Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<ORDDU: For his/her own personal information, if nothing else, trekkeruss, duckling. That's most likely why birdsNworms asked his original question. ORWEN: Right! I mean, sometimes when I cast a new spell for the first time, I like to know if anybody else has ever been affected by it. So it's just like me to ask around.>> It's been suggested that the OP is an employee of the company, and not a run-of-the-mill CM, but someone in a position of authority. The OP himself suggests that he knows more than he is able to divulge, i.e. "With disturbing regularity..." So it doesn't make much sense to me why he would need to mine a fan board for his own information.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Sure it does--if birdsNworms wants to compare notes or experiences with possible victims he/she mich come across within the Laughing Place pond. You're just looking at the matter from a different angle that the original poster is. ORWEN: I mean, just because us cauldron girls know all about magic doesn't mean we aren't still intersted in swapping stories with other witches around here about THEIR experiences with the same spells. ORGOCH: Got potions?
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Oh, bother!! I meant to say the word 'might' instead of 'mich' up there. I also meant to say 'than' instead of 'that'. But you get the point I hope!!
Originally Posted By trekkeruss And yet the OP hasn't offered even a modicum of evidence, not even a single first, second, thirdhand account. That's not sharing. I'm still skeptical that the OP cares the least bit about anyone being victimized, but is just looking to stir the pot.
Originally Posted By demderedoseguys >I know if they had done this to me in my situation, if they had made me sign the papers.... Not on topic, but that statement gave me a flashback to the Cheech and Chong Big Bambu album..goes something like this.. "Sign zee papers old man." "I cannot sign the papers." "You must sign zee papers old man." "But I cannot sign the papers." "Why cannot you sign zee papers?" "Because you have broken both of my wrists."
Originally Posted By birdsNworms This could not be simpler. IF you or someone you know has experienced a situation that fits under this subject and you want to share it with this community, post it. If not, and this does not interest you, move on to something you do find interesting. Hopefully though, in the end, people will be less inclined to be accepting of Disney's word and view TWDC as just another global corporation out for the most return on shareholder value at any cost to the brand and consumer. Not unlike a Wal-Mart, for instance. Moreover, they will be more apt to demand an on the spot resolution that has no strings. The Pinocchio-like image aside. Now, I have to go decipher the code encrypted in those wedding photos some operative posted here. And don't even try to convince me otherwise...I mean, this is LaughingPlace after all. ...Congratulations to the newlyweds and the father of the bride! [As a final note, I was impressed to see the invocation of the project formerly known as "Destination Disney" in this dialogue. DD, which started as a data mining exercise branded as a model to enhance the guest experience, has morphed into a method for corporate redirection of assets and of both limiting guest access and the individual guest experience through data reference points used to score a given guest's worth-factor. This dove-tails with the query of "Duped By Disney?". High score, you get what was promised. Low score, so sorry for 'your' misunderstanding. Since at least one poster here is intimately familiar (based on old posts) with many facets of DD, from idea to inception to its present application, it is hoped more on this subject can be placed on LP by someone who is not contracted to TWDC and/or competing media. Look into Destination Disney, it's a huge part of the Disney 'world' and it dictates far more of your Disney experience than you could ever dream. In a way that would trouble the most ardent fan among us.]
Originally Posted By MPierce >> For the OP, are you a Lawyer? << That was my post #8. >> Good point ... but can I ask ... (I will anyway) but are you a lawyer (or one for Disney that may have a conscious?) << That's your post #100 Spirit. Somehow I feel that won't get answered.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Didn't we already establish that birdsNworms might not be able to spell out any specific cases for fear of losing his/her job? Instead of holding the poor dear's feet to the fire, trekkeruss, I wouldn't make such a fuss over his posting. One doesn't have to believe a word he/she said if they don't want to. The main point, though, is that it's very possible that the Disney Company could be guilty of what has been claimed. The fact that Spirit of 74 has also said it's possible only adds weight to what birdsNworms has said. That's good enough for a coven of witches. But you're free to believe whatever you wish. ORWEN: Can't we all just share a big box of Krispy Kremes and move on now? ORGOCH: Got diabetes???
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The question, and this thread was posed not as a declaration but as a query, is not whether TWDC dupes consumers (as to a certain extent that's good marketing). It is the systemization of the activity by corporate citizens and its broad-based implications. >>> Once again, you claim to be asking a question, but you're not. Above, you claim explicitly once again to be asking a question and not making a declaration, then imply that you'll restate the question. But then all you do is restate your declaration.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Nor would that be indicated as some individuals do not use this forum as a platform for discussion but for entirely different reasons. >>> That my friend is abundantly obvious!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< So, a kid trips on the parade post the cast member failed to plug resulting in an ER visit and a half dozen stitches. A grandmother takes an inadvertent surf through the food court when a tray is left on the floor and in the middle of the 'x' zone en route to the cashier. One broken hip and one destination vacation in the bin. ... there is no denying liability in these instances. >>> I have to disagree. Every time someone slips and falls at a park doesn't mean it's Disney's fault. The guest has some responsibility to watch where they are going. Especially in the food court tray situation, it seems highly unlikely that Disney would put a tray on the floor in the middle of a walkway. Much more likely is that a guest drops one there for whatever reason. Now, if it is just ignored for hours on end, that's one thing, but if a guest drops a tray in such a location and wanders off and then a few minutes later someone trips on it and breaks their hip, it's not at all clear why Disney should be responsible for this. Yet, you say "there is no denying liability." I deny it. Even in the case of the guest whose hair caught on fire during the fireworks show, I don't see that it's automatically Disney's fault. I guess I view such a situation more akin to an inherent danger as a spectator at a baseball game or golf tournament: there's a small but non-zero chance you'll get popped in the head with a ball, and it's not necessarily anyone's fault if it happens. Now if there's something Disney should be doing and isn't, or is acting wrecklessly, then that's another story, but no mention of any such thing was made. So, Disney legal is operating in a legal and media environment where things are not always reasonable. For example, of course it would be bad press to have on the evening news that a guest is suing Disney because they caught fire during the fireworks show. It has a certain tabloid appeal that can create a knee-jerk reaction among the public, without all the facts being known. So of course it makes sense for Disney to deal with it in the quietest manner possible. In some ways, I have a great respect for Disney legal. Look what they did with the rampant abuses of the Guest Assistance Passes at DL a few years ago. The situation of everyone and their uncle going to city hall to get an "instant unlimited FastPass", otherwise known as a Guest Assistance Pass, was outrageous. In some cases, it was reported that the line for people to board through the exit was actually longer than the regular standby line! Yet, there's a certain group of people out there that aren't happy unless they're taking undue advantage of a situation. Before the changes, I thought that not much could be done. People mentioned online that especially with the ADA, Disney can't require any proof of disability (such as a doctor's note) or even ask what the disability is - they just must accept what the guest says at face value and accommodate them. Then they figured out that that restriction was actually the solution to the problem: accommodation. So, instead of a carte blanche pass to bypass every line in the park, the guest is now asked "What accommodation do you require?" If they can't walk up stairs, then they get a pass that lets them bypass attraction queues only where there are stairs, and so on. Abuses contained, legitimate issues still addressed, and compliance with the law: Problem solved. Having said all of that, there's a lot in this thread that's been very informative, if not disturbing. It may sound like I'm all on Disney's side here, and I'm not - what I said above is limited to the specific issues I was talking about and were not meant to be broad statements.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Approach, appease, and appeal. One -- keep the family together, as this is not a timeshare presentation and you will need to play upon the entire family's emotions all done by a white-collar looking, mock executive who instills a sense of authority. Two -- exhibit empathy while quickly mining the family on "what can we do to make this better" so the guest feels the well-dressed hourly is "on their side." Three -- employ those Disney heartstrings to turn the table on the injured person by manipulating the dynamic and turning (recruiting) the other members of the family "to the Disney team" to make the situation go away. >>> All of that seems nothing more than good business sense. If they can offer the guest a certain compensation, have the guest accept it and be happy, and have the issue end right there, what's wrong with that? As to step two mentioned, that specifically is a good thing to do for any company ANY time there's a dispute with a customer. Sometimes a customer is very angry about something and you think they're going to want the world, but if you ask them what can be done to rectify the situation, maybe all they want is a free meal or something equally simple and inexpensive. The company will never know if they don't ask. I don't see anything underhanded or improper in anything I've quoted so far. <<< The result most of the time is a signed waiver, which is not ever given to the guest. Instead, the guest is given the oft-referenced "make good" offer emblazoned with corporate letterhead and an original signature. All the 'guest' has to do is call the guest services line when/if he or she opts to return and cite the file number. >>> Now, we're getting to the meat of the situation. We haven't been provided with any of the details of what's in the signed waiver, but it may include a complete release of liability and preclusion to future legal action. It probably has an "entire agreement" clause that states that nothing said outside the agreement has any effect. I also have to wonder if there's a de-coupling of the waiver and the "make-good" offer. That is, depending on how each is worded, they may not be bound together as part of the same transaction. What if the waiver said that the guest agrees that Disney has no liability for the incident and that the guest is getting no compensation, and the "make good" offer is phrased as a courtesy accommodation and not compensation for what happened? I have no idea if this is the case, and I'm not suggesting that it is. But in a hypothetical situation where it were to be the case, that could explain several things, such as why there haven't been a flurry of lawsuits over Disney not honoring the offers and/or people going after them for the original incident because they're angry. And, if this was done in a manner where the "make good" offer was made to certain guests with no intention of Disney honoring it, then this would seem to me to be dealing in bad faith. But, the general use of customer information and assessment of a customer's value in deciding which offer to make doesn't strike me as particularly wrong. Consider a situation where Disney believes that most of these "incidents" are not really Disney's responsibility in a legal sense, but are instead customer service issues. If the guest views them as "incidents," then perhaps the best thing to do is to treat it as such, offer the guest something that may be based on their calculated value to the company, have the guest sign off on it, and then the deal is taken care of. The fact that the guest feels they've been wronged but then were taken care of, and Disney feels the claim was without merit but offered something anyway as a courtesy, may not really be that important a distinction at the end of the day. I think the actual issue here is how is Disney dealing with bona fide issues that are their responsibility (which may be different than the evening news would define them), and are they dealing with guests in bad faith? Even though most of what birdsNworms describes sounds bad if not draconian, the more I think about it, except for the possible issue of making courtesy offers they have no intention of keeping, I don't really see a big problem here.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< But I couldn't help but think of a quote by Bob Iger recently in the O-Sentinel when he was talking about the struggling Adventures By Disney venture. It jumped out at me because it does suggest that (especially in Orlando) Disney really only cares that you visit once. <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com...14.story" target="_blank">http://www.orlandosentinel.com...14.story</a> And here's the quote: "You know, a lot of people who visit our parks don't come back, and yet they continue to take family vacations," Disney Co. Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger said last year, after being asked about Adventures By Disney at a conference. "We would like to capture a little bit more of that spend with an experience that has all the brand attributes of the experience they might have when they go to our parks." >>> Spirit, I interpreted that entirely differently than you did. Rather than not caring if you visit more than once, it seems to me that Iger is saying that the reality is that even though they may have a positive experience, a certain set of guests will visit WDW only once. And, by offering Disney vacation opportunities outside of the parks and resorts, there's an opportunity with Adventures by Disney to capture additional spend from those guests.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The result most of the time is a signed waiver, which is not ever given to the guest*** Is that even legal? Honestly I can't imagine signing some legal paperwork without asking BEFORE HAND if I was to be getting a copy as well (because once you sign, it's literally out of your hands).
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Honestly I can't imagine signing some legal paperwork without asking BEFORE HAND if I was to be getting a copy as well (because once you sign, it's literally out of your hands). >>> What do you mean by "legal paperwork?" Anything you sign can end up being legal paperwork if there's a dispute. Most of us sign stuff all the time without getting a copy of it. In fact, it would not surprise me if the form in question did not look like some fancy legal document but instead appears at first glance to be just the kind of routine paperwork that we're all accustomed to signing every day.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***What do you mean by "legal paperwork?"*** A document upon which I am making certain promises or the like (a non-disclosure agreement would certainly apply). I imagine you're right about the paperwork probably looking very benign and non-threatening (makes sense), perhaps it's just my personal way but I generally ask for copies of any paperwork I sign (even at the bank or post office or whatever, I dunno why really...just habit).
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I generally ask for copies of any paperwork I sign (even at the bank or post office or whatever, I dunno why really...just habit). >>> For example, when you check into a hotel and sign the registration form, do you ask for a copy of it? The hotel typically doesn't provide you one unless you ask, and most guests just think it's so routine it doesn't occur to them to ask. The registration form doesn't appear to be doing anything other than telling them who you are, what your rate is, and when you're going to check out, and those items are unlikely to be be disputed later. But at least in the US, there's a lot more to the form if you read the fine print, such as if your stay is being billed to your company and your company doesn't pay, you accept individual liability for the charges even though you're on company business and the hotel agreed to bill the company.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Trippy= love the B&W pics - I agree we hijacked this thread- maybe start another ? We are looking smaller also - maybe 40 people max or so- and either WDW or Vero. We watched a wedding ceremony at Vero last year- very nice also. And yes- use the money for a down payment - I wish we had at our time instead of plunking down for 250 people- 150 of which at least were for our parents not us.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There were people at my wedding who have told me how nice it was (and we still get comments) and I had no idea they were there.
Originally Posted By jkayjs It's a tough call if you have a really big family. I think a destination wedding is the only way to really keep it small. We were 18 with immediate family only (parents, sibs& their SO's & grands) for our DD's wedding. Our kids were older & already had homes so they just wanted the 'party' with friends & family. Of course our friend who's DD opted for a destination wedding to Napa then wanted a reception @ home. Talk about double dipping.
