Does it get old arguing with the "Onsite Only" crowd?

[robinb]

I have a VERY SIMPLE solution to YOUR PROBLEM of following my posts........how about you stop following them.....then you won't have a "hard time".......I will be the least offended to be blocked by you or anyone else. In fact do me the honor !!!!

I don't understand why you're so upset that someone recognize you from one thread to another. You do have a very unique posting style. And, yes, sometimes I feel that you are SHOUTING at me and when I read your posts there is a breathless quality about them between the short sentences, the CAPS and the multiple exclamation marks. I do think that you are very passionate, you have a lot of good things to say, and I really do enjoy reading your take on things but I do admit that sometimes I find your posts difficult to read. Sorry .

 

[HopperFan]

Unfortunately, there are some that will judge a person's entire lifestyle based on where they stay at WDW without knowing a single thing about that person. Everyone staying at a "higher level" of on site resort than you is "uppity", and everyone staying at a lower level resort, or in the worst case "off-site" is obviously a lower class of person than you are, and maxed out their twelfth credit card just to get there.

I own and stay in DVC resorts, but only because I used the last of my wife's life insurance to buy into it. In a previous job, my boss' boss went to WDW every year and stayed in value resorts. Where you stay has no bearing on who you are as a person or how much you will enjoy your stay. They are all different, not better or worse, and it's an individual choice on how your money is spent and how your vacation is planned.

On this point I can agree with you. We prefer to spend less and go often. I would rather spend on special experiences, and rarely use resort amenities. That works for us. If one does keep an open mind and looks around at their fellow guests they will see all kinds of folks at all levels of resorts. You can not assume anything about anyone at any resort. And that also transfers to onsite vs offsite assumptions.

 

[jsmla]

I've stayed in every WDW resort except for OKW, I've also stayed in the Super 8 out on 192, just depends.

Am I uppity or low class I wonder

 

[robinb]

I've stayed in every WDW resort except for OKW, I've also stayed in the Super 8 out on 192, just depends.

Am I uppity or low class I wonder?

Yes, both.

I've stayed everywhere except the YC, AoA and the campground, plus the Travelodge on 192 (horrible place).

 

[DVC_Dad_Canada]

For our next trip in August 2018, I did the math, and I will save around $3500 by renting out our DVC points and staying in a Fort Wilderness cabin (which we wanted to do anyways) rather than a 2 bedroom at AKL. I don't drive, so offsite isn't the best for us, but if I did I would definitely look into the options.

 

[Monykalyn]

I think with off-site, it's a lot more micro-managing of your resources and time.

Disagree here-we tend to do a lot more "fly by seat of pants" with offsite - especially with dining. Who feels like Mexican tonight? Hanging around the pool? takeout? no having to stress about ADR 180 days in advance. Last trip was split on/off and we did takeout from Chili's and hung out in condo and then strolled down to empty quiet pool-adults with *ahem-beverage in hand. Cheapest day we did on vacation! I like to go longer as well-and I am not one to stress over cooking-I am a dietitian so eating poor/crappy food and paying an arm/leg for it stresses me out more than throwing a simple meal together. Same thing with laundry-so easy to toss stuff in washer in am, switch before bed. clean clothes in am!

I could argue endlessly the cost savings of staying offsite. They are real. Citing parking fees is an old standby for those who, IMHO, don't get it. A condo that sleeps 6/8 is easily had for less than 700/week in the summer. Throw in $100 for parking and you're at $800 Please direct me to a Disney resort that will sleep 6 at even twice that during the school holidays. From experience, I know that most larger families with a limited budget will be driving, airfare being out of reach, no need for a rental car. I won't even go into the savings you see on food.

Agree-but I always see the "but parking!!! fee!!!" as an onsite argument. Food is a huge factor-even two people can save $25 a meal at a nice sit down offsite that easily offsets that parking fee. Miller's Ale House has a nice happy hour that we can feed the kids, we can have a beer, and still come way way way ahead of the equivalent of on Disney property.

Someone can compare and say which is better for their own family without actually having done both.

Disagree here. You really can't. I always thought we would never like onsite because we'd all be in one room. Turns out we can survive 5 of us in one room for a short time-and it really was very very nice to be able to split up if we wanted too! DH and DS often went back to resort in afternoon for pool/nap time and the girls and I carried on! Didn't find the bussess too horrible either. However-we ALL went 'ahhhh space!!' when we swtiched to our 1500SQ 2 bedroom condo with private lanai and steps from a (mostly unused) quiet pool. So if one's never been offsite one really can't say why it is so bad/may not work for family etc. You may think you know but until you experience it you can't say you'd hate it and it would never work for your family, -I'd argue the same for onsite (if budget allows of course)

I do both, all the time and do feel like my experience is relevant. It may be very easy to decide if a certain room size is adequate or not but things like commuting times, ADRs and FastPass bookings are better considered if you have experienced both on and off.

12 minutes door to drop off at DHS from Marriott Sabal Palms early June morning (do not ask how I know this LOLOL). Even in 2014 when Mine Train was super hot ticket and the M&G with Elsa and Anna were doubly hot I got FP+ for both, offsite, at less than 30 days. No they weren't at "perfect times" but they were available.

tend to make the whole Disney vacation planning thing seem a lot more complicated than it really is.

YES! august trip is onsite as DD is doing a DCP and it is her car we are bringing down-not sure how much access we will be able to have with her schedule so onsite became the default. Got rented points before price increase at SSR. We are using our condo TS for November trip, and we will have a car for that. We will also have AP's so parking fee not an issue. But I think I am the only one on either countdown thread NOT stressing on ADR's, especially in November. The only thing I need to remember to do is order Tday dinner to be picked up from Publix I did ask if anyone was staying offsite for November and ...crickets.

Have done both, will probably continue to do both. Ideally for us-onsite to start trip; offsite to end trip.
Following a DVC group on facebook-one poster is at Aulani and wanted to know some details on buying, financing etc. (Why would you consider buying a TS without knowing anything about it?? and first staY?? topic for another year LOL) but I did jump in and advised "breathe, sleep on it, go home and think/research-the points will be there if this is still a good fit". Surprisingly no one jumped on me, and several "liked" the post. I thought I might ignite a firestorm but people were really willing to lend expertise without telling the OP how he "should" do DVC. very refreshing.

 

[maxiesmom]

I understand and completely get what the onsite only people say. I was definitely like that. But some of them are so adamant, that they will argue no matter how wrong they are.

Here is the thing: There is no wrong or right. So I'm not sure you are claiming people who like on site are "wrong". I've done both, and I definitely prefer on site. Doesn't mean everyone who likes off site is "wrong". Go with whichever works for your family, and don't worry about what anyone else thinks.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Disagree here. You really can't. I always thought we would never like onsite because we'd all be in one room. Turns out we can survive 5 of us in one room for a short time-and it really was very very nice to be able to split up if we wanted too! DH and DS often went back to resort in afternoon for pool/nap time and the girls and I carried on! Didn't find the bussess too horrible either. However-we ALL went 'ahhhh space!!' when we swtiched to our 1500SQ 2 bedroom condo with private lanai and steps from a (mostly unused) quiet pool. So if one's never been offsite one really can't say why it is so bad/may not work for family etc. You may think you know but until you experience it you can't say you'd hate it and it would never work for your family, -I'd argue the same for onsite (if budget allows of course)

That's ok that we disagree. I think there are some things that give you a better idea if you tried both but I'm still in the you don't have to camp. And the thing is what you're talking about is personal preferences. You said you know 5 of you could be in one room but only for a short time that's a personal preference because not everyone would want to have to split up just to get that mental space they need. You're also considering your traveling party and thus making a decision based on that. There are plenty of people who know they don't want to experience being in 1 room (as just an example) with their traveling party for the sake of saying "I tried it so now I can compare". There's just a lot of variables in play that a person needs to actually go over themselves.

For example: I know without a doubt that 4 adults in my traveling party wouldn't do a 1 bedroom Value resort with just 2 double/full beds thus that would mean I would need to get 2 rooms at a Value resort. It really wouldn't matter if one could split up at certain parts of the day the mid-60 year olds don't want to share a double bed and my husband and I while fine with the bed situation value our privacy now and well the in-laws snore like bears and we would never get any sleep. Prior to any room only discounts the week that I'm going (see signature) was $1,125.94 for 1 Standard room at All-Star Sports. Now in order to get those 2 rooms I've got to double that so now for 4 adults it's $2,251.88. Now yes staying offsite would mean I need to pay for parking and for the 5 days I would be at WDW would be $100.00 if I'm staying offsite.

And that Value resort room rate is the cheapest rack rate aside from campgrounds for the dates we're going onsite at Disney. We're not talking about renting DVC points, we're not talking about discounts (as they aren't guaranteed), etc we're just talking about rack rate from Disney. Now my in-laws were supposed to go with us (but due to stamina issues they are not) and we were ok with spending the $$ for the 2 rooms (as we would split it 4 ways) but if we weren't comfortable spending that money I know we could get a less expensive rate elsewhere offsite. I'm fairly certain I could find a hotel room (either 2 rooms, a suite, etc) for less than $2,351.88 and if that cost is a big factor I don't need to stay onsite to understand that it won't be best for my traveling party to stay onsite if we weren't comfortable spending the money.

I think my point was the have to aspect versus want to aspect. Really what it comes down to is people making informed decisions based on their individual needs/desires/preferences/specific vacation rather than someone telling them they have to in order to know it won't work for them. I think you could also make the case that each vacation could be different and thus what decision one makes based on what is best for them can change if the variables change.

I've got no problem personally with people who only stay onsite or who only stay offsite so long as they don't push other posters into telling them they have to stay onsite or they have to stay offsite. I think you could also say this for the Dining Plan. One doesn't need to buy it to know it just wouldn't work out for their family. You could buy it if you want to see if it would work but you don't have to. Plenty of people have said they would never buy the Dining Plan because they know it just wouldn't work out and that's totally ok.

 

[Monykalyn]

That's ok that we disagree. I think there are some things that give you a better idea if you tried both but I'm still in the you don't have to camp. And the thing is what you're talking about is personal preferences. You said you know 5 of you could be in one room but only for a short time that's a personal preference because not everyone would want to have to split up just to get that mental space they need. You're also considering your traveling party and thus making a decision based on that. There are plenty of people who know they don't want to experience being in 1 room (as just an example) with their traveling party for the sake of saying "I tried it so now I can compare". There's just a lot of variables in play that a person needs to actually go over themselves.

For example: I know without a doubt that 4 adults in my traveling party wouldn't do a 1 bedroom Value resort with just 2 double/full beds thus that would mean I would need to get 2 rooms at a Value resort. It really wouldn't matter if one could split up at certain parts of the day the mid-60 year olds don't want to share a double bed and my husband and I while fine with the bed situation value our privacy now and well the in-laws snore like bears and we would never get any sleep. Prior to any room only discounts the week that I'm going (see signature) was $1,125.94 for 1 Standard room at All-Star Sports. Now in order to get those 2 rooms I've got to double that so now for 4 adults it's $2,251.88. Now yes staying offsite would mean I need to pay for parking and for the 5 days I would be at WDW would be $100.00 if I'm staying offsite.

And that Value resort room rate is the cheapest rack rate aside from campgrounds for the dates we're going onsite at Disney. We're not talking about renting DVC points, we're not talking about discounts (as they aren't guaranteed), etc we're just talking about rack rate from Disney. Now my in-laws were supposed to go with us (but due to stamina issues they are not) and we were ok with spending the $$ for the 2 rooms (as we would split it 4 ways) but if we weren't comfortable spending that money I know we could get a less expensive rate elsewhere offsite. I'm fairly certain I could find a hotel room (either 2 rooms, a suite, etc) for less than $2,351.88 and if that cost is a big factor I don't need to stay onsite to understand that it won't be best for my traveling party to stay onsite if we weren't comfortable spending the money.

I think my point was the have to aspect versus want to aspect. Really what it comes down to is people making informed decisions based on their individual needs/desires/preferences/specific vacation rather than someone telling them they have to in order to know it won't work for them. I think you could also make the case that each vacation could be different and thus what decision one makes based on what is best for them can change if the variables change.

I've got no problem personally with people who only stay onsite or who only stay offsite so long as they don't push other posters into telling them they have to stay onsite or they have to stay offsite. I think you could also say this for the Dining Plan. One doesn't need to buy it to know it just wouldn't work out for their family. You could buy it if you want to see if it would work but you don't have to. Plenty of people have said they would never buy the Dining Plan because they know it just wouldn't work out and that's totally ok.

Valid points! I get what you are saying, and I agree with a however if you haven't experienced both it is still different perspective than if you have-regardless of travel party etc. Even making informed choices if you haven't actually experienced both yourself it is still just a thought about how you would react-even though you may well find that how you thought it would go is exactly how it did go. LOL-if that even made sense Example-you may think you "hate" Spiderman at UO because you dislike Star Tours at WDW (or Vice versa) but until you've experienced both you don't actually know. And that is OK-if screen based attractions aren't your thing/make you sick you may never have a desire to experience the attraction for yourself-but you don't actually know if it is same until you've done both. But what you are saying is based on experience at ST you aren't going to like Spidey-that is OK! But you don't actually know you'd have same reaction. No problem-your decision-really. All I am saying is those who have done both have a perspective from actually having done both.
For first timers it can be valuable to have both perspectives-I think what the OP was saying is that these boards often aren't as well reasoned when it comes to onsite/offsite though I've bolded part of your response because this is exactly what I mean with a well reasoned reply-most aren't as well reasoned as this. and we know the DDP is another hot topicPersonally I stay out of that debate because I have run numbers (never done DDP) and it wouldn't work for us but I have not done it personally so I do not know if I would like convenience enough to ignore the money issue (my part of the discussion)

Not trying to pick fight! I think you have a well reasoned, well thought out idea of what works for you and that is fabulous that you can articulate that in rationale way. I do think you may be the exception as to OP's original idea on the debate of offsite

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Valid points! I get what you are saying, and I agree with a however if you haven't experienced both it is still different perspective than if you have-regardless of travel party etc. Even making informed choices if you haven't actually experienced both yourself it is still just a thought about how you would react-even though you may well find that how you thought it would go is exactly how it did go. LOL-if that even made sense Example-you may think you "hate" Spiderman at UO because you dislike Star Tours at WDW (or Vice versa) but until you've experienced both you don't actually know. And that is OK-if screen based attractions aren't your thing/make you sick you may never have a desire to experience the attraction for yourself-but you don't actually know if it is same until you've done both. But what you are saying is based on experience at ST you aren't going to like Spidey-that is OK! But you don't actually know you'd have same reaction. No problem-your decision-really. All I am saying is those who have done both have a perspective from actually having done both.
For first timers it can be valuable to have both perspectives-I think what the OP was saying is that these boards often aren't as well reasoned when it comes to onsite/offsite though I've bolded part of your response because this is exactly what I mean with a well reasoned reply-most aren't as well reasoned as this. and we know the DDP is another hot topicPersonally I stay out of that debate because I have run numbers (never done DDP) and it wouldn't work for us but I have not done it personally so I do not know if I would like convenience enough to ignore the money issue (my part of the discussion)

Not trying to pick fight! I think you have a well reasoned, well thought out idea of what works for you and that is fabulous that you can articulate that in rationale way. I do think you may be the exception as to OP's original idea on the debate of offsite

I hear ya for sure and you've got good points as well! If we're speaking in very technical terms you may not be able to compare if you haven't experienced both but you may still be able to know what will work best for you and your traveling party. Perhaps my initial thoughts were less of a technical manner (as the poster I had originally quoted said technically and that's where my mind was going when I initially responded to them). And yes you're right that you may not have the experience of doing both but it's still different than some one telling you you need to experience both for the sake of experiencing both just so you can say you did both so now you get to have comparisons...hopefully that makes sense. It's such a dynamic thing really.

And yes both experiences are good for a first timer to know. I love that about the DIS the amount of helpful information I've gathered is just amazing. That being said if a first timer has someone from either side of the debate pushing hard for their side...that's where it gets dicey. The threads I find that end up being the most helpful are the ones where the OP has clearly laid out their desires, their wants and needs and basic but important information about their traveling party because it gives people from both sides to offer up information in a more tailored way.

Just like in my situation I mentioned previously. If you had known I had 4 adults (actual adults not "Disney" adults) in my traveling party and I explained my concerns regarding the room layout (i.e. double beds no privacy/sound proofness) and all I could afford was a 1br value and didn't want to worry about DVC and didn't count in discounts you would probably suggest offsite if you could effectively see both sides of the debate.

Going back to what the OP is what initially saying as an example (not necessarily what a person would actually do) A person who only sees onsite and doesn't want to see both sides of the debate would proceed to either upsell me, say wait for discounts, say rent DVC points, basically anything to keep me onsite. A person who only sees offsite might say offsite is the way to go because you're overpaying for Disney's prices anyway, the idea of using Disney transportation is not something they would even consider using, etc basically anything to keep me offsite.

If we're talking about rides...my goodness if there is one ride that I wished I had never gone on it would be the Simpsons. I wanted to say I had been on it and I knew my husband really wanted to go on it. Yeah that ride made me soooo sick for the rest of day. If I could wind back the time I would have skipped that ride no matter what. That is something if someone has said "oh but you don't know until you try it" I would have said "I'll live without having the experience then"

ETA: Just wanted to say I don't think you're trying to pick a fight at all. You're not coming at me all hostile like or anything like that. You're giving your viewpoint and I'm giving mine but we're still having a civil well-meaning discussion

 

[Westcoastwild]

Hm.

I agree that an opinion over having done something carries weight over not having done something.

But I don't agree that I have to have done something to look at someone's touring plan and say "no, that doesn't work". I can look at it and say it doesn't work based on simple logistics and math.

A good example is...let's see...the family size factor. Let's say we have a family of 4. No car. They are solely concerned with cost. Someone says that onsite is much more expensive, go offsite. But I could show you the math explaining why going offsite WON'T be cheaper. I don't need to have done it. It's math. If someone says "it's worth the extra space and kitchen"- well, that's more subjective. A family that cooks and wants extra space, sure. But I have this conversation with friends all the time, and my point is that it's great if they want to cook, but I don't, so I won't split an offsite condo with them solely for the reason it has the kitchen.

Meanwhile the original poster is likely totally confused on whether they need the kitchen. They've never needed one on vacation before and they become concerned that a kitchen is the only way to survive Disney in an affordable way.


That's totally different from a poster with 6 kids who has a firm budget and is driving down. It would be just as unhelpful in this situation to imply that onsite is the only way to go, because onsite is not in their budget, with one exception. If they're determined to do onsite, then they'll have to camp.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't care for the people who don't even appear to take into account the poster's needs before arbitrarily declaring onsite or offsite as the best solution. One or the other might be the only solution, yet a lot of threads go off into tangent over the "value" of onsite lodging. I think the OP is talking about those.

But to be fair, we do also get a lot of OPs who aren't clear on anything. Or who are so unrealistic about budget that we can't give them "daily amount" recommendation. I mean you can say that a corn dog costs x but unless the poster plans to force their SO or kids to order ONLY one corn dog, x can't really be the budget.

The equivalent on other travel boards are the OPs who say they want a prime location during high season for the price of a budget hotel off season. So right from the get go, the OP isn't going to get what they want. That's where the interforum squabbling comes in- do we recommend something practical for their budget or tell them to triple or quadruple their budget?

 

[disneysteve]

Does it get old arguing? I'd have to say no only because I stopped having that argument a long time ago. If I encounter someone who is actually considering staying offsite and is seeking my advice, I'm happy to help, but if someone is committed to staying onsite, I don't waste my time trying to tell them all of the benefits of staying offsite. If they are complaining about the cost, I might mention the option of staying offsite, but if they make it clear that isn't an option to them, I drop it.

Some people feel it isn't worth going if they can't stay onsite. I certainly disagree but it's not my decision to make how they choose to spend their money and their vacation.

 

[GreatLakes]

There are advantages to staying onsite and advantages to staying offsite. I do both depending on the specifics of the trip. I feel no urge to argue with either set of the "my way is the only way" crowd because both have some adamant members.

 

[BigredNole]

Well, I just got into a very similar argument here on DIS. Someone spouting off information without facts and when facts are proven, they edit out their comment.

This was never really about right/wrong, onsite/offsite. It was simply about an honest discussion of either side. When I said "wrong", it made this whole thing turn. Wrong was not the appropriate word. Establishing facts with provable data and having someone try to dispute those facts "Well that's not Disney". My answer was yes, but it is also $3-$5k less than Disney.

 

[DVC_Dad_Canada]

Well, I just got into a very similar argument here on DIS. Someone spouting off information without facts and when facts are proven, they edit out their comment.

This was never really about right/wrong, onsite/offsite. It was simply about an honest discussion of either side. When I said "wrong", it made this whole thing turn. Wrong was not the appropriate word. Establishing facts with provable data and having someone try to dispute those facts "Well that's not Disney". My answer was yes, but it is also $3-$5k less than Disney.

I got into a similar discussion with my son about our next trip in August of 2018. He wanted to use our DVC points to get a 2 bedroom at AKL, because he wants to bring his GF, who's never been to WDW, and she loves animals. I did the math, and determined we'd save about $3500 if I rented out our DVC points and stay in a Fort Wilderness cabin, using the cash from the rented points. He was upset, but I told him he's not the one paying.

 

[disneysteve]

Well, I just got into a very similar argument here on DIS. Someone spouting off information without facts and when facts are proven, they edit out their comment.

This was never really about right/wrong, onsite/offsite. It was simply about an honest discussion of either side.

Exactly. Staying onsite is perfectly fine. Staying offsite is perfectly fine. We've done both numerous times. We mostly stay offsite but we're staying onsite in 2 weeks because it made more sense for this visit for various reasons.

The problem is when people insist onsite is better, cheaper, more convenient, whatever, when most of those arguments simply aren't true. That's when I'll just step away because I know there's no point in having that discussion.

 

[robinb]

I got into a similar discussion with my son about our next trip in August of 2018. He wanted to use our DVC points to get a 2 bedroom at AKL, because he wants to bring his GF, who's never been to WDW, and she loves animals. I did the math, and determined we'd save about $3500 if I rented out our DVC points and stay in a Fort Wilderness cabin, using the cash from the rented points. He was upset, but I told him he's not the one paying.

We have a 1BR at BWV currently scheduled for August as a graduation present for my DD. She's bringing at least 1 friend but she's thinking about bringing 2 and if she does we'll rent those 150 points and grab a condo/timeshare nearby instead and have the kids Uber back and forth if they want to be on a different schedule.

 

[TamaraQT]

I've stayed in every WDW resort except for OKW, I've also stayed in the Super 8 out on 192, just depends.

Am I uppity or low class I wonder

 

[Klayfish]

Let's say we have a family of 4. No car. They are solely concerned with cost. Someone says that onsite is much more expensive, go offsite. But I could show you the math explaining why going offsite WON'T be cheaper. I don't need to have done it. It's math.

OK, I'll bite. Show me that math.

 

[disneysteve]

OK, I'll bite. Show me that math.

That's not hard. If staying offsite means renting a car and paying $20/day to park, that can easily make onsite about the same price as offsite.

The problem is when people say things that just aren't true.
For example, I've had people say, "We have to stay offsite because we want to be able to take a break midday and you can't do that if you aren't onsite."
The fact that we stay offsite and almost always take a break midday isn't enough to convince them that what they're saying is simply not true.
Those are the folks that is just isn't worth arguing with.