If a given rule can be unilaterally rewritten at the instantaneous whim of the person in charge of enforcing the rule, then that rule does not exist to guide others or provide consistency, it merely exists to justify authoritarian caprice.
Basically, yes. But I suppose if you have to pick between an authoritarian who just goes with instantaneous whims, or one who puts a token effort into making rules even though he breaks them often, the latter seems better, even though both choices suck.
