# RCI Class Action



## Pit (Feb 23, 2007)

Not sure if this link was previously posted (I couldn't find it anywhere).

Seems like there are six law firms working together on this. They have a form you can fill in online to share your own experiences.

http://www.rciclassaction.com


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 23, 2007)

Good link. It will be interesting to follow the progress of this case. I've put the link in my favorites file to follow up on the process as it moves along.


----------



## natanya86 (Feb 23, 2007)

*I agree...*

I have been looking to exchange our week for a week somewhere on the NC or SC coast.  Now, if I want to book it as an extra vacation there are numerous choices, but absolutely none to exchange.  I am looking at the middle of May - not really the prime vacation time.  I called RCI and spoke with someone who told me that the units offered for rent are offered by the properties not by individuals who have deposited them.  I could believe that if we were talking about a few units.  But we are talking about 3 pages with multiple listings for each property, stretching from Atlantic Beach to Myrtle.  
I am about ready to dump RCI and try II.


----------



## Carol C (Feb 24, 2007)

I never read the text of the lawsuit but I've heard it referred to. Even though I've had my challenges with RCI trading, I don't see how making a team of lawyers rich is going to do anything positive for RCI members. Except maybe result in increased spikes in exchange and other RCI fees, since their legal costs if they lose will be passed along to we member/consumers. 

Just food for thought.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 24, 2007)

Carol C said:


> I never read the text of the lawsuit but I've heard it referred to. Even though I've had my challenges with RCI trading, I don't see how making a team of lawyers rich is going to do anything positive for RCI members. Except maybe result in increased spikes in exchange and other RCI fees, since their legal costs if they lose will be passed along to we member/consumers.
> 
> Just food for thought.




So what you're saying is it's better to allow RCI to keep ripping off all it's members now by taking thier weeks and renting them out rather than ripping them off by passing along legal costs to members but giving them the units deposited for exchange as exchanges rather than rentals? Seems as if you're paying for it one way or the other.

Maybe higher members fee's exchanges fees, keeping in mind RCI needs to stay competitive with I.I. or risk losing business to I.I. or, continued higher fee's by having to rent the unit you want rather than exchange for the unit you want like your suppose to be able to do through an exchange company. I guess I'll risk potential higher fee's rather than risk never being able to get a decent exchange again through RCI.

As it is, until RCI changes, the two units I have through RCI I won't deposit for exchange. The only reason a membership will be maintained at all is because it's built into the HGVC system.


----------



## PerryM (Feb 24, 2007)

*Lawyer in the sewer?*

There are many urban legends that folks believe in:


*Alligators in the sewer:*
This one is spread by folks who still believe in the tooth fairy and the Drive By Media.  Sure kids flush baby alligators and gold fish down the toilet but we all know this legend is false.


*Corporations pay taxes:*
Politicians start this one – they know we are envy driven and a large corporation has way to many rich folks so they need to pay more taxes.  Of course since all the competing firms pay taxes too they just all pass on the expense to the consumer.  But each year “Windfall profits need windfall taxes” is the cry from the politicians (mostly lawyers) who all know the money is just taken out of your back pocket in a sneaky way.


*Class action lawsuits correct wrongs:*
This one I love to watch.  In the case of RCI they have NO competition – II is a pipsqueak and add up all the other exchange companies and they amount for about 1/2 of RCI – that’s all of them combined!

The lawyers and courts know what this is all about – welfare for the legal community.  This is easy money for the court judges, the courts themselves, the clerks, the cops who man the court buildings and of course the rich lawyers for the plaintive and defendant.

RCI has contingency plans and if there is a verdict against them they have already made the changes – years earlier.  Any costs will be born by members of RCI – we all know this. 

The lawsuit has a life of it’s own – it will continue to rack up millions of dollars that we all know will be paid by the folks who use RCI.


*Conclusion:*
Taxing corporations is a fairytale so are corporate lawsuits – both are perpetrated by lawyers.  Lawyers crate these urban legends hoping to capitalize on our envy.

If you don’t like RCI the solutions are very simple – rent or find another exchange company or sell the timeshare and buy one that uses II or another exchange company.  Depending on the lawyers to fix your problem is just going to cost you money and make them rich. 

*I think we should replace the “Alligator in the sewer" ledgend with "Lawyer in the sewer” somehow it seems more fitting.*


----------



## Hoc (Feb 24, 2007)

I assume that you all realize that the result of this action will be something like all RCI members getting a 20 percent discount on one year's future RCI renewal fees, plus payment of a million or so in attorneys' fees.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 24, 2007)

The key is the injunctive relief to stop the defendant from engaging in certain practices in the future, in this case renting exchange deposits to the general public.  The usually miniscule money damages from past transgressions is a very minor consideration.  I don't mind if the lawyers get rich, and that the money damages won't buy a McDonalds hamburger, as long as a permanent injunction is put in place to bring the rental of exchange deposits to a screaching halt!  Hopefully, the terms of the judgment will prohibit RCI retaliating with an increase in fees.

All succesful class actions include some type of injunctive relief to put a stop to the practices that let to the class action suit.  The defendant will try to limit the scope of it, and whether or not this class action lawsuit is successful for members will NOT be determined by how much money damages the class members get but by how broad the injunctive relief will be.  We have to hope that the lead plaintiffs will not agree to anything that doesn't put a stop to the rentals to the general public from spacebank deposits.

From the beginning of RCI's practices that called for a solution in the courts, I have preferred that the legal challenge be through the Consumer Protection Division of a state Attorney General simply because these guys are paid by government paycheck and therefore have no tempation to agree to injunctive relief that is too narrow just to stirke a deal for legal fees.  From what I have learned of the RCI class action, one of the lead plaintiffs is in this for reform not money for himself, and that should be a brake on lawyers cutting a deal that doesn't do justice for RCI's members.  From what I am told, at least one of the principle lawyers working on the case is also a timesharer himself and seriously interested in meaningful reform.  This is what gives hope that we will not see a backroom deal that trades too narrow injunctive relief for big legal fees.




Carol C said:


> I never read the text of the lawsuit but I've heard it referred to. Even though I've had my challenges with RCI trading, I don't see how making a team of lawyers rich is going to do anything positive for RCI members. Except maybe result in increased spikes in exchange and other RCI fees, since their legal costs if they lose will be passed along to we member/consumers.
> 
> Just food for thought.


----------



## Aldo (Feb 24, 2007)

From Wikipedia:

"The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage can show signs of having feelings of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed in reference to other situations with similar tensions, such as battered person syndrome, rape cases, child abuse cases, and bride kidnapping."


These responses are fascinating.  I knew people were emotionally attached to their timeshares, but to seek Stockholm responses?


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 24, 2007)

Many of those resorts are sold out resorts.  If is very unlikely that HOA's even have the inventory in summer to do what RCI is saying, and from what I know of HOA's on the OBX, it is also highly unlikely that they would give any such weeks they have to RCI for rental.

It would be interesting to take the list of availible rentals and call the resorts and ask them where that inventory came from.

In the middle of May, the resorts are likely to be full, and there will be more demand than supply, but the rentals you are seeing are likely to mostly be exchange deposits.  Where inventory placed with RCI for rental mostly comes from seems to be resorts still in developer sales.  For those resorts, these may genuinely be resort inventory given for rental.




natanya86 said:


> I have been looking to exchange our week for a week somewhere on the NC or SC coast.  Now, if I want to book it as an extra vacation there are numerous choices, but absolutely none to exchange.  I am looking at the middle of May - not really the prime vacation time.  I called RCI and spoke with someone who told me that the units offered for rent are offered by the properties not by individuals who have deposited them.  I could believe that if we were talking about a few units.  But we are talking about 3 pages with multiple listings for each property, stretching from Atlantic Beach to Myrtle.
> I am about ready to dump RCI and try II.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 24, 2007)

Touche!  You have hit the nail on the head.




Aldo said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> "The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage can show signs of having feelings of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed in reference to other situations with similar tensions, such as battered person syndrome, rape cases, child abuse cases, and bride kidnapping."
> 
> ...


----------



## Aldo (Feb 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> We have to hope that the lead plaintiffs will not agree to anything that doesn't put a stop to the rentals to the general public from spacebank deposits.




Exactly.

Amazing to read the responses on this thread.

People are cynical about the larger structural and economic issues surrounding American jurisprudence.  Understandably so.

But as a result of that, some would rather be told, "No you can't exchange into this resort but yes you can rent it out on Snaptravel," rather than even attempt to achieve fairness and equity all around.  It's a cynical and sad response.


I want to make a flying conjecture here.  I suspect that in many individuals, Stockholm-type responses probably begin to set in the moment they realize that they paid $15,000 for something they could buy for a buckfitty on Ebay.  By the time they realize that they CAN'T trade into anywhere anytime, the syndrome is already well established.  By the time they realize the spacebank is getting skimmed for rentals, Stockholm-type responses would be a habitual response with regards to their timeshare ownership.

I guess it's hard to admit to yourself that others can be in a position to do you harm and get away with it.  Powerlessness is hard to accept.  Affinity becomes a defense.


----------



## stevedmatt (Feb 24, 2007)

Playing devil's advocate....

Is it at all possible that these resorts have a rental pool that the owners turn their week into the the resort uses RCI as an outlet to rent these weeks?

Not sure I believe this but is it possible?


----------



## dmharris (Feb 24, 2007)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7555529

Is this RCI the same RCI?  Rosenbaum Cunningham International bought illegal green cards and hired illegal aliens to service resorts and restaurants.  I heard this on NPR on Feb. 22.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 24, 2007)

I don't believe in conspiracy theories.  I believe that people do what's in their best interests.  I believe that RCI may be cheating.  But, that cheating is probably relatively small in relation to the overall exchange.  In other words, not material.

I further believe that a rental model is a far superior timeshare exchange model.  Rent you unit out, rent another one in it's place. I think RCI just figured out that weeks based exchange is not as good as a rental model.  It's time for timesharing people to consider that this could be true.  I've believed it from the day I started in timesharing and I continue to believe even more today now that I have hard facts and experiences.

What a rental model will do is expose the falsely high trading power that is granted to certain resorts.  If a unit deserved high trading power, then it should be rentable for a high amount.  Then, those rents can be applied toward another rental.  But, if it has high trading power and it can't be rented for much, then it's trading power is falsely high due to the inefficient nature of how supply and demand is injected into the exchange system.

You can hire as many lawyers as you want and start as many legal actions as suits your fancy.  However, it won't change the fact that rentals will become more prevalent, RCI will continue to raise their fees and your timeshare will live and die by the value it commands in the rental market.

The new TUG advice should be "buy where you intend to use or where your unit can command a high rental return.  Exchanging is a bonus that you should do when you can to trade up or don't mind a trade down for convenience."


----------



## JLB (Feb 24, 2007)

It is nice to see it precisely and succinctly worded.

As I have said before, I was contacted early on by one of the investigators, likely because of my SW Florida in January thread.  I have accumulated data since RCI.com began in 1997 and recorded it since 3/27/2002.  Thousands of searches for the same area the same timeframe, every day, for several years.

Yes, my data documents a decline in availability, especially the better resorts.  I have pursued the reason.

Do you think anyone else, anywhere, has that kind of data?

So, why do you think it is that no one has followed up with me?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 24, 2007)

stevedmatt said:


> Playing devil's advocate....
> 
> Is it at all possible that these resorts have a rental pool that the owners turn their week into the the resort uses RCI as an outlet to rent these weeks?
> 
> Not sure I believe this but is it possible?




Not only is it possible, I see tons of evidence of it.  I've visited about 50-60 resorts in Hawaii over the past several months.  Nearly all of them have a rental program of some type.  In addition, several of the independent exchange companies rent weeks on behalf of owners and the resorts.  When the exchange company is renting developer weeks, then that is inventory that no longer is injected into the exchange company.  This used to be used to offset the exchange imbalance created when certain people are offered bonus weeks and other dog weeks go unused or are sold off as last calls. 

Take a look at HTSE.  A local favorite exchange company for Hawaii.  If you look at their availability for rentals, the best stuff is being rented and NOT available for exchange.  Why is that?  Because owners of prime weeks have decided that they can get a better value renting their unit than exchanging it.

The sooner we as a timesharing community acknowledge that timeshare rentals is the wave of the future, the faster we can take action to adjust our timeshare portfolios to reflect this macrolevel trend.


----------



## Aldo (Feb 24, 2007)

Boca,

I'm not disputing your generalized stance with regards the interplay of free markets, but ultimately all that is also immaterial to the specific issues and charges, or, at best, extremely tenuously related.  Certainly, membership in the RCI spacebank is not represented in such a fashion.  Not even remotely.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 24, 2007)

JLB said:


> Do you think anyone else, anywhere, has that kind of data?
> 
> So, why do you think it is that no one has followed up with me?



Because your data is not valuable to them.  Your data shows that the bullet is in the victim.  They already know that the victim is dead.  What they are looking for is a smoking gun that can prove who did it.  You, yourself, have stated in the past that the data is inconclusive.

Many here believe it is RCI that caused the decline.  I believe that the market has decided it prefers a rental model over an exchange model and that the weeks exchange model is having it comeuppance.  Slowly, but surely.


----------



## Aldo (Feb 24, 2007)

stevedmatt said:


> Playing devil's advocate....
> 
> Is it at all possible that these resorts have a rental pool that the owners turn their week into the the resort uses RCI as an outlet to rent these weeks?
> 
> Not sure I believe this but is it possible?




I'm not sure what you're asking.  Are you asking if it's possible that weeks that people want to rent out are getting rented out?

One should hope so.


But that isn't what this lawsuit is about.  It's about weeks deposited into the spacebank.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 24, 2007)

Aldo said:


> Boca,
> 
> I'm not disputing your generalized stance with regards the interplay of free markets, but ultimately all that is also immaterial to the specific issues and charges, or, at best, extremely tenuously related.  Certainly, membership in the RCI spacebank is not represented in such a fashion.  Not even remotely.



I don't agree.  If you don't have a smoking gun that proves RCI is stealing from the spacebank, then I have an alternate theory for why exchange availability is in decline.  That makes it directly relevant.

Others simply want to lynch RCI and convict them of wholesale stealing from the spacebank.  I can understand why.  I don't like RCI either.  I hardly use them anymore.  But, I feel pretty strongly that much of the decline in exchange availability can be directly attibutable to legitimate business practices and timeshare owners desire to seek alternatives to RCI.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 24, 2007)

So if a shooting occurs but the gun is not found, does that mean that the shooting did not occur?

Appearently there is enough evidence to bring this to the courts attention. It there is not sufficeint evidence to pursue the case, the court will dismiss it. Perhaps the attornies are hoping for a big cash settlement and nothing more. I'd like to believe that the plantiff's are looking to correct an big problem with RCI that I.I. does not seem to have. Lack of exchange inventory but more than enough rental inventory. After all, I am not an RCI member to rent out timeshares but the exchange them. 

In this past year or two, I've seen multiple posts about declining exchange opportunities but increasing rental opportunities to both members and the public. I've also seen people complaining that their exchanges were cancelled last minute or, they arrive at the resort to find that the resort is overbooked. When I started exchanging in '99 I did not notice these issues. 

Something has changed the landscape drastically.  Specifically with RCI. The problem with RCI is they are not transparent. They hide what their deposits are, where the rental inventory comes from and why. If they have kept accurate records indicating that ALL of the rental inventory is from points deposits used for services or rentals obtained from HOA's, it will be very easy for them to prove and get this case dismissed. If, however, they've cooked the books to mingled exchange deposits with rental inventory, then this case will go forward, the lawyers will make money and, hopefully, exchange deposits will remain in the exchange inventory and not the rental inventory.

Keep in mind that, if RCI is renting out exchange deposits to make an extra buck at timeshare owners expense, this will eventually make timeshare ownership look so bad that the entire thing collapses like a house of cards. If that happens, then you had better either own where you want to go or own in a system that has adaquate locations for internal exchanges. I fear the timesharing is on thin ice thanks to the evaporation of exchange possibilities.


----------



## natanya86 (Feb 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> In the middle of May, the resorts are likely to be full, and there will be more demand than supply, but the rentals you are seeing are likely to mostly be exchange deposits.  Where inventory placed with RCI for rental mostly comes from seems to be resorts still in developer sales.  For those resorts, these may genuinely be resort inventory given for rental.



I agree.  Most of the rentals are not new developments.  In fact 1 only recognize 1 listed in Myrtle Beach as new, the others have been around for years.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 24, 2007)

No resort on the Outer Banks does that.  Only one resort is still in developer sales.  Yet the other resorts have weeks showing up on RCI rental sites, that come from only one place - member exchange deposits.




stevedmatt said:


> Playing devil's advocate....
> 
> Is it at all possible that these resorts have a rental pool that the owners turn their week into the the resort uses RCI as an outlet to rent these weeks?
> 
> Not sure I believe this but is it possible?


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 24, 2007)

Longtime TUG poster Bootleg, an RCI employee who had access to RCI's computers, followed some of these prime week rentals back to the source and found that they were member exchange deposits that had nothing to do with cruises, points for deposit, etc., just straight out exchange deposits.

Once they get to seriously turning over rocks in discovery, IMHO RCI is going to cry uncle!

Looting exchange deposits for rental to the general public cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called ''legitimate business practices''.  It more resembles the business practices of Al Capone.




BocaBum99 said:


> I don't agree.  If you don't have a smoking gun that proves RCI is stealing from the spacebank, then I have an alternate theory for why exchange availability is in decline.  That makes it directly relevant.
> 
> Others simply want to lynch RCI and convict them of wholesale stealing from the spacebank.  I can understand why.  I don't like RCI either.  I hardly use them anymore.  But, I feel pretty strongly that much of the decline in exchange availability can be directly attibutable to legitimate business practices and timeshare owners desire to seek alternatives to RCI.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 24, 2007)

As to whether the RCI rental impact is small, I recall that when the Seasons chain in Europe jumped ship from RCI to II, firing a withering broadside at RCI in their newsletter over both rentals and points in explaining their move, they said that at that time RCI's rental of weeks from the spacebank to the general public were in the hundreds of thousands of weeks.  RCI has opened many more rental outlets in the years since that.  So, no, the numbers are NOT small.

Rentals by individuals have been around almost since the dawn of timesharing. On the OBX, Outer Banks Resort Rentals was founded not long after the first timeshares on the OBX were developed.  They do a LOT more OBX timeshare rental business than all of the internet timeshare rental boards combined do on the OBX.  They do a good business, but there has been no explosion in the number of rentals.  The rental-by-owner aspect of timesharing has always been around, and is relatively stable as to the number of owners participating in it.  It is not something new by any means, or something that has grabbed any significant new market share recently.




BocaBum99 said:


> I don't believe in conspiracy theories.  I believe that people do what's in their best interests.  I believe that RCI may be cheating.  But, that cheating is probably relatively small in relation to the overall exchange.  In other words, not material.
> 
> I further believe that a rental model is a far superior timeshare exchange model.  Rent you unit out, rent another one in it's place. I think RCI just figured out that weeks based exchange is not as good as a rental model.  It's time for timesharing people to consider that this could be true.  I've believed it from the day I started in timesharing and I continue to believe even more today now that I have hard facts and experiences.
> 
> ...


----------



## short (Feb 24, 2007)

Aldo said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> "The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage can show signs of having feelings of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed in reference to other situations with similar tensions, such as battered person syndrome, rape cases, child abuse cases, and bride kidnapping."
> 
> ...



From Wikipedia
"Ad hominem abusive or ad personam
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's."

Have a nice day. 

Short


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 24, 2007)

*Link to class action complaint*

Here is a link to one of the original complaints before the class actions were consolidated:

www.thetimesharebeat.com/murrillo-vs-rci.pdf

Is the new amended complaint in the consolidated action availible online anywhere?  If someone has a copy, maybe they could get it to someone who could get it online.  Also, RCI's answer would be interesting.  It would be nice if these documents could be posted on the class action website.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 24, 2007)

*Yada yada yada*

Come back and rehash all this - again - in 5 years when the lawyers cash out and you all get your $5 off coupon for any exchange in the 90 days after the multi million dollar settlement with the  class action weasel attorneys. Oh, by the way, by then the weeks system at RCI will be about as robust as the old Fairfield FAX weeks based system.  

A complete waste of time, effort and most of all your money.  

If you hate RCI weeks so much don't use them. That seems to be what is happening in any case - no high priced shysters required.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 24, 2007)

You have it all wrong.  RCI created the best exchange system that has ever been devised, back before they concocted their points variant and started bigtime into the rental to the public business.  I don't think it is that anyone hates RCI Weeks at all.  We want to put a halt to the shananigans that are destroying this system; the looting for crossover trades from Points members, and the looting for rentals to the general public.

And, hey, we don't have to invest any money.  The class action firms are doing that.

To compare it to airlines, RCI Weeks members seem to be more in line with the objectives of www.saveskymiles.com with reference to Delta than they are with the objectives of www.untied.com with reference to United.




timeos2 said:


> Come back and rehash all this - again - in 5 years when the lawyers cash out and you all get your $5 off coupon for any exchange in the 90 days after the multi million dollar settlement with the  class action weasel attorneys. Oh, by the way, by then the weeks system at RCI will be about as robust as the old Fairfield FAX weeks based system.
> 
> A complete waste of time, effort and most of all your money.
> 
> If you hate RCI weeks so much don't use them. That seems to be what is happening in any case - no high priced shysters required.


----------



## JLB (Feb 24, 2007)

According to him.

And where is he and why is he not posting on the Internet anymore?

According to my source, Bootleg was low-level, with just enough access to see a little, and then he drew his own conclusions.  Certainly the type of propietary information that is withheld from members is also withheld from low level employees.  

He posted false information, such as his take on the 1-in-4 rule.  Again, because he only knew a little and guessed at the rest.

With as much disgust as most of us have toward Guides and the inaccurate information they provide members, Bootleg has been placed on a pretty high pedestal around here, don't you think?

Could it be that just because he was one of the other side, and about the only one to talk to us, violating his employment contract, that we gave him more credit than we should?  

What kind of witness would he make?  It would be easy to demonstrate that he was disloyal and dishonest to his employer, so what credibility could he have?  A person who ignores legalities in a major part of his life just about cooks his own goose.

You can refute this as much as you like, hoping to get an answer you like better, but Bootleg is useless is this matter.  

Find us a high-level person, a policy-maker, one privy to all proprietary information, and one who has not conducted himself outside of the law, so that his/her evidence/testimony can be trusted.





Carolinian said:


> Longtime TUG poster Bootleg, an RCI employee who had access to RCI's computers, followed some of these prime week rentals back to the source and found that they were member exchange deposits that had nothing to do with cruises, points for deposit, etc., just straight out exchange deposits.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 24, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Come back and rehash all this - again - in 5 years when the lawyers cash out and you all get your $5 off coupon for any exchange in the 90 days after the multi million dollar settlement with the  class action weasel attorneys. Oh, by the way, by then the weeks system at RCI will be about as robust as the old Fairfield FAX weeks based system.
> 
> A complete waste of time, effort and most of all your money.
> 
> If you hate RCI weeks so much don't use them. That seems to be what is happening in any case - no high priced shysters required.



And, just for instance, if it comes down the other way, that RCI was signifiantly ripping off it's members by renting out exchange inventory, will you the come back on these forums and admit you were about as wrong as anyone could get? Or will you maintain that the world is really flat?

I've said several times on these forums that I felt rental inventory came from people who bought into timesharing not knowing what it was. Then, once they discovered that short notice vacation planning didn't work well, they weren't able to change old habits of not taking vacation or, they just couldn't figure out how to use it, gave up and used their points to purchase other services. 

I believe if you could look at my previous posts you'll see that's the side I've come down on pretty consitantly.

However, in light that there may be enough evidense that a class action case has some merit, I'm willing to step back and say I may have been mistaken. IOW, I am willing to at least LISTEN to the other side and consider that they could be right


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 24, 2007)

The person you talk to (in Cancun, I beleive?) is rather high up the ladder at RCI and therefore obviously wants to cover for RCI.

I wish I knew why Boot is not posting anymore.  Maybe he was caught and dismissed by RCI.  Maybe with the class action rattling around, there was a heightened witchhunt for people like him and he had to lie low.

As I recall, you were the one who first posted Boot's info on this subject, after he allowed you to post what he had sent you in a private email.  I am more than a little surprised that you are now trying to knock that info.

And it is not just Bootleg.  Other RCI employees have posted similar info over at www.timesharetalk.co.uk  It is clearly NOT something that only the higher ups can get access to.  One of the more prolific posters from RCI over there (who has also now departed), Anon, clearly was what he said he was becuase the owner of that site tested him by giving anon some specific questions about his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI's computers could answer, and anon came back with all of the right answers.

When the lawyers for the plaintiffs get access to the same info as discovery progresses, then RCI's goose is going to be cooked in the class action lawsuit.





JLB said:


> According to him.
> 
> And where is he and why is he not posting on the Internet anymore?
> 
> ...


----------



## Pit (Feb 24, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Here is a link to one of the original complaints before the class actions were consolidated:
> 
> www.thetimesharebeat.com/murrillo-vs-rci.pdf



The following was posted on the crimeshare site. Is this true? Did they buy her off?



> Jan 8 2007
> RCI paid Veronica Murillo of New Jersey to withdraw her claim which tempts the suggestion that a similar action in the UK would get a similar response -  Rex


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 24, 2007)

*Not much chance*



dougp26364 said:


> And, just for instance, if it comes down the other way, that RCI was signifiantly ripping off it's members by renting out exchange inventory, will you the come back on these forums and admit you were about as wrong as anyone could get? Or will you maintain that the world is really flat?
> 
> I've said several times on these forums that I felt rental inventory came from people who bought into timesharing not knowing what it was. Then, once they discovered that short notice vacation planning didn't work well, they weren't able to change old habits of not taking vacation or, they just couldn't figure out how to use it, gave up and used their points to purchase other services.
> 
> ...



If anyone sees anything more than a virtually worthless voucher out of the time and money wasted on this exercise I will certainly come back with the proper "I was wrong".  I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that outcome. Membership/use of RCI is voluntary and they clearly disclose the rules. If you give them your time anyway it's not their fault. The world is flat view seems to come from those that actually think the week for week system worked and was fair. It was by design weighted to secretly favor the exchange company and those who could play the rules well.  It's no loss if it disappears tomorrow.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 24, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> If anyone sees anything more than a virtually worthless voucher out of the time and money wasted on this exercise I will certainly come back with the proper "I was wrong".  I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that outcome. Membership/use of RCI is voluntary and they clearly disclose the rules. If you give them your time anyway it's not their fault. The world is flat view seems to come from those that actually think the week for week system worked and was fair. It was by design weighted to secretly favor the exchange company and those who could play the rules well.  It's no loss if it disappears tomorrow.




I don't believe the week for week system was fare. It had some very obvious flaws and potential for abuse. Of course I understand all exchanges will favor the exchange company. They are in the business to make money. 

However, the very premise of an exchange company is that I deposit my unit to exchange with someone else who has deposited their unit for exchange. It appears that may not be the case with RCI. It appears there may be some merit to the fact that I deposit a unit in anticipation of having a selection of other similar units that have been deposited for exchange but, rather than having my unit available for exchange by other TS owners, it is instead rented out for profit and there is no value given to me in return as they have done the same with other desirable deposits. 

I don't see what's so difficult to understand that this would be patently against the premise of exchange. I give up something of value to barter for something of similar value, only to find there is nothing and am now offered the opportunity to rent that something for an additional charge PLUS suffer te loss of the original item of value (my deposit). IF, and I do mean if RCI is doing this, then the case has merit and RCI should be forced to cease and desist this activity.


----------



## wbtimesharer (Feb 24, 2007)

*If it gets RCI to change I'm for it but I doubt it*

What I would like to see this lawsuit actually do is:

1.  Force RCI into exchange only system where any unexchanged units are lost. Or at most, allow any unused inventory to be offered at Last Minute Rental rates.  I do hate to see perfectly good units go unused.  Of course if units are unused, does that not mean that deposited units didn't get an exchange.  I wonder if a refund schedule could be implemented.

2.  Something I haven't quite understood no matter how many people explain it to me, is the concept of Exchange companies being able to rent my deposited week yet I not being able to rent weeks obtained from them.  
Since most exchange companies only allow equitable exchanges, then in theory both sides should be entitled to utilize the swapped weeks the same.

Now the reality of this clASS action lawsuit, much like the Tobacco Follies, is that a bunch of lawyers and politicians will become incrementally richer, all Exchange companies will increase costs proportionate to the awards paid out, nothing will change, and we sheep will continue to bleat and stand in line to get sheared.

And life will go on.

Bill


----------



## PerryM (Feb 24, 2007)

*Punish my toaster if you must...*

The reason I keep plugging away at the insanity of suing RCI is to try to save some of you from your own hatred of something that costs a few bucks.

No one here believes that RCI is going to be punished do you? – it’s just a pile of legal papers that is as alive as my toaster.  The folks who work for RCI come and go and the mucky mucks who run the place have golden parachutes that will be executed and cost RCI even more money.  The stockholders are busy buying high and selling low, or is it the other way around they wonder?

Just what are the proponents of punishing RCI expecting?  This would be like trying to punish my toaster for burning my bagels – this is insanity.

So my advice to those who spend more than 5 seconds worrying about this problem is to take advantage of the wonderful opportunity RCI Points offers you – steal those weeks from the RCI Week folks and have a great vacation.  RCI is renting the weeks out to pay for my airline tickets I get from their travel department - I love it.

So go ahead and punish my toaster if it makes you feel better; heck punish yours to.  When this is all said and done I'm going to have a lot of RCI airline tickets and maybe even cheap RCI vacations thanks to the folks beating the hell out of their toasters.  I love it, since you will eventually pay for a new toaster to replace the one you beat to hell.  Oh, if you're in the mood, go ahead and tax my toaster too; it's the same thing.


----------



## wbtimesharer (Feb 24, 2007)

PerryM said:


> The reason I keep plugging away at the insanity of suing RCI is to try to save some of you from your own hatred of something that costs a few bucks.
> 
> No one here believes that RCI is going to be punished do you? – it’s just a pile of legal papers that is as alive as my toaster.  The folks who work for RCI come and go and the mucky mucks who run the place have golden parachutes that will be executed and cost RCI even more money.
> 
> ...





Perry,

But I like Canjun bagles, so why would I smack around your toaster? 

I agree with you on this lawsuit folly.  I would love to see what the plantiffs propose as a solution.  Oh wait, they don't want no stinkin solutions, they want perfumed greenbacks.  Hell my guess is that a number of the lawyers are probably shareholders of cendant and can't wait to get the triple dip of legal fees, damage dollars collected, and then the increased revenue from RCI when they raise prices.

And all along, us sheep will contine to bleat away about moving over to these secret fee exchange companies advertising in Urban Legends Magazine.  Along the way, complaining that paying x numbers of dollars is way too much for that timeshare while at the same time complaining that how dare someone only offer x number of dollars for the unit I own.

If we could just take the humanity out of humans, things would be so much simpler.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree.  In virtually any class action lawsuit, the significant relief is in the injunctive part of it stopping the defendant from engaging in certain conduct in the future, not the financial compensation for past wrongs.  

Burying the fact that they think they can abuse members by taking week deposits for themselves very deeply in the fine print while publically presenting a different picture is ''clearly disclosing the rules''???????

RCI is doing the same thing the old S&L's were - misusing members deposits for their own benefit.  And, yes, using the S&L's was voluntary too, and they may have even had something deep in their fine print where they tried to justify their behavior.  Did you defend them as strongly as you defend RCI???




timeos2 said:


> If anyone sees anything more than a virtually worthless voucher out of the time and money wasted on this exercise I will certainly come back with the proper "I was wrong".  I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that outcome. Membership/use of RCI is voluntary and they clearly disclose the rules. If you give them your time anyway it's not their fault. The world is flat view seems to come from those that actually think the week for week system worked and was fair. It was by design weighted to secretly favor the exchange company and those who could play the rules well.  It's no loss if it disappears tomorrow.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

There were a number of vocal naysayers over at FlyerTalk who constantly pooh-poohed the www.saveskymiles.com campaign to force Delta to back off of the customer-unfriendly changes it had made in its ff program.  They remind me of some who constantly run interference for RCI on these boards. In the end, however, SaveSkyMiles won and Delta waved a white flag.

And Perry, it is NOT about ''punishing'' RCI.  It is about REFORMING RCI, just like SaveSkyMiles brought about pro-customer reform at Delta.  We want a company we can be happy and confidant in using, not one where we have to cringe about how they may hose us when we deposit a week with them.  

And, anyway, ''punishing'' is done in criminal court.  The class action is in CIVIL court.

I would be happy with 0 dollars in financial compensation for past wrongs as long as we get solid and meaningful injunctive relief to stop the ripoff of exchange deposits for rental to the general public and unfair crossover exchanges to points members.

It is curious that most of the die-hard defenders of RCI rentals are also strong points advocates,  They seem to realize that these two programs are joined at the hip.  If the rental program goes down in flames, points will be seriously wounded in the process.



PerryM said:


> The reason I keep plugging away at the insanity of suing RCI is to try to save some of you from your own hatred of something that costs a few bucks.
> 
> No one here believes that RCI is going to be punished do you? – it’s just a pile of legal papers that is as alive as my toaster.  The folks who work for RCI come and go and the mucky mucks who run the place have golden parachutes that will be executed and cost RCI even more money.  The stockholders are busy buying high and selling low, or is it the other way around they wonder?
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Pit said:


> The following was posted on the crimeshare site. Is this true? Did they buy her off?



I suspect they prbably tried, but the fact that the class action lawsuit is still steaming along clearly shows that they failed to do so.  Veronica Murrillo is also not the only lead plaintiff.


----------



## PerryM (Feb 25, 2007)

*Micromanaging my toaster*

Lawyers love to micromanage things – they are always getting in the way of consumers and citizens.  If the purpose is to not punish my toaster then it’s to micromanage its function – toasting bagels.  I still miss the popcorn at the movie theaters popped in coconut oil – you could not get that taste at home.  Lawyers micromanaged that out of the move theaters – like I said they live to micromanage our lives.

The years involved in such litigation are used by the defendant, RCI in this case, to simply sidestep the issue and by the time a court gets involved in micromanaging the company the company is 5 years ahead of them and the decisions are meaningless.  This does keep the lawyers busy focused on an old problem - its the cost of doing business that RCIs members will pay for.

Funny thing is the lawyers always seem to hit the jackpot – there are millions of dollars for their trouble and peanuts for their clients – does anyone here really believe the lawyers have micromanaging in their heart?  Let’s face it they are greedy Capitalistic Pigs just like most of us.  Instead of earning the money producing a good or service for the benefit of their fellow man they use a 200 year old legal system that barely works to pick our pockets.


----------



## JLB (Feb 25, 2007)

I am not answering Steve not because I don't have a solid legal footing, that being that people like Anon and Bootleg, people who openly violate legal agreements, would never make good witnesses, or that entry level RCI employees can be believed when they are guessing at things they don't have access to, just like we all are.

I am not answering because in my 10 years or so hanging out with Steve I have learned that he will just keep going until he gets the answers he wants.  So it is best to just state my opinion, and stop.

Can a person take both sides?

I, personally, hate that post-DeHaan RCI has adulterated what was a pretty good little system, by breaching the faith Christel had established with those whose money fuels that system, us.  That position has nothing to do with rules of evidence and the legal process, what it takes to prove wrongdoing.


----------



## JLB (Feb 25, 2007)

Another problem is that you can take the same set of facts and support opposite conclusions, the conclusions that support the persuasion you had to begin with.

Mr. Bum concludes that because I can't see some resorts I used to, the wheels are coming off the old red wagon.   

But, in order to seek damages, there has to have been a loss.  I believe those who contacted me decided that what we have done with timesharing, through RCI, would make me a poster boy for RCI, Weeks, and the old system of timesharing, not someone who could prove their case.

They would see that we have had nearly 100 vacations at nice resorts, and when they look at the $$$ we have spent to do that, where we own and our annual fees, most would conclude that we have done very well.  They would see that we have gone to places we never would have at less than half of what it would have cost without timesharing or RCI.

One search this week, to provide figures in another thread, showed 184 Florida resorts for a 10 week period.  For the last two weeks I have been seeing a very nice 2-bedroom Gold Crown on the beach in a highly desirable area in Snowbird season, for a date to go with the Sanibel resort on the beach the previous week.  The only reason I can't take it is because it is for 2-years from now and I have booked so many exchanges between now and then that I am out of weeks until next month when I can deposit some 2009 weeks.

Does that sound broken, something that could be used against RCI?
- - - - - -
Does it work like we were told and like people are still being told?  No.  But that is a different fight, one that should be fought.

Are there resorts we use to see but now can't?  Yes.  So?

Have we ever traded _down_, worse than we own?  No.

Are we still getting decent exchanges?  Yes.

Have we been getting better than we deserved and as the ability to assimilate information has improved, that is now correcting itself?  Yet to be seen.






JLB said:


> It is nice to see it precisely and succinctly worded.
> 
> As I have said before, I was contacted early on by one of the investigators, likely because of my SW Florida in January thread.  I have accumulated data since RCI.com began in 1997 and recorded it since 3/27/2002.  Thousands of searches for the same area the same timeframe, every day, for several years.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Well, I guess you were not happy when the lawyers ''micromanaged'' the problems at Enron, the Savings and Loans, etc. . . .

Actually, if I were to choose the best path to rectify the problems at RCI, it would be to have a state AG use their considerable pre-litigation investigatory powers to pop RCI with some subpoenas for extensive records and testimony from their big boys.  A state AG moving quickly to turn over the rocks would probably have RCI crying uncle very quickly.




PerryM said:


> Lawyers love to micromanage things – they are always getting in the way of consumers and citizens.  If the purpose is to not punish my toaster then it’s to micromanage its function – toasting bagels.  I still miss the popcorn at the movie theaters popped in coconut oil – you could not get that taste at home.  Lawyers micromanaged that out of the move theaters – like I said they live to micromanage our lives.
> 
> The years involved in such litigation are used by the defendant, RCI in this case, to simply sidestep the issue and by the time a court gets involved in micromanaging the company the company is 5 years ahead of them and the decisions are meaningless.  This does keep the lawyers busy focused on an old problem - its the cost of doing business that RCIs members will pay for.
> 
> Funny thing is the lawyers always seem to hit the jackpot – there are millions of dollars for their trouble and peanuts for their clients – does anyone here really believe the lawyers have micromanaging in their heart?  Let’s face it they are greedy Capitalistic Pigs just like most of us.  Instead of earning the money producing a good or service for the benefit of their fellow man they use a 200 year old legal system that barely works to pick our pockets.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Jim, your contention that Boot, Anon, and other RCI employees were only speculating is based either on your own speculation or the self-serving defenses in the claims of an RCI higher-up.

One of the other RCI employees posted a compressed screen shot from an RCI computer that backed up his assertions and showed that he COULD see what he said he could.  Other than some changes from the compression, Boot confirmed that what was posted was consistent with a screen shot from an RCI computer.

Whistleblowers do indeed violate repressive legal agreements, but that makes them heros, not villians.

The comments of these RCI employees are backed up when I look in records at my own resort and see that the RCI rentals are weeks that were deposited by members for exchange.  This is not a points resort, so they are not points partner related, and the resort has warned members a number of times in its newsletter that ''cruise exchanges'' are ripoffs, so it is unlikely they are related to them.

The RCI employee who posted the screen shot said he had saved a lot of them.  I hope he has made contact with the class action lawyers to give them that info.  But realistically, the evidence in the case will mostly come through the discovery process when plaintiffs lawyers start turning over rocks among RCI's own records.  It is likely to be what in the military is referred to as a ''target rich environment''.




JLB said:


> I am not answering Steve because I don't have a solid legal footing, that being that people like Anon and Bootleg, people who openly violate legal agreements, would never make good witnesses, or that entry level RCI employees can be believed when they are guessing at things they don't have access to, just like we all are.
> 
> I am not answering because in my 10 years or so hanging out with Steve I have learned that he will just keep going until he gets the answers he wants.  So it is best to just state my opinion, and stop.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Feb 25, 2007)

*Where's my tinfoil hat?*



Carolinian said:


> Well, I guess you were not happy when the lawyers ''micromanaged'' the problems at Enron, the Savings and Loans, etc. . . .
> 
> ...





Carolinian said:


> Jim, your contention that Boot, Anon, and other RCI employees were only speculating is based either on your own speculation or the self-serving defenses of an RCI higher-up.
> 
> One of the other RCI employees posted a compressed screen shot from an RCI computer that backed up his assertions and showed that he COULD see what he said he could.  Other than some changes from the compression, Boot confirmed that what was posted was consistent with a screen shot from an RCI computer.
> 
> ...



And just who caused the problems at Enron and the Savings and Loans – Lawyers.

In both cases lawyers are the culprits that were ignorant, misinformed, or crooked.

In both cases the government lawyers sat by and watched the train wrecks happen.

The RCI solution is so simple that lawyers just can’t seem to understand it – 1) There probably isn’t a problem to solve in the first place 2) If there is a solution the consumer holds the solution and not the courts and lawyers

*The hysteria whipped up in this chat room has immensely harmed fellow TUGGERS* – some have already made decisions based upon the half truths bantered about as being truths.

This is why I don’t like consumer activism dragged into the exchange of knowledge and experience – the two are based upon totally different tenets – knowledge is based upon facts that can be verified; consumer activism is primarily based upon the serpentine words of lawyers.  The two are diametrical opposites.

To all of you listening to the theories of why folks can’t get the lopsided upgrades anymore the answer is very clear – “*The ride is over*”, RCI Weeks has peaked and the new results are going to be the norm – and this started several years ago as RCI Points was introduced.

Asking lawyers to punish and micromanage RCI Weeks is only going to make them rich and you are going to pay for their new BMWs and condos in Maui.  Stop listening to the tinfoil hat theories that keep being bantered about and focus on maximizing your vacations for your family – that’s your job as a consumer.


----------



## Aldo (Feb 25, 2007)

It is interesting that most of what we are seeing is a negative heuristic defending RCI based on broad cynicisms regarding the American jurisprudence system.

Very little of this, (albeit some) on the pro-RCI side, seems to want to engage the issues of renting out spacebanked weeks.


----------



## Aldo (Feb 25, 2007)

Yes, one would certainly hope that the screenshots of RCI employees such as Bootleg and Anon, which have been posted on various internet sites, such as www.timesharetalk.co.uk will be discovered and considered.

As the site indicates, the case is now involved in class action certification.

The disclosures of both Bootleg and Anon not only relate to the charges that spacebank deposits are being wrongly skimmed, they would also be pertinent in showing the existence of a class, one would think.


----------



## JLB (Feb 25, 2007)

As I've said many times, I would prefer RCI and timesharing to be the closed system it was designed to be, the one they presented to us.

If there is *real* evidence, that would be different.  I don't have any.  I have posted in my SW Florida thread for anyone to provide some, anyone, and have not gotten it yet.

I'm fairly certain stuff posted on the Internet would not be admissable.   

Gosh, who do I sound like--show me some evidence!!!???


----------



## Aldo (Feb 25, 2007)

The discussion with RCI employees which has been referred in this thread can be found at:

http://www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=165


----------



## JLB (Feb 25, 2007)

heu·ris·tic       (hyŏŏ-rĭs'tĭk)  Pronunciation Key

adj.   
Of or relating to a usually speculative formulation serving as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem: "The historian discovers the past by the judicious use of such a heuristic device as the 'ideal type'" (Karl J. Weintraub).

Of or constituting an educational method in which learning takes place through discoveries that result from investigations made by the student.

Computer Science Relating to or using a problem-solving technique in which the most appropriate solution of several found by alternative methods is selected at successive stages of a program for use in the next step of the program.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Ah, spoken as a true-beleiving points advocate.  Clearly you comprehend that when the rentals to the public go down in flames, as they likely will in this lawsuit you don't like, points will be seriously wounded, something that obviously concerns those committed to the points system.

And attacking lawyers is just a red herring.

The consumer hardly holds the solution when dealing with a quasi-monoply like RCI.  For resorts that are not dual affiliated and do not inform members about their ability to use independent exchange companies, owners are effectively prisoners of RCI if they want to exchange, and exchanging is why a large number of them bought timeshare in the first place.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that in a system where trading power is based on supply and demand, when those running the system start monkeying around with the supply, by looting it for the benefit of rentals and points members, then the ability to trade will be effected.  

Points advocates seem obsessed with the trades up that sometimes happen as a natural result of market forces in a market-based system like Weeks, but they ignore the fact that it is the Points system where massive trades up are programed in, often at the expense of Weeks through the unfair generic points crossover grids, but also due to the corruption of the process of assigning points numbers within the Points system itself where somes types of resorts are systematically overpointed at the expense of other resorts.

The ''see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'' and ''blindly trust RCI'' theory flies in the face of what more and more timesharers are waking up to in the manipulation of the exchange system against our interests.







PerryM said:


> And just who caused the problems at Enron and the Savings and Loans – Lawyers.
> 
> In both cases lawyers are the culprits that were ignorant, misinformed, or crooked.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Once again, Jim, evidence for court is accumulated in the discovery process in the lawsuit.  That has just begun. It is likely to be what in the military is called a ''target rich environment''.

As to evdience for discussion on an internet board, however, that does not come under the judicial rules of evidence.  There is certainly enough out there from enough credible sources for any timesharer to be concerned.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist for anyone to comprehend that when an exchange company starts diverting supply from the exchange banks, it is going to effect trading.




JLB said:


> As I've said many times, I would prefer RCI and timesharing to be the closed system it was designed to be, the one they presented to us.
> 
> If there is *real* evidence, that would be different.  I don't have any.  I have posted in my SW Florida thread for anyone to provide some, anyone, and have not gotten it yet.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aldo (Feb 25, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that in a system where trading power is based on supply and demand, when those running the system start monkeying around with the supply, by looting it for the benefit of rentals and points members, then the ability to trade will be effected.



Any some of those who do realize this, such as Bocabum, don't seem to think that the Spacebank even ought to be a closed system among owners who deposit and exchange.  Boca's consideration that a pure rental market might provide the best guage of relative trade power is interesting, but doesn't justify skimming the Spacebank.


----------



## PerryM (Feb 25, 2007)

*Just the facts, Ma'am*



Aldo said:


> It is interesting that most of what we are seeing is a negative heuristic defending RCI based on broad cynicisms regarding the American jurisprudence system.
> 
> Very little of this, (albeit some) on the pro-RCI side, seems to want to engage the issues of renting out spacebanked weeks.






Aldo said:


> Yes, one would certainly hope that the screenshots of RCI employees such as Bootleg and Anon, which have been posted on various internet sites, such as www.timesharetalk.co.uk will be discovered and considered.
> 
> As the site indicates, the case is now involved in class action certification.
> 
> The disclosures of both Bootleg and Anon not only relate to the charges that spacebank deposits are being wrongly skimmed, they would also be pertinent in showing the existence of a class, one would think.



Aldo,

I love RCI renting out weeks to pay for my RCI Points exchange for airline tickets – so put me down as a supporter of this policy.

As I’ve asked for about 1 year now – just where is the proof that:
1)	Anything is wrong
2)	RCI is violating it’s own rules

Now I need more than innuendos – something that 90 out of 100 members of this chat room would consider credible evidence – I’m not asking for 100% just 90% - I’ve not seen anything but “evidence” that has me laughing.

Since those here demand the courts get involved I think we should look at all the crazy rulings the courts get involved with our daily life – even the Supreme Court.  If this is the forum the activists demand that an arbiter for micromanaging and punishing RCI be found, their track record is worthy of display.  My only reaction is one of uncontrollable laughing and crying at the same time.

So as Joe Friday would demand “Just the facts, Ma’am” 

There are no facts presented so far – only wild, wacky theories that belong in a comic book with Joe Friday.  If I made the claim that I regularly take a gold Marriott week and exchange into a Platinum Marriott week in Maui, I have the proof to back it up – just where is the “Stand up in court” proof to backup the wacky “RCI is a scoundrel” theories?  We all know it doesn't exist - this is then the reason to whip up the Tug members?


----------



## Aldo (Feb 25, 2007)

Perry, 

You wrote, in part,

"I love RCI renting out weeks to pay for my RCI Points exchange for airline tickets,"

and then you ask for proof that RCI is renting out weeks.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

There are plenty of facts, but you just choose to ignore them because you seem to think facts presented on an internet board are not ''facts'' unless they meet courtroom standards, an interesting threory for someone who obviously hates lawyers and courts!  I don't think we are ever going to have a resident clerk of court on these boards to swear witnesses, so I don't think you will ever get evidence that will satisfy you.  However, not to worry, that is coming in the discovery in the lawsuit, which will meet court standards.  What will your line be then, I wonder??

And the test is NOT whether RCI violated its own rules.  I suspect that Enron and the Savings and Loans did not violate their own rules, either.  It is whether RCI's actions violated the law. in this case consumer protection laws. Those laws are pretty broad.  North Carolina's, for example, provides that ''unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful''.

Is it not unfair when RCI depletes its spacebank to rent out weeks to the general public?

Is it not deceptive when RCI buries a provision in the fine print saying it can use weeks deposited any way it wants to at the same time it presents the system differently to members?

Is it not unfair when RCI provides priime Weeks inventory to Points members at a bargain basement rate but does not even allow trades from Weeks into Points at all?

RCI's own rules or practices can themselves be unfair or deceptive, in which case far from being a defense, the rule helps hang them in court.






PerryM said:


> Aldo,
> 
> I love RCI renting out weeks to pay for my RCI Points exchange for airline tickets – so put me down as a supporter of this policy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Aldo said:


> The discussion with RCI employees which has been referred in this thread can be found at:
> 
> http://www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=165



That is one of several.  There are others on the RCI board at Timeshare Talk.

There are others on the RCI board at Crimeshare.


----------



## Aldo (Feb 25, 2007)

Carolinian,

   You should provide links.

You never know who's watching.

Actually, not even that is true.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Aldo said:


> Carolinian,
> 
> You should provide links.
> 
> ...



www.rimeshare.org/43.html

www.timesharetalk.co.uk (click on the RCI board)

While much of the Crimeshare material is consistent with other information, I take Crimeshare generally somewhat with a grain of salt.


----------



## JLB (Feb 25, 2007)

Steve *is* persistent, something I have complimented him on many times, as I was at one time the one quick to post the link to the AG or the FTC.

He certainly has not found the end of his rut yet.   

But I wonder what difference it makes, and, yes, it certainly does get old hearing exactly the same thing over and over.  It certainly does get old hearing exactly the same thing over and over.  It certainly does get old hearing exactly the same thing over and over.  It certainly does get old hearing exactly the same thing over and over.  It certainly does get old hearing exactly the same thing over and over.  It certainly does get old hearing exactly the same thing over and over.

I guess, any more, I prefer to try to enjoy what little we might have left of our timeshare experience, rather than fret about it incessantly.  You know, before the sky falls down.  

If RCI *is* renting Spacebanked weeks to the public, I don't condone that.  If they *are* renting weeks to pay for shortages in benefits they provide to members other than me and mine, I don't condone that.  If they *are* allowing Points members to raid Weeks, I don't condone that.  If non-timeshare owners can access any inventory deposited by owners, I don't condone that.

I don't know that there is anything else I can say or contribute, and I am certainly not the villain in any of this (because I choose to discount the word of a disgruntled employee or two, ones who chose to continue receiving the benefits of their employment while disgrunting. )


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Aldo said:


> Perry,
> 
> You wrote, in part,
> 
> ...




As I pointed out earlier, Points and  RCI rentals are joined at the hip.  If rentals are blown away, Points will be wounded.  Small wonder that some of the more vocal Points advocates also support rentals and criticize attacks on RCI rentals.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 25, 2007)

*the problem is the method*



Aldo said:


> Any some of those who do realize this, such as Bocabum, don't seem to think that the Spacebank even ought to be a closed system among owners who deposit and exchange.  Boca's consideration that a pure rental market might provide the best guage of relative trade power is interesting, but doesn't justify skimming the Spacebank.



Aldo - I've always felt the spacebank should be a closed loop. But that isn't what RCI says and we agree to if we deposit. So taking advantage of the system, agreeing to the terms and then saying it doesn't work the way we want is disingenuous at best. We all have options if we don't agree with the (current) RCI approach. The problem is the waste of time and money to make the shysters rich vs simply addressing a problem if there is one. Don't deposit with RCI. If everyone that felt the current system is broken did that and it was a significant number things would change. If the vast majority continue to use the system then they are ok with the methodology.  This isn't Enron, engaged in outright fraud and in violation of Securities rules and regulations, or the savings and loan scandals (again in violation of Federal rules and regs) but a small, voluntary system to exchange a vacation week or two between owners - hardly on the scale of the national banking system or stock markets. To try to say it is the same degree of problem is ludicrous.  There are no Federal regulations for vacation exchanges. If there were RCI would comply or be cited.  

The ongoing rhetoric and speculation means nothing, the so called fact finding or discovery isn't likely to disclose any smoking guns (unless the brain trust at RCI is REALLY stupid - it could happen) so the best approach is to utilize the various options out there as best you can. Anyone reading these tirades and using the wild guesses to manage their timeshare usage is being very silly. That goes for both sides of the argument. None of it means anything to the users of today. And its liable to be years before anything changes if it ever does. Do what is best for your wallet and desired use. Don't depend on anything from the outside to change how RCI or anyone else does business. Your week is trading just as well or poorly with RCI no matter what happens regarding these claims. Thats all that really matters. The rest is so much hot air.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 25, 2007)

*Is There An Echo In Here?*




JLB said:


> It certainly does get old hearing exactly the same thing over and over.


Shucks, if TUG filtered out all the repetition in my BBS contributions, what's left would fit on 1 side of a 3x5 card -- not that there's anything wrong with that.  So it goes. 
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## JLB (Feb 25, 2007)

Exactly the way Jon and Christel started it!   



AwayWeGo said:


> what's left would fit on 1 side of a 3x5 card -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Jim, I suggest you go back and look at how this thread developed.  You are right that many of these arguments have been made before, on both sides, but it was Perry who started with the ''broken record'' arguments in this thread, not me.  I just responded to them.  These are very serious issues for timesharing and I am not going to sit back and let the ''RCI can do no wrong'' side be unchallenged.

The ''show me the proof'' argument is itself a broken record, and quite convenient for the pro-RCI side in that RCI does all it can to hide the proof.

I recall the first time it was used in these discussions, back on the old TUG boards when RCI had just rolled out GPN (the early name of RCI Points) and I pointed out a number of problems with GPN, one of which was that a rather vague comment by RCI clearly showed in my opinion, that RCI intended to rent weeks that came in from Points Partner transactions to the general public.  I used logic to show how it could have no other meaning.  I was jumped by the points crowd over this, who said this was just speculation and could not possibly be true.  Of course, we saw who was right.

Then there was the time that the widespread timeshare rentals on SkyAuction started.  I pointed out the circumstantial evidence that indicated this was RCI renting out these timeshare weeks, and again was jumped by the pro-RCI folks saying there was ''no proof''.  One RCI/points advocate went so far as to claim these weeks all came from one guy who owned A LOT of timeshare!  Of course, it was not too long until some Tuggers won some of these auctions, and received a standard RCI confirmation for them from SKyAuction.  The pro-RCI crowd crawled into their holes.  Again we saw who was right.

Nothing is going to be enough proof for these pro-RCI folks until it all comes out in the lawsuit.  Well, what else is new?




JLB said:


> Steve *is* persistent, something I have complimented him on many times, as I was at one time the one quick to post the link to the AG or the FTC.
> 
> He certainly has not found the end of his rut yet.
> 
> ...


----------



## taffy19 (Feb 25, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Aldo - I've always felt the spacebank should be a closed loop. But that isn't what RCI says and we agree to if we deposit. So taking advantage of the system, agreeing to the terms and then saying it doesn't work the way we want is disingenuous at best. We all have options if we don't agree with the (current) RCI approach. The problem is the waste of time and money to make the shysters rich vs simply addressing a problem if there is one. Don't deposit with RCI. If everyone that felt the current system is broken did that and it was a significant number things would change. If the vast majority continue to use the system then they are ok with the methodology.


So true but what really seems to be the problem is how timeshares are sold to the public who is buying their first timeshare.  They are lured by the promise that exchanging is a piece of cake so most people buy for exchanging rather than for use.

After owning a timeshare, they can make up their own mind if it works for them or not.  Developers should put more emphasis on buying where you like to visit often and exchanging is an additional perk.

They also should tell the buyer that they have options to trade with anyone they want because they own the week or points.  The developers and RCI line each other's pockets rather than having the best interest at heart of the consumer.  JMHO, of course.  :annoyed:


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Oh my, another ''broken record'' argument.

Contracts of adhesion have been discussed not only on these boards but also at Street Talk on the Timeshare Beat.  The membership agreement with RCI fits the classic terms of a contract of adhesion, and a contract of adhesion is unlikely to get very far with a court, particularly a court using the ''unfair or deceptive'' standard of consumer protection law.

The fact that people continue to use the system is not a sign that people agree with what is going on, but merely of the fact that it is a quasi-monopoly and most timesharers don't know they have any other choice if they wish to exchange.  All the more reason for the courts to clean up the system.

As far as discovery not finding anything, the info from Bootleg, Anon and others shows it is in there in the records.  If RCI destroys their records, that in itself will be a smoking gun.  I would hope that the plaintiffs attorneys would seek a list of people who have recently left RCI's employ as part of their discovery.  I bet this group would produce some very good witnesses not intimidated to let it all out.

Unfortunately, there is no way to ''simply address a problem'' short of the courts in this situation.  RCI is bound and detemined to do it there way unless stopped by someone with authority.  I wish the situation were different but it is not.

Individuals not depositing is not a solution.  RCI's policies on rentals threatens to undermine the financial foundation of the ownership/exchange model of timesharing and our resorts along with it.  That is not a solution. It is merely burying ones head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away.  What is needed is a solution with some teeth and that is either legislative or judicial.

As far as the ''poor little small RCI'' not as big as the S&L's or Enron argument, I suspect that RCI is significantly larger than most if not all of the S&L's.  The comparision of course is each business to each business, not one business vs. an entire industry.

Anyone who depends on the ''see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'' and ''blindly trust RCI'' arguments on these boards is being poorly served.
There is no question that the rentals are going on and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this impacts trading.

And it is easy to see why Points advocates such as yourself want us Weeks members to keep marching like Lemmings over the cliff.  ''Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, the great and powerful RCI has spoken!''




timeos2 said:


> Aldo - I've always felt the spacebank should be a closed loop. But that isn't what RCI says and we agree to if we deposit. So taking advantage of the system, agreeing to the terms and then saying it doesn't work the way we want is disingenuous at best. We all have options if we don't agree with the (current) RCI approach. The problem is the waste of time and money to make the shysters rich vs simply addressing a problem if there is one. Don't deposit with RCI. If everyone that felt the current system is broken did that and it was a significant number things would change. If the vast majority continue to use the system then they are ok with the methodology.  This isn't Enron, engaged in outright fraud and in violation of Securities rules and regulations, or the savings and loan scandals (again in violation of Federal rules and regs) but a small, voluntary system to exchange a vacation week or two between owners - hardly on the scale of the national banking system or stock markets. To try to say it is the same degree of problem is ludicrous.  There are no Federal regulations for vacation exchanges. If there were RCI would comply or be cited.
> 
> The ongoing rhetoric and speculation means nothing, the so called fact finding or discovery isn't likely to disclose any smoking guns (unless the brain trust at RCI is REALLY stupid - it could happen) so the best approach is to utilize the various options out there as best you can. Anyone reading these tirades and using the wild guesses to manage their timeshare usage is being very silly. That goes for both sides of the argument. None of it means anything to the users of today. And its liable to be years before anything changes if it ever does. Do what is best for your wallet and desired use. Don't depend on anything from the outside to change how RCI or anyone else does business. Your week is trading just as well or poorly with RCI no matter what happens regarding these claims. Thats all that really matters. The rest is so much hot air.


----------



## Aldo (Feb 25, 2007)

Dang right it goes on and on and on and on.

I mean, what are we saying here?

That since we've already discussed this for years, it's time to accept getting the spacebank raided and move on?

In other words, it's OK to rip me off because I'm bored with discussing it?

No.

The reason the discussion goes on and on and on is because the injustice keeps going on and on and on.


----------



## PerryM (Feb 25, 2007)

*William of Ockham knew better…*

I again state the I love using my RCI Points to get airline tickets, many are below the cost I see at the same moment at the airline.  I have no idea what RCI points really does after that but renting of timeshare reservations seems to be what they are doing.  (I’ll poke fun at the idea that RCI is violating its own rules and stealing from one hand to put in the other)

Beyond that, I and everyone here are just guessing.  There is no proof of any kind.  My 20 year old son can gin up any screen you want with PhotoShop.  If you want I could ask him to make me the president of RCI-  I could have a great document suitable for framing – this is not evidence.

I have no idea what the agenda is of the folks who are foisting legal action as the solution – I can make an educated guess; but I have no proof.  I respond here to neutralize the “Say it until they believe it” idiom, since it seems clear that is what’s going on.

*I state my position once again:

1)	There is NO proof that ANYTHING is wrong with RCI Weeks

2)	RCI Weeks has peaked and is declining in value all by itself

3)	There is NO proof that RCI Points is violating RCI rules in any way*

The simplest explanation is normally the correct explanation; time to do a little reading about Occam’s Razor there are no secret plots to doom the RCI Week owners – just a system that has always been held together with secret formulas and procedures that is being replaced by it’s creator, RCI, with a new system that is open and above board - RCI Points.

This is the simplest explanation, most likely the correct explanation of what's going on with RCI Weeks.


----------



## Aldo (Feb 25, 2007)

PerryM said:


> The simplest explanation is normally the correct explanation; time to do a little reading about Occam’s Razor there are no secret plots to doom the RCI Week owners – just a system that has always been held together with secret formulas and procedures that is being replaced by it’s creator, RCI, with a new system that is open and above board - RCI Points.
> 
> This is the simplest explanation, most likely the correct explanation of what's going on with RCI Weeks.



Do you actually believe this, keeping in mind the track record of Cendant?
How many shenanigans has Cendant been involved with over the years?  
"Open and above board" would be a innovation.


----------



## Dean (Feb 25, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> No resort on the Outer Banks does that.  Only one resort is still in developer sales.  Yet the other resorts have weeks showing up on RCI rental sites, that come from only one place - member exchange deposits.


Having weeks for rent doesn't prove they are available inappropriately.  There are sources for RCI to "legally" get these weeks to rent out.  Whether they are hijacking the system to get these weeks illegally remains to be seen but I've seen no compelling evidence to suggest they are.  And if there is reasonable proof provided, I will be very happy to say so.  I am glad for the legal action as I HOPE it puts this issue to bed one way or another.  But I'll go on record as saying that if it doesn't, that is pretty compelling evidence that it isn't happening.


----------



## PerryM (Feb 25, 2007)

*Spoof free zone*



Aldo said:


> Do you actually believe this, keeping in mind the track record of Cendant?
> How many shenanigans has Cendant been involved with over the years?
> "Open and above board" would be a innovation.




Sometimes I spoof to make a point - not this time - *the simplest explanation is that there is NO problem with RCI Weeks*.  Just folks wanting to get lawyers and courts involved so those folks can get rich on the backs of RCI owners.

Open and above board is the definition of a Point system over a secret Week system.  To argue otherwise requires spoofing.


----------



## JLB (Feb 25, 2007)

Maybe that's someone else's point, but not mine.

Mine is that if someone has disagreed with you all 99 times you have said the same thing before, that if you say the same thing one more time, they will likely still not agree with you.   

I have learned that the problem often lies in presentation, that sometimes less is better than more, and in most cases, when more has not worked, even more will work even less.

Like, after so many emails to the sheriff, the sheriff doesn't care to open them any more.  So it doesn't matter what the bad guy is doing.  

I don't know what the answer is, and I truly am trying to be helpful, but there is a need to change the tactic that has been employed here for way too long.  Continuing to bludgeon the same people with the same message is not going to right the wrongs at RCI.

Put your thinking caps on and come up with something new, something that might capture our attention and hearts.

While you're doing that, I'll run to Wal*Mart.  





Aldo said:


> Dang right it goes on and on and on and on.
> 
> I mean, what are we saying here?
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Your son would not know the *content* of an RCI screen, so whatever he put up would almost certainly be recognized by an RCI employee as being a phony.  This screen shot had all of the right content.  That is a major difference.

Frankly, my money is on the inside knowledge of people like Bootleg and Anon over your wishful thinking theories, Perry, but the discovery in the lawsuit will tell the tale.

And, again, the key is not RCI violating its own rules, which has no significance one way or the other in the courts, but whether they have violated the ''unfair or deceptive'' standard of consumer protection law.

Perry, you did not ''respond'' as to the merits of the lawsuit, you started the debate.

How is any system based on supply and demand NOT going to decline when those running it start diverting supply to other places - like rentals to the general public and crossover trades to Points members????  When demand stays the same and supply is compromised, there are not going to be the same trades availible to members.  That is simple freshman economics and shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out or the production of ''proof''.
That decline, then, is contrived and NOT a natural process.

Your argument is a bit like a detective coming upon a badly beaten body and saying ''aha! suicide! he beat himself to death with a blunt instrument!''

I find it humorous that in your point #1 you contend that there is nothing wrong at RCI Weeks but immediately turn around in point #2 and try to explain away WHY there is something wrong at RCI Weeks.





PerryM said:


> I again state the I love using my RCI Points to get airline tickets, many are below the cost I see at the same moment at the airline.  I have no idea what RCI points really does after that but renting of timeshare reservations seems to be what they are doing.  (I’ll poke fun at the idea that RCI is violating its own rules and stealing from one hand to put in the other)
> 
> Beyond that, I and everyone here are just guessing.  There is no proof of any kind.  My 20 year old son can gin up any screen you want with PhotoShop.  If you want I could ask him to make me the president of RCI-  I could have a great document suitable for framing – this is not evidence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mel (Feb 25, 2007)

I don't see any "remedy" the court or any of the lawyers could come up with that would improve the situation.

The exchange system has evolved over time, to meet demands of the market.  The point of the exchange system is to allow people to exchange the weeks they own for something different.  It seems to me, as long as you get something reasonable in exchange, you have no right to complain about what RCI does with your week.

I know that some feel that RCI is not giving them fair exchanges, but I suspect a large part of that is due to the sales tactic that were used to sell tham a week, and not RCI's fault.  If anything, RCI can argue that they have attempted to balance the playing field by introducting the points system.  The points system introduced a certain level of transparency.

As long as RCI can show that something was placed into the spacebank of similar value for everything they have taken out, I don't see them losing.  In fact, they could say they are doing things in multiple steps:

You want to exchange your week for a cruise.  Maybe your week has not been given out yet, and they can place it directly into the rental pool.  If not, they place an exchange for you, and then place THAT week into the rental pool.  As long as the week they rent is one you could have gotten as an exchange, what is the problem (I know, you are not allowed to rent it out, but that is a different problem).

Now, say you have a points account.  You want to use points for deposit, and if your week has not been given out yet, they could deposit your unit into the points system.  If not, something must be given to points to cover the value of your week.  Maybe they give points an IOU.  Then when a points member wants something from the weeks pool, they redeem that IOU.

Granted, there are those that feel the points system should exist on its own, and eventually it will.  RCI may have wanted to convert everything to points, but the resorts did not go along, and many owners don't want a pure points system.  It has its advantages and its disadvantages, even without being affiliated with the Weeks system.  Without the exhorbitant conversion fees, I would expect most owners to covert to points - other than the diehard exchanger, I suspect most do not plan their vacations 2 years out, and would welcome good availability at 11 months.  Most families cannot plan anything but summer vacations further out because school calendars are not available.  Many cannot schedule their vacations through work that far ahead either.  The one mistake I thing RCI made was in not assigning all resorts individual point values from the start - then we would avoid some of the "raiding" accusations.  

The truth is that RCI had followed the rules, and none of us are required to be RCI members to use our timeshares.  The value of RCI membership may have diminished, but we are all capable of using our timeshares without RCI.  For those that consider RCI the most important feature of their timeshare, maybe they should have bought elsewhere, or avoided timeshares altogether.  I suspect the court will agree.  RCI is not failing to meet promises THEY made, they are failing to meet promises made by salesmen at affiliated resorts, and they are not bound by those promises (it even says as much in your sales contract).


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Open and above board is the definition of a Point system over a secret Week system.



. . . but it is NOT the definition of RCI Points, whose corrupt numbers racket stinks, from the pandering to developers in sales to overpointing overbuilt areas to hosing sold out resorts (a term with a cynical double meaning in the rotten world or RCI Points) to overaveraging groupings of weeks, seriously shortchanging some while significantly overpointing others.  A system based on rigged and frozen numbers like RCI Points?  No thanks!  I take one that is flexible enough to adjust values for ever changing supply and demand factors, you know a market based system like RCI Weeks.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Blaming the developer misses one very critical point.  RCI provided sales films and other sales materials to the developers that made a lot of that exchange presentation to buyers.  Many buyers who bought for exchange relied at least as much on those RCI materials as they did anything the salesman said.  Sorry, but ''blame the developer'' is not going to wash as a defense for RCI.

''Evolved to meet the demands of the market''? Wrong!  It was hijacked to put more money in Cendant's pocket at the expense of exchangers.

The rigged numbers of RCI Points hardly ''balance the playing field''.  They systematically guarantee trades up for the overpointed such as those in overbuilt areas, where points numbers stand principles of supply and demand on their head.

BTW, Points reservations, outside a handful of exceptions come at 10 months out, not 11, thus missed a critical deadline for air miles, making it an extremely lousy system for anyone who largely goes to ''fly to'' destinations.

''Cruise exchanges'' are a good example of the flim-flam.  I'm glad you brought it up.  RCI charges more in the cash fees for most of those cruises, even without the week deposit, than the total cash price of the cruise discounters.
They have already made more profit from the cash they receive than other outlets even if they throw away the week.  Too bad the lawsuit did not target this scam as well, but there are only so many things that can be dealt with as a practical matter.

One of the problems with RCI shifting weeks around is that as insiders they can cherry pick the system.  Just had a bulkbank from Manhattan Club, Hawaii, etc. that has temporarily reduced the trading power?  What do you think RCI is going to grab with its week from a ''cruise exchange''?  How about the unfair and fraudulent generic crossover grids for Points to Weeks trades?  There is another bargain basement where RCI can spend its points from those points from Points Partner reservations.  All of this creates a massive conflict of interest.  It is one of the arguments I have made against Points back from the time it was called GPN; the conflict of interest created by polluting the timeshare exchange system with non-timeshare goods and services degrades the primary function of the system, which is exchanging timeshares.

It seems to me that since states already set standards in their statutes for exchange programs that can be offered by developers as part of a timeshare sale, it is high time to toughen those statutes to prevent some of the things that have been going on by exchange companies.  Legislatures are no race horses, but I would bet they can move faster than the courts.  A legislative solution might make a judicial solution unnecesary, but it would need to be followed up on by enough of the major timeshare states.






Mel said:


> I don't see any "remedy" the court or any of the lawyers could come up with that would improve the situation.
> 
> The exchange system has evolved over time, to meet demands of the market.  The point of the exchange system is to allow people to exchange the weeks they own for something different.  It seems to me, as long as you get something reasonable in exchange, you have no right to complain about what RCI does with your week.
> 
> ...


----------



## short (Feb 25, 2007)

*Just my humble opinion!*



Aldo said:


> It is interesting that most of what we are seeing is a negative heuristic defending RCI based on broad cynicisms regarding the American jurisprudence system.
> 
> Very little of this, (albeit some) on the pro-RCI side, seems to want to engage the issues of renting out spacebanked weeks.



Aldo,

OK, I'll come right out and say it.  I support RCI's right to rent our spacebank weeks.  I support their right to rent out spacebank weeks deposited for exchange and points for deposit used for airline tickets as they see fit.  I support their right to swap good weeks to rent for not so good weeks back to the exchange pool.

I am OK with the possibility of some timeshare resorts going out of business, offseason week owners bailing out and high season owners having to pay higher maintenance fees.

I am more than OK with the possibility of the old outdated weeks system fading away into oblivian.

No point pussyfooting around about it.

Everything I've read on this thread is opinion so I though I'd offer mine, no matter how unpopular. 

JMHO
Short


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 25, 2007)

*Repetition For Efficiency.*

To save everybody's fingers lots of typing effort, next time some form of this discussion pops up on TUG, folks can just link back to all this for interested persons to re-read.  That is, not only has it all been typed before, the fact that it's all been typed before has also been typed before, & so on & so forth right on down the line... 

...not that anything's wrong with that. 
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 25, 2007)

Some timesharers might be surprised that some of their resorts are clueless about the lawsuit.  One proactive thing we can do is to forward them the links to both the Murrillo complaint and the site with the ongoing updates on the lawsuit.  RCI certainly isn't out informing resorts on these matters.


----------



## PerryM (Feb 25, 2007)

*It's those darn cows again...*

I am amazed how this topic “RCI is evil” closely parallels “America is evil” in the debate over global warming – I guess it’s the lawyers involved and the same convoluted logic applies in both cases.

*1) There is NO proof that ANYTHING is wrong with RCI Weeks

2) RCI Weeks has peaked and is declining in value all by itself

3) There is NO proof that RCI Points is violating RCI rules in any way*

Global warming is similar:
1)	The earth is warming from 8 AM to 6 PM
2)	The earth is cooling from 8 PM to 6 AM 

The conclusion is obvious, cows cause global warming – they fit the pattern:
1)	They fart when the sun is up
2)	They don’t fart so much when asleep

_Removed political statement._

I do believe everyone here that RCI Weeks is declining in value – upgrading that SA week I bought for $200 into a Gold Crown is getting harder and harder to do.  The answer is simple: RCI Weeks has peaked and RCI Points is in an up cycle to replace it.

Now you can listen to the same folks who believe cows are killing the planet or use Occam’s Razor and find the true answer – the sun has been slowly warming in the past 1,000 years, in its 55,000 year cycle of heating and cooling.

I rest my case – RCI’s problems can be blamed on those darn farting cows.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 25, 2007)

Aldo said:


> The reason the discussion goes on and on and on is because the injustice keeps going on and on and on.



The real kicker will be if, as the weeks believers hope, RCI actually lost the suit. They could simply pull the plug on weeks & go 100 per cent points. Yahoo. Like the bankrupt airlines that disappear what will the "victory" dance be? No one can force RCI to stay in the week for week business if they decide the best move is to get out. Well, at least the weeks side "won" even if the planes (weeks system) are grounded. Oh, the shysters go home happy with a nice payday I'm sure.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 26, 2007)

Again, you claim nothing is wrong and then proceed to try to explain away WHY something is wrong!  Again you don't get it that the standard is not whether something violates RCI's own rules but whether it violates the consumer protection laws.  RCI's rules may well, in and of themselves, violate the consumer protection laws.

What is it about supply and demand that you don't understand?  When RCI diverts supply to other places like the rentals, it depletes supply for exchangers, meaning less in the way of exchanges.  That is simple freshman economics and doesn't require the courtroom standard of ''proof'' that you demand (a curious position for someone who apparently hates lawyers and courts).  And BTW, the courtroom standard of proof WILL apply when this case comes to trial, but is totally irrelevent to an internet discusssion board.  We don't have a resident Clerk of Court here to swear witnesses and never will.

While Points is indeed damaging Weeks, the reason is simple.  RCI's fraudulent generic crossover grids allow Points members to loot our better inventory at bargain basement prices.  This scam needs to be stopped and Points needs to compensate Weeks for these wrongfully pilfered weeks.

You also don't seem to understand supply and demand when it comes to exchanging.  The price one paid for a timeshare is completely irrelevent to whether something is a fair exchange.  Otherwise the poor sap who paid developer prices for a deep off-season week would have more trading power than a savvy buyer who got a good deal on eBay in December for a prime summer week. What matters is 1) the supply of timeshare deposits for a location and week in the system, and 2) the demand for exchanges to that location and week.  Gold Crown status matters a whole lot less than location when it comes to the demand side.  And RCI's own availibility tables show why SA trades so well - it has a much stronger supply/demand ratio than Florida and even beats the Caribbean.  What you call an upgrade is not necessarily so.




PerryM said:


> I am amazed how this topic “RCI is evil” closely parallels “America is evil” in the debate over global warming – I guess it’s the lawyers involved and the same convoluted logic applies in both cases.
> 
> *1) There is NO proof that ANYTHING is wrong with RCI Weeks
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 26, 2007)

Great, then another exchange company scoops up all of that business and rockets ahead of RCI to become the number one timeshare exchange company.  I don't believe RCI would be that foolish, but if they are, it is not the timeshare owners who will ultimately lose.




timeos2 said:


> The real kicker will be if, as the weeks believers hope, RCI actually lost the suit. They could simply pull the plug on weeks & go 100 per cent points. Yahoo. Like the bankrupt airlines that disappear what will the "victory" dance be? No one can force RCI to stay in the week for week business if they decide the best move is to get out. Well, at least the weeks side "won" even if the planes (weeks system) are grounded. Oh, the shysters go home happy with a nice payday I'm sure.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 26, 2007)

Well, to each his own!  Some of us are primarily concerned about impact on our fellow timesharers and our HOA's.  Others seem focused mostly on the exchange company.

While I am sure that some Points members don't like the competition with the superior Weeks system, I believe that many would not go so far as to wish for its end.  On the other hand, there are probably some Weeks members who would like to see the seriously flawed RCI Points slip beneath the waves forever, too.





short said:


> Aldo,
> 
> OK, I'll come right out and say it.  I support RCI's right to rent our spacebank weeks.  I support their right to rent out spacebank weeks deposited for exchange and points for deposit used for airline tickets as they see fit.  I support their right to swap good weeks to rent for not so good weeks back to the exchange pool.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Feb 26, 2007)

*The answer always is CORRECT!*

I love spoofs – they require no brain power and at the same time lots of brain power - it's up to you.

I love the spoof NetFlix radio ads are based upon – “Outcome Based Education”  (OBE) (Which I secretly believe was designed by the legal community so they have a ready supply of jurors who understand legalese)

I’m sure you’ve heard them – they give you a quiz that requires very little brain power and at the same time a lot of it:

Take this quiz and answer the question:

*The opposite of Thursday is: ________*

*1 is to 55 as the square root of a triangle is to ___________*

*What’s half of Blue plus Red _____________*


Doesn’t matter what you answer – the feedback from the person giving the quiz is *CORRECT!*  As I said, this is a great spoof of OBE.

This is exactly what lawyers use to win an argument many times – the question can be whacky and too the answer – it really doesn’t matter since the object of the question and any answer is to make the person taking the quiz feel good with a “Correct” answer.

I once again think we’ve lost the majority of Tug members and I’m leaving the debate; until the same subject is again brought up for debate all over again.

So I’ll leave you with this little quiz:

In RCI, Supply is to Demand, as Up is to: ______ (*profit* is the preferred answer)

In RCI, RCI Weeks plus RCI Points equals: ____________ (*profit* is the preferred answer)

In RCI, RCI Points rents RCI Weeks to pay for what:_________ (*profit* is the preferred answer)

In RCI, a $200 timeshare exchanging into a $50,000 timeshare is: _____________ (*profit* is the preferred answer)

However, in the spirit of OBE no matter what you answer the feedback is  *CORRECT!*

So Hasta lasagna and don’t get any on ya - until next time when we must use OBE to win the argument of the day.

P.S.
I remember the argument over RCI Points as a Currency - check this link out .  Was I correct back then:________(You know what the answer is - CORRECT!)

Am I correct about RCI now:__________________ (You know what the answer is)


----------



## JLB (Feb 26, 2007)

Don't you see that as a possibility anyway, lawsuit or not, and if that happens, then the Weeks holdouts would be transferred over to Points without exorbitant conversion fees or all the game-playing marketing surrounding Points conversion?

Would that not be a good thing for the Weeks advocates?



timeos2 said:


> They could simply pull the plug on weeks & go 100 per cent points.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 26, 2007)

*the best outcome*



JLB said:


> Don't you see that as a possibility anyway, lawsuit or not, and if that happens, then the Weeks holdouts would be transferred over to Points without exorbitant conversion fees or all the game-playing marketing surrounding Points conversion?
> 
> Would that not be a good thing for the Weeks advocates?



Yes. But you can be sure the purists wouldn't be pleased.


----------



## JLB (Feb 26, 2007)

I won't be happy until Jon and Christel remarry, give their hundreds of millions back to a CD spinoff, take RCI back, and start doing it all on Alan's notecards again.   



timeos2 said:


> Yes. But you can be sure the purists wouldn't be pleased.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 26, 2007)

*The Way Things Spozed To Be.*




JLB said:


> I won't be happy until Jon and Christel remarry, give their hundreds of millions back to a CD spinoff, take RCI back, and start doing it all on Alan's notecards again.


That's just for starters. 

I want the Minnesota Twins back in Washington DC & the Texas Rangers up in Minnesota & the Washington Nationals back in Montreal. 

I want the Arizona Cardinals back in St. Louis & the St. Louis Rams back in Los Angeles.  I want the Indianapolis Colts back in Baltimore & the Baltimore Ravens in Indianapolis. 

I want to see Oldsmobiles & Plymouths in the dealer showrooms once more. 

Bring back the Chevrolet Corvair.  Bring back the Edsel. 

Not only that, bring me back my youth & strength.  Forgive my sins & undo all my mistakes.  Take away my defects of character & erase all my shortcomings.  Make me willing to do what I am supposed to do. 

Above all, give me an _Open Mind_ -- that & a 20-pound box of $1*,*000 bills. 

Amen. 
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## JLB (Feb 26, 2007)

So you wanna bring back $1000 bills, too.   



AwayWeGo said:


> Above all, give me an _Open Mind_ -- that & a 20-pound box of $1,000 bills.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 26, 2007)

*Easy To Please.*




JLB said:


> So you wanna bring back $1000 bills, too.


I would be OK with a 200-pound crate of $100 bills -- either way is all right. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## tigerdog (Feb 26, 2007)

I just thought I'd throw this quote into the mix. Do you think it might apply to some of the "RCI has done nothing wrong" folks?

_“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” -Carl Sagan_

Just sayin'...


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 26, 2007)

*Always Keep Fresh Batteries In Your Baloney Detectors.*




tigerdog said:


> I just thought I'd throw this quote into the mix. Do you think it might apply to some of the "RCI has done nothing wrong" folks?
> 
> _“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” -Carl Sagan_
> 
> Just sayin'...


You talking timeshares or Gl*b*l  W*rm*ng ? 
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 26, 2007)

*Laugh for today*

Alan - And if you help out in some class action lawsuits you'll have just about the same chance of achieving any of those - the best examples are forcing the return of the Oldsmobile or Studebaker - as the current case with RCI has of reviving the "old" weeks system.  Things change and brands and products/services come and go.  You can't force or legislate a company to sell/produce a product they don't want to deal with. That went away with the regulated utility companies. 

Tigerdog - No one is being bamboozled. Read the agreement - especially these sections: 

5.5 A member relinquishes all rights to the use of 
his/her Vacation Time when it is deposited. 

23. *ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS* By Depositing
Vacation Ownership with RCI, each Member
relinquishes all rights to use that Vacation Ownership
and agrees that such Deposited Vacation Ownership
may be used by RCI to satisfy Exchange Requests, for
inspection visits, promotions, rental, sale, marketing and
for other purposes at RCI’s discretion, including use in
other exchange or accommodation programs.

(Bold text is from the original).

Now just how are they hiding that? And how are they violating the rules you agree too? (And I've heard enough about the "contract of adhesion".  That applies if you are forced into an agreement - a Microsoft type you pay if you want it or not deal not a voluntary action like using RCI for exchange. If you don't agree you aren't an RCI member and take your week elsewhere. You can't disagree with the membership rules AND give RCI your week). 

Trying to tell people there is winnable case here is the only bamboozling going on.  And it has been hashed, rehashed and over-hashed enough now. The only meaningful post regarding this topic will be when the case is thrown out, settled or someone wins/loses. Until then nothing we say here is going to impact a thing and is really just a waste of effort.


----------



## Carol C (Feb 26, 2007)

JLB said:


> It is nice to see it precisely and succinctly worded.
> 
> As I have said before, I was contacted early on by one of the investigators, likely because of my SW Florida in January thread.  I have accumulated data since RCI.com began in 1997 and recorded it since 3/27/2002.  Thousands of searches for the same area the same timeframe, every day, for several years.
> 
> ...



Could it be that availability is down because there are more RCI members since you first started your count? Increased *supply* of members who like primetime vacations = increased *demand* on vacation exchange inventory.

Btw I'd also like to have easy access to the best RCI exchanges and have had to fine-tune my portfolio to maximize trade power...but as they've upped the ante, I've upped my game. So far so good.  My dues are paid far ahead so I'm hoping I can get good value as long as I'm a member. I don't know where all the rental inventory comes from out there. I'd like to see more for us in Last Call and lower fees. But I still don't see how lawyers are going to prove the various sources of rental inventory or why exchanges are difficult for some folks, because the variables are so many. This is going to make the burden of proof complex and time-consuming to put together. And I just don't want to pay lawyers for that work when they deduct their big fees from any settlement at the end of the investigation.

If we each get a check in the mail for a dollar or two we'll be lucky.


----------



## Mel (Feb 26, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> While Points is indeed damaging Weeks, the reason is simple.  RCI's fraudulent generic crossover grids allow Points members to loot our better inventory at bargain basement prices.  This scam needs to be stopped and Points needs to compensate Weeks for these wrongfully pilfered weeks.


The solution to this problem already exists.  As more resorts join Points, their weeks cannot be "pilfered" regardless of how many members actually join points.  As soon as one member joins points, that is a points resort, and the crossover grids don't apply.  

If resorts are awarded too many points, people won't want to exchange into them, and RCI will be forced to lower the points values.  The reverse applies to resorts rated too low (it will be in RCI's best interest to increase the point values).

Note that in the 45 day window, owners of lousy trading weeks can still get excellent trades.  Points owners can only get 9000 point trades (clearance price) into resorts that have not converted yet.  If a resort has converted over to points, those weeks still cost "full retail" for points members.  The more resorts convert, the fewer resorts available for such bargains.

Also, for any resort that converts to points, the points members can't reserve anything 2 years out, but must stick to the points windows, from what I understand.  I could be mistaken in that, but they certainly can't search for such weeks online, so are at the mercy of a VC to even find out if they might be available - and I don't think they can do an ongoing search for any of those resorts either.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 26, 2007)

JLB said:


> Don't you see that as a possibility anyway, lawsuit or not, and if that happens, then the Weeks holdouts would be transferred over to Points without exorbitant conversion fees or all the game-playing marketing surrounding Points conversion?
> 
> Would that not be a good thing for the Weeks advocates?



You ask that to a Points person.  What do you expect him to say?

Points is such a crappy system, I would not take it if they PAID me to take it.
Between the totally corrupt system of setting the rigged and frozen numbers and the lack of flexibility to exchange 11 months out to coordinate with ff miles, it is not something I would ever want to use.

Where the Weeks members would transfer to primarily is other exchange companies that still worked on a weeks-based system.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 26, 2007)

The word ''rental'' was quietly slipped into that multi-page fine print a few years ago with nothing at all to call it to members attention.  Do you call that an honest way to do business?  Do you think it will pass the smell test of the ''unfair or deceptive'' standard of consumer protection law?  I wouldn't bet on it!

Further that whole agreement fits the classic definition of a contract of adhesion.  Courts generally do not enforce the terms of something determined to be a contract of adhesion.  You clearly do not know what a contract of adhesion is from your post. You might want to refer to some past issues of Street Talk to learn more about contracts of adhesion.

You also do not seem to understand that the test is NOT whether something violates rules set by RCI.  RCI does not make the rules in a consumer protestion case, the government does.  The government's standard is ''unfair OR deceptive''.  Contrasting that fine print with RCI's more public materials like the ones they provide to the developers to aid in sales will go a LONGGG way to show violation of that standard IMHO.

Companies in a monopolistic position tend to get a lot closer scrutiny in these matters, and timesharers at many resorts are not effectively given any option other than RCI for exchanging, creating just such a monopolisitic situation.

Points people know that Weeks will always be the dominant system unless it is artificially destroyed by means like diverting inventory to rentals or to the Points system itself through the fraudulent generic crossover grids, which then degrades the system. I suppose that is why some of them are jumping up and down supporting RCI's scamming its Weeks system in this manner.  Weeks is not the ''old'' system in timesharing.  The inferior points system came first, and weeks was an improvement upon it. 




timeos2 said:


> Alan - And if you help out in some class action lawsuits you'll have just about the same chance of achieving any of those - the best examples are forcing the return of the Oldsmobile or Studebaker - as the current case with RCI has of reviving the "old" weeks system.  Things change and brands and products/services come and go.  You can't force or legislate a company to sell/produce a product they don't want to deal with. That went away with the regulated utility companies.
> 
> Tigerdog - No one is being bamboozled. Read the agreement - especially these sections:
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 26, 2007)

Carol C said:


> If we each get a check in the mail for a dollar or two we'll be lucky.



Again, the key is not the dollar amount class members receive.  I don't care if that is zero.  The important thing is how the injunctive relief to stop the improper activities (i.e. rentals) in the future is worded.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 26, 2007)

Isn't this just a strongarm tactic to force resorts into Points?  It would be better if resorts could just tell RCI, ''NO points, period!'' and not allow points people to come inbound.

As to the wacky grids, part of the method to RCI's madness is to artificially create ''excess'' to feed RCI's rental empire.  Adjust to meet real supply and demand?  Heck that would upset the system of feeding in the rentals.

The lack of a 45-day window within Points is a serious flaw.  Points resorts now sell offseason Points weeks almost entirely on the basis of doing crossover trades into the Weeks 45-day window.  Kill that as they are now in the process of doing by overloading it, and you kill what carries the offseason exchange weeks in both systems.  Points is far more vulnerable because a fair amount of the Weeks offseason owners are not exchangers, but the Points system by its nature of exchange focused.

Last minure inventory is distressed inventory in the leisure travel market.  By not doing a 45-day window in Points, RCI is again creating another artificial ''excess'' to feed the rental empire.




Mel said:


> The solution to this problem already exists.  As more resorts join Points, their weeks cannot be "pilfered" regardless of how many members actually join points.  As soon as one member joins points, that is a points resort, and the crossover grids don't apply.
> 
> If resorts are awarded too many points, people won't want to exchange into them, and RCI will be forced to lower the points values.  The reverse applies to resorts rated too low (it will be in RCI's best interest to increase the point values).
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 26, 2007)

*Points = 3rd party exchange*



Carolinian said:


> Isn't this just a strongarm tactic to force resorts into Points?  It would be better if resorts could just tell RCI, ''NO points, period!'' and not allow points people to come inbound.



If the resorts could say that they could also say "No SFX, No DAE"  etc. What system/company an owner wants to use for trade is up to them - not the resorts. That isn't just for week for week trades but any system I as an owner care to use. That type of restriction is exactly what you complain about when II/RCI tries to be "exclusive" at a resorts.  What system RCI wants to use to facilitate the exchange of use time doesn't matter to the resorts. Of course they don't have to allow day by day use if the documents they were sold under don't allow that but they have no say over the inner workings of the various exchange systems.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 26, 2007)

There is a big difference.  DAE allows the owners to deposit into that system.  If the resort is on SFX's list, they can deposit there, too.  Resorts should NOT attempt to stop their members from depositing into a system that accepts their deposits.

Weeks resort members cannot use RCI Points, so why should the resort let its members be hosed by RCI's generic points crossover grids to allow Points members to trade in?  Resorts ought to be able to say that they are Weeks resorts, period, and have absolutely nothing to do with Points.  If RCI does not have the integrity to build a firewall between the systems, at least the resorts should be able to do it.   The key thing is that we need to pluck the mooching Points leech off of the back of Weeks.




timeos2 said:


> If the resorts could say that they could also say "No SFX, No DAE"  etc. What system/company an owner wants to use for trade is up to them - not the resorts. That isn't just for week for week trades but any system I as an owner care to use. That type of restriction is exactly what you complain about when II/RCI tries to be "exclusive" at a resorts.  What system RCI wants to use to facilitate the exchange of use time doesn't matter to the resorts. Of course they don't have to allow day by day use if the documents they were sold under don't allow that but they have no say over the inner workings of the various exchange systems.


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 26, 2007)

*Weeks owners can get into points*



Carolinian said:


> Weeks resort members cannot use RCI Points, so why should the resort let its members be hosed by RCI's generic points crossover grids to allow Points members to trade in?  Resorts ought to be able to say that they are Weeks resorts, period, and have absolutely nothing to do with Points.  If RCI does not have the integrity to build a firewall between the systems, at least the resorts should be able to do it.   The key thing is that we need to pluck the mooching Points leech off of the back of Weeks.



You didn't know of Points for Deposit? Thats weeks into points - one of the best features of RCI Points. (I'm asking somewhat tongue in cheek as I'm sure you've heard of PFD.  That seriously is a way to get shortsighted or otherwise restricted weeks only resorts into RCI Points. So weeks owners can certainly get their time into points and, by the way, claim time using the same charts in both directions.)


----------



## "Roger" (Feb 26, 2007)

Carolinian,

You are at your best when you argue that resorts ought to dual affiliate.  Let owners decide which exchange system that they want to use.  The more options (RCI, II, DAE, SFX, etc. *and Points*) an owner has the better.  (For those who are unaware, if a resort were to join the Points system, no owner at the resort would have to join.  It would be an individual perogative.)

As Mel points out, for those resorts that join Points, crossover trades into that resort would no longer be an option.  Points owners would have to trade in accordance with whatever Point values are established for that resort.  That would end your complaints that these crossover trades are the only thing that fuels Points.  (I don't think that complaint is well founded, but let that pass.)

This suggestion has been brought up before and you proclaimed that it would not be a popular option at your resort.  So what?  Give those few, even if it be those very, very few, the choice.  It should not be up to us whether an individual owner should use Weeks or Points. Let the owners decide for themselves what works best for them.  (Doesn't "supply and demand" depend upon free choice?)


----------



## Aldo (Feb 27, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Carolinian,
> 
> 
> 
> Let the owners decide for themselves what works best for them.  (Doesn't "supply and demand" depend upon free choice?)




That's the whole point of this entire issue, isn't it?

Weeks owners deciding what works best for them.  Supply and Demand, BUT WITHOUT THE SUPPLY BEING LOOTED and DEMAND going unsatisified as a result.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 27, 2007)

Due to RCI's standard practice of overaveraging on points charts, which is more severe on the crossover grid but also bad on Points resorts grids, the crossover girds do overpoint weaker and poor location resorts and pink as opposed to prime red (all red weeks of a given size and award status in a region is pure fraud - many get hosed while a few do make out like bandits, one of the typical and inherent flaws of a points system limited to publication by paper and ink, as all presently are).

One has to be a member of RCI Points to do points for deposit, and from my experience at a Weeks resort, there are darn few Weeks owners who have any use for being a member of RCI Points, so this impacts relatively few people.




timeos2 said:


> You didn't know of Points for Deposit? Thats weeks into points - one of the best features of RCI Points. (I'm asking somewhat tongue in cheek as I'm sure you've heard of PFD.  That seriously is a way to get shortsighted or otherwise restricted weeks only resorts into RCI Points. So weeks owners can certainly get their time into points and, by the way, claim time using the same charts in both directions.)


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 27, 2007)

Given the rank favoritism that RCI Points shows to certain types of resorts - developers in sales, overbuilt areas, etc., it would be nothing short of foolish for any other resort to take the reduced numbers RCI would give them.  The term ''sold out resort'' has a sinister double meaning in the corrupt world of RCI Points.  Those resorts should run, not walk, away from RCI Points.

The danger for an owner of a resort switching is that too many of them (BIS on the OBX, for example) then bring in the strong arm boys to try to pressure owners to switch for big conversion fees.  This is NOT serving the interests of owners.

Also it is not serving the interests of owners to create a situation where there are enough resorts in RCI Points that RCI gets encouraged to try to force everyone to switch to their profoundly flawed points system.




"Roger" said:


> Carolinian,
> 
> You are at your best when you argue that resorts ought to dual affiliate.  Let owners decide which exchange system that they want to use.  The more options (RCI, II, DAE, SFX, etc. *and Points*) an owner has the better.  (For those who are unaware, if a resort were to join the Points system, no owner at the resort would have to join.  It would be an individual perogative.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 27, 2007)

*Why is ''Points vs Weeks'' always injected into ''Rentals'' debates?*

It seems every time the rental issue is debated on these boards the supporters of the rentals, who are mostly also strong Points advocates, immediately try to shift the discussion to Weeks vs. Points.  The reason is simple.  They know that if rentals is blown out of the water, then Points gets seriously wounded.  The two programs are joined at the hip.


----------



## "Roger" (Feb 27, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Given the rank favoritism that RCI Points shows to certain types of resorts - developers in sales, overbuilt areas, etc., it would be nothing short of foolish for any other resort to take the reduced numbers RCI would give them....


Mel already responded to this.  If RCI gives too many points to the owners of some resorts and not enough to others, supply and demand will fall completely out of whack.  If RCI wants to make money, they will have to readjust the numbers.  (That is how supply and demand works.)  

[As an aside here, Carolinian has always been putting forth claims that would entail that RCI is subsudizing developers at the cost of their own profits -- odd behavior that is at odds with the interest of the stockholders.]

Finally, you, of all people, should be happy if the numbers were out of kilter.  That would mean that no one at these resorts would join Points.  At the same time, since they are now Points resorts, no one would be able to do a cross over trade into the resort.  Your real fear should be that RCI would give these resorts point values that would entice people to join.



Carolinian said:


> ...The danger for an owner of a resort switching is that too many of them (BIS on the OBX, for example) then bring in the strong arm boys to try to pressure owners to switch for big conversion fees. This is NOT serving the interests of owners.....


I guess we have hit a fundamental bottom line difference between you and myself here.  I don't think I should decide for others that something is a bad deal and go out of my way to try to protect them.  I think consummers should be able to decide for themselves what is a good buy and what is not.  The more choices that they offered, the better.


----------



## JLB (Feb 27, 2007)

This discussion and the many before just like it, is almost exactly like our neighbors' rebuilding of the community dock.  

A couple of them were so hellbent on their idea being the only one, that they did not allow others to contribute ideas at all.  They just rammed their plan down everyone's throat, alienating a neighbor whose support they needed, or at least would have made the project easier.

Compromise, negotiation, objectivity . . . not things they even considered.  To them there simply could be no other way to accomplish their goal.

Yeah, they got what they wanted, but lost a neighbor.  And, they failed to realize that other community docks were rebuilding using a plan that made their docks free, a plan that would have worked perfectly for this one.

Instead they spent $80000 of their's and their neighbors' money.

The neighbor that stood their ground now has a private dock of their own down the bank.

So often it seems to be the method, not the end result, that is objectionable.  I know it happens, because I have seen it, but I will never understand why some folks insist on having their own way, even if it means alienating others who are sympathetic to their cause.


----------



## Mel (Feb 27, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Weeks resort members cannot use RCI Points, so why should the resort let its members be hosed by RCI's generic points crossover grids to allow Points members to trade in?  Resorts ought to be able to say that they are Weeks resorts, period, and have absolutely nothing to do with Points.  If RCI does not have the integrity to build a firewall between the systems, at least the resorts should be able to do it.


So, weeks resorts should be able to tell owners where they can and cannot deposit their weeks?  RCI has Points for Deposit, Fairfield has PIC, and other resort groups have similar programs for owners of weeks outside their systems.  If you start telling them their deposit to RCI Points or any other exchange program won't be honored, you then must also allow the resort to deny access to exchanges through SFX, DAE and any other smaller exchange company.

Further, given the way some of the smaller exchange companies work, they trade weeks from within their own systems with other excahnge companies.  You also seem to want to stop that - because that is what RCI is doing between Weeks and Points.  Unless someone can show proof that the exchanges between the two systems are not equitable, they are not doing anything different than the other smaller exchange companies.

The simplest remedy is for unhappy members to leave RCI.  If you don't like the way RCI values their week, don't give it to RCI.  Use it yourself, rent it out, or trade it directly with someone else.  Since when should the rest of us take the responsibility for those who made a poor purchase decision?   Personal responsibility means when we purchase something that doesn't work the way we expected, we either return it or learn to use it the way is does in fact work.

If RCI has a high value week, do we expect them to give it to the first person who requests it, or wait for someone with something similar to exchange?  What happens if it isn't requested by someone with a similar request?  What happens when I deposit a different high-value week that has a pending request, but I want to use my week to exchange for flights?  

RCI can rent my week out for cash, the week they have sits in the spacebank and might not be used, and the person that wants my week goes without.

Or RCI can give my week to the pending request, and in exchange take the weeks that's already there out and rent it to recover the cost of my tickets.

In which case does RCI satisfy more customers?


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 27, 2007)

You forget that RCI now seems to stand for ''Rental Condominiums International''.  To feed their rental inventory with contrived ''excess'', the last thing they want is a system with supply and demand in sync, as that produces no ''excess'' to rent out.  There is a method to the madness in their numbers.




"Roger" said:


> Mel already responded to this.  If RCI gives too many points to the owners of some resorts and not enough to others, supply and demand will fall completely out of whack.  If RCI wants to make money, they will have to readjust the numbers.  (That is how supply and demand works.)
> 
> [As an aside here, Carolinian has always been putting forth claims that would entail that RCI is subsudizing developers at the cost of their own profits -- odd behavior that is at odds with the interest of the stockholders.]
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 27, 2007)

Arms length transactions among the independent exchange companies is a far different thing that the incest in the one way crossover exchanges between RCI Points and RCI Weeks.  The fact that the latter is NOT a two way street is the reason resorts should be able to put their foot down and refuse to participate.

If you think RCI's incestuous dealings in swapping inventory between Weeks and Points, go read RCI employee Anon's posts on the subject at Timeshare Talk.  I think that will open your eyes.  Even going back to the early days of RCI Points, in Sing Li's front page article on the then soon to be rolled out RCI Global Points Network in _Timesharing Today_, Li warned that unfair swapping  between the systems or ''magic balancing'' as he termed it, would be one of the problems with RCI's points system.  He was right.

Thinking one individual can solve the problem by just leaving RCI is burying one's head in the sand.  RCI's machinations change the dynamics of resort economics that they should be of concern to all timesharers, even to own-to-use folks (who are a solid majority of owners at many resorts).  When they start kicking the financial props out from under the ownership/exchange model of timesharing, as they are, it is a threat to our resorts.  Now, if you really want to be proactive, get involved to see that your resort 1) dual affiliates with RCI and II, and 2) educates its members about using the independent exchange companies.  Only by growing the competition in exchanging for all of our resort owners, can be defend our resorts from the impact of RCI's machinations.

Polluting the timeshare exchange system with non-timeshare goods and services is what gives RCI cover for their rental empire.  The solution is to get rid of this fluff.  Putting things like this into the mix only degrade the main purpose of the system - exchanging one timeshare for another.  The first time I read about GPN, Points Partners was one of the big objections I had to the program.




Mel said:


> So, weeks resorts should be able to tell owners where they can and cannot deposit their weeks?  RCI has Points for Deposit, Fairfield has PIC, and other resort groups have similar programs for owners of weeks outside their systems.  If you start telling them their deposit to RCI Points or any other exchange program won't be honored, you then must also allow the resort to deny access to exchanges through SFX, DAE and any other smaller exchange company.
> 
> Further, given the way some of the smaller exchange companies work, they trade weeks from within their own systems with other excahnge companies.  You also seem to want to stop that - because that is what RCI is doing between Weeks and Points.  Unless someone can show proof that the exchanges between the two systems are not equitable, they are not doing anything different than the other smaller exchange companies.
> 
> ...


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 27, 2007)

*Are We Having Fun Yet ?*

This afternoon, while foolishly oofing & heaving some heavy wooden debris over at my brother's place, dragging it from the back yard down to the street in time for trash pick-up tomorrow --_ Large Item Pick-Up Is The Last Wednesday Of The Month_ -- I got to wondering: 

Who do you spoze has more fun -- those thoughtful & deep thinking folks who are so groused off at RCI that they've gone to court in a class action case on the 1 hand, or on the other hand the more simple-minded, happy-go-lucky & carefree types who just deposit their weeks, make their reservations, show up, check in, & have a good time, oblivious to all the fuss & hubbub?  
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 27, 2007)

AwayWeGo said:


> This afternoon, while foolishly oofing & heaving some heavy wooden debris over at my brother's place, dragging it from the back yard down to the street in time for trash pick-up tomorrow --_ Large Item Pick-Up Is The Last Wednesday Of The Month_ -- I got to wondering:
> 
> Who do you spoze has more fun -- those thoughtful & deep thinking folks who are so groused off at RCI that they've gone to court in a class action case on the 1 hand, or on the other hand the more simple-minded, happy-go-lucky & carefree types who just deposit their weeks, make their reservations, show up, check in, & have a good time, oblivious to all the fuss & hubbub?
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



How about the ones who have already bailed out due to RCI's machinations to the exchange system, or those who are contemplating being in the next wave of bailouts?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 27, 2007)

Timesharing is the best thing ever created for vacationing.  That's true whether or not RCI even exists.  I could easily timeshare away without them.  So can anyone else.  If you don't like them, do something else.
I still don't think that this Class Action suit is going anywhere.

I feel badly for weeks owners who turn a blind eye to points systems.  They have no idea what they are missing.


----------



## Aldo (Feb 27, 2007)

OK, OK.

RCI Points exists.

Some of you prefer that to RCI Weeks.

I follow you that far.

So, what's any of that got to do with RCI renting out weeks deposited into the Spacebank?


----------



## CMF (Feb 28, 2007)

*No lightweights.*

I checked out the firms behind the suit.  There are some heavy hitters there.  It takes a ton of cash to bring a suit like this and the outlay comes out of the lawyers pocket.  Yes, there will be a big payoff if there's a win. But there is also the possibility of big losses if it goes the other way.  This leads me to think that the odds are much better that 50-50 that something will come of this, and that RCI week members will benefit.

There's much lawyer razzing coming from the side of those that think the suit is merit less.  And, some have said that RCI members will ultimately pay the price.  I don't think there will be much of a price impact since RCI needs to stay competitive with II.  So what is the downside of the suit? If plaintiffs win all RCI members win.  If they loose then the system stays the same. So what's the problem?

Charles

PS - I request that folks refrain from thrashing a profession as a whole.  It's insulting.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 28, 2007)

Aldo said:


> OK, OK.
> 
> RCI Points exists.
> 
> ...



Unfortuately a thread about the rentals on these boards always seems to go it that direction.  The defense of RCI's suppporters for RCI's inexcusable rental policies seems to be ''points is great, weeks stinks, so who cares''. They do not want to address the principle issue here, which is the rentals themselves, and the lawsuit to put a stop to them.  Many of RCI's defenders are strong Points advocates, so they apparently realize that if rentals are blown out of the water, points is seriously wounded since the two programs are joined at the hip.

I would hope that this thread would stay on topic - RENTALS - but from past experience, I doubt it.


----------



## Dean (Feb 28, 2007)

Aldo said:


> OK, OK.
> 
> RCI Points exists.
> 
> ...


It comes up because one of the legitimate methods RCI gets weeks to rent is through the points system but mostly because one person brings it up every time blaming points for many of the weeks side woes.  That's OK, it is an integral part of the discussion as long as the two are linked.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 28, 2007)

We got through an entire page on this thread without getting into the Points vs. Weeks thing, and then on the second page one of the regular Points advocates brought it up (I hope this passes muster by not mentioning his name).

Further, it is NOT legitimate when RCI rents WEEKS inventory to pay for Points Partner reservations.  Someone posted some material out of one of the RCI corporate filings where they stated that points they got for such things they spent like any member could spend points.  Of course they get the best bang for the buck by raiding Weeks inventory with the unfair generic crossover grids they created, so it is a no brainer that RCI itself is certainly raiding Weeks with its own cache of points from the points partner reservations.  



Dean said:


> It comes up because one of the legitimate methods RCI gets weeks to rent is through the points system but mostly because one person brings it up every time blaming points for many of the weeks side woes.  That's OK, it is an integral part of the discussion as long as the two are linked.


----------



## "Roger" (Feb 28, 2007)

Aldo,

I think Carolinian explained why it came up in the post prior to this one.  He believes that rentals wouldn't exist if it weren't for Points.  Personally, I was hoping to stay out of this thread, but when you look in and see message after message bashing Points, it is hard to stay silent.  You are right, though.  I don't see the framers of the law suit saying Points should go.

Since I am now in this thread, I do have a question that puzzles me.  When I look at the list of final complaints in the original suit, I see the claim that RCI is supposed to be a "1 for 1 system."  (The number of weeks going into the pool is approximately equal to the number of weeks available to take out.) The suit complains that by renting to outsiders, this condition has been violated. 

The explanation that we have always been given on TUG as to why people can trade up in the Weeks system without harming those with better weeks is that RCI has a large number of developer weeks available.  If that is true, does that undermine the credibility of the suit?  RCI has more weeks available than users.

Following up on this, what is the proposed remedy?  If the remedy is that RCI not be allowed to rent any week that has been deposited for exchange (to establish the near one-to-one ratio), does that mean that developer weeks now become unavailable to RCI members?  (Why would RCI allow them to go into the pool if they will get nothing in exchange for them?)  How will that affect the quality of the trades available to regular members?  Aren't many of these developer weeks some of the most desired trades?

Questions, questions....


----------



## JLB (Feb 28, 2007)

Dang!  Where are those attorneys when I need one?  

In all the contingency suits I've known about, the clients pays the expenses.  The attorney gets the %, plus expenses.
- - - - - -
Hey, Alan, could you provide some background music?  I'll let you pick the song.



CMF said:


> It takes a ton of cash to bring a suit like this and the outlay comes out of the lawyers pocket.


----------



## CMF (Feb 28, 2007)

*That's not how it works in this class action.*



JLB said:


> Dang!  Where are those attorneys when I need one?
> 
> In all the contingency suits I've known about, the clients pays the expenses.  The attorney gets the %, plus expenses.



No individual(s) in their right mind(s) [even those with more money than common sense] will pay six law firms to bring a suit against RCI.


Charles


----------



## Mel (Feb 28, 2007)

Aldo said:


> So, what's any of that got to do with RCI renting out weeks deposited into the Spacebank?


Aldo, it is directly related.

What we all agree about (or most of us):

RCI rents out weeks at some resorts
Some of the weeks are of high value
These rentals were at one time only available to RCI members

What RCI tells us:

the bulk of rental weeks are excess inventory
the higher valued weeks are from exchanges for outside services (for cruises and points transactions).

What this lawsuit claims:

RCI is taking weeks they want from the spacebank pool, without regard to the exchangers.

The rentals cause RCI to not have an adequate supply of desireable weeks to provide for exchanges.

************
The problem is that the bulk of the rentals started around the same time that online exchanging happened.  There are several factors that may have contributed to the appearance of less trade availability.  The problem as I see it is that some members are not getting the same trade availability they had seen in the past.  But the availability of rentals is not necessarily the cause.  Websites such as this may in fact have had as much of an impact as the rentals - while we have a membership that accounts for only a portion of RCI's membership, we do not require people to register to view the posts on our bulletin board, so we don't know just how many people are benefitting from information posted here, even if the best information is kept under lock & key for members only.

Tug members, once they've played with the system a bit, have learned to use the system to our own advantage - we encourage this.  Under the old system, you called RCI with your request.  If you needed accomodations for 4 people, that's what you told them.  You might prefer a 2BR unit, but your search went in for 1BR.  If both a 1BR sleeps 6 came up, that's what you were offered.  If a 2BR (or even 3BR) was available, you might not have even known about it - with only 4 in your group the VC may not have offered it.  If it was Orlando or Williamsburg in a slower season them might have, but if it was a high-demand season/area, they didn't even mention it.

Now we do our own searches.  If our week qualifies for the 2BR or even 3BR, it shows up along with the 1BR unit.  Now, how many of us are guilty of taking the larger unit when we didn't really need it?  If 20% of people now take larger units, that leaves fewer of those units available for exchage, doesn't it?  fewer people are not willing to take even a small downward exchange, which is what enables some of us to take that upward exchange.  It's all supposed to balance out in the end.  We want RCI to project exchange patterns based on the largest amount of historical data available.  But I don't thing the pre-internet data is valid any longer.

Now combine that with another factor of the internet - the _visibility_ of RCI's rentals, and we have the prblem we're seeing here today.

Roger has made a great point.  When a new resort is built, much of the intentory belongs to the developer.  Either the developer will rent it all out, to get people to tour, or they will deposit some of it to RCI.  RCI then has the option of either renting it to us, or placing it in the exchange pool.  If it goes into the exchange pool, something else must be removed to balance it out.   That is where RCI's rental weeks come from, and they have always, as far back as I have RCI directories, had that ability through the membership agreement.

I think what we're really grousing about is that RCI is renting these weeks to outsiders.  Cheap rentals used to be a benefit of RCI membership, but I suspect there are so many developer weeks that RCI can't possibly rent them all to RCI members only.  Once they started making them available to the general public, they saw that they could make more money renting to the general public.

One remedy would be to close the system again - but at what cost?  We will have to wait to visit the newer resorts, until after the general public visits on rentals and sales tours.  We will only get to visit when owners join RCI and deposit their individual weeks.  To allow us access to those newer resorts, RCI must be allowed to take something of equal value out of the closed system.  They can't take 2 lower-demand weeks out of the system, because then they wouldn't have enough weeks in the system to cover all exchanges.

That used to work before because RCI issued a developer bonus week to each of the developer deposits.  Thus higher demand developer deposits went into the system, and bonus weeks came out.  Remember the value of developer bonus weeks?  Pretty lame, right?  But they had value to the developer as a sales tool, as long as the buyer didn't realize how week they were.  

Again, along comes the interet, and information about resales.  And now the buyers who do a small amount of homework before their tour know that bonus weeks don't have that perceived value, and no longer have the same value to the developer as a result.  Now bonus week certificates very clearly state they are for excess inventory during non-peak dates (I have one in front of me now, and that's precisely what it says).  The resorts have "wised up" and probably want cash for their weeks - at least recovery of their share of maintenance expenses, maybe more.   If RCI won't give them something of value, they will market those weeks on their own, and by the time we get to visit the resort, it won't be "new" anymore.  Further, they might not choose to give their new owners that first year of RCI, and even if they do, if those owners can't get exchanges into the their own or other new resorts, they won't STAY in RCI, and we may have to wait even longer to get an exchange into those resorts.

Maybe it won't play out that way, but that's the way I suspect it would.


----------



## JLB (Feb 28, 2007)

More than one meaning in that statement!



CMF said:


> No individual(s) in their right mind(s) [even those with more money than common sense] will pay six law firms to bring a suit against RCI.
> 
> 
> Charles


----------



## JLB (Feb 28, 2007)

Speaking of the obligatory digression into Weeks v. Points, I bought a nice little Norelco coffee maker when I opened my first office in 1971.  (Just bear with me  )

It has been a great little coffee maker, and now that Folger's makes a coffee that is gentle on the stomach (at twice the price), it is back to making my coffee every morning, so that I can sip it as I search for SW Florida and Resorts on the Beach for the next two Januarys, run through our financials, TS4Ms and TUG.

On interesting days, like today, it brews a second pot.

So, it's been doing this for, what, 36 years!  Oh my God!  I'm sure I'm not that old!

Needless to say, it is the butt of many jokes within our circle of friends and family.  I have to admit that it looks like it belongs in 1971, it appeals to my too-thrifty nature, but it brews a great cup of coffee.

I have always believed that if it's not broken, don't try to fix it.

But, alas, time marches on and at some point one must step up and bring themselves up to date (strange that it is at the same time that the long hair is giving way to crewcuts  ).

Yup, this morning I plugged in the nifty-looking Gefalia (Ret. $119.95).  When I took my first drink, it tasted just like the coffee I have been drinking from my old Norelco all these years.

I looked at my bride and said, "Sorta like converting from Weeks to Points."   

(The stuff that goes on here is not lost on her.   )


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 28, 2007)

Mel said:


> Aldo, it is directly related.
> 
> What we all agree about (or most of us):
> 
> ...



Melinda,

Excellent assessment.  One thing that you didn't say is that RCI can acquire inventory from other sources that are NOT from the spacebank and rent them without causing harm to the RCI exchangers.  The source can be developers.  It can also be wholesalers or owners that just want the wholesaler to rent their weeks for them.  The wholesaler provides their weeks to RCI and they go up for rent.  It is very easy to become such a wholesaler on behalf of individual owners.

If you want to see an example of this working, just look at the HTSE site.  They offer you a choice to spacebank your week for exchange or you can put it up for rent.  The better weeks available are those being rented because owners of prime weeks have determined that they can get a better value from renting their week than exchanging it.  So, fewer people deposit those prime weeks just from that one mechanism.  This type of action that drains off prime weeks is happnening all over the internet and so it really does explain a good portion of the loss in exchange availability.  People just don't like depositing into RCI as much anymore especially given all of their options for using, renting or trading their weeks.

This is directly related to the issue of the Class Action Law suit because it provides an alternate and likely source of weeks that are NOT in violation of RCI weeks exchanger's spacebank inventory.

Why is this happening?  Because renting is a far more efficient method of mapping supply and demand than does a weeks exchange company.  And, the market for renters is 2 orders of magitude larger than the market for exchangers, so it has a far better chance of mapping real supply to real demand for weeks.

This was inevitable.  Markets get more efficient over time or they die.  As they get more efficient, it naturally tends toward the better exchange mechanisms.  In the case of timeshare exchange, I believe that rentals will prove to be the most efficient over time.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 28, 2007)

The problem, Mel, is simply that what RCI is telling us in not true.  Look at Bootleg's info and that of various RCI employees at Timeshare Talk.  Also, the RCI rentals that come through at resorts where I have seen the records are NOT at times when there may be any excess but at times when the resorts are normally full.  The excuse about ''excess'' does not track with what is happening on the ground.

Of course, the discovery in the lawsuit will ferret out the truth.





Mel said:


> Aldo, it is directly related.
> 
> What we all agree about (or most of us):
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 28, 2007)

Considering that timeshare started out as points based by a Swiss company named Hapimag, and the weeks system was a later improvement devised by  French timeshare developers, I fail to follow your analogy. 

But as in so many of these threads, the real issue is rentals from exchange deposits rather than points vs weeks.

I understand than one of the original class action complaints included some issues involving Points access to Weeks and the other didn't go into that issue.  I do not know if the amended consolidated complaint raises the issue or not, but clearly the focus in the lawsuit is the rentals. 




JLB said:


> Speaking of the obligatory digression into Weeks v. Points, I bought a nice little Norelco coffee maker when I opened my first office in 1971.  (Just bear with me  )
> 
> It has been a great little coffee maker, and now that Folger's makes a coffee that is gentle on the stomach (at twice the price), it is back to making my coffee every morning, so that I can sip it as I search for SW Florida and Resorts on the Beach for the next two Januarys, run through our financials, TS4Ms and TUG.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dean (Feb 28, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> We got through an entire page on this thread without getting into the Points vs. Weeks thing, and then on the second page one of the regular Points advocates brought it up (I hope this passes muster by not mentioning his name).
> 
> Further, it is NOT legitimate when RCI rents WEEKS inventory to pay for Points Partner reservations.  Someone posted some material out of one of the RCI corporate filings where they stated that points they got for such things they spent like any member could spend points.  Of course they get the best bang for the buck by raiding Weeks inventory with the unfair generic crossover grids they created, so it is a no brainer that RCI itself is certainly raiding Weeks with its own cache of points from the points partner reservations.


Points were first mentioned in post 22 on page one.  Since there are legitimate ways to use points to exchange to weeks then rent them out, I'd disagree totally with your assessment.  The question then is whether they are following their own rules.  As for the crossover grid, that's a different thread altogether and seems to be reasonably setup if you look at the overall package.  The trouble I think is you think it should be micromanaged and RCI takes a more general approach.  I think you also have the same philosophical difference with RCI when they code places like Orlando red for all resorts for the entire year.  The lawsuit could be interesting but I doubt it'll have any real effect.


----------



## "Roger" (Feb 28, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The problem, Mel, is simply that what RCI is telling us in not true.  Look at Bootleg's info and that of various RCI employees at Timeshare Talk.  Also, the RCI rentals that come through at resorts where I have seen the records are NOT at times when there may be any excess but at times when the resorts are normally full.  The excuse about ''excess'' does not track with what is happening on the ground.
> 
> Of course, the discovery in the lawsuit will ferret out the truth.


Scenario... maybe total fiction, maybe realistic.  Just something to chew on...

RCI gets 100 deposits from resorts of different quality.  It also gets 10 units from developers at some newer, flashier resorts.  (I know... location... but some people go for the mega pools and the 1600 square foot units.)  The developers are anxious to get their units filled in order to have fresh meat for their sales staff.  RCI is anxious to have the developer weeks, partly in order to have the developer list with RCI and partly for rental income (but, of course, they can't rent these particular units because they want to appease the developers who want the fresh meat).

The developer weeks are snatched up by glossy eyed exchangers.  (1600 square feet.  Wow!) RCI could let the remaining 100 deposited units go, first come, first serve.  But if they do that, the 10 units that they are left will will be from blue week owners in Iowa and off season SA.  Those aren't going to make them much money.  Well, using the magic (but hidden) formula of trading power, they declare that 10 of the best deposits are equivalent to the 10 developer weeks.  (There is plenty of leeway in the trading power formula, so what they take out doesn't really have to be as good as the developer weeks.)  So, they take those weeks out of the pool and rent them.

Meanwhile, some discontent in Ireland who works for RCI looks at one of the 10 rented weeks and notices that they were originally deposits.  In fact, he posts a computer screen of this on Timeshare Talk.  The resort manager also notices the party occupying the unit was a renter.  Neither the RCI employee nor the resort manager checks to find out if the unit in question was exchanged for a developer week.

At the end of the day, RCI declares that it has managed to find exchanges for 95% of their depositors. This is far higher than any percentage from the old days prior to the Cendent take over.  It becomes a talking point in their press releases.

Now my questions.  Has RCI done anything legally actionable?  Secondly, if it is actionable, what is the remedy?  Would either the developers or the exchangers prefer that depositors never have access to the developer weeks?

Again, I have never said that the above scenario us what actually transpired.  The very possibility, however, leaves me thinking that the "proof" of wrong doing cited on TUG is not "proof."

Stepping back and expressing some of my real thougths, I have always maintained that the Weeks system gives RCI an incentive to get people to trade down.  They can then skim off the top and profit from rentals.  I don't know if they do that, but that is an in between scenario between the one given above and just outright massively taking deposits and renting them (with no developer week replacements). This is one of the reasons that I personally distrusted the Weeks system.

Finally, for those rooting for the law firms, you better hope that they are prepared for something akin to the above scenario.  If they are simply counting on the kind of evidence cited here on TUG, they are going to get blindsided.  (Maybe that is why I haven't seen a single financial analysist list this suit as a concern.)


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 28, 2007)

The issue in the lawsuit is *not* whether they are following their own rules but whether what they are doing (including those rules) follows the standards set in consumer protection law.

You may think giving the same value to a pink week at a low demand inland resort and a prime summer beachfront red week is ''reasonable'', and I guess that depends on what your perspective is.  If you are a Points member wanting to snatch that summer week for a song, it may seem reasonable.  If you are a Weeks member wanting a fair market exchange into that week, only to find it gone because a Points member took it, then you might see it differently.  Valuing weeks honestly and fairly is *not* ''micromanaging'' nor is it what the Points generic grids do.




Dean said:


> Points were first mentioned in post 22 on page one.  Since there are legitimate ways to use points to exchange to weeks then rent them out, I'd disagree totally with your assessment.  The question then is whether they are following their own rules.  As for the crossover grid, that's a different thread altogether and seems to be reasonably setup if you look at the overall package.  The trouble I think is you think it should be micromanaged and RCI takes a more general approach.  I think you also have the same philosophical difference with RCI when they code places like Orlando red for all resorts for the entire year.  The lawsuit could be interesting but I doubt it'll have any real effect.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 28, 2007)

What your scenario shows is the massive conflict of interest that RCI has in getting its nose into rentals at all.  If you have your hand in the till, you are also likely to put your thumb on the scales.




"Roger" said:


> Scenario... maybe total fiction, maybe realistic.  Just something to chew on...
> 
> RCI gets 100 deposits from resorts of different quality.  It also gets 10 units from developers at some newer, flashier resorts.  (I know... location... but some people go for the mega pools and the 1600 square foot units.)  The developers are anxious to get their units filled in order to have fresh meat for their sales staff.  RCI is anxious to have the developer weeks, partly in order to have the developer list with RCI and partly for rental income (but, of course, they can't rent these particular units because they want to appease the developers who want the fresh meat).
> 
> ...


----------



## Mel (Feb 28, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The problem, Mel, is simply that what RCI is telling us in not true.  Look at Bootleg's info and that of various RCI employees at Timeshare Talk.  Also, the RCI rentals that come through at resorts where I have seen the records are NOT at times when there may be any excess but at times when the resorts are normally full.  The excuse about ''excess'' does not track with what is happening on the ground.
> 
> Of course, the discovery in the lawsuit will ferret out the truth.


I hope it does ferret out the truth.  Unfortunately I don't think you will be happy with the truth.

I understand the rentals are not all excess inventory.  I thought I explained why that occurs.  Please try to follow:

Developer of "New Resort" on the beach in Aruba gives 100 weeks to RCI in exchange for some kind of consideration.  These are NOT normal exchange weeks.

RCI places 50 of these weeks into various rental programs.  For these weeks, RCI recovers the cost of the consideration to the resort.

RCI also looks at the exchange requests in their system - they have loads of requests for Aruba, and no availability within the exchange system.  To satisfy some of that demand, they assign some of the "New Resort" weeks to the exchange pool.  But in doing this they have introduced 50 weeks into the system which need to be balanced by 50 weeks pulled OUT of the system.

Among the 50 weeks RCI pulls out are 20 summer weeks at Barrier Island Station - there is demand for these, but RCI knows that they are of similar demand to the "New Resort" weeks, if not a little inferior.  They also know that historically they have had more than enough supply to cover the requests the "should" qualify for that exchange.  In fact, many of the exchanges in have been "upward" exchanges.

Once RCI has taken those 20 weeks (plus 30 others at other resorts) out of the exchange system, they rent them in place of the "New Resort" weeks, to cover the cost of the consideration given to the resort.  Thus we see rentals of weeks that were given to the exchange system, not because they are excess inventory, but because they were exchanged for other weeks that went into the system in their place.

The only issue I might have is in how RCI values the weeks it uses for these exchanges - and I hate to pull points back into the argument, but at least with points we know it is xxx points in for xxx points out.


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 28, 2007)

And your source of information for this contention is????????

And there are hundreds of thousands of such developer deposits to equal the number of rentals from the spacebank???? (my source - The Seasons resort chain newsletter in which they announced their jumping ship to II, and that was years ago so the number of rentals from the spacebank is certainly much more than that now) 




Mel said:


> I hope it does ferret out the truth.  Unfortunately I don't think you will be happy with the truth.
> 
> I understand the rentals are not all excess inventory.  I thought I explained why that occurs.  Please try to follow:
> 
> ...


----------



## JLB (Feb 28, 2007)

No, I think you follow the analogy.  You just know more than me, or started earlier.   

This thread is about RCI, and you and I and everyone else both know they started as Weeks.

Hey, I was just talking about coffeemakers anyway.   



Carolinian said:


> Considering that timeshare started out as points based by a Swiss company named Hapimag, and the weeks system was a later improvement devised by  French timeshare developers, I fail to follow your analogy.
> .


----------



## timeos2 (Feb 28, 2007)

*This is a hot one*



Carolinian said:


> And your source of information for this contention is????????
> 
> And there are hundreds of thousands of such developer deposits to equal the number of rentals from the spacebank???? (my source - The Seasons resort chain newsletter in which they announced their jumping ship to II, and that was years ago so the number of rentals from the spacebank is certainly much more than that now)



I'm tempted to jump ships to a less contentious topic like Coke vs Pepsi!


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 1, 2007)

Sometimes we get some outlandish contentions to defend RCI's rental programs, like the contention that all of the SkyAuction rentals were coming from one guy who happened to own A LOT of timeshares.  That argument was made on the old TUG board by someone who is defending RCI in this thread.  Of course, when Tuggers started winning the SkyAuction weeks, they got standard RCI confirmations for the weeks they won, so the ''guy who owned a lot of timeshares'' argument went by the boards.


----------



## "Roger" (Mar 1, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> What your scenario shows is the massive conflict of interest that RCI has in getting its nose into rentals at all.  If you have your hand in the till, you are also likely to put your thumb on the scales.


I'm afraid where you see conflict of interest, investors will see synergy.

(For others)... Given the scenario outlined, would RCI's substituting banked weeks to replace developer weeks that they have given out as exchanges be actionable?  On what grounds?

Its a complex world out there.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 1, 2007)

*No Judge will slog through it all*



Mel said:


> The only issue I might have is in how RCI values the weeks it uses for these exchanges - and I hate to pull points back into the argument, but at least with points we know it is xxx points in for xxx points out.



If an educated group such as TUG can't agree on what the true value of time in the system really is (is RED PINK or BLUE? Are averaged point values high or low? Are rentals a base of value? Do fees play a part? Does purchase cost matter? Season? Location? Amenities? You know it goes on and on) how could some judge or uninformed jury be expected to figure it out? Since much of the valuation is done behind the scenes what would they compare? All the vaunted discovery may bring out is how poorly the actual system of weeks value evaluation works.  Some will be shocked to discover that it doesn't change every minute but was set back when the resorts were built and most likely never visited again! (Yes, speculation on my part but lets be real. Does anyone think the wizards at RCI could REALLY have that sophisticated of a valuation system? They only care about the income - the rest is ignored). If you have ever been in an actual courtroom where timeshare operations are discussed you would know that it takes about 3 minutes for the eyes to glaze over, the hands go up in frustration and the judge says "I don't understand this so lets..." and some non-nonsensical decision is made. They don't take days or weeks to try to figure it all out. I've seen it first hand in a timeshare case involving hundreds of millions of dollars, a public company and the stockholders - it was not good.  This problem with a $600 week and a $149 exchange fee isn't going get MORE attention. The Courts don't work that way. 

The biggest nightmare for the supporters of the class action will be what it exposes about the system. It won't be pretty. If it ever goes anywhere and it stopped rentals the value of the lower demand time will tank even more than it has already. Without an outlet for all that nearly worthless inventory the weeks system would drown in it's own waste. The truth can hurt sometimes.


----------



## JLB (Mar 1, 2007)

Yup, a person has to be pretty special to be able to speak in parables.   



Carolinian said:


> I fail to follow your analogy.


----------



## JLB (Mar 1, 2007)

That's true.  When my Crystal Ball starts talking about business models, I got lost really quick.

Heck, I get lost about ten seconds after Bruce starts talking about his UDIs.  

It's not as simple as whether the body should be buried in The Bahamas, Texas or California.   



"Roger" said:


> Its a complex world out there.


----------



## Aldo (Mar 1, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> If an educated group such as TUG can't agree on what the true value of time in the system really is (is RED PINK or BLUE? Are averaged point values high or low? Are rentals a base of value? Do fees play a part? Does purchase cost matter? Season? Location? Amenities? You know it goes on and on) how could some judge or uninformed jury be expected to figure it out? Since much of the valuation is done behind the scenes what would they compare? All the vaunted discovery may bring out is how poorly the actual system of weeks value evaluation works.  Some will be shocked to discover that it doesn't change every minute but was set back when the resorts were built and most likely never visited again! (Yes, speculation on my part but lets be real. Does anyone think the wizards at RCI could REALLY have that sophisticated of a valuation system? They only care about the income - the rest is ignored). If you have ever been in an actual courtroom where timeshare operations are discussed you would know that it takes about 3 minutes for the eyes to glaze over, the hands go up in frustration and the judge says "I don't understand this so lets..." and some non-nonsensical decision is made. They don't take days or weeks to try to figure it all out. I've seen it first hand in a timeshare case involving hundreds of millions of dollars, a public company and the stockholders - it was not good.  This problem with a $600 week and a $149 exchange fee isn't going get MORE attention. The Courts don't work that way.
> 
> The biggest nightmare for the supporters of the class action will be what it exposes about the system. It won't be pretty. If it ever goes anywhere and it stopped rentals the value of the lower demand time will tank even more than it has already. Without an outlet for all that nearly worthless inventory the weeks system would drown in it's own waste. The truth can hurt sometimes.



Well, it's a good thing that none of those issues of relative valuations of weeks is pertinent to the lawsuit then, isn't it?  The goal is to stop RCI from looting weeks out of the spacebank, not to address how they valuate trade power.

It ought to be clear as pie to anyone with half a brain that looting weeks from the Spacebank is going to adversely affect trade power.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 1, 2007)

Aldo said:


> Well, it's a good thing that none of those issues of relative valuations of weeks is pertinent to the lawsuit then, isn't it?  The goal is to stop RCI from looting weeks out of the spacebank, not to address how they valuate trade power.
> 
> It ought to be clear as pie to anyone with half a brain that looting weeks from the Spacebank is going to adversely affect trade power.



The biggest looters of RCI spacebanked weeks are Tuggers.  We routinely steal weeks out by giving them dog weeks and taking out prime.  RCI learned it from us.   What they are doing is no different than what we are doing.
You are right.  Everything we do in this regard effects trading power.


----------



## JLB (Mar 1, 2007)

In this case I should understand it.   

Besides I love pie, but mostly the unclear kind, cocoanut meringue, chocolate, etc.  Let's talk about pie a little while, you know, for a sorta timeout, snackbreak.  Pie and coffee?  I think it would help us.

When my other 1/2 brain gets back from the cleaners, maybe I can talk about some of the other issues.  




Aldo said:


> It ought to be clear as pie to anyone with half a brain that looting weeks from the Spacebank is going to adversely affect trade power.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 1, 2007)

*Valuation is a key*



Aldo said:


> Well, it's a good thing that none of those issues of relative valuations of weeks is pertinent to the lawsuit then, isn't it?  The goal is to stop RCI from looting weeks out of the spacebank, not to address how they valuate trade power.
> 
> It ought to be clear as pie to anyone with half a brain that looting weeks from the Spacebank is going to adversely affect trade power.



Aldo - It is the issue. Even an uniformed judge or juror can understand that a 1 bedroom week in Branson in January isn't the same as a 3 bedroom week in Miami. So when RCI says they have to make EQUAL trades, a term that appeals to almost anyone and that they understand, and if they aren't EQUAL the time can be "surplus".  Try telling those jurists that there are compensating factors like demand, location, red vs blue, quality, etc and theres those glassy eyes again. It is key to the case that rentals aren't seen as a necessary part of the equation and that an unreasonable process of valuation was used to declare them as surplus for rental. If RCI has done nothing else they will have the documentation to show the units rented weren't equal to those requesting a trade into them.  This case is not likely to be won even though on the simple face of it renting the space seems wrong.  If it is won by some fluke the results won't be what the weeks advocates think they will be. The old days will not suddenly be back.  Not going to happen.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 1, 2007)

*They're Not Coming Back Gradually, Either.*




timeos2 said:


> The old days will not suddenly be back.


Not only that, whatever the outcome, it's always easier for things to get worse than for things to get better -- regardless of whether you're talking about timeshares or women's swimsuits. 

So it goes. 
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 1, 2007)

Its the market that determines what is an equal trade.  You know, good old supply and demand.  If there is not the demand in the exchange system for the availible supply of a week that someone thought was a ''good week'', the market has spoken and said it is not as good as they thought, and revalues it accordingly.  The system adjusts, and an equal trade is made.  This is the way the Christel deHaan model of timeshare exchanging, which was long used by RCI, worked and it is an honest and fair system.

Arbitrarily blocking the operation of the market so that some weeks are declared ''surplus'' is part of what RCI is apparently doing to create its rental empire. When they have their hand in the till, it is not surprising that they also put their thumb on the scales. They can arbitrarily adjust values to make anything they want surplus.  Take out the conflicts of interest like RCI arbitrarily setting values of weeks instead of market forces and RCI benefiting from doing so by doing rentals to non-members, and then you will restore the integrity of the exchange system.  That is what the lawsuit is all about.

Who is afraid of market forces setting real values instead of arbitary values set by an exchange company?  Logic tells you it is those who know deep down that their week is not really worth what it is cracked up to be.  Overbuilt areas are an example.  They would rather have arbitrary values that they hope will overvalue their weeks and allow them to trade up.

If you want to determine what is a fair exchange system, look at what incentives are created for the exchange company to cook the books or rig the system or developers to politick the system.  An exchange system with those components is going to be corrupted.  Rentals create that incentive in RCI Weeks.

The dishonesty of a rigged and arbitrary valuation system is shown by the old Soviet rouble.  Its fixed value was US$1.11, but the market rate at the Swiss banks was usually about US$0.19.




timeos2 said:


> Aldo - It is the issue. Even an uniformed judge or juror can understand that a 1 bedroom week in Branson in January isn't the same as a 3 bedroom week in Miami. So when RCI says they have to make EQUAL trades, a term that appeals to almost anyone and that they understand, and if they aren't EQUAL the time can be "surplus".  Try telling those jurists that there are compensating factors like demand, location, red vs blue, quality, etc and theres those glassy eyes again. It is key to the case that rentals aren't seen as a necessary part of the equation and that an unreasonable process of valuation was used to declare them as surplus for rental. If RCI has done nothing else they will have the documentation to show the units rented weren't equal to those requesting a trade into them.  This case is not likely to be won even though on the simple face of it renting the space seems wrong.  If it is won by some fluke the results won't be what the weeks advocates think they will be. The old days will not suddenly be back.  Not going to happen.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 1, 2007)

''synergy'' is one of those words that means consumers need to hold onto their wallets. . . sort of like the word ''enhancements'' when it comes to frequent flyer programs.  When airlines start talking about ''enhancements'' to their ff programs, the members know they are about to be hosed.




"Roger" said:


> I'm afraid where you see conflict of interest, investors will see synergy.
> 
> (For others)... Given the scenario outlined, would RCI's substituting banked weeks to replace developer weeks that they have given out as exchanges be actionable?  On what grounds?
> 
> Its a complex world out there.


----------



## JLB (Mar 2, 2007)

Now we're getting to the cruxt of the problem, all these uninformed people serving as judges and jurors.  
- - - - - -
For some reason, my mind's eye is picturing those Geico Caveman commercials.  You know, so simple a caveman can do it?

So, have you been to Branson in January, or are you just making an assumption based on insinuation, speculation, etc.?   

Actually, not based on assumption, I have been to Miami a few times, and would prefer Branson in January.   

Really.  I would never consider using one our weeks to vacation in Miami.  Just would never, ever do it.

I am fairly certain that it is probably likely that there are many/some/one-or-two Redneck Bumpkins (no offense to anyone in my gene pool) who would rather spend a week in January at BCWC than ever having to set foot in a place like Miami.  

And, matter of fact, compliments of a TUGger, we did get a January week at BCWC.  Nice and peaceful, very relaxing and vacation-like.

What may be true for one, some or most, may not be true for all.

But, of course, I get your point, even if it is not based on universal truth, but, rather, personal preference.



timeos2 said:


> Even an uniformed judge or juror can understand that a 1 bedroom week in Branson in January isn't the same as a 3 bedroom week in Miami.


----------



## CMF (Mar 2, 2007)

*Binding Arbitration May be an Option*

The judge may direct this case the way of a special master to sort out the details, or her/his honor may persuade the parties into binding arbitration.  These options could remedy the uninformed juror/judge problem.  But, it may not be such a problem after all.  Juries and judges are asked to tackle far more complicated matters all the time.


Charles


----------



## JLB (Mar 4, 2007)

I heard he's considering Carolinian.   



CMF said:


> The judge may direct this case the way of a special master to sort out the details


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 4, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Longtime TUG poster Bootleg, an RCI employee who had access to RCI's computers, followed some of these prime week rentals back to the source and found that they were member exchange deposits that had nothing to do with cruises, points for deposit, etc., just straight out exchange deposits.
> 
> Once they get to seriously turning over rocks in discovery, IMHO RCI is going to cry uncle!
> 
> Looting exchange deposits for rental to the general public cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called ''legitimate business practices''.  It more resembles the business practices of Al Capone.



It could very well be true that Bootleg's reporting here was accurate and RCI was looting the Spacebank.  If it was so obvious to Bootleg, then it should be trivial to prove through discovery that RCI is guilty and the plaintiffs will win big time in the Class Action.

However, I seriously doubt that this is the case.  There are still explanations for why Bootleg could have seen what he saw and it still be legitimate business activity.

Just for the record, I would note that you believe that crossover trades from RCI Points to RCI weeks are "looting" as well.  I don't agree with that assertion.  In fact, I seriously doubt that any judge or jury would either.  It's a completely legitimate business practice to allow a point system to have one way access to a weeks system.  

Your passion for using the legal system to correct what you perceive to be an injustice is admirable.  I just don't believe the outcome you hope for will come to fruition.  RCI will never be the way it once was no matter what the outcome of this Class action is.  Markets evolve over time.  So is timesharing.  Perhaps it's just time to move on.

Rentals are here to stay.  That will be true whether or not RCI remains in business or spins if off and merges it with a company like DAE.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 4, 2007)

CMF said:


> The judge may direct this case the way of a special master to sort out the details, or her/his honor may persuade the parties into binding arbitration.  These options could remedy the uninformed juror/judge problem.  But, it may not be such a problem after all.  Juries and judges are asked to tackle far more complicated matters all the time.
> 
> 
> Charles



Yeah, right.  RCI will risk the outcome of binding arbitration?  You have a higher probability of winning the next $100M powerball lottery.

If there is no smoking gun in this case such as Carolinian asserts with his references to Bootleg, then RCI will simply throw so much confusion into the case that nobody will ever be able to determine what an equal trade is.  One person's trash is another person's treasure.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

This is not a matter of a market ''evolving''; it is a matter of RCI trying to hijack the market.  Years ago, I posted in its entirety a letter from RCI's CEO to affiliated resorts in which he said that RCI was going to be using its power as a ''market leader'' to ''bring timesharing to the mass market''.  We have since seen what he meant - using RCI's quasi-monopoly position to try to force the market into points and rentals.  That is hardly a market ''evolving'' from natural forces.

Crossover trades would NOT be looting if they were availible to go both directions to members of both and valuation was fair.  However none of those things are true.  The generic grids are downright fraudulent, grossly undervaluing prime weeks in the Weeks system, and of course Weeks members are not allowed to do crossovers into Points.

While I would agree with you that rentals, in general, are here to stay, the scam of exchange companies renting exchange deposits hopefully will have a stake deservedly driven through its heart in the class action.

RCI's defenders trying to explain away what Bootleg and others saw reminds me a lot of the attempt of one of RCI's defenders (who has been involved in this thread BTW) to defend the SkyAuction rentals.



BocaBum99 said:


> It could very well be true that Bootleg's reporting here was accurate and RCI was looting the Spacebank.  If it was so obvious to Bootleg, then it should be trivial to prove through discovery that RCI is guilty and the plaintiffs will win big time in the Class Action.
> 
> However, I seriously doubt that this is the case.  There are still explanations for why Bootleg could have seen what he saw and it still be legitimate business activity.
> 
> ...


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 4, 2007)

Carolinian,

I believe that the crossover trade issue that you are so passionate about was not included in this Class Action suit because they are different things.  One is about renting units that should be available for exchange.   The other is about rules for how exchangers can exchange and whether or not such rules could be legally offered by exchange companies.

When a points owner has access to a weeks system, that is no different than an individual owner who has a request first ongoing search with that exchange company.  In the individual's case, the exchange company does NOT have the two way option of taking the week that the individual exchanger is using to request first.  So, in essence, if you require all interfaces to an exchange company to be "2-way", then you eliminate request first options.   That will never be acceptable to the timesharing community.

If you believe that all interfaces should be bi-directional into an exchange company, then you should also be lobbying DAE to eliminate it's request first option.  Have you done that yet?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 4, 2007)

Lots of companies use their position with their customers to migrate them to their next product offerings.  That is an inherent and quantifiable asset to a company.  It manifests itself in the "goodwill" of the company.  The Goodwill of a company is a company's market value minus its book value.

This means that the market expects companies to leverage their market position to derive future profits.  

This type of planning and activity is an essential requirement of a good CEO.

When performing due diligence for a merger and acquisition candidate, a significant element of that study is to determine the value of the customer base to sell future products.

There are certain types of restraint that are required of monopolies.  That is probably why you labelled RCI as a quasi-monopoly.  Then all RCI must do is prove that it isn't a monopoly, just a market leader.  However, the activities of RCI must be proven to be detrimental to their competitors.  But, they aren't.  RCI's actions are actually conducive to additional competition in the market.  I doubt anti-trust will play a role in this case.

So, the RCI CEO was just making a speech that any market leader would have made to its key stakeholders.  I find nothing wrong with it.


----------



## PerryM (Mar 4, 2007)

*Go to Starbucks, they have the answer...*

Ok, I admit it I can’t turn my head from a car crash or a good RCI bashing – it’s cheap entertainment.  And, I really don't want to clean out the basement - this is much more important.

I once explained how what RCI is doing is completely explainable and legal.  I’ll say it once again:

I believe that internally, inside all the secret computer programs *there lies an RCI CREDIT system* that is similar to the external RCI Point one – but this one is for real.  So as not to confuse the issue I’m going to call this system RCI Credits.

ALL reservations space banked with RCI are converted into RCI Credits - same with RCI Points - and are dumped into one central account – it has its own currency to handle transactions with RCI Weeks, RCI Points, RCI Travel Agency, RCI Rental Division.  Once this happens the individual reservations have no meaning – everything inside the computer systems is conducted with RCI Credits.  This is how an efficient company conducts business - it just creates an interchangeable currency to make life easier.

So when the RCI Travel Agency exchanges your RCI Points for airline tickets and they actually sending a transaction to the RCI Credit account.

The RCI Rental Division gets notice that xxx,xxx number of RCI Credits are available and must be converted into US dollars.  The folks at RCI Rental simply go shopping for juicy reservations and can use ANY of them – they pay for them in RCI Credits.  This is perfectly legal – its their currency and systems.

Now the phone representatives never see RCI Credits but randomly picked reservations that represent so many RCI Credits that match up to available space banked reservations.

Ok, I can already hear the statement “But BigFoot saw a secret screen that had reservations and has never seen RCI Credits”.  That’s exactly correct.

You don’t see the Gold, or Silver, or “Full Faith and Credit of the US Government” on that credit card you just swiped thru the card reader to buy your morning bagel and coffee at Starbucks but its there none the less.

There, I feel much better, I’ve explained, once again, how all of this could be legal and follow RCI’s own rules.  I wonder if the basement has self cleaned itself?


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 4, 2007)

*Facts ruin great tales*

Perry & Boca - I just hate it when facts get in the way of such great theories of corruption, contracts with adhesive tape and screen saver shots of private information. RCI is a company in business to make money offering a voluntary service. All these other side issues, so important to this little world, will mean very little when the overall business model and procedures are disclosed. Perry is most likely very close to the inner mechanisms and it will likely be just that easy to put an end to this farce when the time comes. Meanwhile being so clear just messes up all the arguments so please stay away from facts so the threads can live on! And on. And on until the inevitable dismissal of the shysters and their hopes of glory. Long live conjecture, the rocket fuel of BBS threads.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

Request First has absolutely nothing to do with a two way street between Weeks and Points.  Fairness dictates that if Points members have access to all of the Weeks inventory, then Weeks members should have access to all of the Points inventory, and on a fair and equitable basis.  If that is not done, as it is NOT in the RCI Points/Weeks interface, then the system is not fair, and that triggers the consumer protection laws.

Although I have not read both original complaints, a lawyer who has told me that the crossover trades issue was in one of the original complaints in one of the class actions.  Someone else who had read a draft of the new consolidated conplaint told me that at least at the draft stage it was no longer in that complaint.  Although these are somewhat different issues, they are closely enough related that it would have been better to have kept the issue in the consolidated complaint. Maybe someone is just saving this potent issue for another class action later.




BocaBum99 said:


> Carolinian,
> 
> I believe that the crossover trade issue that you are so passionate about was not included in this Class Action suit because they are different things.  One is about renting units that should be available for exchange.   The other is about rules for how exchangers can exchange and whether or not such rules could be legally offered by exchange companies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

Looting one system for the benefit of members of another is hardly a ''fair'' business practice, and that lack of fairness triggers consumer protection law.
When one company or entity runs both systems and does this it is called ''conflcit of interest'', which these days seems to be what the ''C'' stands for in RCI - Resort Conflict of interest International.

Singing the virtues of New Coke is a whole lot different from looting assets of one system to promote another, especially when those assets were not created by the company itself but entrusted to it for certain purposes by third-party members, and that trust is then betrayed by the diversion of those assets.  

Timeshare owners at resorts that are not dual affiliated and do not inform members of their option to use independent exchange companies, effectively are prisoners of RCI if they want to make an exchange.  Doesn't that smell like a monopoly to you??  As to those owners, isn't it in fact a monopoly?



BocaBum99 said:


> Lots of companies use their position with their customers to migrate them to their next product offerings.  That is an inherent and quantifiable asset to a company.  It manifests itself in the "goodwill" of the company.  The Goodwill of a company is a company's market value minus its book value.
> 
> This means that the market expects companies to leverage their market position to derive future profits.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

Actually, those who want to cover up for RCI seem to be hardest at work on this thread and the ones with the most creative theories.  This one is made up out of whole cloth, and there is NOTHING anywhere that even suggests that the arrangement fantacised here exists.   It reminds me of the theory put forward by an RCI apologist on the old boards that all of the SkyAuction timeshare rentals came from one guy with A LOT of timeshares!  And it is no more likely to be true than  that theory was. 

And I repeat yet again, whether or not RCI ''follows its own rules'' is completely irrelevent to the class action consumer protection lawsuit.  The key is whether RCI practices, INCLUDING RCI's own rules, violate the ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' standards of consumer protection law.  It the government's rules that matter in this game, not RCI's.




PerryM said:


> Ok, I admit it I can’t turn my head from a car crash or a good RCI bashing – it’s cheap entertainment.  And, I really don't want to clean out the basement - this is much more important.
> 
> I once explained how what RCI is doing is completely explainable and legal.  I’ll say it once again:
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

Why am I not surprised that you approve so highly of Perry and Boca's very creative conjecture?????????




timeos2 said:


> Perry & Boca - I just hate it when facts get in the way of such great theories of corruption, contracts with adhesive tape and screen saver shots of private information. RCI is a company in business to make money offering a voluntary service. All these other side issues, so important to this little world, will mean very little when the overall business model and procedures are disclosed. Perry is most likely very close to the inner mechanisms and it will likely be just that easy to put an end to this farce when the time comes. Meanwhile being so clear just messes up all the arguments so please stay away from facts so the threads can live on! And on. And on until the inevitable dismissal of the shysters and their hopes of glory. Long live conjecture, the rocket fuel of BBS threads.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 4, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Request First has absolutely nothing to do with a two way street between Weeks and Points.  Fairness dictates that if Points members have access to all of the Weeks inventory, then Weeks members should have access to all of the Points inventory, and on a fair and equitable basis.  If that is not done, as it is NOT in the RCI Points/Weeks interface, then the system is not fair, and that triggers the consumer protection laws.
> 
> Although I have not read both original complaints, a lawyer who has told me that the crossover trades issue was in one of the original complaints in one of the class actions.  Someone else who had read a draft of the new consolidated conplaint told me that at least at the draft stage it was no longer in that complaint.  Although these are somewhat different issues, they are closely enough related that it would have been better to have kept the issue in the consolidated complaint. Maybe someone is just saving this potent issue for another class action later.



Request first is identical to a points interface to a weeks system.  That is how it manifests itself.

Take a look at the II website.  The WorldMark or Sunterra interface is EXACTLY set up like a weeks based request first feature for a floating week at any resort.

If you are against crossover trades between points and weeks, then you must be against request first.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

The Worldmark or Sunterra inferface is hardly the same thing as Request First.
I would agree that those inferfaces are not fair to other II members from what I read about them on these boards.

The only thing that Request First means is that you don't have to make your deposit or pay your exchange fee until they can confirm the exchange.  The time you make your deposit and pay your fee has absolutely nothing to do with what range of inventory you have access to.

You are in an apples vs. oranges mode on this one.




BocaBum99 said:


> Request first is identical to a points interface to a weeks system.  That is how it manifests itself.
> 
> Take a look at the II website.  The WorldMark or Sunterra interface is EXACTLY set up like a weeks based request first feature for a floating week at any resort.
> 
> If you are against crossover trades between points and weeks, then you must be against request first.


----------



## Dean (Mar 4, 2007)

I think people forget that RCI weeks and RCI points are in effect two different exchange companies.  RCI points is really little different than any other mini system that belongs to RCI such as FF or BG, etc.  Think of it like Infinity and Nissan.  Just like any of the other "mini" systems, RCI weeks doesn't get anything from RCI points unless they give a week in return.  RCI weeks then uses the points gathered in this manner to reserve time to put into weeks.  One can agree or disagree with the agreements made between an exchange company and it's affiliated mini systems but the truth is that in general, RCI weeks likely needs RCI points more than the reverse at this point.  One could just as easily have a similar discussion about II and it's various mini systems.  For example, DVC members can do request first for 2 years out and only pay a $75 exchange fee.  There are other negatives to their system but these are pretty powerful concessions on II's part to get DVC to participate.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 4, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Looting one system for the benefit of members of another is hardly a ''fair'' business practice, and that lack of fairness triggers consumer protection law.



Well, we shall see soon enough if your characterizations are right or not.  I am willing to place a bet that my conjectures are more likely to occur than yours are.  Care for a gentleman's bet?  If I win, you buy an RCI Points package and you use it.  If you win, name your stakes.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 4, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The Worldmark or Sunterra inferface is hardly the same thing as Request First.
> I would agree that those inferfaces are not fair to other II members from what I read about them on these boards.
> 
> The only thing that Request First means is that you don't have to make your deposit or pay your exchange fee until they can confirm the exchange.  The time you make your deposit and pay your fee has absolutely nothing to do with what range of inventory you have access to.
> ...




It's identical.  I can grab anything available in II before I deposit.  And, if I choose not to deposit, then nobody else in II can get what I have to offer.

This is identically equal to what happens in the RCI Points interface to RCI weeks.  I can grab anything in RCI weeks before I deposit.  And, if I choose not to deposit, then nobody else in RCI weeks can get what I have to offer; namely my RCI Points inventory.

It is identical.  And, you fail to acknowledge it because it doesn't support your argument.  

If you are against crossover grids from RCI Points to RCI weeks, then you must be against request first features.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

Number one, RCI Weeks members are not going to be able to get that Points week you deposit anyway.

In a normal request first system, all members have access to all of the inventory.  In the Weeks/Points interface, Points members have access to all of the Weeks inventory, but Weeks members have access only to whatever RCI might or might not decide to give back to Weeks, which may be nothing at all if one RCI employee posting at TimeshareTalk is correct.  Under no ones information do Weeks members have reciprocal access to all inventory at Points, which is the test of whether it is a two way street or not.

Your fail to acknowledge this because it does not support your argument.

BTW, did you think that if you don't deposit, then you can't grab ANYTHING at all?




BocaBum99 said:


> It's identical.  I can grab anything available in II before I deposit.  And, if I choose not to deposit, then nobody else in II can get what I have to offer.
> 
> This is identically equal to what happens in the RCI Points interface to RCI weeks.  I can grab anything in RCI weeks before I deposit.  And, if I choose not to deposit, then nobody else in RCI weeks can get what I have to offer; namely my RCI Points inventory.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

I do, indeed, wish that we would see soon enough the court's ruling on that issue, but all of the information I have says that this issue seems not to have gone forward in the consolidated class action complaint.  Let me know if you have information that indicates it has.




BocaBum99 said:


> Well, we shall see soon enough if your characterizations are right or not.  I am willing to place a bet that my conjectures are more likely to occur than yours are.  Care for a gentleman's bet?  If I win, you buy an RCI Points package and you use it.  If you win, name your stakes.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

It is incestous when the same entity runs both.  It absolutely reeks of conflict of interest.  This has been identified as a major problem from the early days of RCI's journey into points.  I remember Sing Li's front page article on RCI's coming points program in Timesharing Today that was published before RCI had even officially rolled out GPN (the early name of RCI Points).
Sing Li pointed out that transfers between the systems, which he referred to as ''magic balancing'' would be a major problem in the arrangement, and indeed it is.  And Sing Li was able to figure that out even before RCI came out with its postively fraudulent crossover grids.

And then there is the question about whether RCI really gives anything at all back to Weeks for the inventory taken by Points members.  An RCI employee posting on TimeshareTalk says they do not.




Dean said:


> I think people forget that RCI weeks and RCI points are in effect two different exchange companies.  RCI points is really little different than any other mini system that belongs to RCI such as FF or BG, etc.  Think of it like Infinity and Nissan.  Just like any of the other "mini" systems, RCI weeks doesn't get anything from RCI points unless they give a week in return.  RCI weeks then uses the points gathered in this manner to reserve time to put into weeks.  One can agree or disagree with the agreements made between an exchange company and it's affiliated mini systems but the truth is that in general, RCI weeks likely needs RCI points more than the reverse at this point.  One could just as easily have a similar discussion about II and it's various mini systems.  For example, DVC members can do request first for 2 years out and only pay a $75 exchange fee.  There are other negatives to their system but these are pretty powerful concessions on II's part to get DVC to participate.


----------



## Dean (Mar 4, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> In a normal request first system, all members have access to all of the inventory.  In the Weeks/Points interface, Points members have access to all of the Weeks inventory, but Weeks members have access only to whatever RCI might or might not decide to give back to Weeks, which may be nothing at all if one RCI employee posting at TimeshareTalk is correct.  Under no ones information do Weeks members have reciprocal access to all inventory at Points, which is the test of whether it is a two way street or not.


Exactly, jut like any other mini system that is a member of the exchange company.  However the idea that everything is available to everybody has never been true in II and I doubt it ever has been in RCI.  It's called trade power and segregates members into MANY different groups.



> BTW, did you think that if you don't deposit, then you can't grab ANYTHING at all?


And RCI doesn't get anything in return, just like many of us have said.  Whether there is an unfair playing field set up is another matter, there may well be.  If so, the way to fix that is to join up with the team that has the advantage.  If you think that's weeks, go for it, if points, then join that team.  

BTW, if the lawsuit ends with an admission of guilt on RCI's part, I'm willing to concede any applicable part of this argument.  Are you willing to take the other side, by admitting that no admission of guilt and no finding of guilt means you were wrong?  BTW, I think the outcome is predictable.  RCI will likely settle this as the nuisance item it is with a statement that there is NO admission of guilt.  Something in the range of a $5-10 per affected member value will be thrown around that is contingent on another trade and everyone will move on.


----------



## Dean (Mar 4, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> It is incestous when the same entity runs both.  It absolutely reeks of conflict of interest.  This has been identified as a major problem from the early days of RCI's journey into points.  I remember Sing Li's front page article on RCI's coming points program in Timesharing Today that was published before RCI had even officially rolled out GPN (the early name of RCI Points).
> Sing Li pointed out that transfers between the systems, which he referred to as ''magic balancing'' would be a major problem in the arrangement, and indeed it is.  And Sing Li was able to figure that out even before RCI came out with its postively fraudulent crossover grids.


No doubt it does give them an advantage,whether it's an unfair advantage should be the question.




> And then there is the question about whether RCI really gives anything at all back to Weeks for the inventory taken by Points members.  An RCI employee posting on TimeshareTalk says they do not.


Maybe, maybe not, I find it highly unlikely to be true and highly likely that an employee that says so is wrong in one way or another.  Maybe it's a disgruntled employee or just someone that likes to rattle cages or possibly they are simply mistaken.  All are infinitely more likely to be true than what you say they say.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

RCI does not get to decide what the settlement is; that is a mutual decision.
The amount of damages for past violations is not the important part of the case.  On the contrary it is the injunctive relief to stop future activities.  From what I have learned at least one of the lead plaintiffs is likely to hold out for real reform, and that should be enough to prevent RCI getting a sweatheart deal that overly narrows the injunctive relief.

This is not a cirminal case, so NOBODY is found ''guilty''.  It is a civil case.

Of course everything _meeting trading power standards_ is shown.  The problem for RCI Weeks members is that *nothing is shown in Points inventory* and that in a nutshell shows the unfairness.




Dean said:


> Exactly, jut like any other mini system that is a member of the exchange company.  However the idea that everything is available to everybody has never been true in II and I doubt it ever has been in RCI.  It's called trade power and segregates members into MANY different groups.
> 
> And RCI doesn't get anything in return, just like many of us have said.  Whether there is an unfair playing field set up is another matter, there may well be.  If so, the way to fix that is to join up with the team that has the advantage.  If you think that's weeks, go for it, if points, then join that team.
> 
> BTW, if the lawsuit ends with an admission of guilt on RCI's part, I'm willing to concede any applicable part of this argument.  Are you willing to take the other side, by admitting that no admission of guilt and no finding of guilt means you were wrong?  BTW, I think the outcome is predictable.  RCI will likely settle this as the nuisance item it is with a statement that there is NO admission of guilt.  Something in the range of a $5-10 per affected member value will be thrown around that is contingent on another trade and everyone will move on.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

If you don't believe that RCI-employee Anon posted that at www.timesharetalk.co.uk , go look it up under the Ask RCI Insider thread on the RCI board there.  You might be enlightened.




Dean said:


> No doubt it does give them an advantage,whether it's an unfair advantage should be the question.
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, I find it highly unlikely to be true and highly likely that an employee that says so is wrong in one way or another.  Maybe it's a disgruntled employee or just someone that likes to rattle cages or possibly they are simply mistaken.  All are infinitely more likely to be true than what you say they say.


----------



## "Roger" (Mar 4, 2007)

I'm afraid Anon lost his credibility when he claimed that RCI never put anything into the Weeks account to replace what Points took out.  No "screen shot" would show that.  He would have to look at all of the Points deposits and trace what happened to them. Throw in that this would be a Sarbanes Oxley violation (I seriously doubt even RCI would chance that -- and if they would, they certainly would not let a low level employed know about it) and Anon begins to look like someone just leading someone on -- feeding him whatever he wants to hear.  (Actually, if you have ever seen scam artists at work, it looks like that anyway.)


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 4, 2007)

Nice try at running interference, BUT Anon never posted screenshots at TimeshareTalk.  That was a different RCI employee.

What gives it credibility is all of the backing and filling and double talk, with no straight answer ever forthcoming from Madge other than a ''trust us'' generalization on the same question.  She certainly responded in the fashion of someone trying to hide something.




"Roger" said:


> I'm afraid Anon lost his credibility when he claimed that RCI never put anything into the Weeks account to replace what Points took out.  No "screen shot" would show that.  He would have to look at all of the Points deposits and trace what happened to them. Throw in that this would be a Sarbanes Oxley violation (I seriously doubt even RCI would chance that -- and if they would, they certainly would not let a low level employed know about it) and Anon begins to look like someone just leading someone on -- feeding him whatever he wants to hear.  (Actually, if you have ever seen scam artists at work, it looks like that anyway.)


----------



## "Roger" (Mar 5, 2007)

By the numbers...


Something like 15% of RCI members are now in Points.
Most of the Point member activity is robbing and pillaging Weeks.(Caroliinian's claim -- he uses that to support his claim that Points is a pyramid scheme.)
Nothing is being placed into the back into Weeks to take the place of the units that Points members have taken out.
Percentagewise, very few developer units are coming into the system.  (Carolinian's reading of the Seasons diatribe.)
In addition, RCI is renting weeks wholesale out of the system.
RCI reports that 95% of owners are finding an exchange.  (If that number is incorrect, the CEO will go to jail.)
Something is not adding up here.  When things become mathematically impossible, I think it is time to be a bit suspicious.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 5, 2007)

*Rob, Shmobb.  Pillage, Shmillage.*




"Roger" said:


> Most of the Point member activity is robbing and pillaging Weeks.


Don't know how others do it, but every time I _Raid The Weeks Inventory_ using points, I snag a full weeks-resort week for 9*,*000 points (well, 7*,*500 points actually, but who's counting?), via _Instant Exchange_. 

_Instant Exchange_ is what they call it when they make available for minimal points (plus exahgne fee) all of the remaining unwanted offseason & out-of-the-way dogs & cats still left 45 days or sooner before check-in. 

Some "raid."  
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------

