I"ve never seen so many threads on sharing

[Lewisc]

Actually the analogy is near perfect. K-Mart relied on the honesty of their customers to ring up every item. Disney is relying on the honesty of their guests not to use child credits for adult meals. K-Mart initially didn't have a system to check up on their customers honesty. Disney doesn't currently have a system to check up on their customers. K-Mart had to add a system to check and most of us think Disney will wind up having to take actions to separate credits.

Disney has always said children must order from the kids menu. Disney has always charged less for "child credits". Disney is now saying child entitlements can't be used to purchase adult meals. Pooled credits and Disney's accounting system is a red herring. The rules and policy is crystal clear.

All of your points refer to enforcement not to what's allowed.

Sorry, but not even close as an analogy. Disney, not I, provides the pooled credits. Disney, not I, accepts payment with the pooled credits. Disney can't fix this just by saying don't use child credits for adult meals. There are no child credits, there are no adult credits, if Disney doesn't want them being used as pooled, then they, not I, must separate them.

Let me try an analogy that I stated before. Disney decides to put in it's brochure that you will now only get a snack every other day. Crazy, but as it's been said, they have the right to change the plan. Now Disney doesn't want to spend the money or time and effort to change the computer program. So you show up for your eight night stay and are given 8TS, 8CS, and also 8 snacks. When you question this your told, ya that's the way it is, the program hasn't been changed yet. Well it's not your obligation or responsibility to just use 4 snacks because the brochure says so when you've just been given 8 by Disney. When you get that 5th snack on so on, and it deducts payment from your DDP, that's Disney's issue for not fixing their systems. The brochure change should have happened if and when the credits are separated.

 

[Muziqal]

Gosh, here's a great example of intellectual misdirection. What I said was that until recent times, the vast majority of guests were indeed trustworthy.

Folks: Please read what you're replying to before you reply to it.

= he doesn't have any clue how he came up with that so he's not going to answer. Rather, he'll pick apart your post.

Answer the question, Bicker. You love to claim the world is more dishonest and untrustworthy than it has ever been, yet you have never proven your claims. It would be nice, for once, if you didn't evade.

 

[minnie61650]

This was posted on the resorts board in the last 2 days.

http://disboards.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=13693215

Resorts still making all guests in one room check in together?

I am going during the free dining, and my niece will be joining us, but will not arrive with us. I asked the CM who called POFQ to double check, and was told not to worry about it. We are paying a room fee as well as for 6 days of passes for her. There would be no benefit to us to "make her up".

1) Yes there would!
2) You could use her tickets another visit.
3) Her dining "coupons" would then be available this trip for you and family.
4) Trust me, this is happening A LOT.
5) This is the reason for the rule of all being present.
6) If not all there, they could check you in, but not allow dining plan.
7) Since the dining is free, you are not "out" any money.


NOTE: When they had free dining previously, they found a lot of people with virtual families, so they could get more free food. They would buy the park ticket and use it on a future trip. In some cases, the park tickets were for half their stay and they would use the virtual person's ticket for the other half of the trip.

 

[disney2d2]

= he doesn't have any clue how he came up with that so he's not going to answer. Rather, he'll pick apart your post.

Answer the question, Bicker. You love to claim the world is more dishonest and untrustworthy than it has ever been, yet you have never proven your claims. It would be nice, for once, if you didn't evade.

Waiting for his answer

May be the internet is to blame, people who find ways to save money (or deals, as I like to call them) have found a medium to congregate and exchange 'em. That's really one way to stick it to the man.

But I have no problem with 'the man' smartening up a little to like say, divide adult and child credits or, have all guests present at check-in to make sure there are no phantom guests.

 

[punkin]

Waiting for his answer

You'll have a nice long wait. Of course, the insults to your integrity should come fairly soon.

 

[Lewisc]

I'm sure Bicker will produce whatever statistics that he's basing his posts on BUT
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence. My local supermarkets stopped taking internet coupons. Too much fraud. There have been articles with quotes from vice presidents of companies like Best Buy. They say the internet, specifically sites like fatwallet, are contributing to fraud and misuse. People are falsifying records so they can qualify for a rebate. Returning merchandise for a full refund and then going back and re-buying (or send a friend to do the re-buying) the same item discounted as an open box item. Playing games in order to get a price match that isn't valid. COSTCO has a very liberal return policy but I question why they accept returns of folding chairs the day or two after Thanksgiving.

I certainly don't think the majority of guests are dishonest, I don't know if that's Bicker's point. The evidence is the internet is contributing to more questionable behavior.

 

[Muziqal]

I'm sure Bicker will produce whatever statistics that he's basing his posts on BUT
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence. My local supermarkets stopped taking internet coupons. Too much fraud. There have been articles with quotes from vice presidents of companies like Best Buy. They say the internet, specifically sites like fatwallet, are contributing to fraud and misuse. People are falsifying records so they can qualify for a rebate. Returning merchandise for a full refund and then going back and re-buying (or send a friend to do the re-buying) the same item discounted as an open box item. Playing games in order to get a price match that isn't valid. COSTCO has a very liberal return policy but I question why they accept returns of folding chairs the day or two after Thanksgiving.

I certainly don't think the majority of guests are dishonest, I don't know if that's Bicker's point. The evidence is the internet is contributing to more questionable behavior.

Fraud is fraud. Ethics are ethics.The question of the internet contributing to it is not the point. The more money that gets printed, I bet the same percentage of the people will want to steal it or taking advantage through loop holes or lack of enforcement.

If you were in medievil times, you either were a person who stole a loaf of bread or didn't. Today, you are either a person who chooses to steal or not.
I think blaming the internet for a huge influx of fraud is a crock. Technology will allow new ways to enforce and new ways to cheat. That's what you mean when you say fatwallet contributes to fraud. So what if I can read what someone writes about how to cheat the system. The same words are available to the department store loss prevention people.

Bicker will have a hard time convincing anyone of the fact that once there was a person who didn't cheat and had ethics in place not to cheat, and then
connected to the world wide web and for that reason alone became a cheater.

We have 6 billion people on this planet...unless you have figures spanning the ages, you can't say the world was once honest and now isn't...

 

[disney2d2]

Since when is returning merchandise on the same ethical level as using child credits for adult credits...?

It is not uncommon for people to return stuff after nominal use if they longer need it. It's like this one time where my phone died, I had to drive for 3 hours, and my car charger was in another car. So I stopped at a BestBuy, bought a car charger and then returned it the next day. Since I had one already and only needed it for emergency use. Of course I took care that I didn't damage the packaging while opening it up. On a side note, I bought my car charger at a dollar store, and the one from BestBuy cost $29.99!

Also, the return re-buy you have mentioned, doesn't work that way. What happens is that some merchandise is available in stores prior to Black Friday at a much higher cost. So some people, knowing that on black friday the same time would be say $150 cheaper and would be sold out in minutes, buy it before hand and then go in on Black Friday later on in the day, return it to customer service desk and them immediately repurchase it from the same counter (it was allowed until recently). Of course BestBuy wouldn't like this deal, since they would end up selling one more item at the discounted price than they planned on. I personally never do the return-rebuy thing, but I do wake up as early at 3 am on Black Friday just so that me and my friends could stand in line at the BestBuy and be there when they open at 6. It's a lot of fun if you have ever done it.

Finally sites like FatWallet and Slickdeals.net are great consumer resources. I mean how else would I find that Delta is giving away a free $25 Starbucks giftcard if I sign-up from their free frequent flyer program...

 

[bicker]

Waiting for his answer

Are you really? I have certain members ignored, so I don't see their inquiries.

So, since I won't reply to members I have ignored: Do you really disagree with my assertion the vast majority of guests were indeed trustworthy? Or are you just looking to make trouble in a thread, to get your jollies? If you're sincere, we can actually start a whole new thread to discuss just trustworthiness has changed over time... oh wait! I already did that three days ago! I even am working to get a bunch of folks to read the book that outlines all the evidence regarding the phenomenon we're alluding to.

May be the internet is to blame, people who find ways to save money (or deals, as I like to call them) have found a medium to congregate and exchange 'em. That's really one way to stick it to the man.

Yes, that's definitely a big part of it. Again, buy the book, join the book club thread, and let's start discussing it further!

 

[Muziqal]

Are you really? I have certain members ignored, so I don't see their inquiries.

So, since I won't reply to members I have ignored: Do you really disagree with my assertion the vast majority of guests were indeed trustworthy? Or are you just looking to make trouble in a thread, to get your jollies? If you're sincere, we can actually start a whole new thread to discuss just trustworthiness has changed over time... oh wait! I already did that three days ago! I even am working to get a bunch of folks to read the book that outlines all the evidence regarding the phenomenon we're alluding to.

Yes, that's definitely a big part of it. Again, buy the book, join the book club thread, and let's start discussing it further!

Bicker, may not be able to read this post - but he can certainly read my posts when other people quote them Let's not be so childish.

 

[bicker]

Finally sites like FatWallet and Slickdeals.net are great consumer resources.

I agree. There's a big difference between sharing public information about available discounts and special deals, and sharing information about getting more by exploiting lack of enforcement. Again, black-and-white: One is honest and up-standing; the other is deceptive and dishonorable.

 

[Pedler]

It is not uncommon for people to return stuff after nominal use if they longer need it. It's like this one time where my phone died, I had to drive for 3 hours, and my car charger was in another car. So I stopped at a BestBuy, bought a car charger and then returned it the next day. Since I had one already and only needed it for emergency use. Of course I took care that I didn't damage the packaging while opening it up. On a side note, I bought my car charger at a dollar store, and the one from BestBuy cost $29.99!

Depending upon the store some places will not automatically put it back on the shelf as new but will put it back on the shelf as opened merchandise at a slight discount. It is almost impossible to open somethings and seal them back up as if there were unsealed. What you were in essence doing is borrowing a charger from Best Buy for a day at no charge.

Also, the return re-buy you have mentioned, doesn't work that way. What happens is that some merchandise is available in stores prior to Black Friday at a much higher cost. So some people, knowing that on black friday the same time would be say $150 cheaper and would be sold out in minutes, buy it before hand and then go in on Black Friday later on in the day, return it to customer service desk and them immediately repurchase it from the same counter (it was allowed until recently). Of course BestBuy wouldn't like this deal, since they would end up selling one more item at the discounted price than they planned on. I personally never do the return-rebuy thing, but I do wake up as early at 3 am on Black Friday just so that me and my friends could stand in line at the BestBuy and be there when they open at 6. It's a lot of fun if you have ever done it.

Actually the scenrio that Lewisc mentioned is one that Best Buy specifically mentioned in an article in the Wall Street Journal a year or two ago. People would purchase an item, open it and then return it knowing it would be marked down. They would then go back and rebuy the marked down item. They have since changed the policy on opened electronics and added a restocking fee to discourage this type of activity.

 

[disney2d2]

So you want me to play a mediator of sorts? Well, for starters it would be nice if you could remove members from your ignore list, since it's really good to know all sides of an issue, especially those that you disagree with or are annoyed by.

I personally do not believe in random social commentary, especially one that's passed off in writing (like your book), and contains assertions based on not the proven scientific method, but personal experiences. It's stuff that the author cannot back up.

Wealth for instance has little or no effect on social behavior. Some people who steal, do so even after their acts have made them rich. Some people who look for deals and try to save every penny, do so despite their changing financial positions. But does that say anything about society and communal trends as a whole. No.

Acts that one perceives to be of "bad" nature, might not be considered so in a different situation, geographic location or time. Every person has their own morality meter, and no matter how hard you or I try, we can't have a lasting impact on it.

Finally, and as you can see from what I have written already, I disagree with your assertion. There were always people who stole towels from hotel rooms and there always will be. There was never a "pure" society and there never will be. The numbers will vary, but as a statistician will tell you, "it's all pretty random". People have been crying wolf on this from very very old times, that social morality is going down and 'we are about to hit a wall'. I don't see it. No one has.

Are you really? I have certain members ignored, so I don't see their inquiries.

So, since I won't reply to members I have ignored: Do you really disagree with my assertion the vast majority of guests were indeed trustworthy? Or are you just looking to make trouble in a thread, to get your jollies? If you're sincere, we can actually start a whole new thread to discuss just trustworthiness has changed over time... oh wait! I already did that three days ago! I even am working to get a bunch of folks to read the book that outlines all the evidence regarding the phenomenon we're alluding to.

Yes, that's definitely a big part of it. Again, buy the book, join the book club thread, and let's start discussing it further!

 

[Lewisc]

I never said it was the same. It was a general comment regarding ethical behavior of consumers. Personally I'd put a parent that uses one "child credit", that came from a child skipping a meal, in a different category from a family that pays out of pocket for 100% of their kids meals and then uses the "banked" credits to treat guests not even staying at WDW resorts. It doesn't really matter what we think. The number of guests who abused/overused that plan loophole/feature became high enough to motivate Disney to close the loophole.

Actually some customers were buying an electronic devices such as a DVD players. They returned it opened and waited until Best Buy sold it as a discounted open box item. This was one of the practices that the BB executive was objecting to. A few consumers decided this was a way to get a 10% discount on an item that generally isn't discounted. BB tried charging a re-stocking fee but competitive pressures caused them to limit or even drop it for most items in most areas.

Some stores now say that returned merchandise will not always be made available for sale. That prevents a customer from buying something before a sale and then returning and re-buying during the sale.

Many of the fat wallet deals are good but some of the price match/coupon strategies require finding a manager that doesn't follow the rules.

Since when is returning merchandise on the same ethical level as using child credits for adult credits...?

It is not uncommon for people to return stuff after nominal use if they longer need it. It's like this one time where my phone died, I had to drive for 3 hours, and my car charger was in another car. So I stopped at a BestBuy, bought a car charger and then returned it the next day. Since I had one already and only needed it for emergency use. Of course I took care that I didn't damage the packaging while opening it up. On a side note, I bought my car charger at a dollar store, and the one from BestBuy cost $29.99!

Also, the return re-buy you have mentioned, doesn't work that way. What happens is that some merchandise is available in stores prior to Black Friday at a much higher cost. So some people, knowing that on black friday the same time would be say $150 cheaper and would be sold out in minutes, buy it before hand and then go in on Black Friday later on in the day, return it to customer service desk and them immediately repurchase it from the same counter (it was allowed until recently). Of course BestBuy wouldn't like this deal, since they would end up selling one more item at the discounted price than they planned on. I personally never do the return-rebuy thing, but I do wake up as early at 3 am on Black Friday just so that me and my friends could stand in line at the BestBuy and be there when they open at 6. It's a lot of fun if you have ever done it.

Finally sites like FatWallet and Slickdeals.net are great consumer resources. I mean how else would I find that Delta is giving away a free $25 Starbucks giftcard if I sign-up from their free frequent flyer program...

 

[disney2d2]

I am sure you have your sources, but at least for the past 4-5 years, I've always seen BestBuy having a 15% (or is it 20?) restocking fee on items such as cameras, camcorders, computers. Not sure about DVD Players.

Also, the open box re-buy thing is pretty lame. You have to return an item, and then wait for the store to put it back on the shelf, all to save 10-20% and it's not guaranteed that you will get it unless say you have a friend working thereor something. That's too much.

As far as Costco is concerned, their liberal return policy is their own choice. I've heard of people who went to college, bought a computer and then returned it after a whole semester of use. Indeed it looks like exploiting the situation, but just like Disney, if the Corporation doesn't have a problem with it, consumers who don't do such acts shouldn't have a problem with it either. I don't see it affecting prices from them. At least not at Costco.

 

[bicker]

So you want me to play a mediator of sorts?

Gosh no. I'd view the book as the mediator. I expect that we'll all have some issues with what the book says, but it wouldn't make much sense to read the book with a perspective that it cannot provide any insights of value, eh?

Well, for starters it would be nice if you could remove members from your ignore list, since it's really good to know all sides of an issue, especially those that you disagree with or are annoyed by.

I respect your views on that, however, some people have proven through past actions that they're unable to have a mature discussion without resorting to personal attacks and other foolishness. I've no patience for that sort of thing, and coincidently, neither do the moderators. They've said over and over again that personal discussions should be taken to PMs. I suppose it shouldn't surprise us that certain members elect to violate such rules as long as there isn't any effective enforcement that actively prevents them from doing so.

I personally do not believe in random social commentary, especially one that's passed off in writing (like your book),

My book? What are you talking about?

and contains assertions based on not the proven scientific method, but personal experiences. It's stuff that the author cannot back up.

So you've read the book?

Finally, and as you can see from what I have written already, I disagree with your assertion. There were always people who stole towels from hotel rooms and there always will be.

How does that run contrary to my assertion? I think, again, people are reading what they want to read (perhaps reading what would be easier to argue against), and ignoring what people are actually writing.

I'll write it again. Maybe the third time is the charm: In the past, the vast majority of guests were indeed trustworthy.

There was never a "pure" society and there never will be. The numbers will vary, but as a statistician will tell you, "it's all pretty random".

This question is, first, in the past, were a substantial portion of the population dishonorable? If the answer to that is "no" then you agree with what I wrote. Second, and this is where some of the questions were going, and a very intersting query: Has the dishonorable portion varied over time in a manner inconsistent with normal variation. I suspect the book will have a lot of very interesting things to say in that regard.

 

[Lewisc]

I'll agree in the past the vast majority of guests were trustworthy BUT I must be missing your point, maybe I need new glasses. Are you saying now the vast majority of guests aren't trustworthy? Are you saying the majority of guests are still trustworthy, just no longer the vast majority? For the sake of completion I'll ask if you now think more than the vast majority of guests are trustworthy, almost unanimous, but in the context of your posts I'm sure that's not what you mean.

Actually I'll list an additional possibility. The percentage of trustworthy/untrustworthy guests is about the same. The difference is the information on the internet allows the less trustworthy customer to have more of an impact. Those less trustworthy customers are able scam more.

Of course some of the business are also less trustworthy. Listen to any salesman describe how an extended warranty works and then compare it to the written terms of policy.

I'll write it again. Maybe the third time is the charm: In the past, the vast majority of guests were indeed trustworthy.

 

[bicker]

I'll agree in the past the vast majority of guests were trustworthy BUT I must be missing your point, maybe I need new glasses. Are you saying now the vast majority of guests aren't trustworthy?

No, I'm not saying that. No form of logic would indicate that one follows from the other.

Are you saying the majority of guests are still trustworthy, just no longer the vast majority?

That's what we're discussing. Just from the messages here on the DIS, we can see a lot more dishonesty being discussed now than just five years ago -- a very pronounced trend. That does indicate that that majority is not as vast as it once was. Other indicators can be found with regard to other aspects of WDW. Clearly, the biometric scanners were introduced when the vast majority of guests who honored the rule against transferability of admission passes decreased sufficiently to warrant the added cost and guest inconvenience inherent in the use of the scanners. I'm sure you know the other examples of this that indicate how deception and lack of integrity has increased over time. And, of course, the examples spread beyond WDW: Road rage, for example.

Actually I'll list an additional possibility. The percentage of trustworthy/untrustworthy guests is about the same. The difference is the information on the internet allows the less trustworthy customer to have more of an impact. Those less trustworthy customers are able scam more.

That's interesting, but I don't think that fits with the biometric scanners example, and many other examples as well. Occum's Razor dictates that in the absence of information to the contrary, the simplest explanation is the best, and it is far simpler for the mechanism to be that dishonor is spreading. I do believe the Internet is an agent of this spreading, but it isn't making the miscreants more effective, but rather enabling more miscreants.

Of course some of the business are also less trustworthy.

Definitely, and I bet that many of those "additional" miscreants use that as an excuse for their transgressive behaviors.

 

[Lewisc]

Actually biometric scanners were first used as an alternative to putting pictures on annual passes. I'm not sure if it was due to an increase of guests "loaning" their AP but rather more efficient than having CMs continue to try to match pictures to faces.

MYW ticket pricing, extra days for almost free, probably motivated Disney to extend use of the scanners. Disney really didn't care if guests gave away tickets when the tickets were priced on a per day basis with a small discount for longer lengths. I know the tickets weren't transferable but was that really the policy when the tickets didn't even a spot to write your name on the ticket?

I wonder if the % of dishonest people isn't that much higher but rather those people are able, in part due to information shared on the internet, are able to take more stuff. Those people who want to take advantage of a loophole or even a business that isn't able to enforce policy now have more knowlege of opportunities to do that.

Look at the people who are now asking if Disney has a way to enforce the child/adult credit issue. Without the internet some of the guests wouldn't know about this loophole or that they can probably still get away with it. The % of ethically challenged customers may be the same but the number of ethically challenged guests that are knowledgeable about a particular loophole is increased.

I wonder if the total number of miscreants is increasing or if the miscreants are now able to "scam" more business.

That's interesting, but I don't think that fits with the biometric scanners example, and many other examples as well. Occum's Razor dictates that in the absence of information to the contrary, the simplest explanation is the best, and it is far simpler for the mechanism to be that dishonor is spreading. I do believe the Internet is an agent of this spreading, but it isn't making the miscreants more effective, but rather enabling more miscreants.

Definitely, and I bet that many of those "additional" miscreants use that as an excuse for their transgressive behaviors.

 

[Uncleromulus]

Nice going gang!! Another thread closed.