Do a search, in this thread only, for any posts with my username and find anywhere where I said anything was at risk other than concurring that non-concierge guests should not be taking advantage of concierge benefits. While you're at it, find a place where I was judging others because they wanted to bring their non-concierge family/neighbors/friends into an area they haven't paid for. I'll wait. I'm pretty non-judgmental by nature. It comes with having been a background investigator for a goodly portion of my professional life, but the other part of that past is the willingness to call it like I see it oftentimes. No judgment. Just matter-of-factness based on my observations.
I've actually tried to insert levity where applicable. I can't help it. It's just what I do. But I do take issue with non-concierge people getting concierge benefits. There's a reason concierge passengers pay concierge prices and it's much the same reason first class passengers pay first class prices. Less crowding, more benefits. Again, no judgment. Just matter-of-factness. I can't help it. It's just what I do.
If somebody is not in concierge they should get concierge benefits. If the concierge hosts decide that they want to, and can, break/bend/spindle/mutilate/otherwise defer the rules then by all means, that's their prerogative, but if it becomes a habit of concierge guests to try and go around the rules, don't be surprised if one day that ability to finagle non-concierge guests into receiving even a minimum of concierge benefits goes the way of the dodo.