Coups d'etat of My Sons Guild Episode II

My friends son spent 3 and a half years building a 500 plus guild as a paid subscriber. Due to a financial hardship, he unexpectedly could not renew. It took 40 days to recover from the financial loss. Once he was subscribed again, Blizzard had granted his position of GM to one of his officers. This officer refused to give the GM status back. According to policy, Blizzard supports Officers taking over for the "...progress and growth of a guild...."

I appreciate the efforts made by GM's looking in to see if policy was enacted correctly and I had no doubt that Blizzard enforced the policy accurately. I asked that an exception be made in this case for 3 reasons.

First the policy is not made known publicly-it's a hidden policy leaving the consumer unaware and unable to make an informed decision about absences. Second this policy was made before the intrinsic value the new features of leveling and perks add to a guilds worth and third this policy was to ensure the "growth and progress of the guild" and in this case, growth and progress were not hindered.

I understand that Blizzard will not return, my friends son, status as GM of the guild he created. I'm not convinced that arguing over ownership is relevant. I would like to have the collective earnings of bank tabs, gold and 20 levels, granted to the newly formed guild, comprised of the members who were opposed to the petitioning of the guild.

Currently this policy is not listed in End User Agreement, Code of Conduct or Terms of Service. Please make this policy known at the time a person creates a guild charter. Please put it in the tips when the game is loading. Please post it at the game launcher. Please also lengthen the amount of time a GM has to be absent before status can be petitioned. Please use some discretion when handing GM reigns over to an Officer, by investigating the GM's subscription history. Had we be given the opportunity to make an informed decision about his absence, all of this could have been avoided