New DVC Rent/Trade Board option - 4/18/11

[mac_tlc]

So, basically pay 199.95 and you're now allowed to do the spec renting of peak times...

This is the feature of the new policy that troubles me the most. Granted, there are other places to rent/trade and you could grab a peak time and rent it there, but at least the DIS discouraged it. Now it's discouraged but for $200, I'll change my position.

mac_tlc

 

[Mike2023]

The same as before. As it states on the membership plan page:

"DISboards will not intervene in any issues resulting from these private transactions. Purchase of these membership plans do not gain the endorsement of the DIS in any way."

This is the part that I think is going to give the DIS trouble down the line. As soon as someones ripped off by someone with the membership the dis is going to be in a bit of hot water.

The dis will be holding the contact information of the member,,, will they turn it over? Also can be seen as profiting off of a fraudulent transaction.

 

[JimMIA]

This is the part that I think is going to give the DIS trouble down the line. As soon as someones ripped off by someone with the membership the dis is going to be in a bit of hot water.

The dis will be holding the contact information of the member,,, will they turn it over? Also can be seen as profiting off of a fraudulent transaction.

You asked this question earlier on page 1 of this thread.

 

[Mike2023]

You asked this question earlier on page 1 of this thread.

Indeed I did, I also missed your reply.

You bring up a good point about the Dis "walking a fine line in doing the right thing and keeping out of a dispute".

I think the issue is now that they have taken payment, its going to be near impossible to stay out of the dispute.

I agree that there is no obligation for the dis to step in and provide information, but I believe they could be targeted in a lawsuit by anyone who feels that they have been taken advantage of.

I am just saying that I would hate to be this DIS is this situation. If and when it ever happens.

 

[JimMIA]

Indeed I did, I also missed your reply.

You bring up a good point about the Dis "walking a fine line in doing the right thing and keeping out of a dispute".

I think the issue is now that they have taken payment, its going to be near impossible to stay out of the dispute.

I agree that there is no obligation for the dis to step in and provide information, but I believe they could be targeted in a lawsuit by anyone who feels that they have been taken advantage of.

I am just saying that I would hate to be this DIS is this situation. If and when it ever happens.

You can't just ask someone who has access to certain information. The question of releasing any info a website provider has on a individual subscriber is a legal privacy issue. Not only as a matter of policy, but probably as a matter of law, I'm sure they would not release any information without the appropriate court process (subpoena)...not even verifying the person has registered with the site.

Even law enforcement has to use subpoenas.

 

[Mike2023]

You can't just ask someone who has access to certain information. The question of releasing any info a website provider has on a individual subscriber is a legal privacy issue. Not only as a matter of policy, but probably as a matter of law, I'm sure they would not release any information without the appropriate court process (subpoena)...not even verifying the person has registered with the site.

Even law enforcement has to use subpoenas.

I think your missing my point.

 

[JimMIA]

I think your missing my point.

No, I get your main point -- which is that the DIS could get sued by someone who felt they'd suffered some damages on the R/T board. That's obviously true, but it's true whether the DIS charges or not.

I was just responding to the privacy part of your posts

 

[CarolMN]

No, I get your main point -- which is that the DIS could get sued by someone who felt they'd suffered some damages on the R/T board. That's obviously true, but it's true whether the DIS charges or not.

I was just responding to the privacy part of your posts

Mike2023 and JimMIA or anyone -

How is it different from the classified ads in a newspaper or the ads in a magazine? Newspapers take money for listings / ads and I do not recall hearing about any lawsuits against the newspaper when the parties involved don't agree or have a problem. The parites sue each other not the magazine or newspaper.

Anyone can try to sue anyone for anything - at least so it seems, but really, I don't think this is a huge concern for the DIS owners.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Actually just last week an internet site Match.com, which matches personal info with those looking for "dates" was sued. A woman was raped and is suing the website because they didn't investigate this patron's background. They had previous criminal convictions.

Mike2023 and JimMIA or anyone -

How is it different from the classified ads in a newspaper or the ads in a magazine? Newspapers take money for listings / ads and I do not recall hearing about any lawsuits against the newspaper when the parties involved don't agree or have a problem. The parites sue each other not the magazine or newspaper.

Anyone can try to sue anyone for anything - at least so it seems, but really, I don't think this is a huge concern for the DIS owners.

 

[lilpooh108]

Posters registered on the DIS for a minimum of 6 months and in good standing may purchase the ability to offer up to 3 existing reservations per year and those reservations may be more than 30 days before arrival. The cost for the Premium Plan is $199.95 .
[/i]

The other parts of the new plan makes sense, but encouraging spec renting is very disappointing.

 

[JimMIA]

How is it different from the classified ads in a newspaper or the ads in a magazine? ...

Anyone can try to sue anyone for anything - at least so it seems, but really, I don't think this is a huge concern for the DIS owners.

I tend to agree with you, but I'm not a lawyer. I assume someone's lawyers have looked at the wording of the various disclaimers and changes to the logos and feel those are sufficient.

But I also share Mike2023's concern for the DIS and don't want to see bad things happen. Obviously the imposition of the post-count policy seriously impacted the viability of the R/T Board. We'll just have to see whether the paid access is sufficient to restore the R/T Board to its former activity levels.

 

[LoveToDisney]

....but encouraging spec renting is very disappointing.

I definitely agree. Hate to see spec renting encouraged at any price!

 

[WDWBlue]

I think there has been enough data to prove the existing posting over 6 months policy isn't working for most people on Disboards.

The people really losing out are the renters. Members are no longer able to provide competition, or at least readily available alternatives.

 

[WDWBlue]

Those wanting a higher level of participation (3 existing reservations and more than 30 days ahead) have that option at this time by purchasing the Premium option.

Clearly, this will encourage speculative reservations and renting, thus harming the garden variety DVC member who only seeks to use his time share for his personal use.

 

[WDWBlue]

•Premium Plan - This option allows members to bypass the restriction of having a minimum of 50 non-Rent/Trade board posts (that contribute to discussions on the DIS forums) evenly spread over the last 6 months. In addition, Premium members will be allowed to post up to 3 existing reservations outside of the 30 day window. Includes an icon under your DISboards profile.

Paid DVC Rent/Trade Premium Membership ◦$199.95 per year - For existing DISboards members that have had their DIS User name for at least 6 months.

So, a huge change in philosophy? Speculative renting is now approved by the DIS?

 

[WDWBlue]

No, I get your main point -- which is that the DIS could get sued by someone who felt they'd suffered some damages on the R/T board. That's obviously true, but it's true whether the DIS charges or not.

I was just responding to the privacy part of your posts

But when they sell a stamp of approval, they become much more involved. You can't really claim you're an ignorant party the the claim.

 

[Inkmahm]

The logo includes the comment "Paid Membership" which should provide some information about the level of participation.

Those who display the "DIS Lifetime Supporter" logo in their profile or signature are included at the Gold level. They will not need the "Gold" logo as the mods will see the "Lifetime" notation.

Cool! But something tells me that those of us with the "lifetime" notation are probably the ones who post enough to use the R/TR board for free anyway.

Still, I like the idea of letting people pay to use the board if they don't otherwise qualify. The board was looking pretty dead so maybe this will bring it back to life.

 

[JimMIA]

But when they sell a stamp of approval, they become much more involved. You can't really claim you're an ignorant party the the claim.

The DIS's counter-argument would be that they are, as Carol explained above, simply providing a marketplace. They're allowing classified ads in much the same way a newspaper does. They are not a party to the transaction.

Now, obviously, if someone sued they would attack that argument, trying to draw a distincition between the paid and unpaid listings. And that could get interesting...possibly even hilarious, if they approached it right. I don't know if a plaintiff could prevail, but they sure could have some fun.

Realistically, however, nobody's likely to sue anyone over a DVC rental. It has nothing to do with the facts or law -- the transactions are simply not large enough to merit a lawsuit. It would cost more to sue than you could hope to collect.

 

[WDWBlue]

The DIS's counter-argument would be that they are, as Carol explained above, simply providing a marketplace. They're allowing classified ads in much the same way a newspaper does. They are not a party to the transaction.

Now, obviously, if someone sued they would attack that argument, trying to draw a distincition between the paid and unpaid listings. And that could get interesting...possibly even hilarious, if they approached it right. I don't know if a plaintiff could prevail, but they sure could have some fun.

Realistically, however, nobody's likely to sue anyone over a DVC rental. It has nothing to do with the facts or law -- the transactions are simply not large enough to merit a lawsuit. It would cost more to sue than you could hope to collect.

You're exactly right, it would cost more than it's ultimately worth for sure.

But selling the rights with a badge of approval would clearly come into play, if one was to see the utility in such a suit.

It's the punting of the ethics for a payoff that's most troublesome.

The stance has long been that speculative renting harmed the everyday DVC owner, and indeed it did. But now, for a payoff, the DIS chooses to encourage the activity that will harm the masses. And clearly, a speculative reservation is commercial by its nature, something too that DVC prohibits.

 

[RobDoc]

The stance has long been that speculative renting harmed the everyday DVC owner, and indeed it did. But now, for a payoff, the DIS chooses to encourage the activity that will harm the masses. And clearly, a speculative reservation is commercial by its nature, something too that DVC prohibits.

The DIS is the only internet forum for DVC rentals I know of with any restrictions regarding the rental of existing reservations. We have not allowed any more than 30 days ahead for a number of years now - and none have been offered yet as a result of any changes in policy. In fact, the "everyday DVC owner" has the same opportunity to make a reservation as any owner who chooses to rent reservations - whether 11 months ahead or 1 day ahead. DVC has no "stance" that renting (speculative or otherwise) harms any other owner. DVC itself is actively involved in the rental of DVC reservations - both thru MS and DRC.

DVC expressly allows the renting of reservations - speculative or not. DVC makes no differentiation between speculative/non-speculative reservations and, in fact, there is no mention of the word "speculative" in the POS. The ability to rent reservations is clearly spelled out in your POS and "commercial" is something that DVC itself will need to address as that is not defined in any way although there has been some suggestion that DVC will flag accounts with more than 20 reservations per year and look into whether they are "commercial" or not. I have never seen anything in print from DVC defining "commercial" however and we have never had a report of any member being sanctioned for "commercial" renting.

I'd suggest sending your comments and your opinion about "speculative" and "commercial" reservations to DVC since it is their responsibility to enforce their own policies. Please let us know what response you receive from DVC and what actions they plan to take as a result of your concerns.