Non Disney w/ EMH????

[maxiesmom]

Okay, this has gone a little to far. If what I did is so wrong I am sorry. We stay on-site a couple of times a year. We have stayed in Deluxe and , mods and values. I had no idea that people did this all the time.If this is done all the time, then Disney needs to change their policy. We do a lot of camping. If you need a camp site during a holiday weekend, around here, it is usually so many sites reserved a year in advance and the rest are first come first serve. People come and put their stuff on the camp site a couple of days early, they pay for the site, but they do not stay there until Friday or Sat.I guess the key here is planning ahead. We did not do this for free parking. I have never done this before. I usually do not even do EMH, but no one even asked why I would do this, this time.Not that it would matter,since everyone thinks I am such a bad person, and that I am ruining some ones vacation. I really feel like I would like to cancel the whole trip. It just is not worth all the mean things that are being said. I did this with everything up front. If this is so wrong I am sorry.I will not try to defend my self any more.. I think enough damage as been done. Thanks

Imagine yourself in the other position. How would you like it if your favorite resort was all booked up by people who had no intention of sleeping there? And there was not another resort remotely like it for miles and miles? And even worse, it was the only resort you could afford, so now your vacation is cancelled. You would be upset, wouldn't you?


That is exactly what you have done to many campers. While there is no rule against it, it is just not very nice. Part of being a good human being is being aware of how our actions affect others, and trying to make sure we treat each other how we would like to be treated. Put yourself in the shoes of the campers, and ask yourself how you would react.

 

[BigDaddyRog]

I've never seen you on the boards, BUT can i hire you as my company spokesperson. Very well put and not once did you insult anyone.

Aint nuttin' wrong with a little insult once in a while...it keeps things spicey, cat!!

 

[Brian Noble]

Eliminating fraud comes to mind

It's not fradulent. You can tell Disney you have no intention of using it. They will still happily take your money and hand you your KTTW cards. You're simply not using the campsite to the fullest---instead, you're only using part of it. The perks.

Everyone has the same ability to book the campsites. If they book one, they can use it how they wish. I realize that people who camp will never agree with this, and will insist on pointing out how wrong it is. That's fine. But, the option still exists for people who wish to use the campsite in this way until Disney changes its policies.

I also notice that no one has responded to my prior post about the essence of the argument, so I will include it again here. How far do you all want to take this? Must we all always be in the "clean plate club" and ordering only exactly what we will eat? If we order a whole dessert, but only eat a bite or two, are we also immoral? If we make a little extra food at dinner in case the kids are hungry, and end up not using the leftovers, have we sinned?

Or, does this judgement only apply when it is your favored resource that is scarce?

Reduced to its essence, this argument says you can't buy anything ethically unless you are prepared to use it to its fullest, because every resource is finite, not just campgrounds. For example, buying a combo meal but throwing away the fries is contributing to world hunger, etc.

And, at some level, this is actually true. But, most of us don't actually live our lives this way. Indeed, I suspect most of us don't even think about it until we find ourselves on the short end of the finite-resource stick. And, by virtue of the fact that we can all afford vacations at Disneyworld, be they campgrounds or concierge suites, those times are few and far between relative to the vast majority of the planet's population who are geniunely poverty-stricken.

One of my research projects involves providing access to the Information Economy in countries like Ethiopia. After spending a few months thinking about the problems these people have, I can tell you that arguing over who is more entitled to book an $80/night campsite couldn't be more pointless.

As an aside, there is a lot of really interesting literature on "moral economies", and for better or worse, they don't scale past the level of very small communities.

 

[awmiii]

My guess is Disney will address this. The people who book the throw away campsite tend to do so for one night. People who come to camp usually stay for a week or so. The reservation of that one night prevents the campers who will stay for a whole week, not just the holiday emh. As I said before this practice costs Disney hundreds of dollars each time this happens. Once the figure out how to close the loophole, they will. It is not just a matter of not finishing what is on your plate. It is a matter of preventing more people from dining. It is akin to the peolle who walk around with their kid asking for family switch passes when they really do not have anyone else in line. Most campgrounds have minimum stay requirements over holiday periods. Since I drive 1100 miles each way, I cannot fathom staying fewer than 5 days. Would a 3 day minimum like any other private campground on a holiday be outrageous?

 

[ftwildernessguy]

I also notice that no one has responded to my prior post about the essence of the argument, so I will include it again here. How far do you all want to take this? Must we all always be in the "clean plate club" and ordering only exactly what we will eat? If we order a whole dessert, but only eat a bite or two, are we also immoral? If we make a little extra food at dinner in case the kids are hungry, and end up not using the leftovers, have we sinned?

Or, does this judgement only apply when it is your favored resource that is scarce?

Perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be that you are diabetic and can only eat the sugar free desert. A non-diabetic takes the last sugar free desert because they like the plate it's on, throws the desert away and walks out with the plate. You have been deprived of the only desert you could eat because an inconsiderate individual could care less about the desert or your needs, they just wanted the plate.

 

[disneydawgs]

As a Fort fan I do not like the idea of using the Fort just for the perks if you do not stay at the Fort. However, Brain Noble is right. The Fort is being used just not the way we would like it to be used. How many of us have bought something we do not use or do not use to its fullest capacity. Trucks, computers, cell phones, etc. etc. Scared Resources; I smell a follower of the dismal science.

 

[Escape Artist]

If Disney wanted to make more money by selling on-site perks to people who stay offsite, then they'd put a price on it and sell it.

But they don't!

So buy a clue here. Quit trying to beat the system at someone else's expense.

Sue in Texas

 

[clovermeg]

Thank you, Jim, for eloquently stating what I could not put into words!

Perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be that you are diabetic and can only eat the sugar free desert. A non-diabetic takes the last sugar free desert because they like the plate it's on, throws the desert away and walks out with the plate. You have been deprived of the only desert you could eat because an inconsiderate individual could care less about the desert or your needs, they just wanted the plate.

 

[ghester]

I think one of the things that are really upsetting the campers is the term "throw away campsite" This is clearly Disneys fault for not imposing a 3 day min. over holiday weeks. It isn't illegal, but it is a real bummer not to get a site because someone is using it for perks. For us we can not afford to go to Disney any other way. Disney caters to a family of four and we are five. The rooms for five are way to expensive.

 

[Brian Noble]

I smell a follower of the dismal science.

Only from a distance, I'm afraid. I'm a CS professor. But, several of my students have done some work in incentives and mechanism design for distributed systems, and they've given me a halfway decent economics education.

A non-diabetic takes the last sugar free desert because they like the plate it's on, throws the desert away and walks out with the plate.

Presumably, this is a souvenir plate situation, right? Otherwise, the person with the plate is simply stealing.

If the plate is being sold along with the dessert, and that's the plate the person wants---and they are willing to pay the price to get it---why shouldn't they be able to do so, even if they don't want that dessert? In essence, if the dessert they don't want and the plate they do is worth more to them than the dessert they do want but the plate they don't, and they are priced the same, then naturally they'd buy the former. If they have an earlier opportunity to purchase that dessert and plate, they get it, the diabetic doesn't.

Yes, the diabetic would have made "more use" out of the dessert, but that doesn't mean the diabetic is "more entitled" to it. At least, that's not the way it works in most market economies. It gets even murkier if we further suppose that the diabetic is going to eat the dessert but throw away the souvenir plate that they do not want, but I do. Ideally, in that situation, the diabetic would sell me the plate (or I would sell them the dessert). But, Ft. Wilderness campers can't legally sell or rent their KTTW cards, nor can someone who books a campsite only for EMH access legally sublet it to someone else.

Ultimately, in any situation in which resources are limited, some people get those resources, and others don't, and while you can argue that some people would "benefit more" from them than others, that's not how resources are allocated. If they were, then Americans would have a lot less so that the vast majority of the rest of the world could have a little more, because, *clearly* we have more than we need, on average. After all, we have so much discretionary income that we can afford to give hundreds or even thousands of dollars to Mickey for our trips.

I think one of the things that are really upsetting the campers is the term "throw away campsite"

That's a fair observation, and I understand it completely. Although, I think it is the fact of the matter, not the term used, that is most upsetting. I could be wrong, though.

For us we can not afford to go to Disney any other way. Disney caters to a family of four and we are five. The rooms for five are way to expensive.

Well, you could do what I sometimes do and stay offsite. Having done both, it's really not so different. And, at the risk of repeating myself, I have *never* been to an EMH, onsite or off, nor have I actually booked a campground reservation that I haven't used. I don't miss EMH one bit---I'd much rather have my Extra Magical Hour of Sleep, and visit a less-crowded park to boot.

 

[LWatson]

Wow I came back to check this and WHOA.....I promise I didnt mean to start anything.

 

[Brian Noble]

You didn't. Apparently, it's all my fault.

 

[Serling126]

I don't have any fuel to add to the fire, but I learned something new: AC units for tents exist! Up in NY we don't have a need for these, even in the dead of summer. But that will allow us to tent camp at Disney, yay! (Assuming we can get a reservation )

 

[ftwildernessguy]

Only from a distance, I'm afraid. I'm a CS professor. But, several of my students have done some work in incentives and mechanism design for distributed systems, and they've given me a halfway decent economics education.



Presumably, this is a souvenir plate situation, right? Otherwise, the person with the plate is simply stealing.

If the plate is being sold along with the dessert, and that's the plate the person wants---and they are willing to pay the price to get it---why shouldn't they be able to do so, even if they don't want that dessert? In essence, if the dessert they don't want and the plate they do is worth more to them than the dessert they do want but the plate they don't, and they are priced the same, then naturally they'd buy the former. If they have an earlier opportunity to purchase that dessert and plate, they get it, the diabetic doesn't.

Yes, the diabetic would have made "more use" out of the dessert, but that doesn't mean the diabetic is "more entitled" to it. At least, that's not the way it works in most market economies. It gets even murkier if we further suppose that the diabetic is going to eat the dessert but throw away the souvenir plate that they do not want, but I do. Ideally, in that situation, the diabetic would sell me the plate (or I would sell them the dessert). But, Ft. Wilderness campers can't legally sell or rent their KTTW cards, nor can someone who books a campsite only for EMH access legally sublet it to someone else.

Ultimately, in any situation in which resources are limited, some people get those resources, and others don't, and while you can argue that some people would "benefit more" from them than others, that's not how resources are allocated. If they were, then Americans would have a lot less so that the vast majority of the rest of the world could have a little more, because, *clearly* we have more than we need, on average. After all, we have so much discretionary income that we can afford to give hundreds or even thousands of dollars to Mickey for our trips.


That's a fair observation, and I understand it completely. Although, I think it is the fact of the matter, not the term used, that is most upsetting. I could be wrong, though.


Well, you could do what I sometimes do and stay offsite. Having done both, it's really not so different. And, at the risk of repeating myself, I have *never* been to an EMH, onsite or off, nor have I actually booked a campground reservation that I haven't used. I don't miss EMH one bit---I'd much rather have my Extra Magical Hour of Sleep, and visit a less-crowded park to boot.

Obviously our problem is you are self oriented and I am not. So be it. I will try not to get in your way at the buffet line so that we may peacefully coexist.

 

[ToddyLu]

Ok, I have read the whole thread....gee, I thought things/issues got dicey over on the DVC forum......I now have a new place to lurk...

...continue

 

[persimmondeb]

Obviously Disney has no issues with this practice, and the OP is not breaking or even bending any of Disney's rules, and she was decent enough to be completely honest with the CM!

It may indeed be somewhat unfair to the people who intend to actually use the site to camp on, but I have been struck by the fact that the OP was able to book this "scarce" tent site for a holiday weekend only 4 months in advance.

I am also wondering if this is a "loophole" that Disney has little interest in closing, since it's a booking from someone who would not otherwise book with them (generating a small amount of revenue and padding occupancy rates) and will use few resources other than EMH and parking.

 

[metalis4ever]

Seriously how much time does one spend in an on-site hotel room while vacationing??? 8-9 hours tops? To sleep and maybe relax and refresh? Well there are 15-16 other hours in the day that you are not using that room and you are depriving someone who wanted to stay in that room the entire 24 hours the opportunity to.... So if renting a campsite and not staying the night is selfish then renting a hotel room and not spending every moment in it is as well, it's a two way street.....

Honestly and personally I don't see the issue here we live in a capitalist society, first come, first serve if someone wants to spend extra money that's their prerogative....To me this is like buying a double cheeseburger and throwing away the pickles the person paid for the burger in full so they can do whatever they want with it...

If I were staying offsite I would definitley have to think about doing that as it is a great idea!!!

 

[LWatson]

Obviously Disney has no issues with this practice, and the OP is not breaking or even bending any of Disney's rules, and she was decent enough to be completely honest with the CM!

It may indeed be somewhat unfair to the people who intend to actually use the site to camp on, but I have been struck by the fact that the OP was able to book this "scarce" tent site for a holiday weekend only 4 months in advance.

I am also wondering if this is a "loophole" that Disney has little interest in closing, since it's a booking from someone who would not otherwise book with them (generating a small amount of revenue and padding occupancy rates) and will use few resources other than EMH and parking.

OP HASNT BOOKED A VACATION YET!!!!! I'm the OP and I was curious because we were trying to decide where to stay. BTW we opted for Shades of Green if anyone is curious if we get to go. I'm still confused about the whole how renting a tent site for a week and then paying offsite prices too would be any cheaper because that averages to be like $110 a night easily, and you have the hassle of paying 2 people. I mean hey some people might be up for it, but not me personally. I prefer to have as few "bills" as possible.

 

[disneydawgs]

Folks, there is nothing wrong with booking a campsite and not using it. There is not moral question here nor is it a character issue. Who has made dinner reservations or piority seating and not used them. Same argument. The best way to stop this is to raise the prices on tent sites so the cost would stop this from happening. Also WDW mangement could make up rules to stop it.

 

[Disneybridein2k3]

Seriously how much time does one spend in an on-site hotel room while vacationing??? 8-9 hours tops? To sleep and maybe relax and refresh? Well there are 15-16 other hours in the day that you are not using that room and you are depriving someone who wanted to stay in that room the entire 24 hours the opportunity to.... So if renting a campsite and not staying the night is selfish then renting a hotel room and not spending every moment in it is as well, it's a two way street.....

Honestly and personally I don't see the issue here we live in a capitalist society, first come, first serve if someone wants to spend extra money that's their prerogative....To me this is like buying a double cheeseburger and throwing away the pickles the person paid for the burger in full so they can do whatever they want with it...

If I were staying offsite I would definitley have to think about doing that as it is a great idea!!!

I agree! Mind you, my idea of roughing it is a Holiday Inn so I will never be your competition here. But why is one person more "deserving" of a reservation than another? They are paying the same price. It is first come first serve. If it is TRULY that important to you, book early. It's no different than any other hotel on property during a busy season - consider the Epcot resorts during F&W for example - impossible to get DVC unless you book early. Good grief - who knows...from the looks of this thread, it looks like the true competition are your fellow campers! And for the record, I love how Brian explained the cost/benefit analysis.