If the rule's only intent (which it is becoming increasingly clear to me must be the case) is to force people to have some sort of RP reason for a secession that confers a strategic advantage, then it is working perfectly. If its intent was ever anything else, than it's not.
My reading of it is that it requires that there be a
real RP reason, not just a hasty justification tossed out there within a week or so of the secession. Again, in 99% of cases, this should be relatively obvious to neutral observers.
I think you and Vellos have been coming at this from too much of a "court" standpoint, and therefore overthinking the whole thing
Like I said before, all rules are not created equal. Not every rule in the game has to be for preventing some broad class of behaviour: narrowly-defined rules can be very important, too.
