@Luddite wrote:@mimmo Yes, there is a mismatch between that language and policy. Who'd of thought that might be happening at PM?
It's so old I'm not even willing to consider it for https://productioncommunity.publicmobile.ca/t5/Discussions/Bugs-and-Quirks-at-Public-Mobile/m-p/2026... as there is no workaround.
@Luddite are new customers expected to know policy, or search forums for the correct answer or find the buried unofficial quirks post?
At the gas station pumps say "if there is a discrepancy between the pump price and the teller price the pump is considered correct", at the store if the shelf price is different than the register you get the shelf price.
as far as a new customer is concerened the selfserve statement should be the policy PM abides by until the point they decide to spend 2 minutes and change a line of text in their back end.
there is now a big discrepincy for call forwarding on the $10/50/50 plan the official announcement states (and still states) call forwarding is free, but customers are being told that is not the case. I would be upset if i have purchased that plan to find out that the official announcement and reality are different (who knows there could be alot of people who could file complaints with the ccts.
There are official posts still showing 10 day plans as being options. How long were these plans abandoned?
All I was getting at is that PM needs to do some housekeeping, sooner than later.
It took @Alan_K under 30 minutes to change the typo in the rewards section, so things can be done quickly there if there is a will.
sorry for ranting, but i think at some point there needs to be some accountability somewhere. We cant just keep saying these are quirks, live with it, it just makes PM look unprofessional.
@mimmo Yes, there is a mismatch between that language and policy. Who'd of thought that might be happening at PM? 
It's so old I'm not even willing to consider it for https://productioncommunity.publicmobile.ca/t5/Discussions/Bugs-and-Quirks-at-Public-Mobile/m-p/2026... as there is no workaround.
@Luddite wrote:@ShawnC13 There is no need for the moderators. The policy is "no PM to PM ports". Anyone may ask for any consideration but it's unwise to expect policy reversals.
@Luddite I do think though that PM should then put some effort in cleaning their website or allow pm to pm ports. As mentioned the porting page does clearly state porting from pm numbers is allowed. I could understand a wrong text being in place for a couple days or a week but it's has been months.
I know I did mention this to one of the mods a long time ago, but the text is still there...
@ShawnC13 wrote:
@meocon wrote:@Anonymous You can port your A number from A account to another B account but you'll loose your A account & your A account must be suspended so MODs can port the number for you. But you have to send a private message for them first and explain your situation.
There just seems to be a whole lot of wrong info in this post that I need clarification on. How can you port a number on a suspended account as an account must be active to port out. We have also been told by moderators that on to ok can't be done. Who are you getting your info from as I want to clear this up
PM has it's own urban myths. 
It's an inherent danger in Community support that misinformation can live another day.
I can attest that the workaround to transfer a number from one PM account to another has been closed. I need an image for a closed loophole to emphasize the point!
