RE: Two Rule Updates
October 28, 2016 at 4:07 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2016 at 4:19 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
I agree because, of course, someone could claim to have not given permission when they have. Or someone could not have given permission and the other person could lie and say they were given permission.
And besides Staff getting involved in personal business outside of AF, how else can evidence for or against such things be provided?
IMO it is a poor rule. But at least we got rid of a useless one in the process... I guess.
But the useless one was redundant and doing no harm anyway: Outside of the there being a handful of people asking for it to be used.
And besides Staff getting involved in personal business outside of AF, how else can evidence for or against such things be provided?
IMO it is a poor rule. But at least we got rid of a useless one in the process... I guess.
But the useless one was redundant and doing no harm anyway: Outside of the there being a handful of people asking for it to be used.
