I agree that size alone doesn’t matter. I also agree that owners complaining about other owners making it hard for them to book at 7-months is an unsavory stew of hypocrisy and entitlement. I had a fun little exchange with a direct SSR owner leveling exactly this complaint as a case against resale SSR owners, in supporting the resale restrictions.
The point that is harder to support, and I get the sense is your bigger point, is the suggestion that SSR points have the same impact on the 7-month competition as BLT, BCV, and BWV combined does by virtue of having roughly the same number of points. The observed availability at SSR just doesn’t support this. The case cannot be made that people are actively trading into SSR at any time of year from any other WDW resort.
If we can agree that at 7-months he booking ability of all points are equal, we should be able to agree that if one had a plan to trade out regularly, SSR is king among the resorts to consider owning in terms of $/point value.
Owners of SSR will often be owners at other home-resorts as well with a policy of using SSR points to roll the dice at 7-months while reserving their other points for stays only at that specific resort between 11 and 7. This is quite simply the smart play within an established system.
All this is to say that SSR points, within the current, Disney-established system, has evolved into a very specific tool that differs from most other resorts. And as such and given its size, affects the exchange system to a degree that no other resort does. No judgment, just a mathematical reality.
All your points are correct. i am one who owns SSR but has BWV to use there for specific trips and will now own RIV for specific trips there.
SSR, due to its size, of course, will have more owners looking to trade out than the other resorts. However, I think that when we begin to discuss ways to change this so that people who bought at smaller or more popular resorts have an advantage over SSR owners have a higher chance to get those rooms, we start down a slope that changes the system to benefit certain owners over others.
Now, having a home resort vs, non resort chart, that treats all the same, makes sense if there really was a big problem at 7 months...which there is not. It isn’t as easy as before, but at 7 months, most times of the year, there are rooms available to trade into,
Right now, all members, regardless of home resort, have the same chance. The fact that more of the people trying are SSR owners is what others think is an issue And why ideas come up to lesson that impact. But, in dosing that, what it does is change the product once again to rank resorts so that certain resort owners are deemed more important than others.
Again, for me, I have no problem if they feel they need to create a 7 month chart, but it should be applied to all, and not just those who own at the larger resorts so that people at the smaller resorts have a better chance.