(12-10-2019, 04:06 AM)AdamS Wrote:i keep seeing this but being there in the discussion i can tell you that the hissy fit was over him having felt like they were told it was good at the time by a member of ho (according to him) and it being changed much later (along with changing the wording of the rule to fit the decision)
That HO member said something ambiguous that did not definitively say anything as HO authority on 11/16. Dwyer's post indicated that the vote on the rule happened on 11/17. On 11/17, another HO member communicated in GM chat to the PHI GMs that the ruling was as Dwyer laid out and that the contract needed to be changed, along with the text of the updated rule. Then one of the primary instigators in this situation said "if you wanna retroactively count this with a rule that's fine."
You know the full story and you know that no matter what he felt, his timeline and complaints are objectively wrong. Perpetuating that story doesn't help anything here.
