Fastpass Enforcement coming?

[origin62]

My only problem with that is that there hasn't been much in the way of evidence that it was overused and warranted correction. Far more of the, "See, they are changing it so therefore it must have been abused!" statements from some here on the boards, as if that could be the only reason. Which makes it less obvious as a reason. Not discounting it completely, though. It's just in my mind, given all of the evidence, statements, etc. of what's been said over the past several months, the most likely explanation is that xPASS is the driving force behind it.

doconeill, you are determined, I'll give you that!

 

[nytimez]

A lot of people once thought that it was obvious the world is flat.

More gibberish disguised as analogy, I see. Yes, this is exactly like Doc believing the world is flat. Excellent point.

 

[doconeill]

You're saying that because more people (from your count) on boards think its one thing and not another, that constitutes evidence? I was talking about actual evidence.

The amount of people stating their opinion have nothing to do with how obvious the reason is. A lot of people once thought that it was obvious the world is flat.

Either is possible, and the amount of people pushing their pure conjecture for one or the other isn't evidence that either is true.

I didn't say that. However, that information - from various sources, not just these or other discussion boards - is taken into account. But you said the other "obvious" reason is that there was overuse of the Fastpass system - based on what several people said on the boards.

By your standards, were have zero evidence of overuse of late FPs that I have seen. But there is evidence that a new system is coming, because Tom Staggs said so, and you can't get more "horse's mouth" than that.

 

[doconeill]

doconeill, you are determined, I'll give you that!

Determined to do what, exactly? Pass along information that is available?

 

[vacationclub]

I didn't say that. However, that information - from various sources, not just these or other discussion boards - is taken into account. But you said the other "obvious" reason is that there was overuse of the Fastpass system - based on what several people said on the boards.

By your standards, were have zero evidence of overuse of late FPs that I have seen. But there is evidence that a new system is coming, because Tom Staggs said so, and you can't get more "horse's mouth" than that.

I don't know who Tom Staggs is since and you didn't reference him in the post I responded to, or explain who he is above. But my standards would be that if Tom Staggs says a new system is coming... that doesn't mean Tom Staggs (whoever that is) says it has anything to do with the FP enforcement. Again, no direct evidence there....just conjecture, as if one is directly related to the other, and that makes it more obvious. Unless you're saying this person says the FP change is due to the new system coming.

But if a system is allowed to run beyond its originally stated intention, and then the owners of that system revert to the originally stated operational intentions, I think one logical conclusion can be that something they did (allowed people to return late) may have been reason for changing it back. And one could also conclude that the problem of people returning late, at anytime they wish, could potentially get to a level at which the owners of the system determine its no longer feasible to continue to allow it. Had there not been any person named Tom Staggs, or the term Xpass to discuss, I think that would be the primary hypothesis for sudden enforcement of a system that wasn't enforced before.

So, in other words, we have the exact same amount of real evidence for either possibility.

 

[nytimez]

I don't know who Tom Staggs is since and you didn't reference him in the post I responded to, or explain who he is above.

But if a system is allowed to run beyond its originally stated intention, and then the owners of that system revert to the originally stated operational intentions, I think one logical conclusion can be that something they did (allowed people to return late) may have been reason for changing it back. And one could also conclude that the problem of people returning late, at anytime they wish, could potentially get to a level at which the owners of the system determine its no longer feasible to continue to allow it. Had there not been any person named Tom Staggs, or the term Xpass to discuss, I think that would be the primary hypothesis for sudden enforcement of a system that wasn't enforced before.

So only Tom Staggs, who you never heard of, is allowed to provide relevant data to the discussion?

This pretend stuff is crazy!

 

[doconeill]

I don't know who Tom Staggs is since and you didn't reference him in the post I responded to, or explain who he is above.

But if a system is allowed to run beyond its originally stated intention, and then the owners of that system revert to the originally stated operational intentions, I think one logical conclusion can be that something they did (allowed people to return late) may have been reason for changing it back. And one could also conclude that the problem of people returning late, at anytime they wish, could potentially get to a level at which the owners of the system determine its no longer feasible to continue to allow it. Had there not been any person named Tom Staggs, or the term Xpass to discuss, I think that would be the primary hypothesis for sudden enforcement of a system that wasn't enforced before.

Tom Staggs: Chairman of Disney Parks and Resorts, who announced that there would be the new system to "reserve" ride times in advance.

And had there not been another system announced, and all the rumors for months about enforcement coming and always tagged with "because of the upcoming system" (and those rumors generally started with Disney insiders), and the enforcement part of the rumors being proved true leading to a high likelyhood the other part of the rumor could also be true, and all that, if it had NEVER been known, and the enforcement order came down, then it would have left the only other known possibility, regardless of how unlikely in general, as being the most likely.

 

[nytimez]

Tom Staggs: Chairman of Disney Parks and Resorts, who announced that there would be the new system to "reserve" ride times in advance.

Speaking of analogies... this is like finding out that a guy who's been doing commentary on a baseball game doesn't know who the players are.

 

[vacationclub]

Tom Staggs: Chairman of Disney Parks and Resorts, who announced that there would be the new system to "reserve" ride times in advance.

And had there not been another system announced, and all the rumors for months about enforcement coming and always tagged with "because of the upcoming system" (and those rumors generally started with Disney insiders), and the enforcement part of the rumors being proved true leading to a high likelyhood the other part of the rumor could also be true, and all that, if it had NEVER been known, and the enforcement order came down,

You said the key word. Rumor.

then it would have left the only other known possibility, regardless of how unlikely in general, as being the most likely.

A weird collection of words there, but what you seem to say is that, indeed, the other possibility, were it not for the rumor, is "the other only known possibility."

We're right back where we started. Two possibilities. One based on rumor. One based on logical conclusion about why FP enforcement might take place absent of that rumor. Other than speculation on boards and rumors, no direct evidence for either reason exists. A new system has been announced for the future. We don't know if that is a actual reason for FP enforcement.

I'm not saying one or the other is or isn't true, I'm simply saying at this point, there is no actual evidence.

 

[Wadecool]

Speaking of analogies... this is like finding out that a guy who's been doing commentary on a baseball game doesn't know who the players are.

 

[magicbob]

Also, I'm not accusing you of doing what suits you when you know what's actually expected. You're advocating/admitting that yourself.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. No one using a late FP was just "doing what suited them." We did it because it "suited" Disney to allow late entry. We were acting in accordance with Disney's accepted practice. A practice that Disney put into place themselves. Disney was not required to accept the FP, but they did because it suited them to do so.

Let me try one more analogy.

EPCOT opens at 9:00 am. That is clearly Disney's policy as evidenced by the hours posted on the website and on the signage outside the park. For years, Disney let guests into the park before 9:00 am. We made our way all the way to the fountain and enjoyed a little show. Then we made our way to Soarin' for FPs and got there ahead of all the people who showed up at 9:00 am. Most guests didn't know they could arrive early because it wasn't published "policy." We clearly enjoyed an unfair advantage by exploiting a loophole. The park hours are clearly posted, so those entering early for RD MUST have been breaking the rules.

Disney recently did away with rope drop at EPCOT. CLEARLY, Disney must have decided to stop the rampant abuse of people just doing what they want and showing up early to the parks despite the fact that Disney's intent that they wait until 9:00 am to enter is obvious.

It doesn't matter that Disney allowed us to enter early or even that they put on a little show to welcome the early-comers. I say it was not published policy, therefore it MUST BE PUNISHED!

 

[nytimez]

We don't know if that is a actual reason for FP enforcement.

You keep saying "we." Are you presuming to speak on behalf of everyone, or are there lots of people over there? Are some of them just voices?

Alternatively, I suggest you stop using "we" when referring to what YOU don't know.

 

[doconeill]

You said the key word. Rumor.


A weird collection of words there, but what you seem to say is that, indeed, the other possibility, were it not for the rumor, is "the other only known possibility."

We're right back where we started. Two possibilities. One based on rumor. One based on logical conclusion about why FP enforcement might take place absent of that rumor. Other than speculation on boards and rumors, no direct evidence for either reason exists. A new system has been announced for the future. We don't know if that is a actual reason for FP enforcement.

I'm not saying one or the other is or isn't true, I'm simply saying at this point, there is no actual evidence.

I said rumors that enforcement was coming. They turned out to be true, so they are no longer actually rumors. They happened to include a reason, which although not confirmed by anything also were not denied either, which could still be considered a rumor, but with a high likelyhood of also being true.

I dispute saying that the overuse of late FPs is a logical conclusion at this point. It MIGHT have reached that status if there was no other reasons on the table, but it still wouldn't necessarily have been the only reason - perhaps someone just decided to enforce them for no reason other than they wanted to? That's still a possibility too, but I admit it's the least likely of the bunch.

You keep saying "no actual evidence", but there isn't any actual evidence supporting that it was done for overuse, either. Therefore it is also left in the "rumor" bin.

 

[origin62]

It doesn't matter that Disney allowed us to enter early or even that they put on a little show to welcome the early-comers. I say it was not published policy, therefore it MUST BE PUNISHED![/QUOTE]

Yes, it must! As of 3/7 you are stripped of your privilege, evildoer!

 

[KellyNY]

Conspicously missing from Disney's website is any statement prohibiting using FP after the window. Here's the exact verbiage:

Please keep in mind:

1 •FASTPASS tickets are only valid on the day of issue.
2 •Everyone in your party using the FASTPASS ticketholder entrance must have a FASTPASS ticket.
3 •There's a limit to the number of FASTPASS tickets you may have at one time. On your ticket will be printed the time at which you can get your next one. Disney's FASTPASS Service machines won't issue another ticket until the time stated on your current one.

They list specific limitations/requirements such as each rider MUST [emphasis added] have a FP ticket, FP tickets are ONLY [emphasis added] valid on the DAY [emphasis added] of issue, etc. They could have easily added one more bullet that states "FP MUST be used within the window printed on the ticket." But for SOME reason, they chose to omit this from their list of restrictions. hmmmm....

So, may I ask again, what is the reason for return window? I am sorry but I do not see that just because thay did not put "return only" or "must be used during" lines on FP, return window somehow loosing its meaning.
Other specifications you pointed out have nothing to do with that but address questions visitor might have,

1. FP valid today, you cannot use it 2 days from now even so 3pm-4pm happens every day.
2. FP is individual pass, everyone must have it.
3. No, you cannot get another FP right away.

You want to tell me people would not ask those questions if they would not be printed?
When to return however is clear, you have no questions here when you look at your FP.


Interesting enough by looking at those Q/A and comparing them with Operational Reminders you can see contradictions.

You can have ONE LESS FP,
You can enter FP line IF YOU MISS THE WINDOW

So the very language of Operational Reminders suggests exceptions. You MISSED YOU WINDOW, meaning you were suppose not to but for whatever reason you missed it. They do not say, look at time and as long as it is not early, let person in, they suggest you missed your window.

So, was late FP allowed, yes, based on exception, could I use one less FP, yes, based on exception, was I meant to do it, no, it was just an exception.

So, setting aside any feelings you have, and your need to justify and defend yoursef, which really not needed because moral issue seems to bother only you and few other people here but definitely not me, and looking at this objectively, did you follow intended rules or did you follow exceptions?

 

[vacationclub]

You keep saying "no actual evidence", but there isn't any actual evidence supporting that it was done for overuse, either. Therefore it is also left in the "rumor" bin.

EXACTLY. I've said neither has any actual evidence. Both are equally possible. Full circle, again.

 

[origin62]

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. No one using a late FP was just "doing what suited them." We did it because it "suited" Disney to allow late entry. We were acting in accordance with Disney's accepted practice. A practice that Disney put into place themselves. Disney was not required to accept the FP, but they did because it suited them to do so.

Disney allowed late entry as a practice because it was easier to do so than to argue with Guests all day at the FP return queue. That does not change the fact that their intention was/is for guests to return when designated.

And you were/are doing exactly what suits you. Disney asks that you return at a certain time, but you prefer to come back when it's convenient for you. How is that not doing what suits you? The only reason they allowed late arrivals was to avoid conflict, not because they wanted you to return late.

I think we can both state "the facts" as we see them. You and I just don't agree on how to apply them.

 

[nytimez]

And thus, nobody really knows why yet. (at least nobody posting here).

How do you know what others know? You don't even know who Tom Staggs is.

Again, please speak only on behalf of yourself.

 

[estherhead]

Someone mentioned as an analogy the cable company.

My parents had this happen with the water company. They moved in 15 years ago and got their first water bill. It was the minimum $6.00 with no usage. So my mom called and said, "Hey, we got our bill & you didn't charge us usage." The water company said, "Yes, your meter is broken and we're going to change them out soon so instead of wasting money putting a new one in for you right now, we're just waiting." Well "soon" turned into years that they weren't charged usage. This doesn't make my parents selfish. It didn't ruin other people's water bills. It didn't mean my parents don't follow rules.

They did eventually get around to changing out the meters and my parents got their first usage bill in years. Were they bummed? Sure. But that was it. They paid the bill and have continued.

I do think this is a good analogy. It wasn't convenient for Disney in the past to enforce the return time. It didn't mean that people were rule breakers or selfish for coming back after that time. And now it is convenient for Disney to enforce the return time. Do people have a right to be bummed? Sure. But just like my parents knew if they didn't pay the usage, their water would be disconnected, the sad people know if they come after the return time is over, they won't get on the ride.

Consequences almost always define our actions whether we like to admit it or not. If we didn't believe we'd get skin cancer, who would waste time putting on sunblock? If we didn't believe we'd get a ticket, who would follow the speed or wait at red lights? Or start drinking only at 21? Or join Weight Watchers?

 

[KellyNY]

How do you know what others know? You don't even know who Tom Staggs is.

Again, please speak only on behalf of yourself.

Are you suggesting you actually KNOW?