You and Indirik are being extremely annoying IMO in the fact that you are shrugging off the rule as unusable. Having a RP reason does not make it ok by itself.
Well why not? What, ultimately is the purpose of the rule? Is it to protect players from strategic secessions, or is it merely there to ensure that the atmosphere is maintained? I would argue that if the answer is that it's about the atmosphere, then ultimately almost all non-absurd RP reasons will, in fact, suffice. The RP rationale would have to be
extraordinarily flimsy and transparent for me to be willing to essentially rule that the defendant was lying about his intentions, which is exactly what I would be doing. It's an exceedingly high standard of proof. So high that I don't see it realistically ever happening barring a situation where someone was in total ignorance of the rule in the first place.
