Is this against the rules

[sjaakie]

I can’t help getting the feeling that this this is just another thread to “ stir up the pot”.
The OP never reported back .

 

[ilisao]

Honestly, I don't understand some of the responses to this post. The OP wouldn't be depriving others of using the site any more than anyone else who rents a room/site/villa/etc. is depriving someone else of that space. You pay your money and you rent your accommodations. Every rented room could have potentially gone to someone else, for goodness sake. It's no one's business how much the renter is "using" the space, and the OP's "conscience" shouldn't have to be consulted at all. Yes, the post from the single mom with the broken tent was sad, but it hasn't a thing to do with the OP's question. By the same logic, I could say remember that woman and her kid the next time you book CR MK view and go Value instead out of respect for her sad, sad story. It's ridiculous. If the space is duly bought and paid for, the renter has met her obligations as far as that contract goes. Renting space at Walt Disney World isn't a moral issue, nor should it be made one. It's a business. They're trying to make money; we're trying to save money. If the OP isn't breaking any rules in the leasing contract, he/she is perfectly within his/her rights to rent any darn space at Disney he/she can pay for.

Because it's unethical and lying, and IMO, a poor lesson to teach. When you rent a room or space, you are effectively entering into a contract that you will use the room. And thus, that room cannot be given to anyone else because it will be occupied.

In this case, the person is not using the room. And yes, people who would ethically use it are being deprived. It is a case of people wanting it all but not be willing to pay for it. It is an entitlement attitude that has gotten out of hand. You want all the benefits of staying on property at Disney? Then find a way to pay for it or give it up.

 

[cinderellamom123]

I can’t help getting the feeling that this this is just another thread to “ stir up the pot”.
The OP never reported back .

Although if she did ask this question innocently enough, I would be nervous to report back after some of the hostility she received. I would hope that people wouldn't create posts just to irritate others. Way too much time on their hands. (However, I spend way too much time on these boards myself)
Very addictive!

 

[sjaakie]

. (However, I spend way too much time on these boards myself)
Very addictive!

I need my portion of DIS also every day ore I get "Cold Turkey" symptoms .

 

[skipperkim]

I can’t help getting the feeling that this this is just another thread to “ stir up the pot”.
The OP never reported back .

I'm wondering the same thing.

 

[TheFlame]

Visiting from the camping board .....I have to agree with the previous post about . We have become very leery of new people on the camping board lately because of one person that keeps making up new Dis name's as he gets kicked off! He only posts to be rude and cause problems and he then later appears as someone else...BUT with the same attitude. He doesn't just share his opinion he gets ugly about it! I don't know about this OP but they said in their other posts that they just returned from a trip and stayed at the cabins and also made a few other replies but have not responded to this thread again so I don't know.... maybe they didn't really want other people's opinions(especially the campers!)
As for the original question from the OP, as a camper(With morals I might add!) I think that the idea is something you CAN do but as I tell my kids about manners and morals............can I do something is alot different than MAY or SHOULD I do something. Just a sign of our times, people have no morals or conscience anymore.

BUT, then again that is JMHO!

 

[melomouse]

Because it's unethical and lying, and IMO, a poor lesson to teach. When you rent a room or space, you are effectively entering into a contract that you will use the room. And thus, that room cannot be given to anyone else because it will be occupied.

In this case, the person is not using the room. And yes, people who would ethically use it are being deprived. It is a case of people wanting it all but not be willing to pay for it. It is an entitlement attitude that has gotten out of hand. You want all the benefits of staying on property at Disney? Then find a way to pay for it or give it up.

You are so right on! Thank you!

 

[2goofycampers]

To me this is like buying the last piece of candy for the wrapper, then throwing away the candy. When there is a line of people behind you really wanting to buy that last piece of candy for both the candy and the wrapper. They get none and the candy goes to waste.

 

[Kurby]

who in their right mind would throw away the candy?????

ohhhh the horror

To me this is like buying the last piece of candy for the wrapper, then throwing away the candy. When there is a line of people behind you really wanting to buy that last piece of candy for both the candy and the wrapper. They get none and the candy goes to waste.

 

[drafthorsecrazy]

Why is camping my ONLY option while staying at WDW?? My two dearly loved pets. One is 11 and the other is 15yrs old. Both are showing their age....deaf, going blind, senile and many health problems that need addressed on a regular basis. Boarding them at home or at a WDW kennel is simply not an option. I know camping sites are limited....so I do plan ahead and start calling to make my ressies at 500 days out. In the past I have called everyday for 45 days straight to get into FW. First come, first served, in reserving a room might be how its done---but it doesn't mean it's right if you are taking a site away from someone who has NO other option simply to get a few extra perks.

 

[maxiesmom]

Regardless what anyone else says - you're the only one who can decide if it's "right". loads of people do things that they think is right and others don't. I've often seen people looking for discount codes, coupons etc... is it wrong since they weren't mailed to that person? what about the group who don't put someone on the reservation because they aren't joining them until the last 2 or 3 days of a 10 day trip and they don't want to have to pay the ddp fee for 10 days when the person is only there for 2 (that question comes up a lot on the DVC section). how about parents who fib about their kids ages? keeping them 2 and free when they have been 3 for a few months or on the other end keeping them in the child group instead of adult when they'd have to pay more for the tickets, food, etc..

Funny thing is, most of these things that you used to make your point are more than morally wrong, they are out and out stealing! Sense when has stealing become just a moral choice? Last I knew, it was illegal.

It is too bad Disney doesn't do some kind of site check. They could give a person 24 hours to set up a full camp, and if they don't, that site goes to someone else who actually wants to use it for camping. No camping equipment up, you lose your site. I'm sure there are some people who would go to the trouble of setting up a tent and chairs just to get the EMH benefits, and then leave. But I think it would cut down on the number of people who just book a site for the benefits. Our state parks do a site check, why can't Disney?

 

[aribelle]

I am here presently at the Fort and can tell you that this is quite a problem. The Fort is booked solid for the holiday weekend, yet there were 3 spaces in my loop alone that were vacant. I am not in the tent section (that is the group section or partial hookup) however, this kind of thing screws up not only the people who have no other choice, like us who have a MH and no where else to put it, and those who tent camp. Being a former tent camper of years ago, I can attest to auntie's opinion. For instance, please let me give you an example...we had a grand gathering set up for this weekend for the holiday. We were all supposed to be in the same loop so we could socialize and share, however, we were all split up. Because of all the empty spaces, there are many hard feelings that Disney now has to deal with. Now, the OP and others it seems have the opinion that this renting a site is justified because they pay for it. Just because it is paid for, doesn't mean that it is right. Many times, I could get a value resort cheaper than a campsite, depending on the time of year (with a full hook up, not a tent site), however, the love of camping and the friends I have made at the Fort would never convince me of going back. With the literally thousands of rooms available, I just don't see the point in this tactic, morally or financially. There are several suggestions posed on this board that make much more sense to me than doing this to get perks while someone else has to stay home. Why play the game when there is no sense in playing it?

How do you know that those empty sites are being used in the way OP is asking about (i.e. paying to get the benefits but not living there?).

Isn't it possible that those are vacationers who have already paid for their accomodations and for whatever reason simply haven't been able to arrive? Perhaps their car broke down. Perhaps someone got sick. Perhaps the economy bit them and it was too late to get a refund. Perhaps their flight was delayed/cancelled and they're still trying to get there and it will be occupied tomorrow. Perhaps they arrived and looked at the room/campsite and decided to upgrade. There are any number of reasons that those stalls could be empty.

The policy for hotels (and I'm guessing the same policy stands for campsites as well) is that if you're a room only and you don't show, they keep the deposit, basically the first night. They cannot then rent that space to someone else for that first night .....after all how do they know that you won't show up very late due to car problems, or plane delays, etc....in other words, they have to keep the room you paid for available for you in case you do arrive....that's the purpose of forfeiting one night's rent.

If your room only reservation was for 10 days, you have to pay for the first night as a deposit and could pay for the remaining 9 nights upon check in. So you don't show up night 1, they keep it open for you because it's paid for....but day 2 they don't have to keep it available for you, so now, for days 2 through 10, this room is available for a walk up, or very last minute reservation.....but of course not too many people walk up to DIsney hoping to get a room, or a campsite. So now, this room/campsite may sit empty for those 10 days, not because they were actually available last month, but because someone who had reserved them hadn't shown up and the resort wasn't able to re-rent the non-paid-for-days. So while it's likely quite frustrating to see empty rooms and know that your friend would have loved to get that site, it may not be because someone is renting it for the benefits only.

I'm not sure how I feel about OP's idea.....if they paid for and choose not to use it, that's their right isn't it? But in some ways it just feels wrong, not because they're depriving someone else, but I can't really put into words why it feels slightly wrong.

I've rented offsite, and took a 4 bedroom home when we only used 2 of the bedrooms.....but it was cheaper than the 2 bedroom condo, and I prefer a house to a condo with thin walls and noisy neighbors, so it made sense to me. But by some posters argument, my choice meant that some family with a need for 4 bedrooms wasn't going to get to go to Disney because I took a home larger than I needed? Sorry, not really sure I agree with that logic.....there are always homes/hotels with occupancy....maybe not at the location you want, or price you want/can afford, but they're available. I seriously doubt that the FW campsite is the only campsite within a reasonable drive of WDW....yeah, maybe you had your heart set on staying onsite, but there are a lot of people who can't book rooms onsite for their preferred dates. There is a thread that was closed because it got rude, but it was basically someone saying their whole trip was ruined because they didn't get concierge level because the CM making the reservation said it wasn't available, then later a friend got concierge, OP called again and there was still no availablity....she felt CMs had lied or been too lazy to look for her. Can't exactly feel sorry for her since she's still staying in a resort that I couldn't possibly afford, standard or conceirge. If you can't stay on site it's really and truly NOT the end of the world. It's maybe not your dream vacation, maybe a little added inconvenience, but it's not the end of the world. And who knows....maybe it will be a better situation than you thought...because we stay offsite we can afford to go for much longer than most people (a month) and we're going a second month long stay end of the year....so that's 2 months in 1 year because we stay offsite. If we stayed onsite I'd have probably done 1/2 that length, but still maybe twice. So I can't really feel sorry for myself....after all we're still there....but I am very very happy we got to be there for longer.

As for those who felt OP's idea wasn't financially sound.....that 4 bedroom house I rented, cost me $51 a night....so if you added $42 to that, OP would have been paying $93, getting a 4 bedroom house to sleep in and getting the benefits as well....I had an AP, but assuming he didn't, he'd be saving $10 a day on parking meant his net cost was $83 a night. I'd pay $83 (even $93) a night to stay in 4 bedrooms rather than a campsite....or even rather than a 260 square foot value (the house was over 2,000sf). So financially that made perfect sense to him. THere are lots of very inexpensive homes for rent out there...and the closer you book, the cheaper they get as homeowners are desperate to have ANY money come in. Yes, my rate was because we were there a month....but there are plenty of places that are 2-3 bedrooms for $60 a night.

Now...personally, I couldn't see doing this, because I don't want the Dining Plan, so that wouldn't be a reason for me to consider this....there are three of us so DDP is $114 a day. My kids are considered adults but definitely don't eat like an adult. If I could have paid $10 for each of them a day, that might have been worth it.....but not $38. I knew we'd not spend that much every day, or even average that much.....and I kept all receipts for our trip and I was right, even taking into consideration the meals we made at the house, substituting that for a comparable meal cost onsite. So we'd have wasted money on DDP. We had the DDE which got us a nice discount at many of the fancier places we went....and my AAA card got me discounts at some of the other places (Swan/Dolphin etc) We also weren't really interested in EMH.....before we went DISers seemed to recommend avoiding them....the few days we didn't listen to this advice, when we were finally let in it was noticeably more crowded, and we were there a slow time of year when there really weren't much in the way of crowds. So that's not a benefit for my family either. But both those are obviously important to OP, so it may be worth it to him.

Sorry it got so long, hopefully someone reads it and understands that just because there is an empty space, doesn't mean someone isn't paying for it. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to get more seats to the theatre and been told it's sold out, only to arrive and see plenty of empty seats. Life gets in the way of people doing everything they planned. Think about how sad that must have been for the family who isn't occupying that room/space....at least you made it to Disney, they didn't.

 

[bluwater]

Not to be mean...but those who are feeling like this would be a problem for Disney need to go take a few MBA classes. If I owned Disney, I would love for people to do this.

First of all, the OP said he wanted to use the DDP and buy things in the park, that was one of the perks he was looking to buy with the tent site rental.

Ok, so it sounds like this poster wants to spend money in WDW just like everyone else, but then wants to retire for the night at an off-site location. The OP would invest in all of the expense of a day at WDW, but then use the resources of another for showering, sleeping, TV, etc....so, this is a win-win for WDW. There's no wear and tear on Fort Wilderness from this OP - no use of water / eletricity in the bathouses, etc.

And to think that this OP is committing a crime by taking up a ressie for ca campsite that they pay for, but don't use, is kind of ridiculous. It like: would you buy a house and then spend 2 weeks a year at a hotel in WDW instead of in your home. The mortgage company shoud arrest you!

I bet Disney's "go to market" strategy would be more damaged by those who stay in Disney hotels but then dine off-site some evenings - or those who book long stays for 4 people in a value over a free dining promo.

And who is to say how many hours you MUST be present at your tent site? Would 10 hours a night be agreeable? What about someone whp stays out and parties, so is only there 4 hours a night? Who gets to decide what being "present" means? Really - he would have PAID for the site, just like everyone else....but would use it less than everyone else. Sounds more profitable to me!

Frankly, when my family camps, we LOVE when we don't have neighbors. Those Disney campsites are notoriously "cozy" (close to one another) - and while it was touching to read about the lady who had to camp in her car, I think many campers would prefer to have a little privacy and have it feel more like a "real" camping experience.

Trust me that Disney has thought of the idea (and thousands of other options that never make it to this board) that the OP has presented to us - and they have decided that it would not harm them (actualy, I'm sure it helps them). No company with the profits of Disney would have an open loop-hole that would harm them.

I think everyone needs to stop playing Disney CFO. Many of you would drive Disney out of business with your ideas about business and finance.

 

[PeterAll]

On one hand if the OP pays for a site they should be able to use as they wish.

On the other hand I'd feel so bad if someone plans were ruined because of no availability.

You have done what no one has been able to do to me since high school.
I'm very conflicted. ( wishing that emoticon was upside down)

 

[jsmla]

Although if she did ask this question innocently enough, I would be nervous to report back after some of the hostility she received. I would hope that people wouldn't create posts just to irritate others. Way too much time on their hands. (However, I spend way too much time on these boards myself)
Very addictive!

I was thinking exactly the same thing! I probably not only would have never replied, I probably would have stayed far, far, far away from the Dis from then on.

Jennifer

(Who's probably going straight to the bad place since she reserved a room at ASMu that she intended to use only for the perks including (I am sooo going to Dis heck!) Free Dining.

 

[aribelle]

It is too bad Disney doesn't do some kind of site check. They could give a person 24 hours to set up a full camp, and if they don't, that site goes to someone else who actually wants to use it for camping. No camping equipment up, you lose your site. I'm sure there are some people who would go to the trouble of setting up a tent and chairs just to get the EMH benefits, and then leave. But I think it would cut down on the number of people who just book a site for the benefits. Our state parks do a site check, why can't Disney?

Umm, actually that would be illegal of Disney to do....if the person had paid for the site. Like I said in my long long post above....for a room only you have to pay a deposit...and you forfeit that deposit if you don't show up....but Disney can't re-rent your room, they'd be double paid then, and what if you showed up at 2am ready to occupy your room after changing the flat and fixing the radiator on your harrowing drive there???? Now they have no place to put you but you paid for that space! You'd be totally outraged, and rightly so....and Disney would have broken the law. That's why they take a deposit and keep it if you don't show up....so they aren't screwed by people making reservations and them holding the room for a no show. But if you didnt' pay for the rest of your stay and you don't show, they can legally and morally rent your rooms. But...if you paid for the whole week, they have to leave it empty because it's YOUR room, and re-renting it is illegal for them, because again, they'd get paid twice. ALL hotels are under this law. Many hotels (non Disney) will specifically say they'll hold your room until 6pm (or whatever time they choose) and rent out the room if you don't show......... UNLESS you have a credit card on file for them to charge the first night for a no-show. Some simply require pre-payment like DIsney does for the first night.

If you rent a home offsite, all have some no-refund clause...some allow you to cancel and get a full refund within 30 days (some less even)....some will relieve you of the contract but keep the deposit 30 days out......some won't refund at all. But...some will also offer you a refund PROVIDED that they are able to rent out your days to someone else....in other words, they'll advertise it available and if someone else comes along they'll keep that person's money and refund yours. If you reserved 2 weeks and they only re-rent 1 week, you only get 1 week refunded. But they can't keep your payment AND rerent it, that's illegal.

I'm also wondering how Disney would verify that someone was actually living in a campsite....are you suggesting they do a bedcheck? What if some single person "got lucky" and was spending the night at another campsite....or whereever. Now they lose their accomodations for the rest of the stay? Not very "lucky"....what if they are out all night partying in town? And what about me who is asleep, would I appreciate a flashlight shining into the privacy of my tent? Umm, NO.

There will always be people who find a way around the norm to make things better for themselves. In my other post I said I couldn't put words to why it felt wrong....but I think I just did. It's not breaking any laws to pay for something and not use it......but since it's a way to beat the system legally, it feels wrong to me. But....to others it doesn't. To those objecting to this thread, obviously it does feel wrong to you also....to OP and others it's just another loop that is open for them to crawl through. I've crawled through loopholes in my life, so I will not put them down for it.....I think others have definitely beaten me to that even if I were so inclined. Any maybe....OP will be reading all these posts and have a change of heart....or maybe it will piss them off enough that they'll do it just for spite, Either way, it's not going to ruin my next visit to WDW. Don't let it spoil yours.

 

[Kurby]

actually they aren't illegal. there is no law that says you must state the correct age of your child and no police officer will give you a ticket if someone reported that your child was 3 years and 3 months and not 2 years 11 months and 25 days.

the worst that will happen if you're found out is that you will (or should) be totally embarrassed and have to pay whatever the cost for admission, dinner or whatever is. it ceretinally isn't illegal.

as for adding or not adding people (i've never done it because we travel as a family from the start) i dont actually know if it's different for regular hotel rooms but it seems to be ok to add someone to DVC at the end they just want to know about it.


so again morally wrong but not illegal.

Funny thing is, most of these things that you used to make your point are more than morally wrong, they are out and out stealing! Sense when has stealing become just a moral choice? Last I knew, it was illegal.

It is too bad Disney doesn't do some kind of site check. They could give a person 24 hours to set up a full camp, and if they don't, that site goes to someone else who actually wants to use it for camping. No camping equipment up, you lose your site. I'm sure there are some people who would go to the trouble of setting up a tent and chairs just to get the EMH benefits, and then leave. But I think it would cut down on the number of people who just book a site for the benefits. Our state parks do a site check, why can't Disney?

 

[TheFlame]

I was thinking exactly the same thing! I probably not only would have never replied, I probably would have stayed far, far, far away from the Dis from then on.

Jennifer

(Who's probably going straight to the bad place since she reserved a room at ASMu that she intended to use only for the perks including (I am sooo going to Dis heck!) Free Dining.

BTW- no one said it wasn't something you COULD do, it's just wrong morally(or whatever you want to call it) Anyway, People don't care about right or wrong anymore or have any morals!

Here is a brillant idea...I am going to ask/answer/reply to a question and......................
When I don't agree with some of the replies I am going to discount them and run far far away to never never land and decide that those who do not share my opinion or my ideas are WRONG!
SUPER intelligent way of thinking there..........
Are all opinions welcome here or only the ones that you want to hear?

You are probably an Osama err, I mean Obama supporter aren't you? I'm probably going to heck for saying that or maybe just some points ?

 

[bluwater]

Umm, actually that would be illegal of Disney to do....if the person had paid for the site.

Exactly,Aribelle! Disney cannot treat the guests of the tent site differently than they treat guests of the hotel rooms. Can they go by your value resort room and check to see if you have set up? Do your clothes have to be in the drawers? Slippers by the bed? Toothbrush by the sink? etc.... No.

So, just becuase Disney can see what is happening at a tent site accomodation doesn't mean they can terminate your reservation just because you don't appear to be present.

When you buy a Disney accomodation, you buy the right to a number of things: place to sleep, use of water, use of electric, parking, DME, DDP option, shipping, Disney Transportation, EMH....These things are not FREE, the cost is factored into your "nightly rate". So, if you don't use these options, are you cheating Disney on that, too?

all of these are OPTIONS. You can use all, one, several or none...but you have paid for the option.....OPTION being the operative word.

Morals are not in question here. Funny that when there's no logic behind a position, the poster will immediately try to make it a moral issue. Then, to make it more bizarre, they'll toss out a couple of insults and throw in a politics and terrorism for good measure. Scary (below).

You are probably an Osama err, I mean Obama supporter aren't you? I'm probably going to heck for saying that or maybe just some points ?

 

[AuburnJen92]

If the campsites were so popular, I do wonder why Disney hasn't raised the rates?

Obviously you have not had the opportunity to look at the rate increases for campsites (all kinds) during the past years. They are ridiculous.