Unauthorized Usage of Disneyland Pass on Ebay

[DisneyFan25863]

Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
Nicely done, DisneyFan.



:)


Just doing my completly legal civic duty :fez:

[tracilicious]

honestly hazlnut, i find the fact that you are sticking up for these people completely ridiculous. like the people that say, "you don't know why that guy beats his kids, maybe he was abused as a child." i don't care why, all i care about is that he's beating his kids. i don't care if these people are having a hard time financially. what they are doing is wrong.

you're right about shoplifting being part of a bigger problem. all the kids i knew in highschool that shoplifted came from upper middle class families. had their parents taught them something like MORALS they wouldn't have shoplifted. so shoplifting and selling things on ebay that you have no right to sell most likely generate from the same problem. a generation of people who look the other way.

if i see someone shoplifting, am i gonna report it? you betcha. i'll do the same if someone is using ebay as a black market.

[hazlnut]

Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
Are you clear on the fact that you are advocating violating civil rights? Is it moral to do such a thing? It's ok to breach contracts? Seriously, how can I trust someone that advocates this as being ok?

Are you clear on the fact that you are advocating tresspassing? Or how about that you are advocating someone getting a Disney day without paying money to Disney? Two for the price of 1.5, the .5 not even going to Disney? Advocating a person making money off of something they have no right to sell (oh, but only in a CIVIL way, of course, since there's no possible jail time involved, it's ok to step on other's ownership rights).

There you go again. Why do you keep doing that? Putting words into my mouth. I NEVER said it was right. I said it was wrong. W R O N G.

You even conceded that point. Remember:


Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
Ok, you're right, you did not say that in this thread. I'll concede it.

And, furthermore, I never advocated, supported, was down with anything. Okay?

Also, you're misunderstanding the word civil. A 'civil matter' refers to civil court as opposed to criminal court. This has nothing to do with civil rights. That's a federal matter.

That's amazing. How you made the jump from me explaining that breach of contract was a civil matter to me advocating the violation of civil rights??? :confused:

I mean, dude! Reading comprehension 101. Come on, man.
You can do better. Just take your time. Look up words you don't understand and ask lots of questions.;) --I'm just kidding ya, BTW.

Please, please, please... like I already said:

"I ain't sayin' it's right... But I understand."
:D

[hazlnut]

Originally posted by tracilicious
honestly hazlnut, i find the fact that you are sticking up for these people completely ridiculous.

Are all you people nuts? :eek: :confused:

Honestly, Traci, I don't know how you get that from anything I've said.

I don't even know how to respond to that except to say, sorry, I can't--you've misunderstood, misconstrued everything I've said to such an extreme that there'd be no point in trying to... whatever...

I give up.:| :confused:

[danyoung]

I've just had the pleasure of reading this thread all in one sitting. I really love an argument where people don't really argue the facts in evidence, but argue their own perceptions of what they remember they might have read. It also seems that everyone contributing is in a way saying the same thing, with only a minor difference. The auction was wrong, the seller was wrong, and anyone dumb enough to buy the pass would be wrong. The only differences seem to be in the area of what the reaction to the seller should be.

I tend to lean towards the hazlnut stance that, while it's wrong, it's really not that big of an issue. If someone was using a single annual pass to get multiple people in as a regular thing, then this would be of much more concern. In fact, I was much more angry at the seller talking about loaning the pass around to their friends. But when we're only talking about an outright sale of the card, it's only the transfer of one person using it for admittance for 8 months of the year, and another for the remaining 4 months. Net result - one person using the card for the entire year.

After reading the tone of some of the respondents, I feel that I've gotta say clearly that I agree that the practice of selling the pass is wrong, and should be dealt with by Disney, if by no other action than they revoke the card for its duration. Other than that, it just ain't no big deal to me. It doesn't take away from me, it doesn't cost Disney any money (there's a better than average chance that the buyer of the pass wouldn't be spending dozens of days in the park at $47 a pop), and the buyer would probably be spending money on souvenirs and food. An arguement could be made that Disney would be making MORE money by this pass being sold, than they would if it just sat in a drawer for 4 months.

So how bout we all be adults and be able to have differences of opinion without beating each other up??? Thanks for listening.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I never mean to put words in your mouth. I am attempting to restate things in the way I am hearing them. Perhaps I should preface my posts with "If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying..." :)

Well, then, I guess what it comes down to is, you say you can understand why people do the wrong thing. You are not condoning these actions but you can understand them.

How can you "understand" why they did something and not condone it? When someone says "I understand why they did that" they are basically saying "If I were in their place I would have done the same thing." This is the definition of "condone".

This is why I'm having such a problem with what you're saying. You can't say both things at once. It's either a moral or immoral action, regardless of their monetary status, because the party that is losing money is not aware it is happening. Charity is given, not taken.

When party A takes the property of party B without party B's knowledge, it's stealing.

And I will never understand stealing, nor condone it.

danyoung - I'm not beating people up, I'm discussing a topic on a message board. I didn't call anyone names. I am questioning their opinion, like in any civil discussion.

Plus, I take issue with the idea that Disney is not losing money. The people that buy the auction should not be allowed into the park using an annual pass unless they pay the full AP price to Disney, like everyone else does.

[hazlnut]

Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
How can you "understand" why they did something and not condone it? When someone says "I understand why they did that" they are basically saying "If I were in their place I would have done the same thing." This is the definition of "condone".

I understand that someone bought an AP and, before the year was up, decided they didn't want to use it anymore and then attempted to recoup some money by selling it for a fraction of the original cost.

Also, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying:
To Condone = If I were in their place I would have done the same thing.

No. I'm sorry but it does not mean that at all.

[Nephythys]

You know what I think is funny (in a not so funny way)-

Hazlnut advocated for BTMRR to be shut down forever out of respect for a person who died in the accident. Many, no, most of us thought this was a gross over-reaction.

Now we have people who are angry at people who are breaching a contract and selling something they have no right to sell, and Hazlnut thinks we should just leave it alone, going so far as to accuse us of not having charity for others.

What happened to your overdeveloped sense of respect for others?:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but you seem very comfortable passing moral judgement on others, and I mean US or Disney, but not a seller on Ebay who you don't know at all.

You would think people here had been sending death threats to the poor ebay seller.

I have to agree, posting your childs pics on a website is a mistake. I posted my daughter pic on a board I had and only friends were supposed to see it, but someone could have taken it and used it for nefarious purpose, so I took it off the site. You should be careful about those things.

The seller was wrong, I fail to see why you keep arguing the point. It does look like you are defending them. The crack about no room at the inn and saying we have no charity was too much.:rolleyes:

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally posted by hazlnut
I understand that someone bought an AP and, before the year was up, decided they didn't want to use it anymore and then attempted to recoup some money by selling it for a fraction of the original cost. Well, I don't, as it's against the rules of owning an AP.


Also, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying:
To Condone = If I were in their place I would have done the same thing.

No. I'm sorry but it does not mean that at all. [/B]
Click here. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condone)


from dictionary.com
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. Is it putting words in your mouth to say you are disregarding this offense?

Click here. (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=condone)

Among the synonyms listed: "excuse" "forgive" "overlook" "shrug off" "let ride" etc. If I'm reading you correctly, these words describe your stance.

Is this a correct read or not?

[danyoung]

Originally posted by Cadaverous Pallor
danyoung - I'm not beating people up, I'm discussing a topic on a message board. I didn't call anyone names. I am questioning their opinion, like in any civil discussion.

Plus, I take issue with the idea that Disney is not losing money. The people that buy the auction should not be allowed into the park using an annual pass unless they pay the full AP price to Disney, like everyone else does.

I didn't point my request to play nicely at any one individual. Without going back and re-reading, I'll take your word that you've been a gentleman.

An annual pass will allow a person into the parks for a year. DIsney says that needs to be the same person all year long. If, at the halfway point, person A handed the pass off to person B, then there is still exactly one person using the pass all year long. It's against the rules that Disney has set, and that I have agreed to abide by in my purchase, but the math don't lie.

And I'm not on board with your latest argument - "When someone says "I understand why they did that" they are basically saying "If I were in their place I would have done the same thing." This is the definition of "condone"." Umm, nope. Without getting into the definition of "condone", I can easily understand why people do things without condoning their behavior. I understand that people steal, and I even understand why. That doesn't mean I condone the stealing, only that I can see what their reasons were. Saying that I'd do the same thing in their place is a totally different thing.

[cstephens]

Originally posted by hazlnut


Originally posted by tracilicious
honestly hazlnut, i find the fact that you are sticking up for these people completely ridiculous.

Are all you people nuts? :eek: :confused:

Honestly, Traci, I don't know how you get that from anything I've said.



Originally posted by hazlnut
Sure, it is illegal. But, with so many people out of work, on strike, etc., families can find themselves against the wall this time of year.

If someone wants to make a few bucks to give their kids a better holiday or pay some bills--none of us know what the story is here, they may really need the money, what does it hurt to turn a blind eye on this one?

[cstephens]

Originally posted by danyoung
I didn't point my request to play nicely at any one individual. Without going back and re-reading, I'll take your word that you've been a gentleman.

I would vehemently disagree with you that Cadaverous Pallor has been a gentlement at any point in this conversation or any other conducted on this board.

[Master K]

You have to ask yourself. If I were in this situation what would I do? Or WWJD if you are a christian (I am not).

Clearly is it WRONG to attempt to sell an non transferrable pass simply becuase you will not use it anymore this year. Regardless of anthing else that has gone on in this thread the actually facts never involved hardship. However I would submit that even if they did it would no change things.

Wrong is wrong. If this wre a true hardship situation then the best course of action is to contact Disney about it. I have seen amazing things done in the name of customer service, be it extra time added to an annual pass or something else. In real cases of real hardship Disney will do great things. Breaking the rules yourself never becomes RIGHT at any point.

[danyoung]

Originally posted by Master K
Wrong is wrong.

Situational ethics is a favorite subject of discussion. If wrong is wrong, and it's all absolute, then every one of you who has ever driven 56 in a 55 has broken the law of the land. The question becomes, what is the point at which you stop being able to overlook the little violations? And more to the point of this thread, who gets to decide what's a small violation and what's a big one?

[Nephythys]

WWJD if you are a Christian (which I AM), He would certainly not condone nor excuse wrong doing. Go and sin no more, etc...

But the moral issue is not even the most important thing here, this was wrong legally as well. Doesn't matter if it is a civil issue or criminal, it should not have been done!

We should not speed either. And if we get caught we pay the penalties, same applies here. Personal responsibility! If you choose to make the wrong choice and do the wrong thing, you risk being caught and paying for it.

Isn't that the bottom line?:confused:

[Not Afraid]

Does it say ANYWHERE when you pay for a AP, that it can only be use by you - "Under penalty of perjury" or some other specific legal penalty.

A statment of that sort would make the act illegal - otherwise the only right that DL has is to revoke the offenders pass. If that's the case, then it has to be looked at as being similar to a gym membership.

And, that's really all I care about. Moral, religions, blah blah blah it's bad, who cares.:|

[hazlnut]

Originally posted by cstephens

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tracilicious
honestly hazlnut, i find the fact that you are sticking up for these people completely ridiculous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are all you people nuts?

Honestly, Traci, I don't know how you get that from anything I've said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hazlnut
Sure, it is illegal. But, with so many people out of work, on strike, etc., families can find themselves against the wall this time of year.

If someone wants to make a few bucks to give their kids a better holiday or pay some bills--none of us know what the story is here, they may really need the money, what does it hurt to turn a blind eye on this one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CSTEPHENS, quoting someone out of context from the beginning of the thread as proof of something doesn't work. Sure if someone were to read the quotes in the order inwhich you put them, it might look like I contradicted myself, but if you follow the overall train of thought of the entire thread you'd understand my original post was in no way condoning or "sticking up for" the seller, it was only pondering: "What's the big deal, folks? And maybe there's more to this than we know."

But I think you already knew that and were just playing games trying to make people look foolish.

Whatever...

:rolleyes:

[hazlnut]

Originally posted by danyoung
Situational ethics is a favorite subject of discussion. If wrong is wrong, and it's all absolute, then every one of you who has ever driven 56 in a 55 has broken the law of the land. The question becomes, what is the point at which you stop being able to overlook the little violations? And more to the point of this thread, who gets to decide what's a small violation and what's a big one?

Dan, it appears that levelheaded folk, like you and I, who are not afraid to question the direction of the heard, are severely outnumbered here.

As soon at the sheep dogs look the other way, I'm going to make a break for those trees and see if I can find my way back to planet earth...

:D :)

[Morrigoon]

re: the one person, one pass argument

Okay, so how is Person A having the pass for 6 months and Person B having it for six months any different from person A having it on odd-numbered days and person B having it on even numbered days? Well I'll tell you. The budgets for these passes assume that someone is not going to use the pass (eg: cause wear and tear on the park and require employee hours to serve the increase in attendance) every single day of the year. With 500,000 APs, they couldn't possibly. It is fair to argue that they believe a person will only enjoy the pass up to a certain number of days per year (on average, of course).

Now, let's say typical enjoyment of the pass is... 36 visits. That's 3 days per month. But what if you plan on giving your AP to someone else after the first 6 months? Well, you just might up your attendance, taking in, say, 25 visits in your 6 months. The person you give the pass to knows it's only good for 6 months, so they'd better up their attendance to get full enjoyment of the pass too. So they also go 25 times in their 6 months. Now this pass, which for one person in one year would have been used 36 times, has now been used 50 times. Each of those extra 14 visits incurred wear and tear on the park, and upped attendance for that day, requiring increased labor costs.

How can you argue that Disney is not losing money on this?

If I traded my pass every other day with a friend, I would probably still get in my pass' worth of visits. So would she... doubling the use of the pass. The only way your argument can work is if average use of a pass is more than 182 visits per year. And while we probably all know SOMEONE who does that, we also know they are the exception, by no means the rule, and the last people on earth likely to give up use of their pass for any length of time.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally posted by Not Afraid
Does it say ANYWHERE when you pay for a AP, that it can only be use by you - "Under penalty of perjury" or some other specific legal penalty.| Well, I've quoted the text on the actual passport twice, but I am willing to quote it a third time: "This NONTRANSFERABLE Passport is property of Disneyland Resort. It provides the individual whose name and picture appear herein with pre-specified, revocable priveledges..." (BTW, the all-caps on NONTRANSFERABLE is the way it reads, not my embellishment). And since this keeps coming up, I am going to go by DL and pick up the actual T&C's which I KNOW will go into more detail.

And while the pass iteself doesn't specifically say what the penalty is for non-adhearance to this (other than an implication of revoking privileges) AND whatever verbiage is used in the T&Cs, I think the question of whether it is right or wrong (to sell the Passport) is CLEARLY stated.

[danyoung]

Originally posted by Morrigoon
re: the one person, one pass argument

Okay, so how is Person A having the pass for 6 months and Person B having it for six months any different from person A having it on odd-numbered days and person B having it on even numbered days?.....Now, let's say typical enjoyment of the pass is... 36 visits. That's 3 days per month. But what if you plan on giving your AP to someone else after the first 6 months? Well, you just might up your attendance, taking in, say, 25 visits in your 6 months.

As I said earlier, I was more upset that this seller had let friends use the pass from time to time, close to the odd-numbered days scenario above. But a break at the midway point of the year is a different thing. A pass allows me the right to use the park every day - that's what I paid for. Whether I use it 18 visits in 6 months or 25 visits makes no difference - I'm still within my rights. And Disney will continue to make money as I spend on merch, food, etc.

Now, if it were a calculated thing - "I'm gonna buy this pass, go till I'm sick for 6 months, and then sell it to you for the latter 6", I wouldn't be wild about that. But that doesn't appear to be the case here. The seller said that they wouldn't be going for the latter 4 months. Change of plans, change of home, whatever. Might as well get some use out of the card. (Oh, but there's that legal-moral-ethical thing, isn't there?) Again, it's not something I'd do (especially since there just ain't that many people as ugly as me!), but I'm not losing sleep over it.

Good discussion, no?

[Not Afraid]

Originally posted by Kevy Baby
I think the question of whether it is right or wrong (to sell the Passport) is CLEARLY stated.

Thanks for providing the information again (I just couldn't find it amidst all of the disucssion of morality).

My main point was regarding the issue of "legality". Sure, your pass could be revoked and the moral police might arrest you, but that does not make it illegal to switch, share, sell, etc. your AP.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally posted by hazlnut
Dan, it appears that levelheaded folk, like you and I, who are not afraid to question the direction of the heard, are severely outnumbered here.OK Hazlnut, I have to say that I am unclear as to what you are standing up for in this thread. So I'll attempt to cut to the chase:

1. Do you believe that selling the Passport is MORALLY/SOCIALLY wrong? I do - not one of the seven deadlies, but still wrong.

2. Do you believe that selling the Passport is LEGALLY wrong (whether criminally or by civil definition)? I do (note I am giving my educated OPINION, not attempting to be a lawyer).

3. IF this family were destitute, do you believe that they have the right to sell their pass (e.g. presuming that they do not have the legal right to sell the Passport) Should Disney/society/Padders just look the other way? In my opinion, they do not have the justification to sell. There are times when society and individuals should cut some slack (I'm no Javert after all), but this is not one of those times.

4. Presuming this family is not in financial trouble (which evidence points towards - the recently purchased bat, their claim in the description of "sharing their good fortune") do you think that society should "look away"? I don't; just as passionately as I do (don't?) in #3.

Originally posted by hazlnut
As soon at the sheep dogs look the other way, I'm going to make a break for those trees and see if I can find my way back to planet earth... If you didn't want to be involved in this discussion, you should have stopped posting a long time ago.

Side notes: 1) The statement that those of us who disagree with you are not levelheaded is condescending, 2) Don't play the Martyr card: being in the minority (and I've been there) does not give you special priviledges.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally posted by hazlnut
Dan, it appears that levelheaded folk, like you and I, who are not afraid to question the direction of the heard, are severely outnumbered here. Wow. Danyoung asked us not to beat each other up.....I stated that I do not resort to name calling.....and now you have lowered yourself to such tactics.

I will not take part in ad hominem arguments. If you want to insult me, I'm out of here. Thanks so much for labeling me and anyone else that decides to oppose you.

I've said as much as can be said anyway. And I'm doing a really good job of restraining myself from saying even more right now.

:|

[Kevy Baby]

Originally posted by Not Afraid
Thanks for providing the information again (I just couldn't find it amidst all of the disucssion of morality).

My main point was regarding the issue of "legality". Sure, your pass could be revoked and the moral police might arrest you, but that does not make it illegal to switch, share, sell, etc. your AP. Sorry, Not Afraid, I hope I didn't sound snippy in my original response to you. This thread has gotten kinda long (yeah, I know, I haven't helped that situation!). You've always been very kind in the past.

I am actually leaving work early today (thankfully my job affords me that priviledge) to go by DL to pick up the Passport T&Cs - I have looked twice and cannot find them.