This is a person making this distinction for a company in order to justify why they think this is fair.
I never said the company thought it was fair. It’s pretty obvious that the company is fine with penalizing their customers/treating them like scalpers in order to prevent what they consider anti-social behavior.
Its either one address limitation or none at all, since a company isn’t going to make exceptions based on whether someone is related or not and verify it.
Arguing an emotion based opinion of a policy to someone pointing out the flaws in the policy isn’t going to win you this argument.
I understand that you feel that this is a non-issue, and perhaps for you it is. But that doesn’t mean that it is a fair policy across the board. It just means that you have justified the policy to yourself.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 days ago
This is a person making this distinction for a company in order to justify why they think this is fair.
I never said the company thought it was fair. It’s pretty obvious that the company is fine with penalizing their customers/treating them like scalpers in order to prevent what they consider anti-social behavior.
That doesn’t mean we can’t be irritated about it.
steelplatedmech@piefed.ca 2 days ago
Its either one address limitation or none at all, since a company isn’t going to make exceptions based on whether someone is related or not and verify it.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Arguing an emotion based opinion of a policy to someone pointing out the flaws in the policy isn’t going to win you this argument.
I understand that you feel that this is a non-issue, and perhaps for you it is. But that doesn’t mean that it is a fair policy across the board. It just means that you have justified the policy to yourself.