To clarify...
My point was simply: they should evaluate contracts by owner, not address. I see Debbie's point about why does it matter if I own one contract of 300 or two of 150. It should be all the same because it is one person. However, if two people that reside under one roof own two separate contracts, they should be treated as two separate people in the DVC's system.
Why should Dean have to change his mailing address to his place of work in order to receive his mailing which he pays for (setting aside the pins)? It's a bit silly. Again, separate contracts. They have very specific rules being separate, therefore all aspects of the contracts should be separate.
Using Debbie's example, the two contracts of 150 are more restricted with usage and combining than the single 300 contract.
Example: If I want to combine 150 + 75 for a trip, it would require a transfer. If I want to transfer the rest of my points to my friend, I cannot because I would have used my transfers for the year. This isn't even addressing the point if the contracts are for two separate properties.
Enough from me: This is straying off the topic of this post.