- Joined
- Feb 6, 2000
Is that the new rules or the current rules?
Both. We realize people may be away from their computers and cell phones from time to time.
Is that the new rules or the current rules?
I misspoke going back to my denied message I didn’t have posts for the first 3 months however I still stand I think exceptions should be made for older members. Everything is waiverable.Both.
Respectfully, the DIS is a small private business and provides a livelihood for several people. One of its most important assets is a large community of people who love Disney. It costs money to maintain that asset.
Why do some feel entitled to free access to that community for their own personal financial benefit, especially when they are not regular contributors?
Maintaining the overall DISBoards website has costs. Technicians, servers, maintenance, board software, virus protection and crash/attack recovery costs are not inexpensive. The R/T Board fees have been the same for the last 10 years. Costs have risen during that time. And you are still able to avoid any fee by meeting the posting prerequisites---8 posts in at least 4 of the last 6 months with an overall total of at least 50. If those 50 posts are spread evenly over the last 6 months, that's an average of just over two posts per week.
Fixed weeks are something that people want to rent on both sides of the transaction. These are the most high demand rooms and times, and people are willing to pay a premium for them, including paying to list them. If they aren't listed here, they will be listed somewhere.
Since these are "the most high demand rooms and times, and people are willing to pay a premium for them" then they should also rent quickly and at a premium within 30 days of the arrival date. That alone gives those wanting to offer such reservations a full 11 months to post enough where there would be no cost involved at all to use the Rent/Trade Board.Fixed weeks are something that people want to rent on both sides of the transaction. These are the most high demand rooms and times, and people are willing to pay a premium for them, including paying to list them. If they aren't listed here, they will be listed somewhere.
Since these are "the most high demand rooms and times, and people are willing to pay a premium for them" then they should also rent quickly and at a premium within 30 days of the arrival date. That alone gives those wanting to offer such reservations a full 11 months to post enough where there would be no cost involved at all to use the Rent/Trade Board.
We would still need to count posts made over the past 6 months but since it would likely only be for that one rental thread (or twice if you have purchased two fixed weeks), it would not be much more of an issue than what is already needed for any other rental thread submitted.
Problem solved and everyone will be happy!
Since these are "the most high demand rooms and times, and people are willing to pay a premium for them" then they should also rent quickly and at a premium within 30 days of the arrival date. That alone gives those wanting to offer such reservations a full 11 months to post enough where there would be no cost involved at all to use the Rent/Trade Board.
We would still need to count posts made over the past 6 months but since it would likely only be for that one rental thread (or twice if you have purchased two fixed weeks), it would not be much more of an issue than what is already needed for any other rental thread submitted.
Problem solved and everyone will be happy!
...
Second - I fully understand the costs involved in running a website such as this. If it was free, there would be no need for outside advertisements or board and site sponsors. (Coincidently, this particular board has direct sponsorship, which is something not all boards on this site have the benefit of. ) But, I would be shocked to learn that the $1.500 in potential additional revenue was necessary to maintain it.
My comments were not about the fees themselves, but more about the surprise of finding out that these fees don't directly support the R/T Board. Additionally, though maybe not direct or intentional, I am surprised by the somewhat rather vale attempt to relate these increases in fees to the increased workload on the moderators. Again, I find it disappointing to discover that there is no direct compensation to the individual moderators in some manner for having to do all the extra work to maintain the R/T Board. I thank them for all the hard work they have done here and through-out the site for the past 23 plus years.
....
Help me understand how a fixed week is different than any other 7 day reservation that is booked on points at 11 months?
If someone has a FW at CCV the first week in December and someone else is able to book that same week just using points, I am not sure why the FW reservation should treated any different.
I think if we want to develop a plan for FW, then it has to apply to all 7 day trips as well...which gets us back to the concern of RCI trades being offered.
Does it make sense that those that own at resorts without FW or ones that see more rooms go to RCI be prohibited from trying to rent the same 7 day confirmed week during a high demand time simply because it’s not a FW?
Not much other than the person booking their points has the option to make the start date something else or even make it 6 nights instead of 7. They also can modify it to reduce days. The fixed week owner has Sun-Sun and can't reduce to make it conform if they decide they can't use it. So a bit of a difference from the owners standpoint that makes a difference if they need to rent it out.
It's just a choice of the boards of course whether to accommodate something like that or not and just discussion since this thread was offered to discuss.
I was more referring to the rules of the board and why the FW owner should be treated differently than an owner who wants to try to rent a 7 night reservation booked on points.
Again, if we have two owners with the exact same week, just booked different ways, who want to offer it to get that premium, how can we say one is allowed and one is not?
The sponsor that primarily allows the DISboards.com to survive is DreamsUnlimitedTravel.com
All of the DVC Forums are sponsored by The World of DVC ( DVCResaleMarket.com, DVCRentalStore.com and MoneraFinancial.com ). That same sponsor also supports the DVC Podcasts and DVCFan.com . The DVC Rent/Trade Board is included in that sponsorship.
However, without the rest of the Forums on the DIS, the DVC Rent/Trade would not even be here. The DIS was founded as a Disney travel planning site. The DVC Forum and Rent/Trade boards were added later when it became obvious that there was interest in DVC planning by many of the DIS "community" and the DVC "family" of Forums have grown since but to separate the cost to run the DIS into separate categories and suggest that the DVC Forums should not cost "$1.500 in potential additional revenue" to maintain it is a disappointing statement. The fees generated by the DVC Rent/Trade forum are applied to the operating expenses for the DISboards.com
I have personally been surprised that few of the regular members who use the DVC Rent/Trade board (and renew their rental plan year-after-year) have contributed to this discussion.
Regardless, this thread was offered as an opportunity for posters to share thoughts about these potential changes. Any final decision will come from higher up and will not be made by the Rent/Trade Moderators.
Thanks for your participation!
It's just Fri/Sat/Sun week long reservations that are not allowed was because it might be an RCI trade, correct? If that remains the reason then it's my proposed point that the type of fixed weeks that have been sold by DVC don't actually end up on RCI as a possibility. If correct then allowing DVC fixed weeks would just be including more week long reservation types that are allowed to be posted. Of course I may be completely wrong as I don't have anything to try and trade in via RCI so maybe weeks at the locations that have fixed weeks are frequently available for trades.
At least weeks 7 nights long starting Mon-Thur are allowed aren't they? So it's not the length of the stay that is prohibited but the type it might be and possibly there's a different criteria, resort, that can safely determine it's not an RCI stay.