Can DVC members keep my 3 year old for a day?

[Mazz519]

Technically, pools don't allow guests that ARE staying on property. You are supposed to swim only at your resort. A couple of years ago, our family was staying at WL and my sister was at POP. When I asked about her coming to swim with us, the answer was no.

If you are a DVC member you are allowed to pool hop at certain pools during certain times of the year…. I know when we stayed at BCV this past summer they give you bracelets to wear after you showed ur room key… From what I understand now everything is being done through the Magic Bands… So it might be hard to have him at that pool. Im sure if you explain the situation and being that you are a DVC member also that they would allow your son at the pool

 

[Deb & Bill]

If you are a DVC member you are allowed to pool hop at certain pools during certain times of the year…. I know when we stayed at BCV this past summer they give you bracelets to wear after you showed ur room key… From what I understand now everything is being done through the Magic Bands… So it might be hard to have him at that pool. Im sure if you explain the situation and being that you are a DVC member also that they would allow your son at the pool

But no DVC member can hop to YC/BC/BCV pools or AKV/AKL pools or BLT pool. Ever.

 

[a742246]

There has to have grey areas in rules, that's where managers (judges) come in. Some rules aren't thought completely out, others are oblivous, and some rules contradict each other. Common sense has to prevail in grey areas. In this case a single three year old is getting babysat for a few hours by his Aunt and Uncle who happens to be staying at BC. What would you think Walt Disney would say to this?

Could you imagine a world that is black and white with no grey?

 

[sophia315]

OP - why not just make a quick call to AKL now and see if it would be possible for the 2 afternoons. Maybe they can give your relative a special pass for the child.

 

[got4boys]

If you watch Mauro's Magical Disney Vacation, they allowed Mauro's son to go swimming with grandpa at the Animal Kingdom Lodge pool while Mauro and his wife had dinner at Sanaa.

 

[sophia315]

If you watch Mauro's Magical Disney Vacation, they allowed Mauro's son to go swimming with grandpa at the Animal Kingdom Lodge pool while Mauro and his wife had dinner at Sanaa.

I watched that - did they say where the family actually stayed? I didn't watch that closely. They could have been staying at AKL.

 

[Dean]

Most rules are guidelines, in the op case, there shouldn't be a problem with a 3 year old playing with his cousins in a non pool hopping resort. I would be shocked and disappointed with Disney and the pool monitor if they enforced that rule on a single 3 year old child. Think on what kind of publicity this would have on "most" people.
Please let us know how things go and enjoy your trip.

I would absolutely disagree that most rules are guidelines but I would agree that the rule maker in most cases (Disney in this case) has the ability to waive the rule if they so chose. And I would add that ONLY the rule maker has the right to alter the rules. We see dishonest and entitled people every day who think rules don't really apply to them. I don't think Disney has any risk from publicity if they chose to enforce the rules and when you look at it objectively, they have quite a bit of liability in this type of situation. I too doubt they'd make it an issue but I also feel they should ask for permission and not just violate the rules on their own, that's why I suggested trying to add them to the reservation.

There has to have grey areas in rules, that's where managers (judges) come in. Some rules aren't thought completely out, others are oblivous, and some rules contradict each other. Common sense has to prevail in grey areas. In this case a single three year old is getting babysat for a few hours by his Aunt and Uncle who happens to be staying at BC. What would you think Walt Disney would say to this?

Could you imagine a world that is black and white with no grey?

In a small way I'd agree, however, I think the other side of the equation is a much larger potential (and real) problem with Disney and with life. Life without appropriate rules is simply chaos. People who simply violate rules because they disagree with them are a much larger problem and in the absence of fighting against a principle, simply dishonest people by definition.

 

[gdrj]

I wish they enforced all their rules on everyone. But they don't. So why have the rules?

For situations like this! Not everything in life has to be crusty and "get off my lawn"

Yes you can say "if you allow 1 person, than why not 5 or 10". Because its a 3 yr old, heck if she was "dishonest" and said he was 2, she could have him as part of the reservation. The bottom line is if we want rules to be enforced 100% of the time that's what retirement communities are for, where neighbors can complain about neighbors having their grass 3 and 1/2 inches long instead of 3.

For the OP. in my 20 + years of Disney I have had them check my ID for pool but never count or ask for kid ID's (I'm sure someone will counter this). I don't think it is a big deal.

 

[Mazz519]

But no DVC member can hop to YC/BC/BCV pools or AKV/AKL pools or BLT pool. Ever.

I know I said certain pools at certain times

 

[krazy4crusing]

For situations like this! Not everything in life has to be crusty and "get off my lawn"

The bottom line is if we want rules to be enforced 100% of the time that's what retirement communities are for, where neighbors can complain about neighbors having their grass 3 and 1/2 inches long instead of 3.
QUOTE]



BWAHAHAHAHA Soooo funny!! We own a condo in Naples Fl. and these are the crazies that live in our complex. Just had to chime in here! Awesome comment.

 

[Deb & Bill]

If you watch Mauro's Magical Disney Vacation, they allowed Mauro's son to go swimming with grandpa at the Animal Kingdom Lodge pool while Mauro and his wife had dinner at Sanaa.

That was a commercial for WDW. They also have commercials where little girls get to meet all the princesses and play with them. Mauro also went back into the kitchen to help prepare the meal. Not too many guests get to do that.

We have had them check the KTTW for all the members of our party at some of the pools. Even our son who was just a kid at the time.

 

[bumbershoot]

In this case a single three year old is getting babysat for a few hours by his Aunt and Uncle who happens to be staying at BC.

FWIW the aunt and uncle are staying at AK Kidani, at the pool where they want to swim.


I can see this both ways. On the way hand, aw, it's a little kid. On the other hand, I know that I would never try to do this, as I am far too nervous to knowingly break rules. If I were the aunt, I would choose to do something else that day.

 

[AmyB2006]

OP - why not just make a quick call to AKL now and see if it would be possible for the 2 afternoons. Maybe they can give your relative a special pass for the child.

I see a few problems with this.

When you call, you get a call center CM that may or may not give the "right" answer.

Even if they give you the "right" answer, the CM manning/policing the pools that day could make up their own rule or choose to adhere to the rule in place completely ignoring what was told to someone over the phone.

Lastly... it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

 

[AmyB2006]

In a small way I'd agree, however, I think the other side of the equation is a much larger potential (and real) problem with Disney and with life. Life without appropriate rules is simply chaos. People who simply violate rules because they disagree with them are a much larger problem and in the absence of fighting against a principle, simply dishonest people by definition.

Here's the problem with rules in general that I see. Rules, like this one, are made because someone is doing something they shouldn't or taking advantage of something.

When you consider a rule and whether it's been broken, I think it's important to consider the intent of the rule. What is the general intent of the rule in this case? It is to prevent guests from other hotels or day visitors not staying at any hotel, from coming to the pool for the day, taking up so much space that guests staying at that resort can't use the space. If you don't agree, then let me know.

If that is the general intent of the rule, I don't think allowing a 3 year old to visit the pool with guests staying at that resort should be considered a violation. I do agree with the pp that said common sense has to prevail in "gray areas" or situation like this.

 

[nabi]

Yes, IMO we are over-ruled!

 

[twinsouvenirs]

Oh here I was hoping it was a thread about who could look after my 3yr old while I am there.

Me too--I was going to say DVC babysitting co-op? Intriguing But still too scary to try

 

[Dean]

Here's the problem with rules in general that I see. Rules, like this one, are made because someone is doing something they shouldn't or taking advantage of something.

When you consider a rule and whether it's been broken, I think it's important to consider the intent of the rule. What is the general intent of the rule in this case? It is to prevent guests from other hotels or day visitors not staying at any hotel, from coming to the pool for the day, taking up so much space that guests staying at that resort can't use the space. If you don't agree, then let me know.

If that is the general intent of the rule, I don't think allowing a 3 year old to visit the pool with guests staying at that resort should be considered a violation. I do agree with the pp that said common sense has to prevail in "gray areas" or situation like this.

We'll have to disagree completely on this. While it may be reasonable to discuss the rule in this light or even ask for an exception, it is not reasonable to make an independent judgement to violate it simply for one's own benefit. Plus there's a legal principle that essentially says that rules that aren't enforced can become void. I don't think anyone has an issue with an extra 3 y/o at the pool per se but I think everyone should have an issue with doing it dishonestly by sneaking them in. IMO, the biggest negative impact is what we're teaching our young people just like putting the 3 y/o in the stroller and heading through the turnstile without a ticket at WDW. IMO it ultimately comes down to whether the people involved are honest and have integrity or they don't. If they do and they know it's an issue (not everyone might know), they'll ask for permission AND abide by the decision regardless of whether it's positive or negative. Those that don't, will be the ones asking for forgiveness.

 

[StevesBLT]

We'll have to disagree completely on this. While it may be reasonable to discuss the rule in this light or even ask for an exception, it is not reasonable to make an independent judgement to violate it simply for one's own benefit. Plus there's a legal principle that essentially says that rules that aren't enforced can become void. I don't think anyone has an issue with an extra 3 y/o at the pool per se but I think everyone should have an issue with doing it dishonestly by sneaking them in. IMO, the biggest negative impact is what we're teaching our young people just like putting the 3 y/o in the stroller and heading through the turnstile without a ticket at WDW. IMO it ultimately comes down to whether the people involved are honest and have integrity or they don't. If they do and they know it's an issue (not everyone might know), they'll ask for permission AND abide by the decision regardless of whether it's positive or negative. Those that don't, will be the ones asking for forgiveness.

There is also a legal principle known as "Cessante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex," a Latin phrase which means "when the reason for the rule no longer exists, the rule itself no longer exists."

 

[WilsonFlyer]

All I can say is that if anyone has a problem with this EXACT scenario (anyone from any OFFICIAL capacity), we have grander problems with DVC than I Want to be a part of.

Rules out the window. He's 3 and staying with his aunt and uncle. Good God!

Y'all need to find something to worry about.

 

[a742246]

Here's the problem with rules in general that I see. Rules, like this one, are made because someone is doing something they shouldn't or taking advantage of something.

When you consider a rule and whether it's been broken, I think it's important to consider the intent of the rule. What is the general intent of the rule in this case? It is to prevent guests from other hotels or day visitors not staying at any hotel, from coming to the pool for the day, taking up so much space that guests staying at that resort can't use the space. If you don't agree, then let me know.

If that is the general intent of the rule, I don't think allowing a 3 year old to visit the pool with guests staying at that resort should be considered a violation. I do agree with the pp that said common sense has to prevail in "gray areas" or situation like this.

I agree with you on this. I always look at the "intent" of a rule before I make a ruling (on a Town Level) in regards to "Rules and Regulations". Common sense needs to be applied to all rules and regulations and enforcements so that changes can be adjusted if necessary.

Many rules at Disney can not address all the different types of scenes that can be played out. I am sure Disney has a "weasel clause" in every rule that is written so that they can be the arbitrator in such cases.

This is my opinion, many of you have different opinions and I respect that.