In reply to theMojoWill.

@TheMojoWill - There is no absolute answer to your question. In some cases, the harm to the few it is too great for the "greater good." In other cases, the harm to the few is reasonable considering the outcome.

In this case, I don't see the harm to be very great, especially when compared to the benefits, even for those who were "harmed."

In general rules are there for maintaining order, but rules are made to be broken, when they get in the way of forward progress. That is the way rules often evolve in every area of governance; people push the edges until those in charge finally realize the rules need to change.

And now for my personal opinion on the subject: being too focused on the rules and not on the outcomes is too much pedantry for my tastes. But of course YMMV.