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

[CarolMN]

Is there consideration being given towards re-introducing "Reservation Wanted" threads in some shape or form for posters who either meet the minimum posting criteria - and/or - pay to post?

Thanks,
Zebsterama

Sorry, but no, not at this time.

 

[JimMIA]

Sorry, but no, not at this time.

Carol, it might be helpful if someone would explain the "WHY" of the discontinuation of the Reservation Wanted and Transfer Wanted threads. I took a stab at it above, but I was just guessing.

I think if people understood the rationale behind some of this, there'd be less concern.

 

[zebsterama]

I think the mods are trying to control things by controlling the input of the points by owners through the post-count or paid qualifications. If they allow someone to post their needs, any poster could respond to those, which becomes a free-for-all and would render the controls in place useless.

Hi Jim,

It's very likely missing that I'm missing someting .

IF I'm a poster who meets the appropriate minimal posting criteria, i.e. I'm someone who does the 8+ posts per month over a 6 month span - or there's a fee for use available for this function then why does it matter if I'm posting a 'Points Available' or 'Reservation Wanted' thread? How is one more managable than the other as far as the moderators are concerned?

I'm hoping you can give me an example. Again I'm likely missing something.
Thanks!

Cheers,
Zebsterama

 

[Mike2023]

I think Jim was referring to controlling the points that are being rented. If someone posts a reservation wanted thread, nothing is stopping anyone from getting in contact with that person. In this instance, there would be no restrictions placed on the renter. Having no restrictions on someone who is offering points for rent would most likely lead to an increased amount of fraud. Secondly, under this new pay system, it would also reduce the amount of revenues for the DIS, but is most likely not a factor as webmasters have stated this is not a money making venture for them.


Jim is just making an educated guess as to why this particular restriction has been put into place. But, as Jim has pointed out, none of the mods really seem to eager to talk on the subject.

 

[CarolMN]

.......If someone posts a reservation wanted thread, nothing is stopping anyone from getting in contact with that person. In this instance, there would be no restrictions placed on the renter. Having no restrictions on someone who is offering points for rent would most likely lead to an increased amount of fraud. ....(snip).......

Many here would be very surprised at the number of people who feel entitled to take advantage of the DIS Community to gain a financial advantage for themselves. It is much more difficult for the scofflaws to operate now that the Reservation Wanted and Point Transfer Wanted threads are gone.

We mods get that the changes make it less convenient for the "buyers". It should become less so as the traffic picks up - the new pay-to-play options are allowing more "sellers" to post their offers.

 

[ldo]

I understand the "no reservations wanted" theory. But, I do not understand the no "transfers wanted" rule. This would be between DVC owners, rather than unsuspecting renters, plus points transfers can't be cancelled and are controlled by the member once the transfer is made.
Again, I am betting that not one single DVC owner has had a problem with a points transfer. Why can't the moderators post a poll and see if any "points transfer wanted" posting has EVER resulted in a problem/misunderstanding/fraud? If moderators are not willing to do this, it seems that "protecting against fraud" is not really the main concern.
OK--moderators, why can't we do this? If there are not posts of problems, then let us keep the "transfer wanted." There is a huge difference in a rental and a points transfer. There is only 1 transfer in/out, not something someone does for a comercial basis. Isn't disboards for dvc owners to help each other? Taking this away is not helping at all. Elaine

 

[RobDoc]

...Again, I am betting that not one single DVC owner has had a problem with a points transfer. ...

What are you betting?

 

[JimMIA]

Again, I am betting that not one single DVC owner has had a problem with a points transfer.

I'll take that bet -- how much? Be daring!

 

[JimMIA]

What are you betting?

Darn it Doc, if I hadn't put the stinking smilie in, I'd have beaten you to it.

Tell you what, I'll split the action with you!

 

[Mike2023]

I understand the "no reservations wanted" theory. But, I do not understand the no "transfers wanted" rule. This would be between DVC owners, rather than unsuspecting renters, plus points transfers can't be cancelled and are controlled by the member once the transfer is made.
Again, I am betting that not one single DVC owner has had a problem with a points transfer. Why can't the moderators post a poll and see if any "points transfer wanted" posting has EVER resulted in a problem/misunderstanding/fraud? If moderators are not willing to do this, it seems that "protecting against fraud" is not really the main concern.
OK--moderators, why can't we do this? If there are not posts of problems, then let us keep the "transfer wanted." There is a huge difference in a rental and a points transfer. There is only 1 transfer in/out, not something someone does for a comercial basis. Isn't disboards for dvc owners to help each other? Taking this away is not helping at all. Elaine

Actually, I understand why the dis may shut out points transfers over anything else.

"Club Members are expressly prohibited from receiving compensation for engaging in any Transfer activity."

While renting points is clearly within members rights, receiving compensation for transfers is prohibited.

Why the DIS has a problem with it now versus before is anybody's guess.

 

[RobDoc]

Darn it Doc, if I hadn't put the stinking smilie in, I'd have beaten you to it.

Tell you what, I'll split the action with you!

It took you 5 minutes to add a smilie????

 

[JimMIA]

I understand the "no reservations wanted" theory. But, I do not understand the no "transfers wanted" rule.

If I can be serious for a moment, if you understand the theory of one, you understand both. There is really no difference between the two. They're one and the same -- the recipient of the points/reservation is the one soliciting offers.

Anyone -- legitimate or not, approved or not -- can respond by PM or email to either type of posting. Which means they can bypass the control system and arrange rentals even if they are not approved.

IF the mods have decided that they need to restrict rentals on the R/T board (and they have), restricting the folks providing the points/reservations is really the only thing they can restrict.

If the mods set up criteria for offering points/reservations, but allow ads both ways, the crooks (or those who don't want to pay $25) simply bypass the system and respond to "Reservation/Transfer Wanted" threads.

On the bet, make it easy on yourself -- say $1,000 each for Doc and I?

 

[JimMIA]

It took you 5 minutes to add a smilie????

I had to select the perfect smilie.

 

[JimMIA]

Again, I am betting that not one single DVC owner has had a problem with a points transfer.

Okay, we won't take your money. Not because Doc and I are great guys, we're just afraid of the DIS getting closed down for Internet gaming!

Read this thread: Sad Story

The OP was a victim of fraud in a transfer. A thousand pages or so into the thread, there is another transfer-fraud victim. There were also several rental fraud victims.

Isn't disboards for dvc owners to help each other?

In addition to being a cautionary tale, the Sad Story thread is also one of the best examples of the DIS community rallying together to help each other -- from DISers offering good wishes to the owner of The Timeshare Store offering to make the victims whole from his own personal DVC points. In fact, I think the thread is more remarkable as an example of "community" than it is of fraud.

 

[going/again]

While renting points is clearly within members rights, receiving compensation for transfers is prohibited.

commercial renting is not , yet people who are and have clearly done so, are now paying to be allowed to do this, so wrong on many levels

 

[RobDoc]

commercial renting is not , yet people who are and have clearly done so, are now paying to be allowed to do this, so wrong on many levels

"Commercial renting" is a term commonly thrown around on this and other DVC forums, but it is not something that specifically appears in the POS documents.

Renting (leasing) is clearly and expressly permitted in Exhibit "F" - the Condominium Rules and Regulations of Disney Vacation Club at Walt Disney World Resort, a Leasehold Condominium.

Section 5 - Leasing of Vacation Homes - describes the nature of anyone occupying a villa at a DVC Resort and spells out the terms that must be followed by the renter (same terms of use as the member) and also discusses the rental agreement to be used. If a rental agreement is not used, it describes that the renter will still be subject to all rules and policies of the Condominium as already agreed to by the member and DVC may even require the renter (or guest) to sign such document. There is no language of any sort about "commercial" in Section 5 of exhibit "F".

Section 1 - Personal Use - does discuss the personal (rather than "Commercial") use of the property - meaning that the villas cannot be used as a barber shop, real estate office or any other sort of "commercial" enterprise - they are only to be for "Personal Use". However, there is a discussion of "Commercial Purpose" which is the verbage often used and confused by many as "Commercial Renting" when discussing the rental of DVC villas. Here is the exact quote from the 5/93 DVC Public Offering Statement:

"Personal Use. Each of the Vacation Homes shall be occupied only as vacation accommodations. Use of the accommodations and recreational facilities of the Condominium is limited solely to the personal use of the Owners or Cotenants, their guests, invitees and lessees and for recreational uses by corporations and other entities owning Ownership Interest in a Unit. Use of Vacation Homes and recreational facilities for commercial purposes or any other purpose other than the personal use described herein is expressly prohibited. "Commercial Purpose" shall include, but not be limited to, a pattern of rental activity by a Cotenant that the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice. No Vacation Home in any Unit may be divided into a smaller Vacation Home."

The portion describing "Commercial Purpose" is that which many describe as "Commercial Renting" and then apply their own standard for its meaning. The DVD and DVC Board(s) of Directors have the responsibility to define and then enforce "Commercial Purpose" and, to my knowledge, have never published that definition. There have been a few who have described some contact by DVC regarding "Commercial Purpose", but no widespread notice has been sent to the membership. I have seen reports that 20 rentals in a year will trigger some response by DVC and others have reported some contact for a lesser number of reservations. I am not aware of any punitive action ever having been taken, although its entirely possible it still could have occurred and the recipient has just failed to report the outcome publicly on the internet.

I would urge any/all Members with concerns about "Commercial Purpose" (or "Commercial Renting") to voice that concern to DVD/DVC since they are only ones with the responsibility and authority to enforce their own definition, whatever that may be.

 

[JimMIA]

Again, I am betting that not one single DVC owner has had a problem with a points transfer.

I don't think the changes have anything to do with fraud issues. If there had been some problematic rentals/transfers, we would have heard about it here...and we haven't.

I think Carol gave us as much of an explanation as we're going to get:

Many here would be very surprised at the number of people who feel entitled to take advantage of the DIS Community to gain a financial advantage for themselves.

To me, that indicates that fraud was not the problem -- commercial renters were.

I'm assuming that commercial renters were using PMs and emails to respond to Reservation Wanted and Transfer Wanted threads, thereby diverting customers away from DIS members who offer rentals and David's Rentals, the paying sponsor of the R/T Board.

I may be incorrect, but absent an official explanation of the specific problem the mods are trying to correct, that's what I'm going with.

 

[zebsterama]

If the mods set up criteria for offering points/reservations, but allow ads both ways, the crooks (or those who don't want to pay $25) simply bypass the system and respond to "Reservation/Transfer Wanted" threads.

I think perhaps a few persons missed an important part of my original question/argument when it comes to this issue.

Please let me paint the scenario:

WHAT if I ZEBSTERAMA paid $25.00 to DISboards to post a Reservation Wanted thread? Then instead of receiving the $25 from a potential points holder, DISBoards recieves their $25.00 from me instead.
- I get the points I want to rent
- A DVC member rents their points to me (per my choosing, via my due diligence)
- DISboards gets their $25.00.

Today -- it works the same way, only the other way around.
Today, I can respond to any 'Points for Rent' thread anytime - PM the person renting - etc. and I don't have to pay the $25.00. In this case, to coin a phrase , I'm "the crook"; either way one of the two parties will always be "the crook".

All I'm saying is if DISBoards gets their $25 for my post - what does it matter from which end of the transaction it comes from?

In truth, I have a feeling that something else is happening behind the scenes that we're obviously not privy to - because IMO the counter argument is illogical; if DISBoards is now in the business of charging a few $$ for posting, simply stated, this is (without question) a revenue losser for the board.

- Administratively there is no difference.
- Risk to renters, or those renting the same as before.
- Breaking/not breaking DVD rules – not an issue - same as before.

I don't see how it would be possible for DISboards to not want to earn more revenue at no additional cost to them - hence the reason I believe that 'something else is up with this.'

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Zebsterama

 

[CarolMN]

.........(snip)......WHAT if I ZEBSTERAMA paid $25.00 to DISboards to post a Reservation Wanted thread? Then instead of receiving the $25 from a potential points holder, DISBoards recieves their $25.00 from me instead.
- I get the points I want to rent
- A DVC member rents their points to me (per my choosing, via my due diligence)
- DISboards gets their $25.00......................

Just as a point of discussion, why would zebsterama want to pay to post a Reservation Wanted thread?

I get that it's convenient to post and wait for others to respond, but would it actually be worth $25? Zebsterama would still have to do due diligence on the owner(s) who responded and choose one. Wouldn't it be just as easy to pick a thread (or two), do the due diligence, pick one and not pay $25?

Plus, since replies to an existing thread can be made by any user that is logged in, zebsterama would probably have to do "extra" due diligence on those with no posting history to review.

Having trouble believing anyone would choose to pay $25 just to avoid browsing the R/T Board for offers, especially since so many looking for a DVC rental seem very price sensitive.

 

[palaemon]

Just as a point of discussion, why would zebsterama want to pay to post a Reservation Wanted thread?

I get that it's convenient to post and wait for others to respond, but would it actually be worth $25? Zebsterama would still have to do due diligence on the owner(s) who responded and choose one. Wouldn't it be just as easy to pick a thread (or two), do the due diligence, pick one and not pay $25?

Plus, since replies to an existing thread can be made by any user that is logged in, zebsterama would probably have to do "extra" due diligence on those with no posting history to review.

Having trouble believing anyone would choose to pay $25 just to avoid browsing the R/T Board for offers, especially since so many looking for a DVC rental seem very price sensitive.

I agree that Zebsterama wouldn't want to pay. The point, I believe, is this:

If I want a specific reservation/transfer, I'd rather sift through offers than click on a post - hope it's still available - and PM or reply. What do I do? Offer on one, and wait for a reply, then offer on another and hope it's still available if the 1st one wasn't?

I understand that anyone can reply to a post, and I understand that I'd likely get a bunch of offers from DISers that have low posting counts, but I'd still like the option - even if that option must be a paid one.

It's about convenience and choice.