Since when does member Services dictate how our points can and can't be allocated?

[Ksp]

LisaS - I'm not sure I understand what you mean by master contract - if I tell you about mine, can you let me know if I'm understanding you correctly?

In our contracts, my first contract (master contract) is at BCV; our 2nd and 3rd add ons were at SSR - both of these add ons have the same base number with a decimal point and numbers (01, 02) after the decimal point.

Would that make my BCV contract my one master contract then?

 

[LisaS]

LisaS - I'm not sure I understand what you mean by master contract - if I tell you about mine, can you let me know if I'm understanding you correctly?

In our contracts, my first contract (master contract) is at BCV; our 2nd and 3rd add ons were at SSR - both of these add ons have the same base number with a decimal point and numbers (01, 02) after the decimal point.

Would that make my BCV contract my one master contract then?

Yes. If all of your contracts have the same base contract number, the one with the .000 extension is the master and the ones with .001, .002, etc. are "add ons" to that master.

 

[Ksp]

Yes. If all of your contracts have the same base contract number, the one with the .000 extension is the master and the ones with .001, .002, etc. are "add ons" to that master.

Gotchya - Thanks!

 

[mydogdrew]

I did not read all the posts but a solution could be to book a ressie 11 months out (that you don't anticipate using) to protect those points and book the 7 month ressie with what's left. Then cancel the 11 month. That will teach them.

 

[Tom and Jen]

I have not read every post in this thread, but do have a couple of experiences recently that have made me very very unhappy with this new system.

Let me start by saying a few years ago we had a situation of having multiple reservations all within a years time, but extending over multiple use years. At one point had banked into one year a portion of points and borrowed back to make another vacation. to make a long story longer, ultimately my records still ended up having me with current use year points unused, so I attempted to bank them. Well the CM told me that all I had left was borrowed points that had to be used. (I had a reservation that was shortened.) I made the point that banked and borrowed points should be used first in a reservation. The points I then had left over were current use year points, therefore could be banked. After a couple of minutes, she agreed that it made sense and took care of it. No big head ache or anything...CM used judgment and sense.

now...... just about 2 months ago, I tried to make a short reservation for this use year. (disclosure: we have no current use year points, and a reservation that uses most of next years points) Now this leads to borrowing. I sought to borrow points to make the reservation, so I began by borrowing from 2 yrs out into next years use year, to apply those points to next years reservation, and then attempted to borrow from next years reservation into this year for this upcoming stay........earrrrrrrrrrrt!! go the brakes!!!

You cant do that...! You have no points available.... you cant borrow from 2 years out....! the CM the proceeded to say you cant decide what points to use for your reservations and a bunch of other, what seemed to be canned answers, reasons.......not too friendly I might add.

Soooo I have begun to lose faith in this great program we bought into. I a limited program... offering great perks, It seems it has grown into mass housing for guaranteed stays, and a bureaucracy of service cutbacks. (hey... I go on vacation to get out of Massachusetts.. what the heck? )

ok just vented a minute....

 

[UConnJack]

I sought to borrow points to make the reservation, so I began by borrowing from 2 yrs out into next years use year, to apply those points to next years reservation, and then attempted to borrow from next years reservation into this year for this upcoming stay........earrrrrrrrrrrt!! go the brakes!!!

You cant do that...! You have no points available.... you cant borrow from 2 years out....! the CM the proceeded to say you cant decide what points to use for your reservations and a bunch of other, what seemed to be canned answers, reasons.......not too friendly I might add.

Of course, if you had first borrowed next year into this year, emptying next years points, then called back to borrow 2 years out for a reservation next year, nothing would (should) have stopped you. Goes back to Carol's point that these "rules" are stupid and can be easily worked around "within the rules" proving how stupid they are.

I think the computer system is designed for the lowest common denominator, people who own one contract. I don't think it has been designed to handle complex points usage between multiple contracts, and to be honest, it would probably be too difficult and buggy to design the system to automatically handle every possible combination of points usage (especially considering their track record with computer systems.) As long as they are willing to make the reservations manually, then fine, but for them to start placing "restrictions" on the points usage just because its too difficult or they can't get their heads out of their **** seems so obviously against the contract.

I currently only own one contract, so this doesn't affect me yet, but I do plan on adding on at some point. At his point, I can't decide whether its easier to have separate contracts or single one. Something similar did happen to me with transferred points, however. I didn't want to borrow points from next year for a stay this year, so I rented/transferred points into my account. I made the reservation, but found out later that the computer still borrowed the points and left the transferred ones untouched. I called back and they manually changed it, not knowing why the system did that. I'm glad I'm anal about double checking my reservations.

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

Do the same people program the Disney hotel reservations system and the DVC reservation system? I've had real issues with reservations at the hotels - again stemming from inflexible programming issues.

Disney customer service values don't seem to apply to the people who run Disney computers. Apparently they're allowed to program the computers to do anything they think is ok, and then call it the "system", as if that makes it somehow sacred. This isn't the first time I've encountered this kind of arrogant attitude from CA's forced to defend a poorly designed Disney computer system.

We bought into DVC home resorts for a home advantage reason. These are our points - they don't belong to a lazy or ignorant computer programmer!

 

[jemiaule]

Disney customer service values don't seem to apply to the people who run Disney computers. Apparently they're allowed to program the computers to do anything they think is ok, and then call it the "system", as if that makes it somehow sacred. This isn't the first time I've encountered this kind of arrogant attitude from CA's forced to defend a poorly designed Disney computer system.

We bought into DVC home resorts for a home advantage reason. These are our points - they don't belong to a lazy or ignorant computer programmer!

Speaking as a developer I really must comment. Believe it or not in a situation like this I do not feel the programmer is fully to blame for this inflexibility.

Out there somewhere at Disney is a group of project managers who decided what they wanted out of a computer program. They told the developers what they wanted it to do, whated they want it to look like, etc.

The developers then went out and built the product to those specifications. They tested it, looked for bugs and made sure it worked to specifications. But there are always bugs that will be found later during day to day operations. Like this one.

But saying a programmer is lazy and/or ignorant for this problem is really placing blame on the wrong people. Unless the programmers were DVC owners themselves, the likelihood of them realizing this issue in development would have been pretty low - obviously.

Who do I think is to blame? The people who spec'd out the project initially as well as the people who now do not escalate this issue and have management approve to get it fixed.

I honestly do not think there is some lazy programmer, twiddling his thumbs somewhere refusing to fix the issue or did a half-@$$ job to begin with.

What we all really should be doing is pestering MS to death, asking to speak to manager, writing letters and emails and demanding the issue be fixed and be fixed now. Maybe then the manager who needs to rubber stamp their approval will get off their patootie and get the issue to programming to be fixed.

I have worked for Disney as well and know for fact that nothing gets done until it has been blessed by multiple layers of management. If they say programming won't/can't fix it...it most likely means no one has approved it yet to be done.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

Speaking as a developer I really must comment. Believe it or not in a situation like this I do not feel the programmer is fully to blame for this inflexibility.

Out there somewhere at Disney is a group of project managers who decided what they wanted out of a computer program. They told the developers what they wanted it to do, whated they want it to look like, etc.

The developers then went out and built the product to those specifications. They tested it, looked for bugs and made sure it worked to specifications. But there are always bugs that will be found later during day to day operations. Like this one.

But saying a programmer is lazy and/or ignorant for this problem is really placing blame on the wrong people. Unless the programmers were DVC owners themselves, the likelihood of them realizing this issue in development would have been pretty low - obviously.

Who do I think is to blame? The people who spec'd out the project initially as well as the people who now do not escalate this issue and have management approve to get it fixed.

I honestly do not think there is some lazy programmer, twiddling his thumbs somewhere refusing to fix the issue or did a half-@$$ job to begin with.

What we all really should be doing is pestering MS to death, asking to speak to manager, writing letters and emails and demanding the issue be fixed and be fixed now. Maybe then the manager who needs to rubber stamp their approval will get off their patootie and get the issue to programming to be fixed.

I have worked for Disney as well and know for fact that nothing gets done until it has been blessed by multiple layers of management. If they say programming won't/can't fix it...it most likely means no one has approved it yet to be done.

I do agree, somewhat

but lets be honest, the programming taking place at Disney is quite lacking.

from the MS booking issues to the online features, it is all lacking and its not just a matter of complex situations not being accounted for. It mostly has to do with what is already in place not working properly.

I dont think they are lazy, I just think they are generally not that good. It doesnt matter how many layers of management you have to go through, once you get through them, someone has to be able to complete the job correctly

the online system has been completely worthless for quite a long time.

 

[LisaS]

I agree with jemiaule. The software will only be as good as the specification that was given to the development team. Not to say developers don't make mistakes but it's quite likely this problem is the result of either an inaccurate or incomplete description of the required functionality.

The earlier mistakes are caught, the cheaper they are to fix. Ideally, you want to catch them in the specification phase. DVC should hire Caskbill as a consultant to review their specs to see if the rules are spelled out completely and correctly. If they don't have any money to hire a consultant, maybe they could pay him with developer's points.