In the resulting HonorBoard hearings, ShamikMaitra and LucasBaker were suspended for one semester and lost their on-campus housing. The appeals board subsequently reversed the suspension, but kept the housing penalty.
Reasonably enough, considering the act was a major violation of housing policy.
However, it seems that the NapalmIncident is much more severe than the petty fact that one of the "judges" in the trials pulled a knife on someone last year. Guess whose offense resulted in a loss of housing privleges?
Nothing in the housing policy says you can't pull a knife on somebody.
And there's nothing in the rules that says a dog can't play baseball.
The point is, the housing policy specifically prohibits storage of flammables (ie gasoline) in the dorms. In addition, the HonorBoard felt that our reluctance to self-report, the resultant delay in doing so, and our apparent lack of concern for the safety of the other members of the dorm, all constituted violations of the HonorCode. As such, all of the punishments handed down were completely justified; the school would have been well within its rights to do far worse, even. The only reason this case caused such hard feelings is because this punishment was far harsher than previous punishments given for similar incidents (including, but not limited to, DryIce? bombs, propane bombs, and fireworks). So lay off the HonorBoard. True, I feel they acted hastily and irrationally, but they were perfectly justified in what they did. The rules may not say that a dog can't play baseball, but the HonorBoard can still suspend the dog if he does.