Point Transfer Rules - Changed AGAIN?

[tkmcw]

OK, looks like DVC has changed the rules AGAIN!

And, in the usual fasion, they are keeping the transfer rules to themselves instead of publishing to the members.

As of last summer/early fall the policy was unlimited transfers in any one direction, if you transfered both ways (in and out) you could only make unlimited transfers in ONE direction (your choice), and the other direction was limited to one.

Now it appears the rules have changed (effective 30 October, I think) to only allow transfers (unlimited) in ONE direction. You no longer have the option of transfering in once out many, or out once in many.

I wish they would just PUBLISH the policy and any updates to the paid MEMBERSHIP. As it is, you only have a 50/50 chance of getting a rep who REALLY knows the rules. Can't blame them since they keep changing!

Venting complete....feedback or tricks welcome!

 

[disneyberry]

tom, please take a look at the link in my sig. i typed up the latest (that i know of) official rules from the Multi-Site POS.

AFAIK, it has always been one direction only. i have only heard of one or two exceptions to the rule where a member has reported being able to do both directions.

HTH.

 

[tkmcw]

Thanks for the link.

I agree with the quotes from the current POS. That is all that it is written--for the members. I intend to dig mine out (1996, 2003) and see what it says.

What I was referring to is the policy actually being implemented, which equates more to the unofficial guidance in the second section. Actual practice seems to have varried from the POS due to training shortfalls, improper guidance, or just a simple lack of enforcement.

Regardless, last year I went out of my way to ask about transfer rules nearly every time I called MS. As many have pointed out, I got 9 answers from 8 CMs--and often provided more answers than I was given. But I did consisitently get the explanation above that (one in, many out) or (many in, one out) was permissible. I even had one CM read me his reference material (not the POS) verbatim. We then analyzed it together and agreed that (one in, many out) or (many in, one out) was what it said. I executed many transfers last year, both in and out. I have encountered many members that have done the same.

A manager today told me that in addition to the CM reference update (Oct 03), they have "reemphasized" transfer guidelines. The bottom line is that MS now appears to be enforcing the POS more consistently.

I suppose I should just be happy that I was able to get around the POS last year, instead of mad that they are now sticking to the policy!

 

[JohnnyII]

Thanks Disneyberry,

That was awesome!

-John

 

[LuvnMickey]

OK, I'm feeling really stupid. Is point transferring that same as banking and borrowing, or something else?


LuvnMickey

 

[tkmcw]

Banking and borrowing refers to the transfers within YOUR account between use years.

The point transfers we are referring to here are about transfers of points between you and another person (or yourself if you have more than one membership). In other words, putting your points in someone else's account or their points into your account.

 

[LuvnMickey]

Thanks tkmcw!

It's nice to have people here who can answer these questions for us relative newbies.


LuvnMickey

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by tkmcw
Thanks for the link.

I agree with the quotes from the current POS. That is all that it is written--for the members. I intend to dig mine out (1996, 2003) and see what it says.

What I was referring to is the policy actually being implemented, which equates more to the unofficial guidance in the second section. Actual practice seems to have varried from the POS due to training shortfalls, improper guidance, or just a simple lack of enforcement.

Regardless, last year I went out of my way to ask about transfer rules nearly every time I called MS. As many have pointed out, I got 9 answers from 8 CMs--and often provided more answers than I was given. But I did consisitently get the explanation above that (one in, many out) or (many in, one out) was permissible. I even had one CM read me his reference material (not the POS) verbatim. We then analyzed it together and agreed that (one in, many out) or (many in, one out) was what it said. I executed many transfers last year, both in and out. I have encountered many members that have done the same.

A manager today told me that in addition to the CM reference update (Oct 03), they have "reemphasized" transfer guidelines. The bottom line is that MS now appears to be enforcing the POS more consistently.

I suppose I should just be happy that I was able to get around the POS last year, instead of mad that they are now sticking to the policy!

I think you'll see the 1996 says one in OR one out. the 2003 will say what disneyberry has quoted. I haven't gotten a POS in a while, but what I've been hearing even since the change was only ONE directiion but unlimited. If someone told or allowed you otherwise, they were in the wrong. There has not been an option of In and out in the same USE YEAR ever that I'm aware of.

 

[tkmcw]

Again, I agree that this is the official, written interpretation.

However, that is NOT what was being quoted in my calls to MS last year.

Regardless, it appears they are now more consistently enforcing the written rule--for better or worse is a matter of opinion.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by tkmcw
Again, I agree that this is the official, written interpretation.

However, that is NOT what was being quoted in my calls to MS last year.

Regardless, it appears they are now more consistently enforcing the written rule--for better or worse is a matter of opinion.

My experience has been that the CM at MS are well versed in the usual issues and not at all reliable with tricky questions like this one. I have no doubt you were quoted that. Past reports on this board put about 5 or 6 different interpretations from MS on this issue. But I can assure you that if you had transferred in one direction, you would not have been allowed to go the other way in the same use year, even last fall when you were told otherwise. So it's not an issue of changing the rules, it's simply an issue of training for MS personel. Members should learn that just because MS or a guide says something, does not mean it has any relationship to the truth. That's why I like email as I can back up what I was told. It has saved me on more than one occasion with DVC.

And any time DVC shows willingness to stick to the rules consitently is a good and unusual day.

 

[tkmcw]

Dean,

You missed my point. I WAS allowed to tranfer both ways in the same use year--multiple times by multiple cast members. Furthermore, it was supported by guidance issued to the CMs.

I certainly know that just because a CM says it's true, that doesn't make it "the official rules." That is why I specifically verified it with multiple people and had them read their guidance to me (verbatim) from their screen or whatever it is that they use. It did not agree with the POS. The way it was written, it allowed for transfers in multiple directions.

It IS an issue of them changing the "unofficial" rules because whatever source they were quoting and using that allowed me to do the multiple transfers was written that way. I agree that this guidance did not match the POS, which we all know is the LEGAL bottom line. However, if they are using something else in PRACTICE as CM guidance then whatever they are using becomes the "practiced rules."

It is this guidance (and CM training) that appear to have been tweaked so as to align it more closely with the policy as written in the POS. Overall, I agree with your statement that any time they stick to the LEGAL rules it is a good thing. It is examples like these when they VARY from the policy that people come to expect it. For example, allowing guests to use Member Discounts. Reemphasizing the written policy on this issue may upset more people than the transfer issue I was referrring to!

The bottom line in all of this is:

Either stick to the rules or don't, but if they don't they should advertise the practices they will be allowing. For example, when I asked for a copy of the guidance that discussed the transfer allowances, it should have been provided to me. Instead I was told that it is in the POS, which they weren't following.

Anyway...on to bigger and better things!

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by tkmcw
Dean,

You missed my point. I WAS allowed to tranfer both ways in the same use year--multiple times by multiple cast members. Furthermore, it was supported by guidance issued to the CMs.

I certainly know that just because a CM says it's true, that doesn't make it "the official rules." That is why I specifically verified it with multiple people and had them read their guidance to me (verbatim) from their screen or whatever it is that they use. It did not agree with the POS. The way it was written, it allowed for transfers in multiple directions.

It IS an issue of them changing the "unofficial" rules because whatever source they were quoting and using that allowed me to do the multiple transfers was written that way. I agree that this guidance did not match the POS, which we all know is the LEGAL bottom line. However, if they are using something else in PRACTICE as CM guidance then whatever they are using becomes the "practiced rules."

It is this guidance (and CM training) that appear to have been tweaked so as to align it more closely with the policy as written in the POS. Overall, I agree with your statement that any time they stick to the LEGAL rules it is a good thing. It is examples like these when they VARY from the policy that people come to expect it. For example, allowing guests to use Member Discounts. Reemphasizing the written policy on this issue may upset more people than the transfer issue I was referrring to!

The bottom line in all of this is:

Either stick to the rules or don't, but if they don't they should advertise the practices they will be allowing. For example, when I asked for a copy of the guidance that discussed the transfer allowances, it should have been provided to me. Instead I was told that it is in the POS, which they weren't following.

Anyway...on to bigger and better things!

I'm in agreement with you that DVC should stick to the rules whether it be transfers or occupancy limits. You must have been caught in that time they were changing it. It was very clear that MS had no clue what was going on at that time. You'd get a different answer every single time you called. But still, the written rules have not changed except as we've stated.