The end for refillable mugs?

[Wilt Dasney]

The plural of anecdotes is not data.

Good one! I almost used that one myself earlier to show the limits of using anecdotal evidence.

Many people claim to see have big foot, even more say they have seen alien space craft and even more claim that homeopathy works better than traditional medicine.

When someone provides actual evidence I will believe it. Until then free life time refill mugs at WDW will remain in the plausible category.

Like I said earlier, I don't have a clue what really happened here. I just think it's a little petulant (as opposed to skeptical) to demand proof when you know full well it's not something you're likely to ever get, by the nature of what's being discussed. We can establish right now that visual proof will very likely never be provided. Once you accept that, I just don't see the point of getting involved in the discussion if your fallback position is "That's not proof!" We all know it isn't proof, and we all know that definitive proof isn't likely to ever be provided, so pointing that out doesn't seem to add much to the discussion. It'd be like standing over a sting theorist as he comes up with mathematical evidence in favor of the existence of extra dimensions, and saying "But you haven't PROVED it in the lab!" What help would that provide, exactly? :shrug:

(And I realize that the anecdotal evidence provided here isn't quite on the order of mathematical proof of extra dimensions in strong theory, so I recognize the analogy is imperfect.)

I honestly hope this doesn't come off as a personal swipe. It's just the thought process I have when I read posts like the one you made a bit earlier.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Why would I ask if they are good for life when it was posted all over the place that they were length of stay? To ask a question to which the answer is 5 feet from my head would be stupid on my part. Now if a CM were to say "Hey you know these mugs are good for life?" Then I would think twice, but that has never happened.

A CM claiming that the mugs are good for life is just another anecdote. CM's give out incorrect information quite frequently.

Purple: If Disney is training CM's to give out information that contradicts what's on the signs (something that seems very likely to me), then anyone assuming the signs say it all would never find this out. The fact that CM's don't pipe up and say "Be sure to bring that mug back next year!" is exactly what I would expect to be the case, so I don't see how it weakens my argument at all.

Yoda: If anything any CM says can be waved away with an airy "CM's get stuff wrong," then you're basically saying that only printed information is reliable. If that's your position, good enough, but it pretty much automatically and arbitrarily excludes an entire channel of official Disney communication and makes any effort to train CM's to say anything a waste of time.

I think we've reached an impasse here, fellas. You both seem to conclude that if it isn't written down, it doesn't count. I can respect that position, but I think it's a little unrealistic when it comes to how things are run in a company on a day-to-day basis. That's just my position, but I haven't read anything here to dissuade me of it.

 

[bjlc57]

Oh my Grosh.. 15 pages of discussion over 2 and a half cents of soft drink per serving..

Please.. lets find something better to discuss.. like how to convince my wife we need to go to WDW for Christmas.. even though we were there this spring..

holey moley.. if Disney had a problem with this , they would be using your finger print to enforce the situation.. they are not.. ( heck they don't even open the gates with an hour or less left to go in a day.. that's strict enforcement..)..( and they used to..)..

its making a mountain out of a moleskin.. and that's hard to do..

 

[fyn]

But there are pictures from either the early 2000's or late 90's I posted on an earlier page that shows the resort specific mugs for $10.99 and it was specifically stated to be for your length of stay only. This directly contradicts many of the claims made by people who say it was advertised as "Good for life" during that same time. So with 2 different claims during the same time, one with proof and one with "anecdotal evidence", I'm gonna go with the side that has proof because that would be using logical thinking.

The picture you posted was, at the earliest, March 1st 2001, and I'm not convinced it's even that early. It is not from the late 90's.

 

[fosse76]

Thats assuming everyone asks. Most times I see people slip in the back door, fill their cup, and leave; or leave their mugs with a family member while they get their food, then fill their mugs after they have gotten their food and found a table. I've never seen anyone go up and ask a CM if it was okay to fill an old resort mug.

You're simply being argumentative. It doesn't matter if some people are "slipping through the back door" to get their refills in old mugs. It's the equivalent of people "sneaking" into a movie they've purchased a ticket to. They aren't doing anything wrong, even if they think they are. And that's simply because Disney isn't enforcing its refill policy. Period. The OFFICIAL policy is mugs are to only be refilled during the length of stay. Since Disney doesn't enforce the policy, then its ACTUAL policy is that guests can refill their mugs, no matter how old the mug. Since there is no wide-spread anecdotal evidence that a CM has ever approached a guest and told them they couldn't refill old mugs, then it is clear to me that the actual policy is, for now, you can use old mugs. If Disney is developing technology to prevent re-use of old mugs, that doesn't change their current ACTUAL policy.

While I won't argue that there are probably some CM's who don't care if people use old mugs because they've never been told an official policy or they just felt like being nice.

As you have repeatedly pointed out, there are clear signs stating Disney's OFFICIAL policy with regards to the mugs. A CM would have to be Helen Keller to NOT know the official policy (and even then, they'd still likely know!!). As I said above, there is a difference between the OFFICIAL and the ACTUAL policy. If Disney was really concerned about the refills, they would have the CMs enforce the OFFICIAL policy. I am more inclined to believe that a CM who approaches guests using old mugs is uninformed about policy.

But to assume that something like this is Disney's official policy and they are talking out of both sides of their mouth is silly. If that was in fact the case, then explain to me why they would be investigating the technology in the OP, which pretty much would be the death of reusing old resort mugs, along with any other random container people use to steal soda.

It doesn't matter what they are developing, it matters what they are CURRENTLY ENFORCING. If, in the future, they begin enforcing the OFFICIAL policy, then so be it. But as of now, the ACTUAL policy is that guests using old mugs are not to be questioned or approached.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Please.. lets find something better to discuss.. like how to convince my wife we need to go to WDW for Christmas.. even though we were there this spring..

Start a thread on it, and I'll pop in.

its making a mountain out of a moleskin.. and that's hard to do..

That's what this whole site does. Once you accept sitting around talking with other grownups about Mickey Mouse's home, then no topic is too trivial.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

a what skin?

 

[Wilt Dasney]

a what skin?

One skin, two skin, three skin...

 

[Bluewaves]

I think someone should ask a bus driver they always have all the right answers

 

[trr1]

One skin, two skin, three skin...

4 skin

 

[Master Yoda]

Good one! I almost used that one myself earlier to show the limits of using anecdotal evidence.



Like I said earlier, I don't have a clue what really happened here. I just think it's a little petulant (as opposed to skeptical) to demand proof when you know full well it's not something you're likely to ever get, by the nature of what's being discussed. We can establish right now that visual proof will very likely never be provided. Once you accept that, I just don't see the point of getting involved in the discussion if your fallback position is "That's not proof!" We all know it isn't proof, and we all know that definitive proof isn't likely to ever be provided, so pointing that out doesn't seem to add much to the discussion. It'd be like standing over a sting theorist as he comes up with mathematical evidence in favor of the existence of extra dimensions, and saying "But you haven't PROVED it in the lab!" What help would that provide, exactly? :shrug:

(And I realize that the anecdotal evidence provided here isn't quite on the order of mathematical proof of extra dimensions in strong theory, so I recognize the analogy is imperfect.)

I honestly hope this doesn't come off as a personal swipe. It's just the thought process I have when I read posts like the one you made a bit earlier.

I hardly consider it rude to ask for proof on position that so many people vehemently defend especially when the required proof is so small. Personally I have no dog in this fight other that the pursuit of the truth to settle a long debate. I don't buy the mugs, I don't care if people reuse them I would just like something more concrete then decade old memories of a 15 second conversation that the life time mug program actually existed.

On a side note it is interesting that you chose string theory as an example as it seems like more and more theoretical physicists are seriously doubting it for the simple reason that it can not be proven.....something essential to a scientific theory. I guess the life time mugs might forever be the string theory of the WDW universe.

Purple: If Disney is training CM's to give out information that contradicts what's on the signs (something that seems very likely to me), then anyone assuming the signs say it all would never find this out. The fact that CM's don't pipe up and say "Be sure to bring that mug back next year!" is exactly what I would expect to be the case, so I don't see how it weakens my argument at all.

Yoda: If anything any CM says can be waved away with an airy "CM's get stuff wrong," then you're basically saying that only printed information is reliable. If that's your position, good enough, but it pretty much automatically and arbitrarily excludes an entire channel of official Disney communication and makes any effort to train CM's to say anything a waste of time.

I think we've reached an impasse here, fellas. You both seem to conclude that if it isn't written down, it doesn't count. I can respect that position, but I think it's a little unrealistic when it comes to how things are run in a company on a day-to-day basis. That's just my position, but I haven't read anything here to dissuade me of it.

I was wondering how long it would take for a straw man to appear. Of course I am not saying that everything that come out of a CM's mouth is worthless but in a case like this where we have no evidence to back it up and plenty of evidence refuting it a front line CM's alleged statement does not hold much water. What myself and many others in this thread have been asking for is proof that the life time mugs existed in an official form and not just the mis-spoken or mis-heard words of a CM. Again I do not care either way. I would simply like to put the debate to bed.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I hardly consider it rude to ask for proof on position that so many people vehemently defend especially when the required proof is so small.

I guess my point is that the proof being sought here is not small (IMO), for the reasons I laid out earlier. I would actually consider it very surprising if anyone had snapped a photo of a food court sign in 1992 or whenever the alleged "free for life" promotion occurred.

I was wondering how long it would take for a straw man to appear.
Of course I am not saying that everything that come out of a CM's mouth is worthless but in a case like this where we have no evidence to back it up and plenty of evidence refuting it a front line CM's alleged statement does not hold much water.

I don't see where we have plenty of evidence refuting it, personally. Currently used food court signs seem to be the only piece of evidence in play.

But the bigger issue to me is that I definitely wasn't trying to misrepresent your position or create a straw man. In fact, I put a good bit of thought into my last reply to make sure I wasn't exaggerating what you seemed to be saying. I take honest debate seriously, and get genuinely annoyed when I see someone distorting another person's position.

I confess I still don't really see the distinction between what you typed here and the position I ascribed to you earlier (i.e., CM's are never a reliable source of information). Maybe CM's are a reliable source of information if what they say agrees with printed material, and not when it contradicts printed material? If that's the case, you still seem to conclude that if it isn't written down, it doesn't count, which is exactly what I said seemed to be your position earlier.

Anyway, I shouldn't have described your previous post as petulant. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't attacking you personally, but by questioning your motivations, I undermined my own words. I apologize for my wording. Like you, I have no horse in this race and just enjoy the intellectual back and forth more than anything.

 

[fyn]

I hardly consider it rude to ask for proof on position that so many people vehemently defend especially when the required proof is so small. Personally I have no dog in this fight other that the pursuit of the truth to settle a long debate. I don't buy the mugs, I don't care if people reuse them I would just like something more concrete then decade old memories of a 15 second conversation that the life time mug program actually existed.

In that same vein, shouldn't a photo of the Dixie Landings policy signage - like the Port Orleans Riverside/French Quarter photo PurpleDragon posted earlier in the thread - be an easy way to settle this? We have a group of people claiming a policy existed (the length of stay policy) for which - I believe - there was no written indication of.

No one's disputing the current policy, or even that the policy has existed since c.2001. If someone wants to prove that the policy did exist, then a Dixie Landings photo is the easiest way to do it.

 

[Master Yoda]

I guess my point is that the proof being sought here is not small (IMO), for the reasons I laid out earlier. I would actually consider it very surprising if anyone had snapped a photo of a food court sign in 1992 or whenever the alleged "free for life" promotion occurred.



I don't see where we have plenty of evidence refuting it, personally. Currently used food court signs seem to be the only piece of evidence in play.

But the bigger issue to me is that I definitely wasn't trying to misrepresent your position or create a straw man. In fact, I put a good bit of thought into my last reply to make sure I wasn't exaggerating what you seemed to be saying. I take honest debate seriously, and get genuinely annoyed when I see someone distorting another person's position.

I confess I still don't really see the distinction between what you typed here and the position I ascribed to you earlier (i.e., CM's are never a reliable source of information). Maybe CM's are a reliable source of information if what they say agrees with printed material, and not when it contradicts printed material? If that's the case, you still seem to conclude that if it isn't written down, it doesn't count, which is exactly what I said seemed to be your position earlier.

Anyway, I shouldn't have described your previous post as petulant. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't attacking you personally, but by questioning your motivations, I undermined my own words. I apologize for my wording. Like you, I have no horse in this race and just enjoy the intellectual back and forth more than anything.

The straw man came for the statement

"If that's your position, good enough, but it pretty much automatically and arbitrarily excludes an entire channel of official Disney communication and makes any effort to train CM's to say anything a waste of time."

Disney's CM's will always be a source of information however their reliability is dubious.

The position I have though is exactly like you stated. Written information overrides what a CM says. Humans can make mistakes. The written rules will always take precedence. Of course nothing is ever black and white at Disney. The official rules are frequently bent but in this matter what I care about are the official rules. Was a life time mug ever on the books? That is all most of us really want to know.

 

[Master Yoda]

In that same vein, shouldn't a photo of the Dixie Landings policy signage - like the Port Orleans Riverside/French Quarter photo PurpleDragon posted earlier in the thread - be an easy way to settle this? We have a group of people claiming a policy existed (the length of stay policy) for which - I believe - there was no written indication of.

No one's disputing the current policy, or even that the policy has existed since c.2001. If someone wants to prove that the policy did exist, then a Dixie Landings photo is the easiest way to do it.

Yes. That is all I am really looking for but as Wilt Disney has pointed out that evidence simply might not exist. I have no doubt that CM's told guests that the mugs were good until the end of time. What I am questioning was whether that was ever an official policy.

 

[wm49rs]

:brick::brick::brick:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Was a life time mug ever on the books? That is all most of us really want to know.

Just to bring back the old string theory analogy (since it's so much fun ):

We'll probably never know for sure whether the legendary lifetime mug (could we call it the Holy Grail?) existed or not. Just like with string theory, the empirical observations that could settle the issue are probably beyond our grasp.

So the question becomes, does the lifetime mug place what we DO observe in a more understandable and sensible framework? (Until experimental technology advances a few more generations, this is also the only real justification physicists have for believing in string theory.)

To me, the brief existence of a lifetime mug rings true. I have no interest in trying to prove it, because I know I can't. I just think it makes all the confusion, argument and ambiguity we've witnessed on this issue make sense. To me, it's the simplest explanation that works. (I'll go ahead and invoke Occam's Razor here too, since I've already made myself look like an overambitious philosophy major. :lol

Yes, you can logically explain all this by saying Cast Members get things wrong, and that guests misunderstand, and that people sometimes lie...but as I pointed out in an earlier post, that theory strikes me as the more ambitious and demanding one, based on the widespread, detailed and cumulative nature of the anecdotal evidence at hand.

It seems a lot simpler to just assume there was a lifetime mug for a very brief period, and that Disney's ambiguous approach to the mug refills ever since has been an effort to square the circle and avoid angering people with long memories.

It makes the most sense to me, and that's why I'm inclined to believe it.

But like extra dimensions in string theory, I can't prove it. So the only reason I lean toward it is its explanatory power...and if a more plausible theory comes along, I'd be happy to listen.

That's really all this comes down to, I think: A difference between us over which explanation is most plausible.

 

[TimNRA757]

Coke is really tasty stuff...

/threadrift

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Its rats pish compared to Irn Bru

 

[Master Yoda]

Just to bring back the old string theory analogy (since it's so much fun ):

We'll probably never know for sure whether the legendary lifetime mug (could we call it the Holy Grail?) existed or not. Just like with string theory, the empirical observations that could settle the issue are probably beyond our grasp.

So the question becomes, does the lifetime mug place what we DO observe in a more understandable and sensible framework? (Until experimental technology advances a few more generations, this is also the only real justification physicists have for believing in string theory.)

To me, the brief existence of a lifetime mug rings true. I have no interest in trying to prove it, because I know I can't. I just think it makes all the confusion, argument and ambiguity we've witnessed on this issue make sense. To me, it's the simplest explanation that works. (I'll go ahead and invoke Occam's Razor here too, since I've already made myself look like an overambitious philosophy major. :lol

Yes, you can logically explain all this by saying Cast Members get things wrong, and that guests misunderstand, and that people sometimes lie...but as I pointed out in an earlier post, that theory strikes me as the more ambitious and demanding one, based on the widespread, detailed and cumulative nature of the anecdotal evidence at hand.

It seems a lot simpler to just assume there was a lifetime mug for a very brief period, and that Disney's ambiguous approach to the mug refills ever since has been an effort to square the circle and avoid angering people with long memories.

It makes the most sense to me, and that's why I'm inclined to believe it.

But like extra dimensions in string theory, I can't prove it. So the only reason I lean toward it is its explanatory power...and if a more plausible theory comes along, I'd be happy to listen.

That's really all this comes down to, I think: A difference between us over which explanation is most plausible.

Actually it comes down to the difference between believing and knowing. As I have said a life time mug is plausible and many people believe it existed but we do not know for sure that it existed.