On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote: > Maud received no exile for eir similar doings.
E actually offered to go, and then helped clean up, and was a strong and trusted member of the community, personally and privately apologized to several, and finally, the confession came out of the blue long after e had done it, so there was no "strong statement" made ahead of time that it was so bad. In the end it's up to a judge during sentencing. This time, by someone pointing out ahead of time that it is so bad, it gives a short window of time in which a judge might forgive a confessed transgression, but it also gives the judge a justification for harsh punishment, and limits the sentencing defense of "I didn't think I was annoying people, please just give me an apology" if any such (alleged!) fraud continues. -Goethe
