The driver had the "temerity" to remove a delivered package from someone's porch for $5 of personal profit at the cost of the shipper's and receiver's time and/

The driver had the "temerity" to remove a delivered package from someone's porch for $5 of personal profit at the cost of the shipper's and receiver's time and/or money. "Gaming" systems in reality can result in draconian, irreversible punishments. That _some_ systems are more permissive and allow people to exploit them once, twice, or more times before exercising punishments is no guarantee that _all_ systems will. There is fault to be found with Amazon for designing a bad system. There is fault to be found with the driver for "gaming" a bad system. One does not excuse the other. Participants in a badly-designed system are not automatically empowered to disregard the rules and "game" that system. TLDR: "An eye for an eye" may be an appealing strategy, but it is not universally accepted as valid.