Re:Caesars abruptly cancels contract with DEF CON
by PrimeMcFly on Monday February 05, 2024 @08:13AM
(#39260885)
> Not to be TOO snarky
Repeating this verbatim in your reply means you are trying to be pretty snarky, actually.
Re:Caesars abruptly cancels contract with DEF CON
by boringg on Monday February 05, 2024 @08:19AM
(#39260931)
I mean they were both being intentionally snarky. The second snarky comment was used in a mocking tone because the first comment didnt seem to have much empirical evidence to support it
Re:Caesars abruptly cancels contract with DEF CON
by johnnyanmac on Monday February 05, 2024 @05:48PM
(#39268300)
I don't, and that's why I preferenced it as such. Sort of like how you'll self-preface yourself with something like "nit:" before making a nitpick that's meant to be treated as a small note but nothing to consider or delve too strongly over.
The idea is to diffuse siutations like this before it comes about, but I guess nothing is perfect.
At least going by all the entrepreneurship articles I've read over the decade, "firing your customers" is a term of art, and a recommended approach for dealing with unprofitable and/or annoying customers - so I guess this shouldn't be surprising.
> Loyalty is beyond dead so cancelling a contract is just a cost of business if they feel the alternative gives more money.
Not to be TOO snarky, but that's kind of the point of contracts - contract cancellation terms aren't an "or else..." threat, but rather an agreed upon exit strategy. Termination fines aren't punishment, they're compensation for inconvenience.