It's a public agreement, terms stated in public, terms violated in public. Absolutely no wiggle room out of it. Especially when the violator
quoted the exact rule they violated.
so you think quoting something is more important than explicitly confirming you agree to it? are you trolling? did you mean to post this 2 days ago on the 1st of April?
does anybody here believe an "implicit agreement" because of a local rule is an agreement to full extend? just curious