Just because it’s not against the rules doesn’t make it right

[Luckybee]

So not looking for an argument, I just want to provide some balance. That balance being that Pete, the owner of these boards and Dreams Unlimited, has stated he does not agree with the practice of booking throwaway rooms and doesn't allow his agents to promote or book them.

That's nice. And that is somehow meaningful to me ?

 

[SmithSmith]

That's nice. And that is somehow meaningful to me ?

By saying this:

The moderators have made themselves perfectly clear about that in the other thread

It would seem you're under the impression that since the moderators don't allow any debate on ONE thread, then that somehow makes it a legitimate practice and undebatable. We are not allowed to discuss the ethics of it on that ONE thread because it would be off topic since it's intended for informational purposes only.

I'm pointing out that it is debatable because the owner of these very boards disapproves and even wrote an article entitled The Great Throwaway Room Debate. Which you can find here:

http://www.wdwinfo.com/the-great-throwaway-room-debate.htm

 

[Luckybee]

By saying this:




It would seem you're under the impression that since the moderators don't allow any debate on ONE thread, then that somehow makes it a legitimate practice and undebatable. We are not allowed to discuss the ethics of it on that ONE thread because it would be off topic since it's intended for informational purposes only.

I'm pointing out that it is debatable because the owner of these very boards disapproves and even wrote an article entitled The Great Throwaway Room Debate. Which you can find here:

http://www.wdwinfo.com/the-great-throwaway-room-debate.htm

I said "I agree with you that a "true" throwaway is not a debatable topic which is why Im not going to debate with anyone whether a "true" throwaway is legit. The moderators have made themselves perfectly clear about that in the other thread, and quite frankly the arguments contra are rather silly in that some have actually stated that it isn't ok to book a room, PAY for it and then not sleep in it."

If you read in that I was saying that the moderators were giving opinions on throwaways you misunderstood me. I referred to the moderators making themselves clear about "that" which obviously referred to the sentence prior, which was whether it was a debatable topic. I wasn't suggesting that they weighed in on their personal feelings.

Im not about to get into with you the morality of something I personally think is a non issue and silly. Sorry !

 

[cakebaker]

I'm pointing out that it is debatable because the owner of these very boards disapproves and even wrote an article entitled The Great Throwaway Room Debate. Which you can find here:

http://www.wdwinfo.com/the-great-throwaway-room-debate.htm

Interesting article. I had never read it, but he makes some great points.

From the article:
"I think Disney needs to implement a punishing ‘no-show’ policy at the Fort. If you book a campsite, check in at the campsite and never use it – there should be a $250 per night charge for it. It's one thing if someone never checks in – things happen in life and people shouldn’t be penalized for it beyond the normal cancellation policy. But if a campsite is 'checked in' and never used, it's pretty clear why."

Fort Wilderness is a completely different beast when it comes to reserving a spot and not using it, whether you pay for it or not. I agree with Pete on this one 100%. Make the charge so high, and so prohibitive, it stops people in their tracks. It's really a very smart idea. Rather than penalize those who don't show for one reason or another, penalize those who do, but don't stay. Brilliant idea.

I also agree with his point on making the perks available length of stay only. You want a room for 1 night? You get the benefits for 1 night. How long you stay somewhere else shouldn't matter.

From the article:
" I’m fine with people getting access to Extra Magic Hours, free parking, and 180+10 ADRs for the dates they are booked to stay on site. Those are on site perks and should be available to anyone who books a room regardless of whether it's for one night or ten. I’m also fine with FP+ - but ONLY for the length of stay, not for the length of ticket. That’s a loophole Disney needs to close fast."

Since the moderators moved this thread, I'm assuming they're ok with civil discussion on the subject. I take their admonitions not to debate it on "that" thread to be directed at the thread only.

 

[mshanson3121]

Interesting article. I had never read it, but he makes some great points.

From the article:
"I think Disney needs to implement a punishing ‘no-show’ policy at the Fort. If you book a campsite, check in at the campsite and never use it – there should be a $250 per night charge for it. It's one thing if someone never checks in – things happen in life and people shouldn’t be penalized for it beyond the normal cancellation policy. But if a campsite is 'checked in' and never used, it's pretty clear why."

Fort Wilderness is a completely different beast when it comes to reserving a spot and not using it, whether you pay for it or not. I agree with Pete on this one 100%. Make the charge so high, and so prohibitive, it stops people in their tracks. It's really a very smart idea. Rather than penalize those who don't show for one reason or another, penalize those who do, but don't stay. Brilliant idea.

Except if you read through the comments an excellent point was made on why this will never happen - all they have to do is stop into the site and pitch a tent. Voila. So what's the next step? Have them unzip and peek into each tent to make sure there are people inside sleeping? But what if that empty tent is because people are at the extra late magic hours? Are you going to do an hourly check? And what about the people who actually WERE going to use the campsite, who checked in online, who got waylaid due to car trouble, illness etc... and couldn't make it on time. Are you going to charge them as well? Because their site didn't get used that night either. How are you going to PROVE why an empty site didn't get used? Not even a great idea in theory, quite honestly.

A better idea would be to just have a minimum night requirement, like many places do. Extremely simple and easy to implement, and would likely cut down on the throwaway room use.

 

[Luckybee]

Interesting article. I had never read it, but he makes some great points.

From the article:
"I think Disney needs to implement a punishing ‘no-show’ policy at the Fort. If you book a campsite, check in at the campsite and never use it – there should be a $250 per night charge for it. It's one thing if someone never checks in – things happen in life and people shouldn’t be penalized for it beyond the normal cancellation policy. But if a campsite is 'checked in' and never used, it's pretty clear why."

Fort Wilderness is a completely different beast when it comes to reserving a spot and not using it, whether you pay for it or not. I agree with Pete on this one 100%. Make the charge so high, and so prohibitive, it stops people in their tracks. It's really a very smart idea. Rather than penalize those who don't show for one reason or another, penalize those who do, but don't stay. Brilliant idea.

I also agree with his point on making the perks available length of stay only. You want a room for 1 night? You get the benefits for 1 night. How long you stay somewhere else shouldn't matter.

From the article:
" I’m fine with people getting access to Extra Magic Hours, free parking, and 180+10 ADRs for the dates they are booked to stay on site. Those are on site perks and should be available to anyone who books a room regardless of whether it's for one night or ten. I’m also fine with FP+ - but ONLY for the length of stay, not for the length of ticket. That’s a loophole Disney needs to close fast."

Since the moderators moved this thread, I'm assuming they're ok with civil discussion on the subject. I take their admonitions not to debate it on "that" thread to be directed at the thread only.

For a change we actually agree on something . Not the Fort Wilderness part but rather that the perks should be tied to the number of days one stays on property. It wouldn't change the throwaway concept but might reduce the number of people who use it. For us it wouldn't matter in that IF we were doing another lengthy Orlando stay, and IF Disney was a part of that stay, we would book throwaways if needed for the days we needed it.
That would of course penalize split stay on and off property people but quite frankly I see no difference between that type of booking and a throwaway.

 

[Luckybee]

Except if you read through the comments an excellent point was made on why this will never happen - all they have to do is stop into the site and pitch a tent. Voila. So what's the next step? Have them unzip and peek into each tent to make sure there are people inside sleeping? But what if that empty tent is because people are at the extra late magic hours? Are you going to do an hourly check? And what about the people who actually WERE going to use the campsite, who checked in online, who got waylaid due to car trouble, illness etc... and couldn't make it on time. Are you going to charge them as well? Because their site didn't get used that night either. How are you going to PROVE why an empty site didn't get used? Not even a great idea in theory, quite honestly.

A better idea would be to just have a minimum night requirement, like many places do. Extremely simple and easy to implement, and would likely cut down on the throwaway room use.

Cut down but not eliminate

 

[larryz]

I won't do anything at a Disney facility that Disney won't let me do.

 

[dredick]

Oh my! I stopped reading on page 2.....rather go back to listening to my kids fight. This thread is unreal.....

 

[Disney Forever]

To be clear, I'm talking about a throwaway room that is kept and not cancelled. Guest services told me that I was not allowed to book a room with the intention of not using it because it was against policy. One of the reasons cited was that it's a safety issue, they need to know who is on property. Also, Any CM suggesting this would be reprimanded or fired, and they're working to close the loophole.

I have to chime in here, if I book a room, how will they know I am sleeping there or not, Just so long as I pay in full, they will have no way to close that "Loophole". Next you are going to tell me if I book a meal at the Castle, pay in advance (which is required) and decide to go, get mine and my daughters pics taken with Cenderella downstairs, but don't go up to eat, I'm doing something wrong, and Disney will not allow this? I'm sorry to say, that is such BS

 

[austinwildflower]

Ah. But you assume wrong. Because not once did I even remotely allude to the idea that I knew what your intent was when you posted. All I said was you should have known that it would offend people. That's not even close to being the same thing as saying, "I know why you did this!! And it was to start a debate!!" Though it's amusing that you yourself just admitted to the fact that you posted this to spark "conversation".

And just for the record - no, I'm not using one of those "loopholes". But I can tell you that as a mother of a sick child, who comes from a single income household who is struggling to provide a once in a lifetime trip on a fraction of the budget you get to do repeatedly who considered them, as a friend to a woman who has a 5 year old daughter with cancer who has used them, yeah, I can totally get why people would use those perfectly permissible loopholes, to do everything in their power to give their child that one and only experience. And yes, there are some who use the loopholes who really don't need to, they just choose to. But there are people using them, that for reasons unknown to you - need to. And to have someone turn around and rub it in their face how wrong it is, and how you're happy you took the higher road... surely you can see how that wouldn't exactly sit well. Because at the end of the day, who are you to judge? As I said before - you have NO idea what goes on behind someone's decision. Perhaps just think before you make sweeping judgements next time.

The people looking for that "one and only one experience" for their impoverished, sick child are not the ones who know about and use these loopholes. Let's inject a little reality to this debate. I'm a single mom & my son is autistic, but I don't use that as an excuse to cheat our way to a better vacation.