Rule Changes ?

[dboules]

I have been offline for a while and just was reading the recently implemented limits on point transfers. It is my understanding that now you can only transfer points or receive transfered points ONCE per use year.

I know of one other rule change that I found out from a renter of my points. Point renters can no longer call member services and confirm their reservation.
Only members can call member services.

Are there any other rule changes that I need to be aware of? Regaring rental in particular.

Thanks,
Diana

 

[browniemtb]

There really hasn't been any rule changes. Its written in the documents about tranferring....its either once in or once out per use year. DVC is just going to try to control and enforce a rule that is already in place. As far as calling MS, you are correct only members can call. I feel this is a benefit to the owner because it should clear up a lot of calls going to MS from non members....quicker response time for us.
Brownie

 

[Dean]

There really hasn't been any rule changes. Its written in the documents about tranferring....its either once in or once out per use year. DVC is just going to try to control and enforce a rule that is already in place. As far as calling MS, you are correct only members can call. I feel this is a benefit to the owner because it should clear up a lot of calls going to MS from non members....quicker response time for us.
Brownie

Actually the written rules changed in 2003 and apparently has changed back. This is not simply an issue of new enforcement of an existing rule. The POS from 2003 and including 2006 did not contain a restriction of one in/one out.

 

[browniemtb]

When we purchased back in January our guide did explain the one in or one out rule to us. I was assuming that it must have been a written fact. Maybe by the time we bought in the rule change was already in motion????
Brownie

 

[Inkmahm]

When we purchased back in January our guide did explain the one in or one out rule to us. I was assuming that it must have been a written fact. Maybe by the time we bought in the rule change was already in motion????
Brownie

We purchased after January this year and got no such explanation. The written documentation says transfers in or out, but not both in one year. That's it.

 

[Doctor P]

Actually the written rules changed in 2003 and apparently has changed back. This is not simply an issue of new enforcement of an existing rule. The POS from 2003 and including 2006 did not contain a restriction of one in/one out.

But it is notable that the language that was used in the 2004 POS at least was not inconsistent with one in, one out. The language said one direction only. IT DID NOT say unlimited transfers in one direction only (at least in the 2004 POS that I have that incorporated a language change, but not one that I would argue was inconsistent with the previous policy but allowed for more latitude).

 

[Dean]

But it is notable that the language that was used in the 2004 POS at least was not inconsistent with one in, one out. The language said one direction only. IT DID NOT say unlimited transfers in one direction only (at least in the 2004 POS that I have that incorporated a language change, but not one that I would argue was inconsistent with the previous policy but allowed for more latitude).

I would disagree. They made a specific change FROM stating one in/one out. They then allowed multiple exchanges in OR out defining that it WAS a change. They also made the change at the same time that transferred points were bankable, they had not been prior. I frankly don't see how anyone can reasonably say it didn't change. If it changed back that's one thing, but to say it never changed is like saying the holocaust never happened.

 

[Dean]

When we purchased back in January our guide did explain the one in or one out rule to us. I was assuming that it must have been a written fact. Maybe by the time we bought in the rule change was already in motion????
Brownie

All POS versions I know of up until 2002 did say one in or one out. In 2003 through earlier this year it had changed to not specifying the number, only in OR out. It is not uncommon that the guides have the wrong info. I'd say it's likely the guide never knew it changed rather than that he had advance warning on this issue.

 

[keys2kingdom]

If it changed back that's one thing, but to say it never changed is like saying the holocaust never happened.

Oh for crying out loud you're comparing a language change in the POS to holocaust denial!! I've respected your arguments in the past but now you've gone too far.

 

[Dean]

Oh for crying out loud you're comparing a language change in the POS to holocaust denial!! I've respected your arguments in the past but now you've gone too far.

Simply pointing out how absurd the argument is to say it never happened. The world impact is different but the leap of faith is the same.

 

[RobDoc]

I would disagree. They made a specific change FROM stating one in/one out. They then allowed multiple exchanges in OR out defining that it WAS a change. They also made the change at the same time that transferred points were bankable, they had not been prior. I frankly don't see how anyone can reasonably say it didn't change. If it changed back that's one thing, but to say it never changed is like saying the holocaust never happened.

Do you have the specific language in the POS where DVC defined that multiple exchanges (I assume you really meant to say transfers?) were allowed? The POS I have from 2003 did NOT specify any number of transfers at all. The ONLY change was that the original limit of one was not specifically mentioned. Please quote where multiple "exchanges" ... or transfers ... were even mentioned in your POS. It's also sort of a moot point anyway since DVC has apparently changed the wording back to it's original status as they are allowed in the POS.

It's hardly worth a comparison to the Holocaust though, even if you're desperately trying to call something absurd, IMO.

 

[Dean]

Do you have the specific language in the POS where DVC defined that multiple exchanges (I assume you really meant to say transfers?) were allowed? The POS I have from 2003 did NOT specify any number of transfers at all. The ONLY change was that the original limit of one was not specifically mentioned. Please quote where multiple "exchanges" ... or transfers ... were even mentioned in your POS. It's also sort of a moot point anyway since DVC has apparently changed the wording back to it's original status as they are allowed in the POS.

It's hardly worth a comparison to the Holocaust though, even if you're desperately trying to call something absurd, IMO.

Your right, I did intend to say transfer, my mistake. And you're wording of absurd is likely better than my example. It may have changed back, we haven't seen the POS in writing to document that, we shall see. The wording prior to 2003 was one in or one out. The wording from 2003-2006 simply said one could transfer in OR out but not both. The wording could not prevent multiple exchanges in ONE direction without a rule change. Then they backed it up by allowing multiple exchanges but only in one direction. I don't think one can reasonably argue that it didn't change nor that the change still meant one in or one out. One could easily argue that it has changed back given the evidence presented.

 

[Jeremy&Susan]

I frankly don't see how anyone can reasonably say it didn't change. If it changed back that's one thing, but to say it never changed is like saying the holocaust never happened.

I think somebody is taking this topic a bit TOO seriously.

Next time in Disney, ask Minnie for a big hug.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I'd like to see all the threads about this topic "morhped" into one. This place is getting as cluttered as MS must have been getting!

 

[Oreo Cookie]

I'd like to see all the threads about this topic "morhped" into one. This place is getting as cluttered as MS must have been getting!

 

[Dean]

I think somebody is taking this topic a bit TOO seriously.

Next time in Disney, ask Minnie for a big hug.

OK, I'm there next week on an exchange.