• atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 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.