Guests

[permavac]

We've done this several times but in situations where we truly didn't know the person was coming or that they were staying the night. IMO it comes down to intent. Dishonest people will purposefully wait to add them to bypass other rules such as the DP rules. This option also assumes you're within occupancy. That's one of the reasons I think Disney needs to change their rules on the DP being added prior to check in but it's their rule and their choice. It's no different than using DP credits for those not on the plan, it happens a fair amount. If you ask honestly and are allowed, their rules their choice. Otherwise it doesn't matter, add them now or add them later if it doesn't make any difference on other issues such as the DP or occupancy.

LOL! I do have to point out that none of us who have shared our stories of being told by the front desk of how to handle a mid-stay guest check-in have said that they did so with the intention of circumventing any DDP rules. That said, your judgment of those whose "intent" is on the wrong side of your personal moral compass has been communicated very clearly by you. I think we can all agree that you think those people are dishonest.

Now that we've established that fact let us also acknowledge the bottom line: When you have a guest staying for a portion of your entire stay, adding them in at check-in is not only encouraged (by many accounts) but entirely appropriate, allowed, and not bending any rules whatsoever and this situation is handled exactly the same, regardless of the perpetrator's intent at the time. Merry Christmas!

Terri

 

[Dean]

LOL! I do have to point out that none of us who have shared our stories of being told by the front desk of how to handle a mid-stay guest check-in have said that they did so with the intention of circumventing any DDP rules. That said, your judgment of those whose "intent" is on the wrong side of your personal moral compass has been communicated very clearly by you. I think we can all agree that you think those people are dishonest.

Now that we've established that fact let us also acknowledge the bottom line: When you have a guest staying for a portion of your entire stay, adding them in at check-in is not only encouraged (by many accounts) but entirely appropriate, allowed, and not bending any rules whatsoever and this situation is handled exactly the same, regardless of the perpetrator's intent at the time. Merry Christmas!

Terri

You don't think it's dishonest to purposefully circumvent the rules intentionally? I can't imagine where any reasonable person would say otherwise. BTW, it's not my moral compass, it's much larger than myself.

 

[permavac]

You don't think it's dishonest to purposefully circumvent the rules intentionally? I can't imagine where any reasonable person would say otherwise. BTW, it's not my moral compass, it's much larger than myself.

Ooooh - a quandary - if I disagree then I'm dishonest and unreasonable I think the disconnect here is that if there is a policy for allowing people to join mid-stay then there ISN'T rule circumvention because there is allowance for that situation. That's why many companies changed their wording of "rules" to "guidelines" about 20 years back to allow for special circumstances. You seem to want to ignore the fact that this "allowance" is afforded to everyone, regardless of their intentions so there is the final answer. No one at the front desk has a clipboard asking if you are adding the guest because it was unexpected or if you are trying to circumvent dining plan rules. A penalty does not exist if you answer "yes" to the latter. If they don't care, then why should I? So, I guess to answer your question - No. I don't think it's dishonest. Now, if they DID have a clipboard asking those questions and someone lied and said "no" to the DDP plan circumvention question when really it was "yes" then I would have to agree that that individual was indeed, without a doubt, being dishonest. So I don't think you're using the right word when you accuse people of being "dishonest" for having (in your eyes) nefarious intentions when adding people at check-in. I think you might want to switch it to something more appropriate to describe a situation where you're receiving a benefit from an allowance geared towards a different circumstance but which you are not expressly excluded from taking advantage of. Like maybe "lucky"?

Terri

 

[Dean]

Ooooh - a quandary - if I disagree then I'm dishonest and unreasonable I think the disconnect here is that if there is a policy for allowing people to join mid-stay then there ISN'T rule circumvention because there is allowance for that situation. That's why many companies changed their wording of "rules" to "guidelines" about 20 years back to allow for special circumstances. You seem to want to ignore the fact that this "allowance" is afforded to everyone, regardless of their intentions so there is the final answer. No one at the front desk has a clipboard asking if you are adding the guest because it was unexpected or if you are trying to circumvent dining plan rules. A penalty does not exist if you answer "yes" to the latter. If they don't care, then why should I? So, I guess to answer your question - No. I don't think it's dishonest. Now, if they DID have a clipboard asking those questions and someone lied and said "no" to the DDP plan circumvention question when really it was "yes" then I would have to agree that that individual was indeed, without a doubt, being dishonest. So I don't think you're using the right word when you accuse people of being "dishonest" for having (in your eyes) nefarious intentions when adding people at check-in. I think you might want to switch it to something more appropriate to describe a situation where you're receiving a benefit from an allowance geared towards a different circumstance but which you are not expressly excluded from taking advantage of. Like maybe "lucky"?

Terri

You're making it too complicated. I believe it comes down to intent. If one waits with the intent of bypassing the rules in places as they know them, it's cut and dried. It's no different than getting the incorrect change in your favor and not saying anything.

 

[4 The Love Of Disney]

Ooooh - a quandary - if I disagree then I'm dishonest and unreasonable I think the disconnect here is that if there is a policy for allowing people to join mid-stay then there ISN'T rule circumvention because there is allowance for that situation. That's why many companies changed their wording of "rules" to "guidelines" about 20 years back to allow for special circumstances. You seem to want to ignore the fact that this "allowance" is afforded to everyone, regardless of their intentions so there is the final answer. No one at the front desk has a clipboard asking if you are adding the guest because it was unexpected or if you are trying to circumvent dining plan rules. A penalty does not exist if you answer "yes" to the latter. If they don't care, then why should I? So, I guess to answer your question - No. I don't think it's dishonest. Now, if they DID have a clipboard asking those questions and someone lied and said "no" to the DDP plan circumvention question when really it was "yes" then I would have to agree that that individual was indeed, without a doubt, being dishonest. So I don't think you're using the right word when you accuse people of being "dishonest" for having (in your eyes) nefarious intentions when adding people at check-in. I think you might want to switch it to something more appropriate to describe a situation where you're receiving a benefit from an allowance geared towards a different circumstance but which you are not expressly excluded from taking advantage of. Like maybe "lucky"? Terri

I'm confused...do people still use clipboards??

 

[permavac]

I was going for a visual here but I don't think Disney still uses them

Terri

 

[permavac]

You're making it too complicated. I believe it comes down to intent. If one waits with the intent of bypassing the rules in places as they know them, it's cut and dried. It's no different than getting the incorrect change in your favor and not saying anything.

Ah - interesting. That's what I thought you were doing with the whole peering behind the curtain to check on people's intentions. That's making it complicated since it never comes into consideration from Disney's side and since they are the authority on the subject and they make the allowance, intent does not matter. If it is against your moral compass then don't do it - plain and simple and feel free to secretly or not so secretly fume if you think others are doing it. But you are providing people incomplete information when you tell them that guests who are not staying the entire time must be on the DDP. They are treated differently from guests who ARE on the reservation the entire time. Based on your comments, I do understand why you don't take the next step to offer the solution that Disney allows for these types of guests but, as it is suggested by MS and CM at the front desk alike, there is nothing wrong with it and I will always alert people to that fact. Just as I am sure you will always alert people to the fact that you personally think it is dishonest. When we all do what we think is best then we know we can sleep at night.

FWIW, I disagree that keeping incorrect change is in the same category but that is just my opinion and I have no desire to change yours so I won't expound on why. Looks like we'll have to call this horse as it has clearly died

Terri

 

[Dean]

Ah - interesting. That's what I thought you were doing with the whole peering behind the curtain to check on people's intentions. That's making it complicated since it never comes into consideration from Disney's side and since they are the authority on the subject and they make the allowance, intent does not matter. If it is against your moral compass then don't do it - plain and simple and feel free to secretly or not so secretly fume if you think others are doing it. But you are providing people incomplete information when you tell them that guests who are not staying the entire time must be on the DDP. They are treated differently from guests who ARE on the reservation the entire time. Based on your comments, I do understand why you don't take the next step to offer the solution that Disney allows for these types of guests but, as it is suggested by MS and CM at the front desk alike, there is nothing wrong with it and I will always alert people to that fact. Just as I am sure you will always alert people to the fact that you personally think it is dishonest. When we all do what we think is best then we know we can sleep at night.

FWIW, I disagree that keeping incorrect change is in the same category but that is just my opinion and I have no desire to change yours so I won't expound on why. Looks like we'll have to call this horse as it has clearly died

Terri

I think I was clear from the start that the intent was the issue. If you're OK with people purposefully deceiving you, that's up to you.

 

[Chuck S]

A reminder that encouraging and discussing way around DVC/Disney policies is not allowed on the DVC Boards.

Disney/DVC makes the rules, and they can chose to offer solutions on a case by case basis.

This thread is now closed.