SVS Trade-Up Policy - There is a "Catch"

[theJman]

You said "There's never an excuse for doing otherwise." That's something I disagree with, so I responded to it.

Correct, and that sentence directly followed one saying "That's only stating the policy in a clear, concise manner", which there is never an excuse to do anything but.

Not sure why you would disagree with full disclosure. Do you consider it appropriate for a company to withhold select portions of their policies? My guess would be you don't, so I suspect you've simply taken what I said out of context and that's lead to a misunderstanding.

 

[jonnythan]

I don't think they're withholding anything. I think that retroactively extending the offer into the past would be highly unexpected. That would be worthy of mention.

 

[theJman]

I don't think they're withholding anything. I think that retroactively extending the offer into the past would be highly unexpected. That would be worthy of mention.

If they don't mention it, yet it's part of their policy, then it's being withheld.

I'm done arguing with you about it because this has started to pollute the thread, so I'll debate it no further here. You wish to continue then PM me.

 

[HexOmega]

I have no problem whatsoever with them putting a date stating when the policy became effective.

My problem is with people who are upset or disappointed that a new policy implemented after they made their purchase was not retroactively applied to an old purchase.

Before you go putting words in my mouth, I'd like you to quote the post where it stated that I was upset that their policy was not retroactively applied to my purchases.

This thread is the FURTHEST thing from a public appeal for a handout. For you to construe my first post as anything but a public service announcement would be purposefully misleading.