Occupancy Thread

[Dean]

Originally posted by Desperado
Great point, it certainly addresses all this discussion of room occupancy as requirement for trade purposes.

Sorry, but 5 in a one bedroom shouldn't be that big a deal, those so insistant that it is such top priority are missguided IMHO. We certainly stay 5 in a hotel suite at Embassy suites, etc. It's a matter for members and ms to work out together for thier individual reservations, not the business of those advocating big government style intervention in to private family vacation comfort. MS knows what they are doing and working to take care of families and provide the famous service we purchased.

Interesting how you think other members have no right to ask DVC to enforce the written rules, especially since you want them to make up rules AND enforce them when it comes to renting. It's also interesting that you don't seem to want people to post about the occupancy issues on the "Occupancy Thread", at least if it disagrees with your views. If I felt as strongly as you seem to think I do about this issue, I'd contact DVC and demand they enforce the rules.

And to be clear, it's certainly my business if the rules are being violated, to say otherwise is very liberal. As noted earlier, I could care less about 5 in a studio or a 1 BR but the problem is that if you stray from the actual rules, there are no rules.

 

[CVW]

Originally posted by Dean
If I felt as strongly as you seem to think I do about this issue, I'd contact DVC and demand they enforce the rules.

The problem is, Dean, you did. No, none of us were privy to the conversation. But even in that post (which I enjoyed immensely, by the way) you said that the officials were "surprised".

They did seem surprised that the guides, front desks and MS were being so lax with the issue though, so don’t be surprised if there are changes in the future.

It's difficult to imagine a conversation where you did NOT express your displeasure to DVC about occupancy. Own your feelings.

I'm not even saying those feelings are wrong. Tattling is not always a bad thing. Maybe in the end, I will have a better vacation next year if pplasky leaves one of her triplets home. But it's difficult to make the case without using third and fourth order syllogisms. It's too much of an abstraction for me to care.

It's a bit like that kid in high school at the end of history class who blurts out, "Teacher! You forgot to give us homework!" He's right. She did forget. Maybe their education hangs in the balance of that homework assignment. Or maybe it was the simple principle (which seems to be where you're coming from) that rules are there to be followed. Homework is not an option. No, he did not "demand" that she "enforce the rules". But it's parsing language. (Like asking what the definition of "is" is.)

As for me, I'd hightail it out of the classroom and claim I never heard any of it. It served me reasonably well.

By the way, your feeling that I took "shot" was I hope assuaged by my previous posts. It was meant with good humor. I have always, always respected your opinion. (In fact, I had once considered a signature that read: "Get a good wife and great kids: check; Finish school and have a nice career: check; Know as much about timesharing as Dean: still workin' on it.")

I've read probably a couple hundred of your posts. You seem to take your posts very seriously, much to the benefit of all of us. But I'm sure there's a sense of humor hiding somewhere deep inside there. Belly up, and grab some nachos.

 

[Doctor P]

I reiterate: we're not talking about rules, we are talking about contractual elements and declarations. There is a big difference, IMHO.

 

[lenshanem]

Well said CVW.

 

[idratherbeinwdw]

I am all for following rules most of the time, I don't believe in anarchy. BUT come on, IMO, putting 5 people in a 1 bedroom is really not worth getting your dander up about. It really does amaze me that anyone would waste energy on something so trivial.

I am sure Disney is quite aware that the occupancy rules are bent on occassion. As a previous poster said, they have to go by the rules of most time shares, but they look the other way to accomodate their guests. When Dean called to inform the powers of be of this practice and they expressed surprise, that's to be expected. What do you think they'd say "Oh yes we know all about that but we ignore it"? Chances are they said the right thing to appease him, but they darn well knew before he called.

I doubt anything will change, as there's no way to prove how many people are in a room. Someone mentioned that Disney would have to know, because you can't sneak anyone in in a suitcase. Well of course not, but who's to say that everyone in the party is standing at the desk at check in? It's easy enough to have some people waiting off to the side and meet in the room later. I can't imagine Disney sending in "Occupancy Police" to look in everyone's room! They better not, this is America, not Iraq!

And btw, just so you know, there are 3 people including me in my party, so I am not posting this as one of those who put more than the alloted people in one room. It just seems mean spirited to follow every rule to the letter of the law. And no, I am not saying put 10 in a studio. But one more person than the official "allowance" is such a small thing that it amazes me anyone cares so much.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by lenshanem
Well said CVW.

Agreed.

I reiterate: we're not talking about rules, we are talking about contractual elements and declarations. There is a big difference, IMHO.

Yes, and to be honest none of us are probably qualified to unequivocally state what those contractual elements and declarations mean. Even the lawyers among us aren't. Check any major corporation.....they have entire departments dedicated to contracts and their evaluation. No contract is ever as black and white as it appears, and different valid legal interpretations of the same language always exist. (FYI - I work in one of those contracts departments )

So what's my point? Glad you asked. My point is that DVC and their duly assigned representatives are the sole arbiters of what those contractual elements and declarations mean........not us. As such, those representatives take, or don't take, reservations as deemed appropriate under DVC's legal interpretation of the contract. DVC's legal interpretation....the only one that matters. I think it is a foolish assumption to think that MS representatives are taking reservations that their superiors are unaware of. As evidence I submit the apparent fact that they no longer take reservations for 5 in a studio (assuming everyone is 3 or older) when they used to. DVC knows what they are doing. Yes, as an owner of a real estate interest in DVC any member has a right to express his or her opinion as to whether the decisions DVC has made are appropriate. That being said, I think anyone who attempts to push DVC so that they won't take a reservation for 5 in a 1BR needs to take a pill and chill .......but it is their right.

Bottom line: People should be honest about their party size and if DVC takes the reservation it doesn't matter one lick whether anyone around here thinks it is appropriate or not. Any further discussion is just noise.

(ps........I'm not likely call the occupancy police on anybody either, even if I'm following the rules, as I just don't pay that much attention to what other people are doing when I'm enjoying my vacation )

When Dean called to inform the powers of be of this practice and they expressed surprise, that's to be expected. What do you think they'd say "Oh yes we know all about that but we ignore it"? Chances are they said the right thing to appease him, but they darn well knew before he called.

I suspect you are right. It's like when you are headed down the highway at 70 in a 65 and Mr. State Trooper pulls you over. "Excuse me, do you know why I pulled you over?" he sternly askes. "Why, no officer.......was I doing something wrong?".............

 

[laceemouse]

Originally posted by Dean
And most 2 BR units now trade for 6 through II even if they sleep 8.

Dean is correct (as usual!) We own another T/S that we trade through RCI, and they are ALL listed as to how many max and then how many to have PRIVACY! The 2 bedrooms at DVC, like most of the 2 bedrooms we have stayed at, would be listed as 8max/6priv (or something of the sort.) If you have a bunch of kids, or a bunch of girlfriends, this would not make much difference. But it would be tough to have, say, 4 couples in one. I don't know about you guys but DH and I don't want anyone else sleeping in our bedroom on a trip or at home, well sick kids may be the exceptions The studio would only sleep 2 for privacy, and the one bedroom 4. As far as putting 5 in a studio, again, if it is a kid not many people would care, but what about putting 6? What about 6 adults? The issue here is really do the rules mean anything? People will always break them, and I don't really lose sleep over that, but the idea that guides and MS TELL people that the rules don't matter is a different story IMHO.....Lacee

 

[Regina]

This thread continues to go off in other directions.

Since keeping to the topic seems to be a challenge, let's put this one to rest.

Thank you.