Please reread Telrunya's quote from Tom. It seems to pretty clearly indicate that it's meant to be a narrow rule protecting against blatant abuse. Not something intended for using as a club against anyone who secedes when you would prefer that they not do so.
All rules are not created equal. Some require careful scrutiny and long debate to be sure whether you've got it. Others, you can look at the situation and tell, "Yep, that's a violation," or "Nope, that's just fine." According to Tom, this is in the latter category, and the criteria you're supposed to use are not simple geography, but intent.
I challenge you to find a reasonable way to apply Tom's own words to this case and the clearly-stated intentions of Riombara and Marec Alumaani, and come up with a result of "blatant abuse."
I know the intent in this case was not abusive. That's not what I'm saying. I'm criticizing the rule as being either ineffective or unnecessary depending on what its intent actually is.
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.
