Having said that, I also don't think that it would be fair to punish those who were lucky enough to get a deal.
It's not punishing people who get a deal.
If Disney is offering the same thing to some people for a fee and others for free, with zero rhyme or reason as to why one person gets the deal and the other doesn't.....
...then I submit the punishment is being delivered quite harshly to the person paying for it.
Think about it:
Person A books in February for a vacation in December, pays full freight on DP. Person B books in August, with a pin he/she was lucky to get, gets
free dining. Both Person A & B experience difficulty getting ADRs due to increased demand (and since Disney isn't adding restaurants, supply aint increasing).
Who's getting zinged here?
So what if Person B has a little trouble getting his ADRs, he's not paying for those meals anyway. Nothing gained, nothing lost. Person A pays for Dining and in return, gets a worse dining experience, due to a higher load on the ADRs available.....all because some got it for free.
It's really a double punishment to those paying for it....not a punishment to those getting it for free. Both in having to pay for something being given away and to have to endure greater difficulty in ADRs due to the added load of freebie diners.
My idea is actually a near-perfect way to prevent the second punishment, which is the added load on the system. Give those that actually pay for their dining, preference on their ADRs with the 90+10 timeframe.
Those that got it for free can grab ADRs on a 45+10 system. They're still eating for free, and those that pay for it are still getting the short end of the stick...
...but at least, there's some equalization with respect to ADR traffic.
It's not at all unreasonable. It actually makes things a bit more fair...