In my personal opinion, I think these advisers are taking more heat than they deserve.
Even apart from whatever nitpicky way of defining “active” you want (in this context HO has continually used “overlapping log in times” but this hasn’t been clearly communicated which is another reason this rule has needed changing), it was legal for Jiggly to create a second account. What was clearly illegal was claiming the rookie tasks. And afaik these advisers didn’t comment on those. So it’s weird that they’re getting this shade when the only thing jiggly did wrong was something they had nothing to do with.
Unless they advisers did happen to mention the rookie tasks in which case, idk. It’s pretty clear in there.
Either way, these advisers had no duty to say anything to anyone in HO about it.
Even apart from whatever nitpicky way of defining “active” you want (in this context HO has continually used “overlapping log in times” but this hasn’t been clearly communicated which is another reason this rule has needed changing), it was legal for Jiggly to create a second account. What was clearly illegal was claiming the rookie tasks. And afaik these advisers didn’t comment on those. So it’s weird that they’re getting this shade when the only thing jiggly did wrong was something they had nothing to do with.
Unless they advisers did happen to mention the rookie tasks in which case, idk. It’s pretty clear in there.
Either way, these advisers had no duty to say anything to anyone in HO about it.