An artsy question in a sense of my own:

What if there is something that you want done, and you are willing to offer support in advance to get that thing done, and then the person or people you might be doing it for aren't giving you exactly what you wanted? They are giving you something that they claim is "quite close" to what you asked for. They claim that "internal policy" cannot be violated based on some claim regarding fairness. They indicate that they have TRIED to provide that thing to you, and have delegated others to do it (and it's legal to do it), but gosh, where you are such a successful smart person, they are just not that good...shucks, sorry. The person could do it themselves, but doesn't feel like it or doesn't think it would be fair, and thus offers a substitute. You gave them a gift, asking for something in exchange; there was no outrage and no breach of contract.

What they've done is better than nothing, but it becomes an internalized part of brand: This person could do more to help an "all-star supporter," but won't, citing "internal policy." This does not attract other "all-star supporters," unless you are a "slippery all-star" of sorts, i.e., someone who sets low expectations for ethics, conscientiousness, and respectful treatment. In particular, this "substitute-good-offering behavior" is okay and better than offering nothing, but it signals a lack of appreciation for "what it means to be an all star" in a sense, whatever endeavor is being undertaken. Sometimes, even all stars don't recognize other all stars.

Here is a movie clip from Spider-man 2 that might help illuminate this point a little:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgUvg4sBGcs

Watch after the two-minute mark in particular.

(Yes, I am feeling better and I realized I have something to do, starting tomorrow.)

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 2:40:26 PM UTC-4, DV wrote:
> An artsy question in a sense of my own:
>
> What if there is something that you want done, and you are willing to offer support in advance to get that thing done, and then the person or people you might be doing it for aren't giving you exactly what you wanted? They are giving you something that they claim is "quite close" to what you asked for. They claim that "internal policy" cannot be violated based on some claim regarding fairness. They indicate that they have TRIED to provide that thing to you, and have delegated others to do it (and it's legal to do it), but gosh, where you are such a successful smart person, they are just not that good...shucks, sorry. The person could do it themselves, but doesn't feel like it or doesn't think it would be fair, and thus offers a substitute.. You gave them a gift, asking for something in exchange; there was no outrage and no breach of contract.
>
> What they've done is better than nothing, but it becomes an internalized part of brand: This person could do more to help an "all-star supporter," but won't, citing "internal policy." This does not attract other "all-star supporters," unless you are a "slippery all-star" of sorts, i.e., someone who sets low expectations for ethics, conscientiousness, and respectful treatment. In particular, this "substitute-good-offering behavior" is okay and better than offering nothing, but it signals a lack of appreciation for "what it means to be an all star" in a sense, whatever endeavor is being undertaken. Sometimes, even all stars don't recognize other all stars.
>
> Here is a movie clip from Spider-man 2 that might help illuminate this point a little:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgUvg4sBGcs
>
> Watch after the two-minute mark in particular.
>
> (Yes, I am feeling better and I realized I have something to do, starting tomorrow.)

OK, analysis complete...task canceled.