My notes on the DVC focus group I went to (kinda long and probably boring, but...)

[Nanajo1]

Okay, how about no pool hopping to SAB but BCV guests can not pool hop to ANY other pool. That's even on days when it is crowded with legit guests from YC, BC and BCV.
A generous DVC discount on water park admissions would help.
I'm just brainstorming to end this rather childish exchange.

 

[nezy]

Although I truely love the pool hopping option, I do not think a sort of "tit for at" concept re: SAB and bcv guest not being able to pool hop is necessary. It sound s like a slippery slope. It does not have to be an all or nothing situation.

We like to pool hop on days we do not go the parks as well as take a quick dip during the day at either EPCOT or MK or MGM. This is a privalege that I do not want to lose. Knowing that SAB or AK are off limits unless I am staying there is just something that I have to live with. If I want to go those pools, I will book a room there, which has been mentioned before.

Disney should build another great pool at another resort and mabe there will not be such an issue of unwanted guests.

Actually., I can only take SAB in small doses anyway.

 

[PKS44]

It is so unbelievably frustrating to see irrelevant and just plain nonsense posted in this thread.....

Dishonesty and Consistency.

Dishonesty-HERE it is- SAB will have to be closed to poolhopping year round because the pool will be too crowded for YC/BC/BCV guests to enjoy the pool.

This is not true- It is not true. It is not true. AND the folks at the YC/BC/BCV know it is not true because they know how many people are there on given days as well as Viking or I--(and one would hope better than we do)...But what they know cannot possibly diminish the truth of multiple observations that the pool is NOT too crowded all the time... Since they know that it is not too crowded all the time and yet they say otherwise that is called DISHONEST. Saying something is true when you know it is not true is called dishonesty.

Consistency- In the past the rule has always been -if a resort pool is too crowded- NO POOLHOPPING. That is the rule at every pool where poolhopping has ever been allowed. ALWAYS...no resort guest has ever had to suffer because too many poolhoppers were there
(more about nancy's irrelevant post below)
The rule made sense- it was fair and consistent...everybody understood that poolhopping is only allowed so far as it does not ruin the pool for the guests of any resort...and that rule should remain CONSISTENTLY the same--CONSISTENT=THE SAME all the time---and consistent with the goals- to preserve resort experience for all guests...consistency is also why BCV guests should NOT have their poolhopping priveleges taken away just because SAB is restricted...because BCV poolhoppers should have no impact on whether or not any other resort's guests enjoy their pool...That is fair and consistent.

then we have nancy's sad story of crowding at SAB as PROOF that this rule is needed?!?!? Her bad experience is supposed to prove that poolhopping should not be allowed????
...POOLHOPPING WAS NOT ALLOWED AT THE TIME SHE WAS THERE!!! IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW CROWDED IT WAS--FURTHERMOREEVEN IF POOLHOPPING RULES HAD NEVER BEEN CHANGED EVEN IF POOLHOPPING WERE STILL ALLOWED AT SAB THAT WOULD ALSO NOT HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT ON nancy's SAD, SAB experience.

WHY?

Because when the pool is that crowded by resort guests poolhopping would never have been allowed anyway. It is suspended at those times

The proof of the need for the rule is not that SAB can get too crowded at times--the proof would be if it is too near crowded all the time...why not allow it as before when it was only allowed so long as it made no difference to how crowded the pool was...the opening of BCV has NOT- it has NOT- it has NOT made it so crowded everyday so that they have not had to issue wristbands at times-(Viking's experience is one of MANY who have had the exact same report.) It is not necessary to show anything else to prove the falsehood of Disney's claim of crowd issues- one example to the contrary proves it is false --that is how disproving things works--you don't have to do it over and over. One example of the falsehood of a statement is all it takes to prove that a statement is false. This should not require multiple posts to explain and yet we have had so much irrelevant blather that obviously some people cannot grasp this simple basic priniciple of logic if it differs with their idea of the value of poolhopping.

Imagine if you will a world that actually allowed SAB poolhopping. I realize this is so painful for some that you may have to just click away from this thread...but just for a moment let's do a thought experiment if you can bear it---you remember thought?---use your imagination---it starts off really great--You are at WDW!!! But wait!
SAB is crowded! It is too crowded! On most crowded days they know this ahead of time and even at BWV they have put up fence, required ID to enter, kicked out hoppers... etc, but this was a day when SAB got unexpectedly crowded..maybe even because of those pesky poolhoppers....So the pool police go about and ask for all DVC poolhoppers to please leave--we will be doing a room card check in 10 minutes...Those who have not left voluntarily by 10 minutes will be escorted out...let us just say that this situation happens so often that it turns out that goly darn it- they were right..they should have just suspended poolhopping in the first place all the time...So...If it was happening so often what poolhoppers are going to keep doing it? Poolhoppers like a nice, uncrowded pool experience as much as anybody.... They aren't going to keep going over there if they are getting tossed out all the time (isn't that the idea behind the current rules?) So the current rules were not necessary to achieve the exact same situation IF there is such a blanket need for a ban on poolhopping. So any thinking, logical person has to wonder if other factors might have played a role in the change in rules. The change was completely unncessary to achieve the exact same effect on poolhopping that they have now So why go to the trouble????? It couldn't possibly be that it helps BCV distinguish itself in the market of DVC properties a little bit more? To Doc and all the others who have argued with Viking and me and others about this--I grant you it is possible that BCV might strain capacity in such an erratic and unpredictable way that they just have to stop hopping as you think they do....that I have misinterpreted what they are stating is the reason for the change--not that the pool can't handle it but that it can't handle it with any regularity -like in October or January) I haven't seen convincing evidence but I am open to the possibility...In fact you go down there for yourself and sit out at SAB the whole month of October and january and you tell us what you see and i will believe what you say....

But now, even before you make such a fact finding mission, can't you possibly see that it might be the other way around...is it impossible that Disney did this mostly to boost sales? I understand you don't think there is convincing evidence that way but Is that absolutely impossible for you to conceive?

Paul

 

[CaptainMidnight]

Originally posted by CarolA
The part I find most amazing was that one of the members had just dropped their family off at SAB. Excuse me, are they living under a rock? At this point I can kind of understand the CMs not being real nice about people continuing to assume you can pool hop there. I mean it has been in DVC communications and is in the stuff you get at check in. So my theory is that most members KNOW you can't pool hop there, but are going under the "rules don't apply to ME" theory!

Agreed. How could a member not realize that by now.

 

[CaptainMidnight]

Everyone iun my group emfatically (sp?) agreed that the current pool hopping policy regarding SAB is unfair. That was very clearly communicated to the focus group moderator. We all felt that members who stayed at BCV received preferential treatment even though we all use the same number of points. I think the general concensus was that if pool hopping is banned during busy times, it should be across the board instead of specific to just SAB.

Sorry, but this seems rediculous. Loose the benefit for all other resorts because of crowd concerns at SAB? Who does that help? DVC members can't pool hop to the Poly as a break from MK? Taking the benefit away would help other members? Some of that group think oging on doesn't make sense to me, seems foolish.

Restricting pool hopping at SAB due to crowd concerns is honest, consistent and fair. It makes perfect sense. There is availability at BCV at teh 7 month window, make the BCV reservations and use the BCV pool, and lets not let the sour grapes elliminate pool hoppng all together. The aurguments presented just don't make sense.

My hope for resolution of this issues for the OKW members who seem so put out is that the new pool at Saratoga Springs resort is so nice and will hopefully be a boat ride away, that it provides them a nice alternative.

 

[KNWVIKING]

..... Thank you,

It feels Soooo good to finally get that off my chest.

 

[ncligs]

Paul
Excellent post......... and I agree with you 100%.

 

[CaptainMidnight]

Originally posted by PKS44
It is so unbelievably frustrating to see irrelevant and just plain nonsense posted in this thread.....

I'm reading that on your side of the issue too.

Dishonesty and Consistency.

Dishonesty-HERE it is- SAB will have to be closed to poolhopping year round because the pool will be too crowded for YC/BC/BCV guests to enjoy the pool.

This is not true- It is not true. It is not true. AND the folks at the YC/BC/BCV know it is not true because they know how many people are there on given days as well as Viking or I--(and one would hope better than we do)...But what they know cannot possibly diminish the truth of multiple observations that the pool is NOT too crowded all the time... Since they know that it is not too crowded all the time and yet they say otherwise that is called DISHONEST. Saying something is true when you know it is not true is called dishonesty.

Absolute Baloney. This is not an honest representation of the crowd situation at SAB, please don't provide false information to support an emotional view. There are times when you cannot find a chair and the pool is too crowded to enjoy. Adopting a sometimes it's OK, sometimes it's not policy that fluctuates day to day, hour by hour would make it harder and more difficult on everyone concerned IMO. We're already seeing reports earlier in this thread of people being upset as they attempt to break the existing rules, when the rules are very clear and have been widely communicated.

Consistency- In the past the rule has always been -if a resort pool is too crowded- NO POOLHOPPING. That is the rule at every pool where poolhopping has ever been allowed. ALWAYS...no resort guest has ever had to suffer because too many poolhoppers were there
(more about nancy's irrelevant post below)
The rule made sense- it was fair and consistent...everybody understood that poolhopping is only allowed so far as it does not ruin the pool for the guests of any resort...and that rule should remain CONSISTENTLY the same--CONSISTENT=THE SAME all the time---and consistent with the goals- to preserve resort experience for all guests...

I don't see how it could be more consistent concerning SAB than not to allow pool hoping there, on a consistent basis. This will best preserve the resort experience for all guests. There is no pool hopping at AKL. The more vocal people complain about pool hopping, the increased likelyhood it will be elliminated everywhere. That seems foolish and short sighted to me.

consistency is also why BCV guests should NOT have their poolhopping priveleges taken away just because SAB is restricted...because BCV poolhoppers should have no impact on whether or not any other resort's guests enjoy their pool...That is fair and consistent.

then we have nancy's sad story of crowding at SAB as PROOF that this rule is needed?!?!? Her bad experience is supposed to prove that poolhopping should not be allowed????
...POOLHOPPING WAS NOT ALLOWED AT THE TIME SHE WAS THERE!!! IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW CROWDED IT WAS--FURTHERMOREEVEN IF POOLHOPPING RULES HAD NEVER BEEN CHANGED EVEN IF POOLHOPPING WERE STILL ALLOWED AT SAB THAT WOULD ALSO NOT HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT ON nancy's SAD, SAB experience.

WHY?

Because when the pool is that crowded by resort guests poolhopping would never have been allowed anyway. It is suspended at those times

The proof of the need for the rule is not that SAB can get too crowded at times--the proof would be if it is too near crowded all the time...

I dissagree. YC, BC, and BCV guests should not always have to deal with an overly crowded pool. There should be times when they can enjoy a pool with less people and a little elbow room. Pool hoppers can't seem to get the restrictions straight now as clear as they are, or constantly try to take advantage. I agree with the decision to restrict pool hopping at SAB at all times. Use your points at BCV and swim at SAB to your hearts content.

why not allow it as before when it was only allowed so long as it made no difference to how crowded the pool was...the opening of BCV has NOT- it has NOT- it has NOT made it so crowded everyday so that they have not had to issue wristbands at times-(Viking's experience is one of MANY who have had the exact same report.) It is not necessary to show anything else to prove the falsehood of Disney's claim of crowd issues- one example to the contrary proves it is false --that is how disproving things works--you don't have to do it over and over. One example of the falsehood of a statement is all it takes to prove that a statement is false. This should not require multiple posts to explain and yet we have had so much irrelevant blather that obviously some people cannot grasp this simple basic priniciple of logic if it differs with their idea of the value of poolhopping.

I'm afraid my opinion is that your criticism and use of words like blather and irrelevant applies to your own posts, throwing up consistency, honesty, and lots of smokescreen examples that aren't demonstrated in facts. Early in this thread, a woman is described as being upset when she tried to drop her kids off at SAB. The no pool hopping at SAB rule has been in effect at SAB since BCV was opened, yet still her vacation experience and probably the experience of others around as she was informed there is no pool hopping at SAB was negative. Constant fluctuation of pool hopping privaledges at SAB would anly lead to more negative scenes like these, it is not worth it, it is not in everyone's best interest, and there is a crowding problem at SAB. That is a fact. Even if there are rare times when the pool is not at complete capacity, or a few rare weeks during the year, resort members should be allowed to enjoy those times and not have to fight for a pool chair every time they try to visit. There may be some slower times. That's wonderful. Use your points at BCV and you to can enjoy those slower times when it is not at complete capacity.

Imagine if you will a world that actually allowed SAB poolhopping. I realize this is so painful for some that you may have to just click away from this thread...but just for a moment let's do a thought experiment if you can bear it---you remember thought?---use your imagination---it starts off really great--You are at WDW!!!

The sarcasm doesn't make or support your weak point, and falls within your earlier criticisms.

But wait!
SAB is crowded! It is too crowded! On most crowded days they know this ahead of time and even at BWV they have put up fence, required ID to enter, kicked out hoppers... etc, but this was a day when SAB got unexpectedly crowded..maybe even because of those pesky poolhoppers....So the pool police go about and ask for all DVC poolhoppers to please leave--we will be doing a room card check in 10 minutes...Those who have not left voluntarily by 10 minutes will be escorted out...let us just say that this situation happens so often that it turns out that goly darn it- they were right..they should have just suspended poolhopping in the first place all the time...

This scenario described of the pool police rounding up poolhoppers is an unpleasant vacation experience I would like to avoid.

So...If it was happening so often what poolhoppers are going to keep doing it?

As we are reading, they are attempting to pool hop now even when the rules are clear. This is not a viable solution.

Poolhoppers like a nice, uncrowded pool experience as much as anybody.... They aren't going to keep going over there if they are getting tossed out all the time (isn't that the idea behind the current rules?) So the current rules were not necessary to achieve the exact same situation IF there is such a blanket need for a ban on poolhopping. So any thinking, logical person has to wonder if other factors might have played a role in the change in rules. The change was completely unncessary to achieve the exact same effect on poolhopping that they have now

This is oblivious to the facts we are seing presented earlier. Even with clear rules, DVC members are attempting pool hopping and causing negative experiences. There are times when SAB should have less crowds and YC, BC, and BCV owners should be able to enjoy those reduced times. Claiming it would have the exact same effect is not a true and honest assessment of the situation. There would be more scenes as we already read about. This ain't rocket science. Long drawn out threads don't change the facts. There is a crowding problem. Clear rules are still difficult for people to follow and be aware of as the woman dropping her kids off before the focus group demonstrated. There is availability at BCV during the 7 month window for any DVC member to make reservations and thus use SAB. And, in my opinion, the SAB restrictions are good ones, I'm glad they were put into effect and I would like to see them constantly enforced. I would like to go to SAB when it is not at full capacity. OKW owners can ask for increased amenities at thier own pools, or use one of the many other pools where pool hopping is available.

So why go to the trouble????? It couldn't possibly be that it helps BCV distinguish itself in the market of DVC properties a little bit more?

Here's the thing, even if this is part of the reason on DVC's part, I'm not in favor of reversing the SAB restriction decision, the crowd problem must be addressed and is paramount. Attaching all these motives doesn't change my mind that this is the correct decision, SAB should be restricted for pool hopping.

To Doc and all the others who have argued with Viking and me and others about this--I grant you it is possible that BCV might strain capacity in such an erratic and unpredictable way that they just have to stop hopping as you think they do....that I have misinterpreted what they are stating is the reason for the change--not that the pool can't handle it but that it can't handle it with any regularity -like in October or January)

Thank you, I appreciate this statement. We probably both have read many posts on this forum of people currently avoiding SAB because of the crowds. If OWK pools suddenly became overly crowded for long durations by people wantingn to swim in a somewhat bland pool without a slide or lifegaurds , inhibiting the OKW vacation experience, I would support restricting pool hopping to OKW. I do not support elliminating this perk everywhere, just because of a few SAB sour grapes. There is a crowding problem too often.

I haven't seen convincing evidence but I am open to the possibility...In fact you go down there for yourself and sit out at SAB the whole month of October and january and you tell us what you see and i will believe what you say....

But now, even before you make such a fact finding mission, can't you possibly see that it might be the other way around...is it impossible that Disney did this mostly to boost sales? I understand you don't think there is convincing evidence that way but Is that absolutely impossible for you to conceive?

Paul [/B]

The bottom line is that if Disney elliminated pool hopping from SAB to address the factual problem of overcrowding and at the same time to boost BCV sales, I'm not in favor of allowing pool hopping at SAB. It is too crowded, too often, even with the pool hopping restriction. People are still attempting pool hopping, trying to break the rules. Regardless, I do not want pool hopping repealed for SAB. It is too crowded, too often, even currently with the pool hopping ban. There are huge waterparks available for water activities throughout WDW. OKW pools may not be as fun. That's part of the OKW resort, that has other compensations. Use your points at the resort where you want to use the amenities. And, I strongly dissagree with the "it should be elliminated everywhere" philosophy, that only further restricts DVC benefits without the slightest possible advantage to any DVC member. If you don't want to pool hop out of principle or SAB being restricted, don't. It's your vacation. Dropping in to swim at the GF, Poly, WLV is a perk I'd like to keep.

 

[RobDoc]

To Doc and all the others who have argued with Viking and me and others about this--I grant you it is possible that BCV might strain capacity in such an erratic and unpredictable way that they just have to stop hopping as you think they do....that I have misinterpreted what they are stating is the reason for the change--not that the pool can't handle it but that it can't handle it with any regularity -like in October or January)

Finally, the concession.

I'll agree with you that there are times when SAB is not at capacity. I'm certain there are entire days in January, December and even October when the pool may not be at capacity. There are also probably moments in July when the pool is not at capacity. Will you also conceed that there may be days in October and January when the pool is at capacity with YC/BC/BCV guests? In order to have a consistent policy, that allows the resort to easily manage the pool for YC/BC/BCV guests, the current policy is the most honest means of accomplishment, IMO. This policy removes all doubt from guests and from CM's at the front desk and pool. Very consistent, very simple to administer.

We've had complaints here many times about use of resort pools by other WDW guests, non-WDW resort guests and locals. This policy also allows the resort to consistently manage that issue.

Regardless, the fact remains that the pool hopping policy (and all other perks) can be changed or removed at any time- without approval by or explanation to members. We all agreed to that when we purchased DVC. To call changes we have all agreed to unfair or dishonest is a bit absurd, IMO.

I'll defend DVC's right to do anything within the scope of the legal agreement they have with me. ... and I'll respond appropriately should they make any changes in violation of that agreement.

I gave my approval for pool hopping to be changed (or eliminated) when I joined DVC. I also agreed that discounts can be changed or eliminated and some have been eliminated. Some discounts have also been added during the 10 years I've been a member...and they also did that without asking for my approval. I signed agreement for DVC to reallocate point charts- within the guidelines outlined in their agreement with me (they also did this in 1996- without asking for my additional approval). I gave my agreement that members can rent accomodations to others. All of these issues were in the legal document I signed at purchase. Perhaps they were omitted from later contracts. If so, you have great reason for concern, complaint and remedy.

I expect that the master bedrooms at all current DVC resorts will always have a King Bed. I expect I will be allowed to make reservations at my home resort 11 months in advance and that I will always have at least a one month advantage over other owners at other resorts in that regard. (DVC chose to set the priority at 7 months, but I already signed agreement that it can change to 10 months.) Should any of these issues be violated, I will vehemently complain, both here and to DVC, and will seek counsel to assist with a legal remedy. That is my right and responsibility.

 

[PKS44]

Apparently I have not said it enough since this issue keeps coming up-and I feel I can speak for Viking and everyone else on this board who has quibbled with this policy change-We agree on the crowding issue. We agree. We agree.

I will even quote one of the defenders of the current policy-
the crowd problem must be addressed and is paramount.

agreed Agreed agreed.

The old policy did that. The new policy changes nothing about crowding. I cannot see how policing the pool EVERY day, during all hours of operation is any different in its ability to create "negative" experiences than the current policy...in fact it may create MORE negative encounters like the lady dropping off her kids and being upset because the current policy is founded on a possibly false premise...it is like Prohibition--people flouted the law and it created a worse situation ad had to be repealed.

Cap'n Midnight-
what you said in saying I was fabricating evidence is insulting and wrong. the crowding situation at SAB is not as you are trying to portray it...there are times it is crowded and no one has ever tried to say otherwise or that BC/YC/BCV guest are not entitled to as great an experience as possible--and yet you keep repeating that mantra as if we are against that--that is the absolute baloney...there are times you cannot find a chair at SAB. yes there are- that is true. Show me where I have said otherwise.. There are also times--lots of times when there are way more chairs than guests...way more...so many that adding in poolhoppers would not fill all the chairs so that the guests would still have a wonderful time at the pool that they above all others should have the priority to use.


As for Doc's specific question about crowds in October---I cannot speak to everyday but I can tell you that I personally have been there during the absolute busiest weekend of October (the golf tournament) and the pool was practically empty on the nicest of days--an aberration? I don't know but strong evidence that the pool has the capacity to handle a slew of poolhoppers during the many weeks of slower times before and after that weekend. If it can be not busy on the busiest time of the slow part of the year would it be busier during less busy times????

Finally-there seems to be as assumption that because Viking and I and others complain that we are saying Disney does not have the RIGHT to make changes like this...again- no way. That is not what we are saying....Disney can do what they want and say what they want and even lie about why they are doing it---(see Character Caravan)---BUt being unhappy and disatisfied with explanations is our right just as they have the right to change all the things Doc mentions...this is not necessarily going to lead to anything other than grumbling here and in the privacy of our own homes...or it may lead others to try to poolhop anyway-like that lady--and she should be prepared to pay the consequences whatever Disney can legally do--I have no problem with that....This is the problem I have with much of what others are saying on this board---Our side has been very consistent in saying that NOBODY's experience should be compromised or lessened--EVER--that is a good goal and any poolhopping should ONLY be allowed so far asit allows for that fundamental rule----the other side does not care to support this fundamental rule--you don't seem to care that somebody's fun is lessened by not being able to poolhop--EVEN IF it has no impact on the YC/BC/BCV guests enjoyment--you don't seem want the poolhoppers to share in the fun---that is how it comes across....if I read you incorrectly then I am as guilty of misreading your points as you are of misreading ours...

If that is the case it comes down to this point about what the capacity of the pool is for what periods of time and we have different perceptions of what that is-- that is something that is measurable-proveable scientifically verifiable...but the experiment will never be done because we cannot know how many poolhoppers would come since they are not allowed. So we will never have all the variables. So we will always be left with our differing perspectives based on what we can see.

Paul

 

[CaptainMidnight]

There are also times--lots of times when there are way more chairs than guests...way more...so many that adding in poolhoppers would not fill all the chairs....

Apparently, your still missing the points made. The chairs should not be full or almost full all the time. Resort guest should have the experience of less crowded times, based on reports on this forum I've read, personal observation during our visits, and my trust in Disney's ability to study the pool use data and make the best decision, SAB is too crowded too often to continue to offer pool hopping more often than it would make sense to make pool hopping available specifically at SAB. OKW guest still have the option of pool hopping at other several other resorts, if they are not content with the OKW pool options. The confusion surrounding long periods of pool hopping blackout like all summer, the communication required to send this message, would not be worth the effort and hassle, as demonstrated by people not being able to understand currently a restriction exists. I trust Disney to make that decision, and I agree with the decision they have made.

I cannot see how policing the pool EVERY day, during all hours of operation is any different in its ability to create "negative" experiences than the current policy...in fact it may create MORE negative encounters like the lady dropping off her kids and being upset because the current policy is founded on a possibly false premise...it is like Prohibition--people flouted the law and it created a worse situation ad had to be repealed.

On this we dissagree. Assuming false premise and mistrust of Disney does not justify or explain her not being aware that pool hopping was restricted at SAB given the extensive communication. One can only guess at the even more ellaborate and extensive communication and additional phone calls that would be reguired if the policy fluctuated, day by day, hour by hour. To what end?

My information and observation says SAB is crowded. Disney would have data to determine specifically. I agree with thier decision. You just want what you want and appear willing to type endlessly towards that end, regardless of making valid points in support of your aurgument. You claimed there was no difference in your approach saying-

the current rules were not necessary to achieve the exact same situation

This is not a true statement. Your method increases pool use, and does not have the same result for YC, BC and BCV guests.

adding in poolhoppers would not fill all the chairs....

It would fill too many of them. BC, YC and BCV guests and owners should be able to use the pools when there is more availability than not all the chairs filled, especially since pool hoppers have many other nice pool hopping options. Pool hoppers inconvenience should be minimal, since they can still choose to pool hop at many other resorts instead of SAB, if they do not choose thier own home resort pool. The crowding problem at SAB is severe enough, and happens often enough (certainly the majority of the summer, christmas and spring breaks by all reports), that long block out periods do not make as much sense as adopting the consistent rule of no pool hopping at SAB, like it or not. Use your points at BCV and enjoy SAB. Choose to pool hop and many of the other resort options if you don't like your resort's pool, there are lots of great pools.

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
Tired of debating the issue so I'll ask you one simple yes/no question then I'm done with this thread ....

Perhaps this earlier post needs revision....

You stay at OKW and can't swim at my pool. I stay at BCV but can swim at yours. Do you think this is fair ?

Respectfully, are you re-reading this question and the maturity of what it is asking? My pool....your pool....fair?

Yes. Given the large crowding problem at SAB more than any of the other pools and the fact that there are still plenty of other pool hopping options if you don't want to swim at OKW, it is a perfectly logical, rational decision, made in everyone's best interest, including OKW pool hoppers who can still go to other resort's pools. It is a fair and balanced decision which I support.

 

[RobDoc]

Originally posted by PKS44
As for Doc's specific question about crowds in October---I cannot speak to everyday but I can tell you that I personally have been there during the absolute busiest weekend of October (the golf tournament) and the pool was practically empty on the nicest of days--an aberration? I don't know but strong evidence that the pool has the capacity to handle a slew of poolhoppers during the many weeks of slower times before and after that weekend. If it can be not busy on the busiest time of the slow part of the year would it be busier during less busy times????

So, you won't conceed that there could be days in October when the pool is at capacity?? ...and you're basing it on your observations from a few hours on one day during the month?

If that is the case it comes down to this point about what the capacity of the pool is for what periods of time and we have different perceptions of what that is-- that is something that is measurable-proveable scientifically verifiable...but the experiment will never be done because we cannot know how many poolhoppers would come since they are not allowed. So we will never have all the variables. So we will always be left with our differing perspectives based on what we can see.

Paul

Disney already has years of data regarding the occupancy for SAB and the effect of poolhooping on that capacity. They also know the relationship of resort occupancy and pool usage. They knew the SAB utilization for BC/YC and can now add in a similar rate with the addition of BCV. They don't need any experiment since they already have the information and have used that information for the current policy. As for the comment "So we will never have all the variables."- "we" have no need or right to know all the variables, just as we have no need or right to know attendance figures for Epcot or sales figures for DVC. If Disney chooses to share that information, that is their right- but there is no requirement that they must justify any decision made.

Obviously, when they do offer an explanation, some refuse to accept it anyway.

 

[ncligs]

Who needs the Debate boards

anymore..............

Doc and Paul please go to your respective corners.....

 

[KNWVIKING]

"Respectfully, are you re-reading this question and the maturity of what it is asking? My pool....your pool....fair?"

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make, but I'll try and clarify my yes/no question.

Every DVC mmber has the same contract with DVC/DVD, correct ?
We all must abide by the same set of rules,correct ?
We are all equal members, correct ?
Pool hopping rules should be no different.

You love staying at OKW, it's the only place you ever want to stay. You also loved an occasional pool hop over to SAB. Now along comes BCV. No more pool hopping to SAB.

I bought BCV,now that's the only place I want to stay, but SAB is to intimidating to me. I want a nice quite pool and a bowl of conch chowder. I know, I'll pool hop over to OKW and have a wonderful day.

You stay at OKW but can't use my pool. I stay at BCV, but can use yours. Is this fair ?

I don't see anything immature about that question. It just cuts thru all the BS and gets to the heart of the matter. Is my DVC membership more valueable then yours ? In order for someone to enjoy a simple dip in SAB now, they will have to do something they may never want to do: Stay at BCV. You own exactly the number of points it took to stay in a GV that you NEED for one week a year.You always took one day to pool hop at SAB during your annual trip. It was your magic,your pixie dust, it made membership magical. Sorry,find something else to do now.Even if you decided to stay at BCV, have no GV's. Even if they did,you need more points.

I'm sorry. I can't make it any more clear then that. If you see nothing unfair about this then I don't know what else to say. Yes, Disney has every right to do what they did. But don't tell me I wanted Charactor Caravan over EE. Don't tell me there's no PH to AKL because of the animals. Don't tell me Disney Visa is a better option then DC. And don't tell me SAB is off limits because it's always crowded. Just tell me the truth and I'll live with it.

 

[CaptainMidnight]

And don't tell me SAB is off limits because it's always crowded. Just tell me the truth and I'll live with it.

OK, truth - SAB is crowded frequently enough, and often enough, during long stretches of seasons, more than any of the other resort pools, and not just for two weeks maximum like other resort pools, especially throughout the summer, SAB was the busiest of resort pools that it was a logical rational decision to elliminate the pool hopping priviledge at SAB.

I also feel confident that there are not a large number of people staying at the BCV's who are pool hopping to OKW due to the desirability of the OKW pools. I'm also confident that SAB was one of the most frequented pools by BWV, OKW and VWL guests for pool hopping. It was too crowded, too often, perhaps not every single day, but so often that restrictions made logical rational sense. It's not a matter of being unfair. Usage patterns have changed as additional DVC resorts are built. It's not a sinister plot. SAB is too crowded too often, ruining more people's pixie dust than the amount of pixie dust ruffled by adding the pool hopping restriction. A decision was necessary to limit the amount of pixie dust impacted. Aparently, yours was impacted.

I don't see the question as cutting through the BS. "It's not fair!" can be seen to fall short of a a rational adult response given the level and volume of discussion in this thread, in my respectful opinion. Whether a BCV person would ever come over to OKW to swim in OKW pools where a crowding problem does not exsist doesn't have anything to do with the need to address the overcrowding at the desirable SAB with the least negative decision that is reasonably implementable as possible. Reducing it to the "my pool...your pool.. it's not fair" level starts to sound like kids on a playground to me, perhaps I'm wrong.

Due to concerns that SAB is too crowded, too often, too many days even if it's not every single day, it was necessary to restrict pool hopping there. You can still get Poly, GF, Contemporary, Wilderness Lodge, Boardwalk and several other resort pool's pixie dust. It's not a Disney conspiracy. It is a fair and balanced decision which I support.

 

[KNWVIKING]

"It is so unbelievably frustrating to see irrelevant and just plain nonsense posted in this thread....."

Wrong poster, Capt'n

 

[CaptainMidnight]

Sorry 'bout that, I corrected it. Thanx.

 

[KNWVIKING]

""It's not fair!" can be seen to fall short of a a rational adult response given the level and volume of discussion in this thread, in my respectful opinion."

It was easier to spell then unequatable.

Okay, deepppp down, do you think the non DVC resorts really like the idea of pool hopping ? Personally I don't think they do. I think Y&B jumped at an opportunity to end it at their resort and DVC didn't fight for us.

As for SAB crowding, I can only state what I've seen. On a weekday in May 2002, we took a side trip from VB to wonder around BC to get a glimps of the soon to be open BCV. We admired the pool,watched a CM snorkle around and clean the bottom while we had a quick bite at the grill. The pool was virtually empty. Earlier I stated what I saw in Oct, actually it was the first week in Nov, (we go this Oct). We stayed at BCV, came back from Epcot on 3 different days and took a quick dip in SAB, again, no crowds, maybe 20-30 people total.We never saw a CM issue a wristband. We wondered by SAB frequently-never saw anything that could even be remotely considered a crowd. We stayed at OKW this May-1st week- and we drive over & park at BCV to get into Epcot. Since we will be staying at Yatch Club this July,we wanted to explore it a little. We wondered by SAB and again there was virtually no one swimming and this May the temp was in the mid 90's every day. So what am I to think when Disney tells me SAB can't support PH due to crowds ?

 

[Deb & Bill]

When I get to the BCV in two weeks, I'm gonna park my car right outside my room. Cause that's what I can do when I stay at OKW.

 

[CaptainMidnight]

Even with the consistent rule that pool hopping is no longer available at SAB, people still don't get it.
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?threadid=386516
The thread above describes how people have to pack up and leave SAB who are not staying at the resort, an unpleasant experience for all. A fluctuating policy that changes day by day is not workable.