If you prefer the old system because it works better for you, then just come and say that. There's nothing wrong with self-interest. Hiding behind a smoke-screen of fairness & level playing field rhetoric is what I object to.
If one is truly interested in fairness, the idea that DVC would inform some members of information that guarantees them booking advantages over another member is simply too basic to even argue over. Unless one is more interested in preserving the sanctity of the "old" system and therefore can't admit that there could have possibly been any problems with that at all. Because some here are more interested in bringing back the "old" system than in looking at anything objectively, I don't expect to change any minds.
Now if it suits your purposes for the sake of argument, you may think of me as a lyin' Zach or a lazy member who SHOULD have sought out information from web-sites or mailmen or whatever, but in 8 years and almost 3 dozen reservations, MS has never mentioned DBD to me, though I can see from this thread they have mentioned it to many others.
Fair? Objectively no, but if I needed to defend the old system I would do as you have and shift the burden of blame from the system to the member in the classic political maneuver to see if it deflects the basic point.
Okay, obviously we are not arguing the same point.
Whether or not I want the old system back is irrelevant to the discussion about Fairness. However, I do want it back, not because it would be more beneficial to ME, but because it was fair for ALL members. All members had the same opportunity, just because someone didn't know it or not use it doesn't mean it's not fair. (I only booked DBD once and I didn't feel the need to do it over and over again. Most of the time I called 11 mths from my final check out date.) There was no need to walk any reservation at any length.
Now the new system does not afford this same fairness. We cannot determine which date would make it so that we all have equal chance to call. When someone walks it makes it even more complicated.
I don't understand your insinuation that I implied that those members who didn't research further is lazy. I do not think that at all. I know everyone is different. I wouldn't consider myself lazy if I decided that I will find out what I need to make the reservation and nothing more. These things may not be that important to me. I certainly am not too lazy to find out. And I would not imply anyone is. I think you misunderstood my point here. People choose the amount of info they want, there's nothing wrong with getting just enough info you need nor is there anything wrong with someone who chooses to do extra research. And I may have been annoyed that I didn't know about it before, but again, it is irrelevant to whether something is fair or not. As someone had posted before, the guidelines show "checkout date". I will admit that I, myself, was not clever enough to figure this out. But that doesn't mean it's not fair for me.
I believe we are approaching this subject from different angles. But I clearly do not agree that I, or anyone who believes in my definition of fairness, is clouded by our desire to get the old system back. I will admit that I do. But again, this has nothing to do with whether it's fair or not.
As a response to your last paragragh, would you not admit that if one didn't know about DBD and one didn't like the fact that other members used this method, one would be more inclined to find fault in the old system and any argument to the contrary would be futile. And one would welcome a change no matter how problematic it may be. I, too, do not expect to change minds.
)
I for one will be hoping DVC powers that be see the error of their ways BEFORE I want to book concierge again!
