and, though you would still have the same right that currently exists to modify a reservation, you would have a barrier that prevents constantly walking unless you are fine with making repeated phone calls and waiting forever for someone to answer, which most would do only if they have an actual need to modify an existing reservation.

The Phone Rule could potentially just be limited to a member's changing the arrival date of a reservation to a date later than the existing one, and thus allow other modifications online.

If you feel I am being a littlet satirical in offering this new phone method as the solution to members walking a reservation because I have experienced long wait times when calling MS for other reasons, you are probably somewhat correct.

 

[tx911]

DVC won't care until and unless it affects their bottom line, which it doesn't, so we'll just have to live with it as is.

Technically, walking could be considered improper, as one doing a walk does not, at the time of making an original reservation, have any intent to actually arrive on the arrival date specified. As I have noted the easiest way for DVC to greatly reduce walking would be to return to the original reservation rule: being able to reserve 11/7 months out from date of departure from a DVC resort. Yes, that rule would not solve the problem of being able to reserve some categoroies of rooms at 11-months out, but it would resolve DVC's problem of having members complaining about walking. Asking DVC to resolve the problem by adopting something that is complex, as has been suggested in this post, will likely result in disappointment as DVC would probably just adopt the change it believes to be the easiest to do, and which cannot be challenged by members.

There is another modification rule DVC could adopt, that would actually be valid, would not limit the right a member currently has to modify a reservation, would allow modifications upon request, but would likely greatly reduce members from trying to modify reservations, except when they actually have a real issue that results in their needing to change the dates.

I call it the Phone Rule. DVC could create a phone extension number to attach to, when calling the DVC main number, when someone needs to modify a reservation. The phone system would not be avaialble before 9 a.m. because that is when MS opens, and thus no one could modify online at 8 a.m., except to cancel a reservation. The member would be permitted to change only one or two same-time reservations per phone call (many members get two rooms to add relatives or friends going at the same time). The phone would have a small number of employees to answer it, which would assure a member would often have a long wait time.

The result would be that it would become much harder to walk. Professional renters could not do multiple "walking" changes of several reservations online at about the same time, bots would not help with the phone system, and, though you would still have the same right that currently exists to modify a reservation, you would have a barrier that prevents constantly walking unless you are fine with making repeated phone calls and waiting forever for someone to answer, which most would do only if they have an actual need to modify an existing reservation.

The Phone Rule could potentially just be limited to a member's changing the arrival date of a reservation to a date later than the existing one, and thus allow other modifications online.

If you feel I am being a littlet satirical in offering this new phone method as the solution to members walking a reservation because I have experienced long wait times when calling MS for other reasons, you are probably somewhat correct.

Yeah, I guess it comes down to what you think would inconvenience the typical user less. I think @Tatebeck 's plan would be largely transparent to all users except walkers. I guess I don't see it as very complicated. It simply limits how far ahead you can move the check-in date without having to start over with a new reservation.

 

[Sandisw]

DVC won't care until and unless it affects their bottom line, which it doesn't, so we'll just have to live with it as is.

Yeah, I guess it comes down to what you think would inconvenience the typical user less. I think @Tatebeck 's plan would be largely transparent to all users except walkers. I guess I don't see it as very complicated. It simply limits how far ahead you can move the check-in date without having to start over with a new reservation.

The part of the plan that would change modification rules to no more than 14 days forward can be done. DVC can make whatever modifications rules they want.

But that has to then be applicable across the board and consistently applied.

My understanding of the plan was that it would only apply to those walking and not say someone like me who shifted my trip forward for January because it was no longer the initial booking period.

But, if it was universal change, then I misunderstood that part with all the examples.

 

[Tatebeck]

The part of the plan that would change modification rules to no more than 14 days forward can be done. DVC can make whatever modifications rules they want.

But that has to then be applicable across the board and consistently applied.

My understanding of the plan was that it would only apply to those walking and not say someone like me who shifted my trip forward for January because it was no longer the initial booking period.

But, if it was universal change, then I misunderstood that part with all the examples.

It would be a universal change. You just would only be able to run into it if you were walking beyond the 11 month window

Just like if you are booking a reservation at 10 months your reservation is not limited to length other than 30 days max but if you are booking at 11 months it limits it to 7 days beyond the window

 

[Sandisw]

It would be a universal change. You just would only be able to run into it if you were walking beyond the 11 month window

Just like if you are booking a reservation at 10 months your reservation is not limited to length other than 30 days max but if you are booking at 11 months it limits it to 7 days beyond the window

Since this is universal for every reservation booked exactly at 11 months before it requires you to start a new one, then it might be okay.

Now, there will be a way owners will be able to work around it, but it certainly would cut down the walking, without a major impact on other owners.

For BWV SV, though, I think DVC should change the point charts because the need for walking will no longer be needed to the degree it is now.

 

[Tatebeck]

As long as all trips check in dates are capped at 14 days, then I do think DVC could put in play.

Since this is universal for every reservation before it requires you to start a new one, then it does seem to mesh with rules that are consistent.

Now, there will be a way for high point owners to work around it , but it at least cuts things down.

For BwV SV, though, I think DVC should change the point charts because the need for walking will no longer be needed to the degree it is now.

All trips being capped at modifying and moving the prebooked, locked-in rooms check in date up to 14 days later would be doable for all reservations. It would be possible for a non walker to run into the limit then though.

But I also still feel like they could also only make it apply beyond the 11 month window, just like they limit the length of reservation to 7 days beyond the window, even though the true maximum length is 30 days. And this would leave anyone not walking unaffected

A simplified example rule that would apply to all reservations:
Any modification made to a booking moving that booking into the 11+7 window are limited to pushing the check in date back up to 14 days from the first time in which that reservation includes days in the 11+7 window.

 

[Sandisw]

All trips being capped at modifying and moving the prebooked, locked-in rooms check in date up to 14 days later would be doable for all reservations. It would be possible for a no walker to run into the limit then

But I also still feel like they could also only make it apply beyond the 11 month window, just like they limit the length of reservation to 7 days beyond the window, even though the true maximum length is 30 days. And this would leave anyone not walking unaffected

While I don’t see DVC doing it because I don’t think it would be well received by owners, it certainly would be better than cancel and rebook for all…

But, as mentioned, DVC already had a practice in place that they used that prevented walking and my guess is they would go back to that before trying something that appears to make the flexibility of DVC less flexible.