Doomberg Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Let me rephrase, then: I don't see any issue with Gollee's conduct. When a rule is written a certain way and enforced that way, whether the rule is flawed or not, the enforcer is not to be blamed. I am not opposed to making alterations to the rule for everyone's convenience and I don't have an issue with the possibility of information being posted once that rule has been adjusted.
Frances Posted October 22, 2015 Author Posted October 22, 2015 Let me rephrase, then: I don't see any issue with Gollee's conduct. When a rule is written a certain way and enforced that way, whether the rule is flawed or not, the enforcer is not to be blamed. I am not opposed to making alterations to the rule for everyone's convenience and I don't have an issue with the possibility of information being posted once that rule has been adjusted. That wasn't really clear to me at all in your initial post, but now that I can understand what you meant it does make a lot more sense. I don't have any issues with Gollee either, for me this complaint was primarily about the rule. While I don't think it should have been enforced in this particular instance despite lack of any special clauses (this might be the very first case of somebody posting info that way? Idk), it's really not the end of the world if it was. It's more about situations like these in general, and I don't want to fault Gollee too much.
Frances Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 Oh, yeah, since I don't really have any particular issues with Gollee and Doom said an exception to the rule can be added for cases like this, that pretty much solves my problem. So you can go ahead and close this.
Skull132 Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 Complaint resolved by involved parties. Archiving.
Recommended Posts