Is "Walking a reservation" unethical?

[ziravan]

In my Sunday School classroom, Susie often doesn't ever get the opportunity to use the purple marker unless I make and enforce a rule. There are multiple kids waiting for the few purple markers, the "waitlist" for markers is broken - Susie can claim it first, but if Billy hands it to his friend Robert, Susie still doesn't get it, and eventually we run out of time in the classroom. So we don't hold what we aren't using - there is no reason for Billy to hang onto a marker he isn't using until he needs that marker. When he wants it, then HE can wait for it.

Realistically, what happens with second graders - and with a few adults when talking about resources- is that some kids only want to color in purple. Other kids want to horde resources - some because they have concerns about scarcity, others because it annoys other kids (about half the Billys never use the purple marker in the end), some because they can - we try and teach a model of sharing resources, using only what you need, relinquishing what you don't need when you no longer need it - as well as making due - purple may be preferred, but yellow and orange are lovely colors as well because those are the values - values feeding into ethics and morals - that we hold as a religious community. I've been teaching second graders for a decade, and I've had a few kids who were seriously challenged with the idea that they couldn't/shouldn't grab ALL the glitter or every fuzzy pipecleaner - and thank god we got rid of snack - one of those kids would make snack miserable for everyone.

There is another example of this that came up in my life. I was taught that if you went through a buffet line early (not a restaurant, but a private event) you took small amounts of food to make sure that the people who came through last got to eat. If you went through late, you got what was left, which often meant you got "first dibs on seconds during your first helping" - the downside is that the chocolate chip cookies would be gone and you got stuck with the oatmeal raisin. I am involved in a girl scout camp where middle school and high school girls do tent camping under the supervision of some adults. Its girl scout tradition that the adults go first as a sign of respect. A few adults (those not involved in buying and preparing the food, who are well aware that there are not enough chicken legs for people to take three - its generally the ones that were there to increase the adult to girl count to meet the safety regulations in exchange for free camp for their daughters) were loading up their plates to heaping (and throwing out half the food they took) - while the girls at the end of the line we ended up making sandwiches for so they wouldn't go hungry. We buy plenty of food, but we assume people will be reasonable when they help themselves - and we are twenty minutes from a grocery store with a hundred girls - you don't just go grab some more food. And, the camp is designed to be affordable - we have plenty of food - we don't have plenty of extra food - that adds to the amount we'd have to charge for camp. There is no rule that says "going through a buffet you take a reasonable amount of food and keep in mind that there are 120 more people coming after you and this is all the food there is" - but it isn't ethical to let an eleven year old not have a brownie because you took three and threw out one. Next year, we are going to need to spell out buffett manners - not for the girls - for the adults. Once again, using resources well and consideration for others are Girl Scout values.

Both of these are examples where we shouldn't need a rule - people should be reasonable. And if one person is unreasonable - or has a real need for their behavior - the system still usually functions. But the behavior of one person is modeled by others (oh, I can take three chicken legs because she did - oh, Billy always grabs the purple marker, I'd better grab it first, - oh, I'm going to need to walk a reservation because that is how you get rooms), and eventually the system breaks down.

(And yes, we should have more purple markers. But they come in boxes with the orange markers and the yellow ones - and the cap gets left off them or they end up in pockets, and by the end of the year I have a tub with 20 yellow markers and two functional purple ones)

In your buffet example, you have some personal responsibility to those groups, as members of those groups. Gobbling the goodies isn't unethical so much as uncouth.

Teaching 2nd graders not to be thusly uncouth is great training.

As is pointed out frequently on this board, this isn't really club; it's a timeshare. It's a timeshare that you spend a large amount of money buying into and maintaining.

Your first ethical obligation is to yourself. In a first come, first serve reservation system, there is no sharing.

The better example than purple markers is teaching 2nd graders that they must share their chairs during musical chairs. That's a fine value to teach generally but doesn't work well in the specific example.

A first come, first serve reservation system is much more like musical chairs. I have no ethical responsibility whatsoever to other chair seekers. More to the point, unilaterally engaging in such ethics will only lead to the very predictable outcome of you being the one without a chair.

I doubt very seriously DVC cares much about walking. It's a rule in customer service that 20% of the people create 80% of the problems. In this case, walking is an outlet to mollify the 20% at virtually no cost to DVC or the system as a whole. My guess is that DVC views walking much the same way as WDW considered FP- runners that were able to take advantage of the system. WDW only ended that practice when they had an interest in changing the system to FP+ and making FPs more fair was certainly not their primary goal for the change.

 

[crisi]

In your buffet example, you have some personal responsibility to those groups, as members of those groups. Gobbling the goodies isn't unethical so much as uncouth.

Teaching 2nd graders not to be thusly uncouth is great training.

As is pointed out frequently on this board, this isn't really club; it's a timeshare. It's a timeshare that you spend a large amount of money buying into and maintaining.

Your first ethical obligation is to yourself. In a first come, first serve reservation system, there is no sharing.

The better example than purple markers is teaching 2nd graders that they must share their chairs during musical chairs. That's a fine value to teach generally but doesn't work well in the specific example.

A first come, first serve reservation system is much more like musical chairs. I have no ethical responsibility whatsoever to other chair seekers. More to the point, unilaterally engaging in such ethics will only lead to the very predictable outcome of you being the one without a chair.

I doubt very seriously DVC cares much about walking. It's a rule in customer service that 20% of the people create 80% of the problems. In this case, walking is an outlet to mollify the 20% at virtually no cost to DVC or the system as a whole. My guess is that DVC views walking much the same way as WDW considered FP- runners that were able to take advantage of the system. WDW only ended that practice when they had an interest in changing the system to FP+ and making FPs more fair was certainly not their primary goal for the change.

I get to have an opinion over whether behavior is ethical regardless if I have responsibility for that behavior or not. ESPECIALLY when asked what my opinion is.

 

[ziravan]

I get to have an opinion over whether behavior is ethical regardless if I have responsibility for that behavior or not. ESPECIALLY when asked what my opinion is.

I never said otherwise.

I don't believe walking is unethical. To the extent that you do, and act on your feelings that it's unethical, you only hurt your own ability to optimize your use of a very expensive timeshare system.

My guess is that the aggressive walkers approve of your ethical restraint.

 

[crisi]

I never said otherwise.

I don't believe walking is unethical. To the extent that you do, and act on your feelings that it's unethical, you only hurt your own ability to optimize your use of a very expensive timeshare system.

My guess is that the aggressive walkers approve of your ethical restraint.

I don't go when its necessary to walk. By the time its necessary to walk my reservations, they system will have broken and Disney will fix it. If they don't, I'll sell since a system that requires that much effort on my part isn't a good match for me.

But as a few walkers don't make any difference to the system, a few ethical abstainers don't either - so I doubt people care one way or another.

Honestly, there are enough rooms in the system - its a few rooms at a few times of year that this creates a problem with. Since I don't use those rooms at those times of year (we own BWV - but we tend to travel in late August now), it isn't affecting me one way or the other. Nor do I need standard view or Boardwalk view rooms. (This year I did want a Grand Villa, but I forgot to book at eleven months, and it was still available even though I called a week late. I did take the last one for my week though). Standard View and Boardwalk View are nice, but we always hope for the best and plan for the worst.

 

[ziravan]

I don't go when its necessary to walk. By the time its necessary to walk my reservations, they system will have broken and Disney will fix it. If they don't, I'll sell since a system that requires that much effort on my part isn't a good match for me.

But as a few walkers don't make any difference to the system, a few ethical abstainers don't either - so I doubt people care one way or another.

Honestly, there are enough rooms in the system - its a few rooms at a few times of year that this creates a problem with. Since I don't use those rooms at those times of year (we own BWV - but we tend to travel in late August now), it isn't affecting me one way or the other. Nor do I need standard view or Boardwalk view rooms. (This year I did want a Grand Villa, but I forgot to book at eleven months, and it was still available even though I called a week late. I did take the last one for my week though). Standard View and Boardwalk View are nice, but we always hope for the best and plan for the worst.

I'm in your boat in that I've never felt the need to walk and don't book at the times when it's needed.

I just booked BCV studio for Oct '16. Booked them the week after the 11 month window opened and all dates avail. Would they be avail at 10 months? Maybe not, but I didn't have to walk, either.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion on the ethics of it, as am I. But I think that misses the point.

A code of conduct must be generally accepted in order to alter the overall behavior of a system. As you say, your ethics don't impact the system because you wouldn't walk in any case. Same is probably true for me.

Would a general consensus that walking is unethical change behavior? I don't think so, because those that walk are already pushing the limits of the system, they are past the normal rules and are being successful based on established implementation.

Walkers are already outliers in pushing the rules and so, if a general consensus of "unethical" were established, the greatest effect I think would occur would only be to drive self reporting underground.

All in all, I think the ethics of walking is an interesting topic, but it's also likely a moot point. I doubt that any actual behaviors change as a result of discussing it - with the exception that the more discussed, the more some might become aware of walking who weren't before.

As long as it's allowed, walkers will walk, everybody else won't. I think I am in the minority to believe that DVC doesn't care much either way about this and won't go out of their way to "fix" it.

 

[crisi]

I guess I didn't realize that was the point. I thought the point was to discuss whether we believed it was ethical or not.

I think it doesn't make any difference what the consensus is on ethicality. If it hurts Disney they will change it. If it doesn't they won't bother. If its driven underground, Disney still has the data they need to make the decision. Of course walkers will walk regardless - humans tend to be pragmatic and honestly, sort of selfish. Which is why discussions on ethics are fascinating.

From a practical standpoint, I'm more concerned about what happens when the system does break - which I think it will do - what actions will Disney take. Will they make it harder or expensive to change reservations? I doubt those changes will impact me either, but I can anticipate how walking will impact me - I have no idea what Disney will do, so I can't anticipate that. Or if it doesn't break, but it does start changing my life - will I get a good price for my points? Or will the system's reputation take a hit because usability has suffered.

 

[Disneyepcot]

This has been such an interesting debate! I think the opinions have been very well written.

You all must have been exceptional in English.

 

[Dean]

I never said otherwise.

I don't believe walking is unethical. To the extent that you do, and act on your feelings that it's unethical, you only hurt your own ability to optimize your use of a very expensive timeshare system.

My guess is that the aggressive walkers approve of your ethical restraint.

I don't believe it's unethical because it's allowed under the rules even if it's not actually the rule itself. As long as that's the situation it's not inappropriate for members though I do believe it's inappropriate for DVCMC to allow it and I believe it's detrimental to the system and other members beyond just the issue of being the early bird. However, to address something that came up earlier, it is allowed under the POS simply because DVCMC has sold discretion when it comes to matters of reservations. I do believe that allowing 7, even 14 days would be consistent with the POS.

 

[ziravan]

If you subscribe to Kantian ethics, where the most ethical move would be to presume the universality of your decisions (what would happen if everybody acted as you did), then it would be unethical to buy resale. If everybody bought resale, then there would never be any development in the first place.

In fact, the system survives just fine without an ethical mandate to buy only developer points. Plenty of people buy developer points and it's not unethical for me to get a better deal in resale.

I think this is a good analogy to walking reservations. Just because 10 people today will buy Poly because they're at WDW and that's what's being sold doesn't mean I got one up on them with an awesome BCV resale. (Or even that I got a better Poly contract because none of those 10 people today will likely be told about fixed weeks).

Fortune will always favor the better informed.

Walking reservations will never break the system. There are a limited number of home resort owners, walkers, room types where it's necessary, and weeks where walking is needed. That makes it self-limiting. For every F&W week being oversought, there's another week being undersought as a result.

In fact, you could say that walking is beneficial for those that book in DVC off season because it serves to drive demand to certain times of year.

You could also argue that a simply way for DVC to fix walking is to reallocate Nov and Dec as higher point seasons.

 

[crisi]

If you subscribe to Kantian ethics, where the most ethical move would be to presume the universality of your decisions (what would happen if everybody acted as you did), then it would be unethical to buy resale. If everybody bought resale, then there would never be any development in the first place.

In fact, the system survives just fine without an ethical mandate to buy only developer points. Plenty of people buy developer points and it's not unethical for me to get a better deal in resale.

I think this is a good analogy to walking reservations. Just because 10 people today will buy Poly because they're at WDW and that's what's being sold doesn't mean I got one up on them with an awesome BCV resale. (Or even that I got a better Poly contract because none of those 10 people today will likely be told about fixed weeks).

Fortune will always favor the better informed.

Walking reservations will never break the system. There are a limited number of home resort owners, walkers, room types, and weeks where walking is needed. That makes it self-limiting. For every F&W week being oversought, there's another week being undersought as a result.

Resale doesn't do that. If you couldn't get rid of your ownership, far fewer people would buy - I certainly wouldn't have bought if I had to hold onto it for fifty years - the existence of a strong resale market helps Disney sell points - the resale value is one of the things that sets it apart from other timeshares. And it helps ensure members will pay their dues and their have revenue to keep the resort up - because timeshares without strong resale markets end up with a lot of units where people just stop paying their fees.

And breaking isn't for those hard to get weeks - those are already broken - too many people want too few rooms - and there isn't much they can do. I anticipate breaking will be moving backwards. Its rooms not being available before F&W starts because people are walking into F&W, which causes people who want to make September reservations to make several calls or have to log on several times to get their room. So then they start to think that its necessary to walk in September. People start walking for some of the really difficult stuff a month a head or more from what I can tell from the advice on walking here. I would think it will break one of three ways - Disney will decide that the CM time is being used inappropriately (which is why I think they got rid of day by day booking - otherwise, why get rid of that - it wasn't so WE would need to make fewer calls), and/or DVC will have to deal with too many guest complaints on availability and/or walking will bring waitlist issues into the light which Disney will be obligated to address.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

It is allowed so I don't see why it would be unethical.

 

[beer dave]

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made as far as how many walk and for how long. While I have no problem with walking, I have done it once if 13 years. (just recently because I bought AKV to go club level) And I will do it again when I want the room again, probably in 17. If every owner walks a room 2 days every year, It would probably go un noticed. (which I'm sure doesn't happen) . I bet less than 10 % of owners have ever walked a room, let alone do it regularly. I don't think it is the plague you all are expecting.... but we don't know.

 

[ziravan]

Resale doesn't do that. If you couldn't get rid of your ownership, far fewer people would buy - I certainly wouldn't have bought if I had to hold onto it for fifty years - the existence of a strong resale market helps Disney sell points - the resale value is one of the things that sets it apart from other timeshares. And it helps ensure members will pay their dues and their have revenue to keep the resort up - because timeshares without strong resale markets end up with a lot of units where people just stop paying their fees.

And breaking isn't for those hard to get weeks - those are already broken - too many people want too few rooms - and there isn't much they can do. I anticipate breaking will be moving backwards. Its rooms not being available before F&W starts because people are walking into F&W, which causes people who want to make September reservations to make several calls or have to log on several times to get their room. So then they start to think that its necessary to walk in September. People start walking for some of the really difficult stuff a month a head or more from what I can tell from the advice on walking here. I would think it will break one of three ways - Disney will decide that the CM time is being used inappropriately (which is why I think they got rid of day by day booking - otherwise, why get rid of that - it wasn't so WE would need to make fewer calls), and/or DVC will have to deal with too many guest complaints on availability and/or walking will bring waitlist issues into the light which Disney will be obligated to address.

Even if you have hundreds of walkers walking through Sept to get to Oct, it doesn't permanently affect Sept reservations. It's a hiccup and the Sept bookers that could normally and easily book home resort at 10 months will still do so.

After all, how many Sept home resort bookers are on the phone to MS 8am 11 months out anyway? I'm sure some do, but it's not necessary and walking won't make it so.

I just don't see the creeping slide towards a broken system that you see.

By my reckoning, DVC ended booking at end of reservation because it made for too many broken dates, creating too many split reservations which in turn created many more cleaning dates and cancelled reservations (which led to member complaints and dissatisfaction). I don't see how tying up MS lines were much of a factor at all. I hear of MS advocating walking and in at least one instance, a guide suggesting it as a strategy to a potential buyer; I doubt DVC considers walking a problem.

 

[supersnoop]

I don't believe it's unethical because it's allowed under the rules even if it's not actually the rule itself.

It is allowed so I don't see why it would be unethical.

This is really the crux of the argument and where we will always disagree. It's not "allowed." It's a loophole cause by the implmentation to make booking easier. Exploiting the +7 in order to get a head start on your reservation was never intended or allowed under the rules.

 

[supersnoop]

If you subscribe to Kantian ethics, where the most ethical move would be to presume the universality of your decisions (what would happen if everybody acted as you did), then it would be unethical to buy resale. If everybody bought resale, then there would never be any development in the first place.

In fact, the system survives just fine without an ethical mandate to buy only developer points. Plenty of people buy developer points and it's not unethical for me to get a better deal in resale.

I think this is a good analogy to walking reservations. Just because 10 people today will buy Poly because they're at WDW and that's what's being sold doesn't mean I got one up on them with an awesome BCV resale. (Or even that I got a better Poly contract because none of those 10 people today will likely be told about fixed weeks).

Fortune will always favor the better informed.

Walking reservations will never break the system. There are a limited number of home resort owners, walkers, room types where it's necessary, and weeks where walking is needed. That makes it self-limiting. For every F&W week being oversought, there's another week being undersought as a result.

In fact, you could say that walking is beneficial for those that book in DVC off season because it serves to drive demand to certain times of year.

You could also argue that a simply way for DVC to fix walking is to reallocate Nov and Dec as higher point seasons.

Ludicrous and ridiculous. Complete non-sequitur. There'd be no new houses or new cars by your logic. It's a terrible analogy.

 

[beer dave]

Ludicrous and ridiculous. Complete non-sequitur. There'd be no new houses or new cars by your logic. It's a terrible analogy.

It wasn't their logic. It was a theory based on Kantian ethics. Seems to be a trend of not trying to evaluate others' opinions or concepts in favor of saying "you're wrong". I'm out on this one too.

 

[ziravan]

Ludicrous and ridiculous. Complete non-sequitur. There'd be no new houses or new cars by your logic. It's a terrible analogy.

It's not a non-sequitur in that it makes my point. In a complex system, you can't just take your own view and/or motives and externalize it to a universal view as a form of ethics. Or, to the extent that you do, the ethics of it become moot.

There are many players in a complex system and each have motives and desires that make universality of any particular motive or desire ludicrous and ridiculous, as you say.

More to the point, there are two concepts at play here, and they're being confused: personal ethics and ethics of a system (or societal ethics, if you will).

I think it's very important for self-worth and fulfillment to define your own system of ethics, to have a personal operating system. But that can't happen in a vacuum. You are also part of a society, in this case, the DVC society.

So. The societal ethics matter as well. This has been the point I've been making all along: if your personal ethics deem walking to be unethical, but as a system, enough people don't share that view, then there will be no ethical taboo on the practice. As a result, your personal ethics limit your functioning in the system because it conflicts with the system ethics.

With religion, that's sort of the intent: the development of personal ethics/morality that stand apart from society as a whole.

DVC isn't religion. In discussing ethics in relation to DVC and walking, what matters is the ethics of the system. The reason why is that considering walking to be unethical personally only serves to opt you out; it doesn't change the underlying dynamic of the system.

The underlying ethics of the system is that walking is ethical because it's allowed. Enough people believe that so that there can be no functional ethical taboo on the practice. Walking will happen so long as DVC allows it.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

This is really the crux of the argument and where we will always disagree. It's not "allowed." It's a loophole cause by the implmentation to make booking easier. Exploiting the +7 in order to get a head start on your reservation was never intended or allowed under the rules.

Sorry you are using semantics to prove your point. If it happens it is allowed. Until DVC makes a statement otherwise it is "allowed". It is not unethical until it is not allowed.

 

[supersnoop]

Sorry you are using semantics to prove your point. If it happens it is allowed. Until DVC makes a statement otherwise it is "allowed". It is not unethical until it is not allowed.

Rules do not dictate ethics. Ethics are how you behave regardless of rules or who is watching.

Look at the IRS special deduction rules for vehicles with a gvwr over 6,500 lbs. It was created because vehicles that large were considered equipment, not transportation. Now, people with small businesses can buy an SUV and write off half of it immediately. That wasn't the intention, but it fits within the rule. That doesn't make it right. And I expect congress will close that loophole shortly.

 

[ziravan]

Rules do not dictate ethics. Ethics are how you behave regardless of rules or who is watching.

Look at the IRS special deduction rules for vehicles with a gvwr over 6,500 lbs. It was created because vehicles that large were considered equipment, not transportation. Now, people with small businesses can buy an SUV and write off half of it immediately. That wasn't the intention, but it fits within the rule. That doesn't make it right. And I expect congress will close that loophole shortly.

Rules do dictate ethics in that the whole point of ethics is a system by which to make rules for behavior. Ethics are the guiding principles by which rules are made and implemented. The two concepts are intricately related.

Any complex system will create loopholes. If DVC fixes walking, I'm confident the "fix" will have its own unintended consequences. This is why I believe DVC likely doesn't care much about walking: the effort to fix it may or may not create worse problems down the road. Walking isn't that big a problem for DVC, and so, probably not worth the potential consequences to fix.

And I disagree that following the letter of the IRS law doesn't make it right. To me, that's the definition of making it right. Following the rule to the letter does indeed make it right when it comes to the IRS.

The point you're making is the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. For me, that adds another layer to the discussion. For me to follow the spirit of the law instead of the letter, the law has to be something I agree to. I feel no loyalty to honoring the spirit of the IRS, so I would drive my SUV with pride. Far from being ethically compromised by exploiting the loophole, I'd be proud of my ingenuity to do it. (And I suspect that's part of the lure of walking, too.)

I don't feel ethically honor bound to yield positioning to other owners in a first come, first serve system. I don't believe walking violates the spirit of the system. The point of the system is that those that plan more and are more diligent will have an advantage.