>>25442949>then the only option is to either cooperate with them to solve things or just drop out of the thing entirely.It's not. You can entirely just stand your ground and demand they acquiesce to your will. They, as the failing party, have no ground to stand on. It's just a question of how big of a problem you're willing to make of it, i.e. how prosocial or antisocial you want to be. She could justifiably have shat fury on them and questioned the entire value of the competition by how sub-amateurish they were, and that would actually have been for the better.
>They aren't to change it no matter how much you argue and the more you insist on it, the more it will look like you were trying to take advantage of loopholes. At the end of the day you achieve nothing other than looking like the bad guy when you are clearly the one who got fucked over.But this only applies to complete, mouthbreathing morons. The more the victim here argues their case and stands their ground, the worse the organizers look and the more severe their failure appears. It's for the benefit for the entire organization and the competition that they are not simply let off the hook. If they accept and ignore complete negligence of this level, they're just clowns.
Have they even given a public apology for their failure?
>the issue is already there and arguing over semantics isn't going to fix it. If you do want it fixed, then you will have to compromise a bit. If you don't, then tell them to fuck off and leave.Arguing over it and making a massive stink about it is the only way to ever fix it. Only through actual consequences can you reliably correct problems like this. There's a reason why the clearest communications are found in the military, while competitions like this don't even have the basics handled.