Related to the unbelievably flawed website we can speculate intent vs inept or stupid decision-making all day long, but in the end, it still remains speculative. As Eric pointed out, unless we jump "into the bowels" of the code there is no certainty.
We know only the results of what we experience and the dominos that fall as a biproduct of owners not being able to search, find or obtain reservations. VIP or no VIP, owners are having similar experiences as evidenced by the miriad of complaints, long hold times and lengthy triage results windows.
IT gets it's marching orders from levels above. They fix what they have the skill sets to fix based on the design criteria determined in the planning.
You accuse them of "intent" to mislead and imply that what they are doing is illegal or in violation of their fiduciary duties. That is fraud, even if you avoid the word. The fact that you are reverting to word games means you are using the same tactics you are complaining about. Yes I have a legal degree and yes I call bullshit when I see people (or salesman) playing word games. I am also in IT (over 25 years)and this is one of the worst website implementations I have ever seen. for this to be intentional is absurd.
So that I am clear on what you are saying:
1) You do not believe that sales people intentionally mislead when selling the product or that Wyndham continues to support that activity?
2) You are certain the decision-makers did not know the website would be in any way dysfunctional when they instructed IT to roll it out?
Here is what your legal training, that teaches one to read between lines and suss out information that may or may not exist, keeps missing about my posts:
1) I take exception to the rhampholean posturings that diminsh the frustrations of ALL owners, whether it be specific to the poorly designed website or the lengthy known history of Wyndhams method of obfuscating information.
2) Dislike the short-sighted posturing of telling owners what the should or should not think
3) Will not accept broad representations made by the singular as a viable reflection of what ALL owners are or are not thinking
4) Will seek to clarify over-simplified statements that minimize what owners perceive they have lost in the process of change.
Have never said it is illegal (Wyn is way too smart for that), fraudlent, or in "violation of fiducuary duties" because I am NOT a legal person. That is left to the owners that are legal people to determine based on their professional experience. What you translate as inference is your overactive legal brain searching for BS because that is what you know and expect.
Bottom line is, as Ron points out with some regularity,
what I think is of no consequence. Change happened, loopholes closed, and owners ARE finding ways to adapt. Some are even getting out. Change is a PROCESS and this is not the first time we have experienced it with our ownerships (for many here). The door slammed closed, I get it, I hear it, I'm living it just like almost everyone else here. But as we all continue to find ways to adapt, it is also the natural process for humans to want try to understand it so they can move through the greiving process that comes with the individual's perception of loss and change.
I come to TUG specifically to get credible information to help me navigate my ownership. What I have learned, over time, is that there are credible voices here and others that have now become suspect because the skin of a chameleon is adaptive. Perhaps my voice is suspect to many others here related to what I state or the motivations behind the responses. That is for the individual to choose what makes sense to them and what does not. TUG is a community of people with broad experiences and perspectives. We naturally gravitate to what makes sense to us.
Lots of lines above -- will be interesting what the "read between" translations come up with
only because in reality, it does not exist.