I call BS on this.
Regarding the inalienable rights, the "injury" component of standing is considered to have occurred at even the threat, because the threat itself can inhibit someone else's gameplay. No injury is done to the character, but we're not really concerned about the character. IRs ultimately relate to the player.
Moreover, let's be clear on this: we are making public decisions with published rationales. We are establishing the guidelines for behavior.
Then you both agree that the wording should be changed, because what is written does not address everything that is undesirable. The threat alone leads to prejudice, and so should not be allowed. The wording of the IR, however, is specifically meant for seeking justice after being wrongfully persecuted.
