Why? Because I enjoy it. Sure, I take issue with a lot of things, but I voluntarily associate because I find net benefit in it. Of course, I suspect you already knew this; you just wanted to frame the situation as if I were coming here for some sort of absolution.
I desire nothing from you, least of all pardon.
@Falkun: I do not dispute that Aiaus clearly abused his exemption. The question is what is to be done in this situation, as there is some precedence for the stripping of exemptions, but not (to my knowledge) the banning of characters for such a use. This may not fall under the two boxing punishments because of this statement:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Note, the statement does NOT excuse what was done, it merely, to me, raises a question of what is the proper punishment in light of no explicit sentencing guideline and in consideration of the existence of precedence (albeit, from Red).
I'm going to stop you before you hurt yourself. I suspect you did not read the article that you just lifted the text straight out of. (found here:
http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/c...text=lawreview) Which is titled:
Vicarious Criminal Liability of Organizations: RICO as an Example of a Flawed Principle in Practice.
If you had taken the time to even read the title of the work after you blindly Googled, you would note that the publication was arguing strongly against strict liability for employers/principles for ALL actions of the employees/agents. All I did was cite an analogous principle to persuasively support my point. In trying to one up me, you cited a publication that argues my very same point: blanket liability for the actions of an individual who has no blessing from his leadership can be manifestly unjust.
RICO is not immediately analogous as it requires long term patterns of abuse, whereas the principle I cited was immediately applicable via analogy.