[ALL DEBATE CONTENT REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL THREAD PLACED HERE] All debate topics for the ongoing Wyndham resort closure actions...

[HitchHiker71]

How I read it is exactly how I posted it in my response - Wyndham will not give the poster the choice to go between II or RCI. Some systems exchange in both. Wyndham does not allow. You can ask the poster what they meant, I don’t need to speak for them. But that’s how I read it. I didn’t read anything about the poster being blaming Wyndham that DVC “bailed out” from rci to iI

Edit: also even if the poster did assign some level of blame, why is that a bad thing? Why is there always a rush to defend Wyndham ? None of us were in the board room during that decision, how do we know what goes on? Why can’t someone express their frustration without someone here running to be the contrarian in favor of Wyndham ?

Because too often on TUG the default is to blame Wyndham when in point of fact, it's not always Wyndham making the decision in some cases. There's a cost involved to belong to multiple exchanges, so the larger systems like DVC, HGVC, MVC, etc., typically do not do this. It's not Wyndham's decision in other words, and so I'm pointing that out. Not sure why you take offense to constructive criticism of this nature on a web forum, isn't this type of back and forth typical of all web forums? @jp10558 seems to have read it the same way I did for example.

 

[Arimaas]

Because too often on TUG the default is to blame Wyndham when in point of fact, it's not Wyndham making the decision. There's a cost involved to belong to multiple exchanges, so the larger systems like DVC, HGVC, MVC, etc., do not do this. It's not Wyndham's decision in other words, and so I'm pointing that out. The fact that you seem to not like, it immaterial to me.

In your biweekly meetings, why don’t you ask Wyndham if they’d like to come post on TUG so they can defend their position? Many other companies have PR folks monitoring Reddit boards and other social media. Neither you, I or anyone else here knows what is or isn’t Wyndham’s decisions.

I’m not asking you to find what I like or don’t like maerial or immaterial. I’m pointing it out, constructively, in the spirit of Internet forums. And I’m also pointing out that you seemed to have misconstrued what the poster wrote (which I think was confirmed in their reply to me), and in your haste to defend Wyndham, turned something into something it wasn’t.

 

[jp10558]

In your biweekly meetings, why don’t you ask Wyndham if they’d like to come post on TUG so they can defend their position? Many other companies have PR folks monitoring Reddit boards and other social media. Neither you, I or anyone else here knows what is or isn’t Wyndham’s decisions.

I’m not asking you to find what I like or don’t like maerial or immaterial. I’m pointing it out, constructively, in the spirit of Internet forums. And I’m also pointing out that you seemed to have misconstrued what the poster wrote (which I think was confirmed in their reply to me), and in your haste to defend Wyndham, turned something into something it wasn’t.

I'm not a Wyndham defender, see my other posts in this thread. But I will say I also will point out when something isn't entirely Wyndham's fault. I like to try and make sure I'm assigning my frustration and blame appropriately because otherwise I'm going to get stuff wrong. Wyndham didn't push DVC out of RCI as far as we know. Wyndham also isn't the only company here limiting the exchange company options. As far as I can tell, both DVC and Wyndham are equally to blame here, so calling one out without calling out the other seems to be to get the situation wrong.

Now, on a higher level, after learning more, I personally wish companies would work like CV (at the resorts I own at) here, which is they provide an exchange company to you, but you can also just use whatever one you want, they just won't pay your dues for you on the other companies. I think I understand why they don't however - the points systems don't give an uncontracted exchange company a way to work out the exchanges. This falls back on the points companies though - there's no reason IMO that you should not be able to book something and then deposit THAT for exchange, except the companies don't like you doing so.

I have to imagine there's a mix of - why manage multiple companies, with the sales pitch of included exchange company, and some benefit from that huge contract with whatever exchange company they choose. I think in a lot of ways, it's the customers doing this to themselves though - they don't understand exchange companies, they want flexibility, and the mini-systems seem like the simple choice. Maybe they are - there's benefits to chains, but the costs are sometimes you don't have as much flexibility as you would if you got down and dirty in the independent stuff - kinda like X vs Mastodon, or Reddit vs Lemmy or Facebook vs independent forums etc etc etc. Of course, we're all here on the independent forum, and most of us know about and understand the benefits of using different exchange companies. We're just not the masses.

 

[Double U]

Here's what I read in the trust.

External. An external exchange program may from time to time be available to qualified Members. Each Member, however, must determine whether he is eligible and desires to become a member of such external exchange program. Each participating Member will be required to pay any fees associated with membership in or the use of any such external exchange program.

Can I opt out? Looks almost like you have to opt in?

But once again off we go on a single word some said, and has admitted was said in the heat of the moment. Ignoring the meat of what I said. Which is who is the customer here?

I'll fix the word.

 

[HitchHiker71]

In your biweekly meetings, why don’t you ask Wyndham if they’d like to come post on TUG so they can defend their position? Many other companies have PR folks monitoring Reddit boards and other social media. Neither you, I or anyone else here knows what is or isn’t Wyndham’s decisions.

They monitor quite a bit, but don’t have the personnel to dedicate to engaging on public forums. There is a dedicated FB group that is Wyndham owned that their social media team posts on occasionally - but I’ve not seen them reply publicly to posts from people in that group as a general rule. They also monitor TUG - but will not post on this forum. Not that I blame them really.

I’m not asking you to find what I like or don’t like maerial or immaterial. I’m pointing it out, constructively, in the spirit of Internet forums. And I’m also pointing out that you seemed to have misconstrued what the poster wrote (which I think was confirmed in their reply to me), and in your haste to defend Wyndham, turned something into something it wasn’t.

I wasn’t the only person to come away with the same interpretation, so did JP, per my edit to my reply to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[comicbookman]

In your biweekly meetings, why don’t you ask Wyndham if they’d like to come post on TUG so they can defend their position? Many other companies have PR folks monitoring Reddit boards and other social media. Neither you, I or anyone else here knows what is or isn’t Wyndham’s decisions.

I’m not asking you to find what I like or don’t like maerial or immaterial. I’m pointing it out, constructively, in the spirit of Internet forums. And I’m also pointing out that you seemed to have misconstrued what the poster wrote (which I think was confirmed in their reply to me), and in your haste to defend Wyndham, turned something into something it wasn’t.

Why is it that whenever someone sees something different from the way you see it you take offense? You go to great lengths to point out how they are wrong or have misconstrued something or you accuse them of always defending Wyndham. That doesn't seem to jive with your assertion that you are just pointing out things constructively in the spirit of internet forums. Is it that only you get to decide what is and isn't constructive? If that is the case, then may I suggest you start your own forum for like-minded people and stop harassing anyone who has a different take than you.

 

[paxsarah]

Here's what I read in the trust.

External. An external exchange program may from time to time be available to qualified Members. Each Member, however, must determine whether he is eligible and desires to become a member of such external exchange program. Each participating Member will be required to pay any fees associated with membership in or the use of any such external exchange program.

Can I opt out? Looks almost like you have to opt in?

But once again off we go on a single word some said, and has admitted was said in the heat of the moment. Ignoring the meat of what I said. Which is who is the customer here?

I'll fix the word.

Don’t forget the part below that says: “The guidelines for exchanging through an external exchange company are subject to change and, when available, will be set forth in the Directory.” And note that the current directory only mentions RCI and TPI, not II.

Then later it states: “14.08 Exchange Programs. The Trustee is authorized to enter into an agreement with exchange programs for the exchange of occupancy rights in the Trust Properties.” They can work with whatever exchange company they want, or not.

 

[Arimaas]

Why is it that whenever someone sees something different from the way you see it you take offense? You go to great lengths to point out how they are wrong or have misconstrued something or you accuse them of always defending Wyndham. That doesn't seem to jive with your assertion that you are just pointing out things constructively in the spirit of internet forums. Is it that only you get to decide what is and isn't constructive? If that is the case, then may I suggest you start your own forum for like-minded people and stop harassing anyone who has a different take than you.

I’m not offended. Not in the least. On the scale of things that offend me, If TUG was one of them, I’d say it would be time to reexamine my life choices. I also don’t believe I told anyone they don’t have a right to say what they want. I might have challenged them, but I don’t think I told them what they can and can’t think. And if I did, I apologize as that was not my intention.

I also don’t agree with your assertion that I go to great lengths to do the things you say I do. It’s actually not hard to draw the conclusions that I do when I post. In fact, the poster that I was commenting seems to be appreciative that I pointed out what I did. But you’re free to believe what you like.

I do believe that there a core group here that seems to defend Wyndham at every turn, for reasons unknown, which is their prerogative, just as it is mine to hold and express that belief.

What I can hang my hat on, however, is that in my decade or so ok TUG, I have never resorted to snark, condescension or insults, nor will I.

 

[comicbookman]

I’m not offended. Not in the least. On the scale of things that offend me, If TUG was one of them, I’d say it would be time to reexamine my life choices. I also don’t believe I told anyone they don’t have a right to say what they want. I might have challenged them, but I don’t think I told them what they can and can’t think. And if I did, I apologize as that was not my intention.

I also don’t agree with your assertion that I go to great lengths to do the things you say I do. It’s actually not hard to draw the conclusions that I do when I post. In fact, the poster that I was commenting seems to be appreciative that I pointed out what I did. But you’re free to believe what you like.

I do believe that there a core group here that seems to defend Wyndham at every turn, for reasons unknown, which is their prerogative, just as it is mine to hold and express that belief.

What I can hang my hat on, however, is that in my decade or so ok TUG, I have never resorted to snark, condescension or insults, nor will I.

I agree you don't resort to insults. You do, however resort to constant posing, often repeating yourself in what appears to be an attempt to harass other posters until they give up. hence my comment that you go to great lengths. You also comment in such a way so as to imply that others have hidden motivations and that you are intellectually offended that they disagree with your interpretations. You seem to make zero attempts to see things from other's perspective and continuously assert that yours is the only reasonable perspective. Those that you accuse but of defending Wyndham at every turn have often criticized Wyndham, they just often disagree with your inclination to blame everything on Wyndham. You do remain civil on the surface, but I would argue that your propensity to beat dead horses is it's own form of disrespect.

 

[Arimaas]

I agree you don't resort to insults. You do, however resort to constant posing, often repeating yourself in what appears to be an attempt to harass other posters until they give up. hence my comment that you go to great lengths. You also comment in such a way so as to imply that others have hidden motivations and that you are intellectually offended that they disagree with your interpretations. You seem to make zero attempts to see things from other's perspective and continuously assert that yours is the only reasonable perspective. Those that you accuse but of defending Wyndham at every turn have often criticized Wyndham, they just often disagree with your inclination to blame everything on Wyndham. You do remain civil on the surface, but I would argue that your propensity to beat dead horses is its own form of disrespect.

I agree you don't resort to insults. You do, however resort to constant posing, often repeating yourself in what appears to be an attempt to harass other posters until they give up. hence my comment that you go to great lengths. You also comment in such a way so as to imply that others have hidden motivations and that you are intellectually offended that they disagree with your interpretations. You seem to make zero attempts to see things from other's perspective and continuously assert that yours is the only reasonable perspective. Those that you accuse but of defending Wyndham at every turn have often criticized Wyndham, they just often disagree with your inclination to blame everything on Wyndham. You do remain civil on the surface, but I would argue that your propensity to beat dead horses is it's own form of disrespect.

No intent to harass here. I’m sorry you’re drawing that conclusion. You’re free to draw whatever conclusion you’d like. But, that is not my intent. Hopefully me saying this outright cleared this up.

I am also not attempting to imply any one has hidden motivations and I for sure am not intellectually offended that others disagree with me. You are drawing those conclusions so let me be clear that none of that is my intent. I also don’t think you are in my head space that you can say with conviction about the attempts I make to see other perspectives, but like I do everything else in life, I actually try to have an open mind. Even on a Internet forum.

I am, going to say it again, that I believe there’s a cohort here that defends Wyndham rather regularly, and I have said so.

And feel free to read back on my posts. I believe the only time I’ve “blamed Wyndham” was their complete nightmare of handling this current situation (and of course sales) I don’t complain about the website, I don’t complain about the resorts. Heck before this current situation, I don’t think I complained about the corporation. I was a pretty big Wyndham fan.

Edit: and if my propensity to repeate myself offends you, please feel free to use the ignore button and not engage me, because i likely will repeate myself many times over. Luckily I don’t pay per post. And I’m not sure what other posters I have harassed until they give up. If you show me examples of such, I willl gladly appoglize, as again, I don’t think that has been done.

 

[comicbookman]

No intent to harass here. I’m sorry you’re drawing that conclusion. You’re free to draw whatever conclusion you’d like. But, that is not my intent. Hopefully me saying this outright cleared this up.

I am also not attempting to imply any one has hidden motivations and I for sure am not intellectually offended that others disagree with me. You are drawing those conclusions so let me be clear that none of that is my intent. I also don’t think you are in my head space that you can say with conviction about the attempts I make to see other perspectives, but like I do everything else in life, I actually try to have an open mind. Even on a Internet forum.

I am, going to say it again, that I believe there’s a cohort here that defends Wyndham rather regularly, and I have said so.

And feel free to read back on my posts. I believe the only time I’ve “blamed Wyndham” was their complete nightmare of handling this current situation (and of course sales) I don’t complain about the website, I don’t complain about the resorts. Heck before this current situation, I don’t think I complained about the corporation. I was a pretty big Wyndham fan.

Edit: and if my propensity to repeate myself offends you, please feel free to use the ignore button and not engage me, because i likely will repeate myself many times over. Luckily I don’t pay per post. And I’m not sure what other posters I have harassed until they give up. If you show me examples of such, I willl gladly appoglize, as again, I don’t think that has been done.

you say you arrent attempting to imply no one has hidden motivations and then you say there is a cohort that defends Wyndham regularly. (I guess technically you aren't implying it you are stating it). You are ignoring all of the times they and I, have criticized Wyndham for one thing or another. I, being a recently retired IT professional and licensed lawyer (member of the Virginia bar) tend to criticize the website and sales tactics the most. I was not referring to your actual headspace when I talk about your looking at others perspective I am reacting to your posts. You often simply dismiss others reactions, even when they are not alone in what they see. You simply assert that your reaction is obviously correct. These are the things I base my interpretation of what you are doing. I believe it is also why I am not the only one who is often quick to disagree with you.

 

[Arimaas]

you say you arrent attempting to imply no one has hidden motivations and then you say there is a cohort that defends Wyndham regularly. (I guess technically you aren't implying it you are stating it). You are ignoring all of the times they and I, have criticized Wyndham for one thing or another. I, being a recently retired IT professional and licensed lawyer (member of the Virginia bar) tend to criticize the website and sales tactics the most. I was not referring to your actual headspace when I talk about your looking at others perspective I am reacting to your posts. You often simply dismiss others reactions, even when they are not alone in what they see. You simply assert that your reaction is obviously correct. These are the things I base my interpretation of what you are doing. I believe it is also why I am not the only one who is often quick to disagree with you.

I am not saying anyone has an agenda when they defend Wyndham, at all. Not implying it, not outright saying it. I never once questioned anyone's motivation for defending Wyndham, I don't think anyone is a Wyndahm "shill" (I can;t remember who, but someone claimed I called another member a shill awhile back, an accusation that was proved false). I am stating my opinion that there are folks here that defend Wyndham or make excuses for them (like we can't fix the PF until the resorts are deleted - apologize for repeating myself, it's to make a point). I never once stated overtly or implicitly that it was for any hidden agenda.

And you specifically told me what commentis are made ("in such a way to imply") and what the implications are of my comments ("that others have hidden motivations", so I am not sure where else that would be, other than in my headspace. "You also comment in such a way so as to imply that others have hidden motivations and that you are intellectually offended that they disagree with your interpretations.You seem to make zero attempts to see things from other's perspective and continuously assert that yours is the only reasonable perspective. " Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but to me, if you had said "I take your comments to mean that your are implying folks have a hidden motive and you seem intellectually offended when others disagree with you", that would be a different story, but instead, you're telling me my intend when I post, which, I have asserted mutiple times, is not the case, You also make these assertions without any quoted text, so I can't really address how you are formulating your assertions.

if you bring examples of where you base your implications of, I will address. There is no use in my continuing this conversation if it's going to continue in the abstract. We can debate it in circles for days.

 

[comicbookman]

I am not saying anyone has an agenda when they defend Wyndham, at all. Not implying it, not outright saying it. I never once questioned anyone's motivation for defending Wyndham, I don't think anyone is a Wyndahm "shill" (I can;t remember who, but someone claimed I called another member a shill awhile back, an accusation that was proved false). I am stating my opinion that there are folks here that defend Wyndham or make excuses for them (like we can't fix the PF until the resorts are deleted - apologize for repeating myself, it's to make a point). I never once stated overtly or implicitly that it was for any hidden agenda.

And you specifically told me what commentis are made ("in such a way to imply") and what the implications are of my comments ("that others have hidden motivations", so I am not sure where else that would be, other than in my headspace. "You also comment in such a way so as to imply that others have hidden motivations and that you are intellectually offended that they disagree with your interpretations.You seem to make zero attempts to see things from other's perspective and continuously assert that yours is the only reasonable perspective. " Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but to me, if you had said "I take your comments to mean that your are implying folks have a hidden motive and you seem intellectually offended when others disagree with you", that would be a different story, but instead, you're telling me my intend when I post, which, I have asserted mutiple times, is not the case, You also make these assertions without any quoted text, so I can't really address how you are formulating your assertions.

if you bring examples of where you base your implications of, I will address. There is no use in my continuing this conversation if it's going to continue in the abstract. We can debate it in circles for days.

so now you are playing word games. Not an "agenda" because you didn't use that word, just something you repeat over and over. And using headspace and my use of imply to hide behind. Okay, I withdraw my agreement that you aren't snarky. You have often said you don't know why some defend Wyndham. This clearly IMPLIES that you cannot see their point of view. The fact that you say this, often simply dismissing their point is where I get my idea that, at least in your writings, you often do not consider other points of view. And I am sorry you don't agree, but your constant repetition can easily be taken as condensation. Basically, your style is exactly what I was taught in law school to avoid.

 

[Arimaas]

so now you are playing word games. Not an "agenda" because you didn't use that word, just something you repeat over and over. And using headspace and my use of imply to hide behind. Okay, I withdraw my agreement that you aren't snarky. You have often said you don't know why some defend Wyndham. This clearly IMPLIES that you cannot see their point of view. The fact that you say this, often simply dismissing their point is where I get my idea that, at least in your writings, you often do not consider other points of view. And I am sorry you don't agree, but your constant repetition can easily be taken as condensation. Basically, your style is exactly what I was taught in law school to avoid.

This is the last thing I’m going to discus with you unless you have any specific concrete items you’d like to discus, because we could go around in the abstract for days. The last thing I will say though my saying “I don’t know why some defend Wyndham” isn’t implying anything other than what it says I don’t know why they defend them at every turn. They can feel free to tell me why. I’m not accusing anyone of anything sinister. They can say the really like Wyndham. They don’t agree with me that Wyndham is doing things wrong (and we could disagree) but it just seems that anyone someone says Wyndham is doing something stupid or wrong, there comes the same cadre of people who defend them and as you say, can’t see if form the other side.

unless there’s any concrete statements of mine you’d like to ask me about, I feel it best to move on.

 

[comicbookman]

This is the last thing I’m going to discus with you unless you have any specific concrete items you’d like to discus, because we could go around in the abstract for days. The last thing I will say though my saying “I don’t know why some defend Wyndham” isn’t implying anything other than what it says I don’t know why they defend them at every turn. They can feel free to tell me why. I’m not accusing anyone of anything sinister. They can say the really like Wyndham. They don’t agree with me that Wyndham is doing things wrong (and we could disagree) but it just seems that anyone someone says Wyndham is doing something stupid or wrong, there comes the same cadre of people who defend them and as you say, can’t see if form the other side.

unless there’s any concrete statements of mine you’d like to ask me about, I feel it best to move on.

ok, you want me to refute something specific, ok. you say "but it just seems that anyone someone says Wyndham is doing something stupid or wrong, there comes the same cadre of people who defend them". That is a gross exaggeration. all of those who disagree with you have complained about Wyndham at one time or another. I believe there is unanimous agreement that what sales does is bad and probably illegal. Most also have complained about the website. Finally, everyone has agreed that Wyndham did a shitty job of communicating. (the argument was whether what they did was illegal or what the law allowed. Everyone agreed that regardless of what they were allowed to say, they did a crappy job of it. You just did not like that several people did not agree with your assessments of when something was Wyndham's fault (which you pretty much claimed was always) and when it wasn't. You use the "always defending Wyndham" as a way to discredit ohters points, when you couldn't actually rfute them. Even in our discussion you throw it around like a shield. I hope that is specific enough for you. The Thursday night game is over (went into overtime, came down to a 2 point conversion) so I will say good night.

 

[Arimaas]

ok, you want me to refute something specific, ok. you say "but it just seems that anyone someone says Wyndham is doing something stupid or wrong, there comes the same cadre of people who defend them". That is a gross exaggeration. all of those who disagree with you have complained about Wyndham at one time or another. I believe there is unanimous agreement that what sales does is bad and probably illegal. Most also have complained about the website. Finally, everyone has agreed that Wyndham did a shitty job of communicating. (the argument was whether what they did was illegal or what the law allowed. Everyone agreed that regardless of what they were allowed to say, they did a crappy job of it. You just did not like that several people did not agree with your assessments of when something was Wyndham's fault (which you pretty much claimed was always) and when it wasn't. You use the "always defending Wyndham" as a way to discredit ohters points, when you couldn't actually rfute them. Even in our discussion you throw it around like a shield. I hope that is specific enough for you. The Thursday night game is over (went into overtime, came down to a 2 point conversion) so I will say good night.

Listen I really don’t want to spend any more time on this myself but look at the difference between the words I use and the words you use. You come out and tell me what my intent is and what I was thinking and what I like and don’t like based on your perception. You are trying to get in to my head and twist my words to Fit your narrative.

From my quote (that you pulled): “but it just seems” implying that this is how I view it - from my view point. From my point of view. Big difference. And just because you don’t ageee with me, doesn’t mean it is a gross exaggeration or I’m implying sometbjng sinister. If I was, I’d just say it. .

Have a great day. Let’s agree to disagree and move on and not let this bleed into the weekend

 

[Floridaman76]

"He had to have the last word, last night, so fun to be around... he had to have the white hot spot light, he had to be a big shot, last night, whoaaaaa"

 

[HitchHiker71]

Edit: and if my propensity to repeate myself offends you, please feel free to use the ignore button and not engage me, because i likely will repeate myself many times over. Luckily I don’t pay per post. And I’m not sure what other posters I have harassed until they give up. If you show me examples of such, I willl gladly appoglize, as again, I don’t think that has been done.

Legit question - what does repeating the same issue over and over again accomplish exactly? Seriously, what is the end goal here? Respectfully, the vast majority of people do what you're doing, complain on an internet forum, while doing little to nothing productive to even attempt to resolve their frustrations or problems. That doesn't seem very logical to me - but that's me to be clear. It seems like a venting mechanism, nothing more. That's not how I personally work, if I'm going to spend time on anything, I'm going to engage meaningfully, build relationships, and attempt to enact change. Because I chose to do so, I have built relationships, all on my own, with various key contacts at Wyndham, and at many other companies in my days, whether for professional or personal endeavors. What I did is not difficult, it's actually fairly easy, much easier than many think. It just takes a little bit of effort expended over a period of time, and boom, you're able to attempt to effect real change. I really wish more folks would simply make the same choices in this life, but alas, that continues to be my wish.

I'm assuming your indirect accusations of being a Wyndham fanboy are primarily directed at me, so let's point out just a few recent posts where I'm critical of Wyndham at various levels - most of which are actually in the big thread from whence this thread originated:

Wyndham - no inventory showing at any resorts

Not seeing any inventory available, anywhere, today. I called and the VC's can't either. It's an issue they are working on. Laughable, why not have a message when call in -- why would you have me hold, then verify my account, then ask what they can do for me - and when I say I can't see...

tugbbs.com

Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts - dedicated chart/tracker located in the first post for this unfolding set of events

I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question. Please be kind if it is. My family has had seven or eight Wyndham contracts over the past 30 years. Every single one of them has been linked to a specific resort and specific units. And in most cases, but not all, a specific timeframe...

tugbbs.com

Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts - dedicated chart/tracker located in the first post for this unfolding set of events

It still doesn't make sense that the contracts were deleted from MFs but not program fees. The resorts in question have officially cancelled their 2026 maintenance fees. Seems it is just taking a while for the program fee to catch up. Probably as hjsweet2002 said it will happen when the...

tugbbs.com

What our timeshares are really worth

A little proud of this score... $1 + transfer fee for 426,000 at National Harbor, with my use year even, no drama there...

tugbbs.com

Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts - dedicated chart/tracker located in the first post for this unfolding set of events

When I did my resale transfers which were both deeded to National Harbor, I did not have to have anything notarized. Everything was through Docusign. Tennessee (where glade is) may not require it. I guess Maryland doesn't require it either. Typically the grantor is what requires a notary, the...

tugbbs.com

On the billing topic, I never defended Wyndham directly, I simply pointed out that I have a lot of real world experience supporting billing systems, here's the post link: https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/w...s-unfolding-set-of-events.375888/post-3226897

I quote from that post (again from the big thread):

I disagree with your assessment that the billing systems, today, should somehow be manipulated to show future removals, which would likely require considerable coding changes not only to the billing system itself, but also other systems that feed data into the billing system. This is essentially what you're proposing. Billing systems are the lifeblood of most companies as they directly manage and impact cashflow, and therefore are generally not altered unless 100% necessary for items that materially impact ongoing business matters. They are generally not altered for one-off actions that are temporary in nature and aren't part of the normal business/billing cycle.

I've got quite a bit of IT experience dealing with billing systems, and this would be my recommendation to the business in this scenario. Don't monkey around with your core billing and payment systems in an attempt to solve a problem for a one-off project like this. Doing so will likely have unanticipated impacts to the billing system itself, which risks interruptions in cashflow, and to systems upstream and downstream of the billing system, and will likely do more harm than good. You simply wait until the contracts are removed/inactivated, and then, if necessary, issue one-time credits or debits, which the billing system already supports for adhoc changes like this.

The vast majority of those words, are me simply communicating an understanding of why a corporation may not want to mess with the system that controls their lifeblood - their cashflow. That is a perfectly rational stance, especially when we take into account that the actions being tracked in the two threads, are by definition outliers - not part of the normal business operations - so it's generally unwise to alter key back end systems for these types of one-off operations. That's all I was saying - yet somehow - I get labelled as pro-Wyndham - simply for trying to understand both sides of the argument - regardless of how I think or feel about either side - and posting my thoughts as to, just maybe, why Wyndham might have chosen not to mess with their billing system. Does that mean I agree that this choice wasn't ideal and created confusion? Yes, I agree, and I've said as much - right here in this post: https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/w...s-unfolding-set-of-events.375888/post-3230205

Just because I try to always see both sides, doesn't mean I'm in one camp or the other - but that's how most folks think - binary thinking - which I always strive to avoid - because the world doesn't typically boil down to only one of two choices - IME it's generally much more nuanced and complex than people would like to think. The fact is, unfortunately, that many TUGGERs on this forum are anti-Wyndham, anything Wyndham does is bad, substandard, wrong, never in the best interest of the owners, etc. It's also typical that those who unhappy tend to complain, and those who are happy don't really say anything, so there's sometimes a false interpretation that most people are unhappy, when the fact is that the CSAT scores and other metrics simply don't show this to be true. The unhappy are notoriously noisy and complain a lot, while the happy never post, and probably don't even belong to these forums in the first place, as oftentimes they only go looking for these types of forums when in search of expertise to help them with a frustrating issue they are experiencing. Me, I strive to always stay middle ground. That means, unfortunately, due to the often negative overtones in this particular forum, that I'm often labelled as being pro-Wyndham, when logically, per above, I can show hundreds of posts since joining in 2018, where I'm decidedly negative on Wyndham - and I continue to do so.

Let's also repeat something that bears repeating related to the topic at hand, and that most long timers are very aware of on TUG (as they have said so themselves). TUGGERS are predominantly the exception, not the rule. They are power timesharing people. The systems really aren't designed for these folks - and this is increasingly the case with the newer systems that have been implemented - case in point the newest website iteration. The newer systems were (and still are) designed for the average Joe so to speak, which owns 1-2 contracts and seldom, if ever, swaps contracts or performs deedbacks or quitclaims or anything of the like -thwey are buy and hold type owners who seldom make any changes. Folks here that often complain, are often complaining about 1% use case items. Remember the 80/20 rule. Wyndham is fairly good at handling the 80%, and generally fantastically miserable at handling the 20% (notice I'm being negative on Wyndham here - just to state the obvious). That's unfortunate of course. Really good companies excel at both from a customer service standpoint in comparison, except in rare cases. Wyndham is not one of those companies IME. Typically the only way to get resolution on the 20% type issues today is to email the office of the CEO - which is telling in and of itself. All of this doesn't mean I throw up my hands and just quit while I'm behind, it means I trudge forward, always attempting to make things better, both for my own ownership of course, and for everyone else, to the extent possible. If all of the above means I'm pro-Wyndham, then so be it.

 

[Arimaas]

Legit question - what does repeating the same issue over and over again accomplish exactly? Seriously, what is the end goal here?

legit answer - not snark - from Wyndham - nothing. Most of the issues here have not been fixed by Wyndham. I may have missed something, but generally, I don’t see anything.

From me - it makes me feel better. Seriously, it’s an internet discussion group, that doenst charge me for carbon usage, so it makes me feel slightly better venting it out and then getting some validation with other people experiencing the same frustration. That’s it. Selfish? Maybe.

 

[HitchHiker71]

legit answer - not snark - from Wyndham - nothing. Most of the issues here have not been fixed by Wyndham. I may have missed something, but generally, I don’t see anything.

From me - it makes me feel better. Seriously, it’s an internet discussion group, that doenst charge me for carbon usage, so it makes me feel slightly better venting it out and then getting some validation with other people experiencing the same frustration. That’s it. Selfish? Maybe.

Not selfish - it makes sense - as I just edited my post - people often go looking and find forums like TUG because they're unhappy about something or seeking a better understanding of what's going on specific to their issue and trying to find others who have had similar experiences to help them out. Venting is often part of that remediation process IME. We all vent, but the repetitive venting is often a symptom of the timesharing power users - which are basically 1% of the ownership base, however, many folks on TUG don't really understand this well. They think TUG is emblematic of average timeshare ownership experiences, which in most cases couldn't be further from the truth.

The waters get muddy, especially right now, when Wyndham, or any other timeshare company, enacts actions that impact a larger proportion of the ownership base outside of the 1%. This is what we're witnessing at present, which actually brings up an interesting question I need to ask Wyndham, what percentage of the overall personal ownership base is actually impacted by these actions? I'll see if I can get an answer - anyone want to hazard a guess? We know 10 resorts are exiting, but Wyndham held the majority of the intervals at all impacted resorts. 5%?

 

[Double U]

Don’t forget the part below that says: “The guidelines for exchanging through an external exchange company are subject to change and, when available, will be set forth in the Directory.” And note that the current directory only mentions RCI and TPI, not II.

Then later it states: “14.08 Exchange Programs. The Trustee is authorized to enter into an agreement with exchange programs for the exchange of occupancy rights in the Trust Properties.” They can work with whatever exchange company they want, or not.

I think we are both saying the same thing, that in reality, it can be done. If I'm misinterpting your thought, please share.

It's unfortunate that when someone is a paying member, and makes a comment, that may be better - possibly worse, that's why we asked that question in the first place, they are shut down right on the spot and told NO. From multiple members.

No one may even want II, it could have zero interest, but I believe competition makes for a better marketplace and we, the consumer, come out better in the end. And we spend more because we have more or better options.

You have to leave Wyndham to get to the forbidden fruit in II.

So to answer your question as stated, NO, I didn't forget that part. My goal was to keep it as short and simple as I could. And I hoped someone might go read the trust a little and educate themselves. I thought that is what TUG promotes?

 

[jp10558]

The vast majority of those words, are me simply communicating an understanding of why a corporation may not want to mess with the system that controls their lifeblood - their cashflow. That is a perfectly rational stance, especially when we take into account that the actions being tracked in the two threads, are by definition outliers - not part of the normal business operations - so it's generally unwise to alter key back end systems for these types of one-off operations.

My one quibble in this discussion is - do we think this is a one off? I don't mean closing 15 HOAs at once, that probably is, but we know they have closed others one at a time for various reasons. Even more so, in the extremely limited communication they've sent, they either outright say or really imply that from time to time they need to realign their resorts in the systems like airlines need to age out airframes and buy new planes. In my IT experience, once you've applied some systemic change across 15 instances or are doing it on a somewhat repeated basis, it's time to formalize the process and built it into the systems. Especially if management is saying we'll be doing this in the future "from time to time".

Now, maybe we shouldn't take anything Wyndham says as true, but that would seem to be a pretty negative POV to take given your posts lately, so why do you think this is really a one off?

Just because I try to always see both sides, doesn't mean I'm in one camp or the other - but that's how most folks think - binary thinking - which I always strive to avoid - because the world doesn't typically boil down to only one of two choices - IME it's generally much more nuanced and complex than people would like to think.

Here we come back to just how stuff reads to other people - most of the time I didn't get the impression you were super pro-Wyndham. However, in these 2 threads, you came across as very pro-Wyndham. So much so that I argued about it with you. I won't try and read your mind, but I will say that as you saw with Arimaas - the framing matters, and at least to me you seemed to have missed or rejected the "level of analysis" some people took - i.e. at least some of us never disagreed with you that Wyndham had legal limitations or at least "good legal advice" to do things a certain way from the position they got themselves in. We just mostly thought that Wyndham had choices to not get in that position, and ought to have taken them. It's sort of like punting at 4th and 20, when we're arguing the "team" f**ked up on first through third down, so while they're kinda forced to punt on the 4th down, that's a weird place to defend them from. If that makes sense, I'm not sure.

The fact is, unfortunately, that many TUGGERs on this forum are anti-Wyndham, anything Wyndham does is bad, substandard, wrong, never in the best interest of the owners, etc. It's also typical that those who unhappy tend to complain, and those who are happy don't really say anything, so there's sometimes a false interpretation that most people are unhappy, when the fact is that the CSAT scores and other metrics simply don't show this to be true. The unhappy are notoriously noisy and complain a lot, while the happy never post,

This is a huge problem generally - figuring out what's a problem for the large majority vs is it just a small number of people strongly complaining. And then figuring out if they're a canary in the coal mine, or just unreasonable. It's also worth considering what's problems that annoy people, but not enough for most to complain.

I also think that complaining about sales tactics is so common, I don't really see it as being on the anti side of any TS system. All of them have the issue, I have yet to see anyone not actively being in TS sales defend it.

Let's also repeat something that bears repeating related to the topic at hand, and that most long timers are very aware of on TUG (as they have said so themselves). TUGGERS are predominantly the exception, not the rule. They are power timesharing people. The systems really aren't designed for these folks - and this is increasingly the case with the newer systems that have been implemented - case in point the newest website iteration. The newer systems were (and still are) designed for the average Joe so to speak, which owns 1-2 contracts and seldom, if ever, swaps contracts or performs deedbacks or quitclaims or anything of the like -thwey are buy and hold type owners who seldom make any changes.

This is unfortunate but understandable in the current landscape. I just think that TS in general make this a 20% problem themselves, and I think a number of TUGGERS would agree that making it less hidden or less of a power user move to change contracts via resale would actually go a long way to improving the general reputation of "impossible to get out of".

Really good companies excel at both from a customer service standpoint in comparison, except in rare cases. Wyndham is not one of those companies IME. Typically the only way to get resolution on the 20% type issues today is to email the office of the CEO - which is telling in and of itself.

I think there's a difference between pointing out that if Wyndham is bad because DVC left RCI, then DVC is bad because they won't let you individually keep using RCI. Or that Wyndham is bad for sales tactics - well you have to also apply that to pretty much all TS systems. And saying Wyndham should be given some amount of a pass because their lawyers say they ought to do the absolute worst possible communication job around yanking people's ownerships and reservations. Of course, I'm really not aware of any other system downsizing by 15 HOAs at once alongside 2 other separate but around the same time closures. I think it would have been a better defense if "it's the way the industry works" but here I think even you admitted Wyndham is kinda doing something novel - i.e. they're choosing and driving this ship...


Of course we can and have all debated what is "not their fault", "not solely their fault", "their fault but it's expected in the industry", and "god damn, this is shitty and they're at fault." I think Wyndham directly choose to do a very accelerated timeline AND NOT COMMUNICATE that, which moved it from "not solely their fault" right to "god damn, this is shitty and they're at fault." FOR the communication and unforced hurt to existing owners and reservations.

All of this doesn't mean I throw up my hands and just quit while I'm behind, it means I trudge forward, always attempting to make things better, both for my own ownership of course, and for everyone else, to the extent possible. If all of the above means I'm pro-Wyndham, then so be it.

For me, I don't really see how the massive push that it should be seen as "not solely their fault" really makes anything better. You telling Wyndham this was a horrible PR move, you forcing them to at least keep hearing all the owner questions, etc - that at least gives them data that this might not be as good a plan as they thought. If the reason for the defense of the communication and booking issues was to make stuff better - just... how? It somewhat obviously didn't minimize runaway threads / discussion on the forum. It made absolutely no difference to Wyndham, and I really don't see what speculation or condemnation on a forum that very few owners even know exists would do or effect for the overall Wyndham ownership experience. This is why you were seen as Pro-Wyndham - because the facts such as anyone had were't that debatable, and no one really debated, from day one, that the communication plan was horrible and would lead to a lot of unnecessary pissing off of people.

I'll also point out again, that the phrasing led to most of the heat - a bunch of us understood "legal issues" to mean some law, when for whatever reason after a LOT of arguing around came to be explained as "Their lawyers are giving them advice". If the "Wyndham Supporters" had just said that in the beginning, I think literal pages of debate would not have happened. Because for some reason it was hard to clarify.

I think it's also important to recognize that many of the participants in "this debate" on the "anti-Wyndham side" were equally anti-Wyndhim FOR THIS ONE ISSUE. I have lots of posts promoting Wyndham in the "What Timeshare should I get" forum threads. I think the system is great, and I don't even have huge issues with the website or app. I think their website improvements actually have been improvements (search by dates across all resorts), showing unit type inventory levels for dates, etc. All in all I much prefer it over the Gatlinburg Town Square where I have to call in to book my floating week, and just hope I've called in at the right time based on ... nothing really.

It's possible we'll never agree about this specific issue, and I'm fine with that, but I also want to make sure I'm not... just misunderstanding you again for weeks at a time like before.

 

[jp10558]

I think we are both saying the same thing, that in reality, it can be done. If I'm misinterpting your thought, please share.

It's unfortunate that when someone is a paying member, and makes a comment, that may be better - possibly worse, that's why we asked that question in the first place, they are shut down right on the spot and told NO. From multiple members.

If your argument is Wyndham should allow you to choose your own exchange company - that was very poorly communicated. We were "shutting down" the idea that Wyndham is preventing you from exchanging to DVC. They're not - if DVC allowed RCI, you could exchange in that case. I.e. if you were going to say Wyndham is "stripping you" from exchanging to DVC, so is DVC - that's the point. If DVC allowed you to choose your exchange company then you also wouldn't be blocked.

I also think in a more general / higher level sense, we want to warn all readers that it's a dangerous game to buy a system specifically to use it for exchanges through any exchange company. We see that what you can pull in II changes yearly for instance. So even if both stayed in II, there's no guaranteed you'd actually be able to exchange the next year, even if you can this year. This is important for any owner to understand, you cannot and should not count on getting specific exchanges as a reason to buy or keep a system. If your main goal is to go to DVC, you must buy into DVC. Anything else is subject to sudden disappointment.

No one may even want II, it could have zero interest, but I believe competition makes for a better marketplace and we, the consumer, come out better in the end. And we spend more because we have more or better options.

This I agree 100%. I think HGVC should give DEX and II options in addition to the included RCI to every owner, not just select affiliated resorts. I think Marriott should let owners use RCI. I praise CV for (at least at my resorts) letting me pick the exchange company (though I have to pay the account fees). Not only do I think this would be good and would love to see it, if for some reason it did become the common method I could see more exchange companies springing up. The thing is, when comparing Wyndham and DVC, it's only fair to comment that you must leave DVC to get to the forbidden fruit in RCI.

And I hoped someone might go read the trust a little and educate themselves. I thought that is what TUG promotes?

I would be surprised if anyone thought Wyndham couldn't choose to work with any exchange company they wanted to. I don't think anyone thought the trust forbade them letting people choose, it just doesn't require it.

 

[paxsarah]

I think we are both saying the same thing, that in reality, it can be done. If I'm misinterpting your thought, please share.

It's unfortunate that when someone is a paying member, and makes a comment, that may be better - possibly worse, that's why we asked that question in the first place, they are shut down right on the spot and told NO. From multiple members.

No one may even want II, it could have zero interest, but I believe competition makes for a better marketplace and we, the consumer, come out better in the end. And we spend more because we have more or better options.

You have to leave Wyndham to get to the forbidden fruit in II.

So to answer your question as stated, NO, I didn't forget that part. My goal was to keep it as short and simple as I could. And I hoped someone might go read the trust a little and educate themselves. I thought that is what TUG promotes?

I guess my point is I don't know exactly what you're trying to say. Would I like the opportunity to exchange in II with my Club Wyndham points? Sure! But was I aware when I first purchased 15 years ago that it was not and would probably not ever be an option for me? Also yes. Did I ever consider that I as an owner or even a group of owners could change Club Wyndham's chosen business partnerships? No. I know where my efforts would be wasted, and that's one place.

I'm quite familiar with the Second Amended and Restated Fairshare Vacation Plan Use Management Trust Agreement. I have it bookmarked and I refer to it often (usually when someone on Facebook talks about filing a class action so I can refer back to the parts where the governing documents allow Wyndham to do whatever the person is complaining about). I agree that every owner should be familiar with it, as well as the matter in the back of the directory under "Services" and "Program Disclosures," especially given the fact that the trust agreement specifically states (emphasis mine) "11.01 Directory. Set forth below in summary form are certain of the most important features of the Plan. The rules, regulations, guidelines, policies and procedures related to the allocation of Points to the Trust Properties and the use of Points by Members in connection with the Trust Properties and the Plan are fully described in the Directory. In the event of a conflict between the information described in this Article XI and the information set forth in the Directory, the information set forth in the Directory shall be controlling. Wyndham, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to amend the Directory and the provisions therein from time to time as may be necessary to implement the Plan."

 

[Double U]

If your argument is Wyndham should allow you to choose your own exchange company - that was very poorly communicated. We were "shutting down" the idea that Wyndham is preventing you from exchanging to DVC. They're not - if DVC allowed RCI, you could exchange in that case. I.e. if you were going to say Wyndham is "stripping you" from exchanging to DVC, so is DVC - that's the point. If DVC allowed you to choose your exchange company then you also wouldn't be blocked.

I also think in a more general / higher level sense, we want to warn all readers that it's a dangerous game to buy a system specifically to use it for exchanges through any exchange company. We see that what you can pull in II changes yearly for instance. So even if both stayed in II, there's no guaranteed you'd actually be able to exchange the next year, even if you can this year. This is important for any owner to understand, you cannot and should not count on getting specific exchanges as a reason to buy or keep a system. If your main goal is to go to DVC, you must buy into DVC. Anything else is subject to sudden disappointment.

This I agree 100%. I think HGVC should give DEX and II options in addition to the included RCI to every owner, not just select affiliated resorts. I think Marriott should let owners use RCI. I praise CV for (at least at my resorts) letting me pick the exchange company (though I have to pay the account fees). Not only do I think this would be good and would love to see it, if for some reason it did become the common method I could see more exchange companies springing up. The thing is, when comparing Wyndham and DVC, it's only fair to comment that you must leave DVC to get to the forbidden fruit in RCI.

I would be surprised if anyone thought Wyndham couldn't choose to work with any exchange company they wanted to. I don't think anyone thought the trust forbade them letting people choose, it just doesn't require it.

I am a very poor communicator, I'll be the first to admit that. I'm not a debate major. Thanks for the feedback, hopefully over time I'll get better at it. I don't take offense, I see an opportunity to improve!

So true about the exchange process is a two way street, great point! I think we may be more on the same page than we realize! How many times has it been said that change is inevitable and we have to adjust. I wouldn't mind just an option to pay for a full price II membership as an add on. Wouldn't it be nice if DVC members had the same option to access RCI? I personally see signs the industry is floundering. And there is always going to be a level of protectionalism, rightfully so. But how much is healthy, and when can sharing more improve the experience industrywide? Just my 2 cents worth (they don't make pennies anymore, LOL)