That is fine, since the creators of the rule intended it to function that way. The argument here is that Tom intended otherwise, which is why there have been so few punishments for strategic secessions compared to the amount of accusations (before the magistrate system was around mind you). Of course only Tom can confirm or deny this, everything else is based on assumption, and as we all know from long practise with this system, the chances of most people reconsidering the situation based on these discussions approaches nill.
This is ludacris. There is no arguing about a fact. Does the rule say that a strategic secession is based off intent? Yes, thus it is. Thats a fact, not an opinion or an argument. You can't just exclude parts of a rule because you feel like it. "Well the rule stated you can not do x, but I excluded the not part because I don't like that so now I can do x" is obviously illogical and what is being stated in a different by seemingly all those who wish for the secession to be punished in some way or another already. As well, last I checked its innocent until proven guilty so Riombara does not need to prove its innocence, those who are prosecuting Riombara/the specific player need to prove guilt. (The magistrates should be somewhat prosecutors though as they are more or less the detectives as well since regulars players are the equal of citizens, not having the power to investigate.)
