I'm willing to accept the interpretation being put forward that intent is all that matters, but then I will also state one final time that I now believe the rule to be almost entirely moot, and barring a case where one or more parties involved is stupid enough to state, explicitly, that they are only seceding a city to gain an advantage, I would never vote to punish anyone based on this rule. The way it's interpreted it doesn't protect anyone from anything. All it does is force people to have a fig leaf to cover up their otherwise blatant exploitation of game mechanics.
