posted 07-11-2003 12:26               

(Edit: BTW, Carl makes very good points.)

I have nothing to do with this!

I Know Nothing!

BTW, me asking the same question normally leads to a brouhaha!

I know the official answer, but I am not qualified to give it.

Edit: Now that I looked I see what you mean. Guess he figured if qtip and the others can do it he might as well come back and do it too.

In the past it has been us who question this that brings out the wrath of the volunteers. Actually, it's those who push the envelope of LMR, challenging the anti-commercial policy, which forces the volunteers to have to waste time on this sort of stuff.

It would be nice if LMR was used just for what it was originally intended--to help owners recover some of their maintenance fee for weeks they find they cannot use--instead of a vehicle for timeshare brokers and fast-talking ----- buying and reselling exchange company weeks.

But, LMR has slowly progressed away from that original purpose. It was the removal of the "Owned Weeks Only" requirement, for another reason, that has opened the door for this. I will admit that I was one who favored the removal of that requirement, not taking into consideration there are those out there who have no quilt in violating the spirit of TUG.

After all, business is business.

But, I sympathize with the volunteers. LMR having strayed as it has, it makes it difficult for them to do any policing. It would be hard to allow an occasional "commercial" ad from a loyal, upstanding, non-profiting TUGger, while at the same time not allowing the blatant abusers.

Wow! He even gets to list his toll-free business number and if you click on his infor link you can go to his "timesharehelp" web-site. Man, talking about pushing the limits!

------------------
JMHO
JLB

posted 07-11-2003 15:47               

quote:

---

Originally posted by EdB:
Jim, do you have a solution to suggest?

---

Inherent in my post, I believe, is that under the present LMR guidelines it's so easy to say there is no solution.

Things were done to LMR, I suspect hoping that TUGgers would still respect the integrity of this site, to allow it to be the one place where members could place ads free. I don't believe it was ever intended that commercial enterprises would post there or that those raiding RCI and II would be given a venue there. It does seem rather ironic that with the constant complaining from some TUGgers about RCI weeks being offered to the public, that TUG would actually facilitate that endeavor by private entrepreneurs.

I suspect it was assumed that those using LMR would continue to be as discrete as they have been in the past. But there seems to be a whole new in-your-face generation of business people who do not respect some of the old traditions.

Since you ask what I would do, if I was the LMR cop, I would contact those who are violating the sanctity of TUG and give them an opportunity to explain themselves. Then, of course, like on all the other boards where MINOR offenses get deleted, I would delete the blatant offenders. No explanation to them would be necessary since they know they are offending when they post.

Those who post business telephone numbers in their LMR ad would be deleted automatically. Those who have links to their business anywhere in the signature, info link, email link, etc. would be deleted similarly.

Things get deleted on TUG, or posts get changed or altered frequently, based merely on the opinions and interpretations of moderators. There's no reason that can't be done here. Once an abuser learns they cannot post, they won't.

That would be my perfect world, and the perfect world of many others who sit on the sidelines here and cheer on the participants.

And don't you know those few abusers (really, it's only a couple of bad apples) are tuned into this thread, hoping those in charge take their side once again!

Edit: In light of other news, I suspect your plate is full. No need to sweat this now. I suspect it will still be here later.

------------------
JMHO
JLB

posted 07-11-2003 16:14               

How about limiting the listings by any individual or entity to 4 a month?

It wouldn't be that difficult to ascertain who's well over the 'limit' - Tugger's make darn good 'observers'. There'd be no problem with someone posting 5 or 6 in a single month if they hadn't posted any for the preceeding months - got to give a little leeway. But it'd sure crimp those that are posting 5 or 6 a day!!

I think this would cure the problem before we all lose what is a critical resource.

Max

quote:

---

Originally posted by EdB:
Jim, do you have a solution to suggest?

---

posted 07-11-2003 16:41            

I do believe there should be a forum for these listers to list, for the benefit of Tug members that's looking for last minute rentals, but I have no idea where that might be located unless another forum is added. It's actually advantageous to us TUGgers, but shouldn't be in competition with Tug member's last minute rentals IMHO.

posted 07-11-2003 20:30            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JanB:
It seems to me that a commercial lister paying the advertising fees and listing within the "Last Minute" board guidelines IS helping TUG members. I noticed a 1 week Powell Place studio - that's seven nights, folks, in San Francisco - for $295!!!!

---

posted 07-11-2003 20:48               

Max

quote:

---

Originally posted by JanB:
It seems to me that a commercial lister paying the advertising fees and listing within the "Last Minute" board guidelines IS helping TUG members. I noticed a 1 week Powell Place studio - that's seven nights, folks, in San Francisco - for $295!!!!

---

posted 07-12-2003 07:16               

It would appear that allowing qtip to blatantly market his exchange company weeks here has brought the former offender back out, much like TONYG's comment before about how allowing commercial posts on LMR would open the door for C21, RCI, II, or any other vacation marketers. TUG (we) is (are) fortunate that that has not happened, but under the current policy there is nothing to prevent it.

This is not the time to have this debate. It would be nice if the offender(s) would back off (again) and give the TUG volunteers time to handle this when they are less occupied with more important things.

I find it even more offensive that the present offender has chosen now to start this all over.

------------------
JMHO
JLB

posted 07-12-2003 08:04               

Like I said before, this is not a good time to do this, but when that time comes around, here's my 2-cents worth:

Here's the LMR/Sightings rule:

"The Sole Exceptions to the advertising ban are the Last Minute Rentals forum and the Members-only Sightings / Distress Exchange forum. Timeshare owners may post messages here offering to rent timeshare weeks that are about to expire. Note the restrictions to these forums at the top of the their respective pages. These restrictions are strictly enforced."

IMO, it is a very loose interpretation of this stated policy that would allow (edited for more accurate wording) [someone representing actual owners rather than the actual owners themselves (especially when that other person is paid to represent the actual owners)], AND/OR a wheelin'/dealin', profiteering individual to sell exchange company weeks. The operative phrase here is "timeshare owner" and that is the part that needs to be clarified.

We see what happens when that interpretation is too loose. Some other undesired consequences would likely result if it were too restrictive.

So, I come to the same conclusion that I did before. Leave the rules they way they are, but change the enforcement from "loose" to "more restrictive".

The rules of TUG are, after all, whatever the moderators decide they are. Let the moderators do what is right, in the spirit of TUG. As in other cases where posts are altered or deleted by the moderators, there is no recourse to their decisions.

Edit: Just came back to say that I can see how my wording might be misinterpreted as being anti-moderator, when, in fact, exactly the opposite was intended. The moderators are, in fact, the ones that edit or delete posts because they are privy to information that the rest of are not. They are the ones that are most qualified to make these judgements.

However, the very fact that commercial posts on LMR continue to resurface and continue to be questioned by TUG members suggests that LMR policy isn't exactly what it needs to be.

As I've said before, every story has two sides and this one of them. It's not an easy fix.

If it weren't for the blatant offenders it would not be a problem the volunteers would have to deal with.

A couple other ideas that don't exactly address the problem:

--Require the obvious commercial posters on LMR to have (had) the same week in a TUG Classified ad. That would be evidence they are not just here to take advantage of TUG and at 45 days out they would be in the same bind as ordinary owners, trying to recover something from their week, or,

--Require those who represent owners (call them whatever you want) to request that each of those owners be the ones to post the ad on LMR. The "advisor" will have done their job in informing their "clients", who can then decide what to do. If the "advisor" wants to go to the trouble of concocting phony identities for owners of each of the weeks in order to circumvent the spirit of TUG, so be it. At least they would have to jump hurdles rather than run a sprint.

If one of these were a stated rule it would prevent the possible dumping of ads into LMR by the big companies.

------------------
JMHO
JLB

posted 07-12-2003 18:55            

------------------
DVC member

posted 07-13-2003 04:56               

From RCI Community http://rci.infopop.net/3/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=6542996085&f=8972948606&m=9092966127

------------------
Pat

posted 07-13-2003 06:57               

I'm deleting because I indicated in my last post that it would be the final one.

posted 07-13-2003 07:48               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JLB:
Just curious about something, since this seems to be a fairly balanced, rational crowd.

Let's say one of these commercial posters offered a week for $500. Let's say RCI had the same week at the same resort as a Bonus Vacation for $229.

As a loyal TUGger would you feel a need to post the RCI information?

---

Let 'em both put their week on the board. If there is price elasticity the cheaper one will go as fast as possible and that will leave the higher priced one around. That's what supply and demand is all about. The cheaper stuff goes first given the same demand.

posted 07-13-2003 10:59               

Clearly, the prices on some of his LMR's are attractive, and were it not for the fact that they are rentals of exchanged weeks, I personally would have no issue with the volume of his/her posts. But after you've been put on notice that the rentals are in violation of RCI rules prohibiting commercial use of exchanges, I think you have an obligation to take some action to prevent this forum from being subject to some kind of closer scrutiny by the exchange companies, at best, or a restraining order or injunction, at worst.

posted 07-13-2003 15:46               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GrayFal:
We are not the only group annoyed by the mass rental of exchanged/bonus weeks by the offender. I guess the use of the term "several timeshares" is open to interpretation by the poster

From RCI Community Click here for link

---

Yeah, but this group/thread you point to doesn't even know enough to know what to be upset about!

[Edited to remove long URL display that was too long for the diplay - mg]

posted 07-13-2003 17:04               

The Last Minute Rental board is an exception, and is acknowledged as such in our rules. LMR exists ONLY for advertising, so the advertising ban obviously does not apply there. Since there is no ban on commercial posts, there currently is nothing to prevent ads from commercial ventures in LMR, provided they comply with the other stated restrictions in that forum.

As these questions come up periodically, there has been LOTS of behind the scenes discussion among the bbs managment regarding how the LMR rules could be changed to allow posting by individual owners but keep out those who are making a business of rentals -- or whether we should even make such a change in the first place.
As you have seen even in this thread, there has been no consensus on whether commercial posts should be eliminated in LMR, and even if desireable, how to phrase it such that it would not prevent the casual owner from posting occasionally.

On another front, RCI has taken action in the past against members who have been found to be renting out timeshares obtained from RCI contrary to the provisions of the RCI member agreement. I'm not aware of II doing the same, but then it could happen without me becoming aware of it. In our LMR rules we point out that such rentals may violate exchange company policy and that we discourage the practice, but it is not our intention to burden our volunteers by having them police the exchange companies' policies for them in LMR or anywhere else. If people posts such offers in a public place like the LMR board, they run the risk that it may come to the attention of RCI or II, with whatever consequences that may ensue.

posted 07-13-2003 18:20               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makai Guy:
In our LMR rules we point out that such rentals may violate exchange company policy and that we discourage the practice, but it is not our intention to burden our volunteers by having them police the exchange companies' policies for them in LMR or anywhere else. If people posts such offers in a public place like the LMR board, they run the risk that it may come to the attention of RCI or II, with whatever consequences that may ensue.

---

You say that Doug, but now on on RCI-owned board, a link points to TUG LMR's. If you are put on notice that you are aiding and abetting a violation of the rules of the exchange company, you are then much more culpable than if you just turned the other way and feined ignorance of what the poster is doing with exchanged weeks in contravention of RCI policy. As Buff points out above, RCI may have adopted an attitude of what they don't know won't hurt them and may well be more reactive in these situations, but clearly here, cause has been given for them to be reactive and to sit up and take notice of what is being posted on the LMR's. While you may feel that it is impossible to police every posting that goes up there, when you have a blatant violator who admits on an RCI-owned board that he is renting out exchanged weeks, I think you have an obligation to protect the integrity (and maybe even the continued survival) of that board by removing the offending posts and issuing a warning to the poster that such future behavior will not be tolerated.

posted 07-13-2003 18:35               

------------------
Steve Nelson
**
"Are you the police?"
"No, ma'am. We're musicians."