IMO it's not a personal attack and I feel whether one owns or not is applicable to the discussion in this case. As a rule, when it's a matter of true principle, ethics, laws and rules; I do not feel one has to be directly involved to have a valid opinion. In this case it does affect the reasonableness of the position since everyone agrees they did more than they were required to do. And some might see it as rude to not answer the question but continue to post so strongly on the subject.‘That is not a personal attack.
I think it's fair to compare them but that's different than stating one SHOULD have done more because in their eyes, someone else did. There will always be someone that does more or less and what is more or less will vary with the individual's situation and views. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that they did FAR more than was required by the rules but they are being inappropriate because they did not do more still. They clearly put a lot of effort and thought into the choices they made. Obviously there are a lot of things they could have done differently including a lot less than they ended up doing, they had decisions to make. By rule everyone under 60 days would have lost their week and most over 60 days couldn't change and use either under the actual rules anyway. And by rule points in holding could normally be used at 60 days out and would expire the end of the UY. Don't forget even had they been hard line to the rules in place, they still are losing a lot of money because of all this. Maybe they can look at some future changes that would accommodate such an extreme situation but most of those options would require a vote of the owners resort by resort.That's true to a point. However, I think when every other hotel branded timeshare company offers more to their owners than MVC during times of crisis (which is consistently true in every crisis, imo) then it is relevant to compare them. Especially as many people will buy new more timeshares, or sell and buy something different. Tug is a resource for researching timeshare purchases (hopefully resale!). I think crisis response is a valid consumer consideration, and MVC's competitors all have a track record of offering more to their customers in times of crisis than MVC.
Does MVC follow the law/agreements in place? I think generally yes. Do they bend over backwards to make sure customers are getting the most value they can in a crisis? Not compared to their competitors. Seems relevant to me...
I think it's the me, me, me part of this that bothers me the most. I'm comfortable with the choices MVC has made in this situation and it likely is a good compromise between helping owners and future usage. I was not in complete agreement with them on the hurricane solution last year. So at this point it's about what we're made of, not MVC, IMO.