Regrettably, some people regard the concept of Crew Duty Time as a challenge to their can-do spirit and manhood. This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...
Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?