A whole lot of the information presented was irrelevant. As a matter of fact, there are a whole lot of contradictions found within those specific statements. 

Regardless, you overlooked the aspect of a Checks and Balances system to be the counter-action for the Word is Law Regime. 

I do digress from that even to point out that you have one very, very good point, and that is if the majority isn't always right, neither is a minority. A flaw has to be present and influential to matter, and at times a flaw is in fact existential then the point of responsibility comes into play. Apologizing and later editions to rules or guidelines are not a replacement nor are they always a sufficient answer. At times, even a GM must bend their will and admit that they and their actions were wrong, even if they were wrong solely because they did not foresee the need to, state the issue of or simply get around to curbing the possible complications. In such a case, compromise is needed and the actual lack thereof on a GM is something I feel they should be reprimanded for. I have spent hours working hand in hand with roleplayers to absolutely perfect the integration of a character into a setting, bent a few rules and creatively came up with methods to justify something. Was it always powerful? By far, no. A lot of the things that merit bending the rules are done so for unique dynamics and interactions, all of which - for the most part - strengthen a roleplay.

Something that does irk me is also when someone falls back on their initial 'this is closed' statement after even acknowledging different, or better yet when they warp their words or present public information that is not necessarily true. Acting innocent or acting like fruitful statements mean nothing in the scope of what one does isn't only rude, it's truly detrimental. More annoying to me is the ignorance someone can have in not believing that actions they made influenced another, or misconstruing statements. Sometimes, outright lies. I absolutely hate someone whom would publicly post or shame someone or something when they intentionally make sure the information that would make them just as guilty isn't there, or better yet the information that makes them the obvious instigators or individuals at fault. 

In my case, if someone goes as far to say something and disregard their statements later as well as justify themselves with rules that didn't exist at the time, it literally disgusts me. That has nothing to do with governing style, that has nothing to do with GM'ing; that is an individual action and choice that is made in ignorance. Almost as bad as those whom literally put words in others mouths or act as if someone commit an action they never did, which might also just tie into the counter position of your argument.

Overall, there is a time and niche for everything, and most people often ignore that because they get their feelings hurt or refuse to acknowledge their own issues. That is why I believe GM's should not only be held to higher standards, but require being checked into place. We're all human, so it should be a collective effort to make things better, not just a singular person and I do passionately believe this goes as far as those who are in the highest positions of power at times being reminded that they aren't all powerful, and at times will have to answer to someone - if not everyone.