I think we need to clarify some terms.
DC points = points in the exchange pool from converted legacy weeks or deposited into the exchange pool from trust points.
Trust points = Points in the trust, not deposited in the exchange pool.
Exchange pool = Inventory in a common pool that comes from a variety of sources including trust points and legacy weeks.
I read your summary. Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears you were trying to make a reservation with your trust points for a unit only available to the trust but you didn't have enough so they borrowed trust points from the following year. You had some DC points from your legacy week but they didn't use those.
I don't see an issue here. If you wanted to combine trust points and legacy weeks for a reservation you must deposit your trust points in the exchange pool and then convert your legacy weeks to points so they are in the exchange pool. Then you can use the combined points for a reservation at any unit available to the exchange pool.
If you wanted to make a reservation for a unit only available to the trust then you must have enough trust points to do that. Legacy weeks by themselves or in combination with trust points can never access units only available to the trust.
The reverse is also true. Trust points can never directly access legacy weeks. In order for trust points to access a legacy week they have to be deposited into the exchange pool and then they can access legacy weeks that were converted to DC points.
Once either side deposits into the exchange pool they can't go back.
Your premises and factual statements are fine, and for the most part even your summary, but your conclusion that this is nothing that I didn't bring upon myself is false. You're assigning too much intent to me, and not enough to MVC. So your implied argument (that our experience can be dismissed) is invalid.
The main thing wrong with your portrayal is that *I* was trying to do anything other than request a reservation. I didn't set out to select points from one bucket for use in another, and neither the VOA nor anyone else disclosed the mechanics of this operation in a "what this means to the customer" manner. That was all under the covers, and in fact accompanied by misleading statements and implied problems that had to be unearthed...
Also, this occurred a year ago, when the program had less inventory, the VOA was struggling to use what was later explained to me as "test mode" process, and the like. Today there is new functionality on the MVC site, and they've made or actualized whatever other enhancements to aid the program in published and unpublished ways. Also, we've learned to be alert to this issue since then. So I'm hopeful that this process is better now.
Again, all I did was call up and ask for was a reservation. MVC gave me one without providing any useful and or even necessary insight. I was led to believe all was well. (To avoid further second-guessing, I'll note that I did ask the VOA about points totals and she indicated that she was still working on them, but my numbers sounded right and I would receive a confirmation email. "Okay fine, I have to get back to work anyhow, so thanks, etc.")
When the email arrived, it was a 100,000-foot level summary containing a perfunctory statement that x,xxx points were used, without distinction between buckets or pools, along with a curious warning that we needed to use some of our remaining points (which I expected to have been used for the reservation) by a near-term date.
So I checked into it, and learned that MVC (not myself) took what we (wife and I) consider to be a few liberties in order to do the booking. None of this was reported at the time of the reservation, and as noted previously I had tried to confirm that all was well. I had to dig into the details to get an acceptable - barely - answer.
Now, I suppose we could fall back on the fact that we were "dumb enough" to buy the points without knowing in advance that there would be such pitfalls and gotchas, and on some level I'd have to agree with you. Yet that's all the more reason to post these experiences. After all, isn't this what TUG is supposed to be about? I prefer to understand what is going on rather than be led blindly by the nose the way this process was designed, and imo *some* common sense ought to prevail.
I appreciate Sue's and Greg's comments and am hopeful that this is more than some informal, off-the-cuff statement from one VOA's or salesman's perspective. I hope it's more. It should be more.