Why are upper managements blamed when comsumers misbehave?
I understand if changes are implemented that can help prevent things from happening again, like TSA at airports after 9/11.
But when things happen like two users on EP decide that one of them has to die, why is EP the one to blame? Why do they have to shut down? That could have happened literally anywhere else. EP had nothing to do with it, other than the fact that they just happened to be the unlucky one of the many places where it could have happened. They're just as much a victim of circumstance as anyone else.
There's an airbnb by my parents' house where someone shot a gun at someone else, and my mom is like, "They better shut down that airbnb". Why? You mean someone has to lose a huge monetary opportunity because a customer decided to be a moron? The owner had nothing to do with it. Taking away the airbnb is meaningless because it doesn't supply any change to airbnb's in general. There's still millions of them out there where someone else might decide to be a moron and shoot a gun at someone else. Taking away ONE airbnb just because it happened to be a place where something inevitable happened, doesn't change that.
Dominoes' [i]Noid[/i] character is kinda a toss-up. It's pretty bizarre that someone with the last name "Noid" suffered from delusions and got caught up with their franchise. On one hand, they could discontinue the character. On the other hand, if they never named the character "the Noid" and named it something else, would they be to blame if another delusional person noticed? Idk about this one but I tend to think that the burden of proof is on those who want to take away a franchise's right to advertise in a way that wasn't specifically illegal in the first place.
I just don't see a point in telling someone, "Something happened at your facility, that wasn't your fault and you had no hand in. You followed all the legal rules and regulations and something shitty still happened. So you're being punished." It makes no [b]logical[/b] sense to me.
But when things happen like two users on EP decide that one of them has to die, why is EP the one to blame? Why do they have to shut down? That could have happened literally anywhere else. EP had nothing to do with it, other than the fact that they just happened to be the unlucky one of the many places where it could have happened. They're just as much a victim of circumstance as anyone else.
There's an airbnb by my parents' house where someone shot a gun at someone else, and my mom is like, "They better shut down that airbnb". Why? You mean someone has to lose a huge monetary opportunity because a customer decided to be a moron? The owner had nothing to do with it. Taking away the airbnb is meaningless because it doesn't supply any change to airbnb's in general. There's still millions of them out there where someone else might decide to be a moron and shoot a gun at someone else. Taking away ONE airbnb just because it happened to be a place where something inevitable happened, doesn't change that.
Dominoes' [i]Noid[/i] character is kinda a toss-up. It's pretty bizarre that someone with the last name "Noid" suffered from delusions and got caught up with their franchise. On one hand, they could discontinue the character. On the other hand, if they never named the character "the Noid" and named it something else, would they be to blame if another delusional person noticed? Idk about this one but I tend to think that the burden of proof is on those who want to take away a franchise's right to advertise in a way that wasn't specifically illegal in the first place.
I just don't see a point in telling someone, "Something happened at your facility, that wasn't your fault and you had no hand in. You followed all the legal rules and regulations and something shitty still happened. So you're being punished." It makes no [b]logical[/b] sense to me.
26-30, M